The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0926.000 1996-1998 C Dear Participant: Attached for your information is a Final Environmentallmpacr Statement which was prepared pursuant to the EIS law (Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 343) and the EIS rotes (Administrative Rules, Tule 11, Chapter 200). amE oP PRO~ECr.~ Kealakehe Parkway Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway LOCATION. ISLAND Hawaii DlSIRICl North Kona TAx SUtP I~rNVMBERS: 7-4-2:8; 7-4-6:12; 7-4-8:47,5,60,13,17 AGENCYACIION: X APPLIGSNTACTIOM APPROVING AGENCY OR ACCEPTING AunloRm:~ Governor, State of Hawai i ADDRESS: c1o Office of Environmental Quality Control 235 South Beretania Street, Suite 702 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 CONTACl.~ PRONE: PROPOSQIG AGENCY OR APPLtGLVT~ Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch ADDRESS: 600 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 304 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 coNTACr. Ronald Tsuzuki PHONE: 587-1830 coNSULTANT~ Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. ADDRESS: Pacific Tower, Suite 3000 1001 BishaQ Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 coNTAa David Atkin PHONE: 531-7094 If you no longer need this EIS, please rerycle it Thank you for your participation in the Envvonmenta! Im acs Statement procus! ;;c~cr~s N~.~ ~ Fwal EIS Coves Lmo - Re,+sian ION7 110. " . Note: Attached EIS is on file in the Clerk's Office. !~rcf. rl'tT'------°Z'~' 19~ r~:~ _ JUL - _ _ NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Federal Highway Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation has approved the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Kealakehe Parkway Project, Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, North Kona, Hawaii. The proposed completion of Kealakehe Parkway wil] consist of a 4.0 Kilometer (2.5 mile) four-lane divided urban arterial that will connect Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The State Department of Transportation has designated Alternative 11 as the preferred alignment. The Final Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation is available for public review and copying at the following locations: Department of Transportation Highways Division Hawaii District Office 50 Makaala Street Hilo, Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division Planning Branch 600 Kapiolani Boulevard, Room 304 Honolulu, Hawaii U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Hawaii Division 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3202 Honolulu, Hawaii Kailua-Kona Public Library 75-138 Hualalai Road Kailua-Kona, Hawaii "I rr; Department of Transportation thanks the many individuals, agencies and ^rganizati:,ns that participated in the planning of this project. KAZU HAYASHIDA Director of Transportation West Hawaii Today Honolulu Advertiser e , Final Environmental Impact F y k Statement - t b ~5 c,'ymyC$, << ~-4o w i c.>C 51,5o.>6°c~.. ~ n C F,o c':.f`..5:w~&.:°~ >.o'k'oa.R4fi3Eewi!. :C., b'Ck: C.:' C. ua!':`a'~i:'k~f:' k~:is::a::::b?.<.:5:k:. . x::~.:..< and ~~.f. Section 4(~ C' < a~i~` Evaluaction Kealakehe Parkway Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, North Kona, Hawaii ~..y Lf::cj%;' H%Q:~Sl~}~D:~n. .::;f:ky:o:y;:'.:......' w:kn n... Rf U.S. Department of Transportation ~ ; Federal Hi hwa Administration :~<_~;;~;~<:<„,~.. ~;y~~:f;:~=:~:~~., ::~i<o~ v::o.•:u::Cxttc';'M<.':v..$~:k:::3:..:C::o:. . a.:.K.. 1...:&C .v~ <.e:,f o.:C.n..:i<~::<be.i?e[~`fn~lv',ev :C:'C'J~I`~2::G"S'1&Sk;:ti~;.. q~ sfosbs!D":.'i: •!~Pd. i'b~!M!5!;`°y °'af~P!$:. 4°$Y'4. M ~bn:C....~..A<>. :::?.'8k°kafl <;:< ' ko,..,?e $,'~,.~~~yy<A3:i<x£'~ 'Xam`v' .C~>:::e`.nP.o: ff:<::<:,. .~4io'~;~:~~C F:.'f~,Y t3 6 $ : >`y..`. v,: b; State o Hawaii ~:;:<:f:.:=:;.:~:~ >:~~.>a.;;:.::;..:~b.::,:.::r 5w5...:. f ~.yv "i` e`%:!'fanilidC`:53:~::M:';i!o,~! n:1n:~y~~~ 'N` Department of Transportation ~f:;~~;a.. ~.~,~io~c~~ June 1998 FHWA-HI-EIS-95-01-F KEALAKEHE PARKWAY MAMALAHOA HIGHWAY TO QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY NORTH KONA, HAWAII State Project No. 190 A-01.82 Flnal Environmental Impact Statement Section 4(t) Evaluation Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) a2 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (DOT) 49 U.S.C. 303, and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (SDOT) Highways Division JUN 2 5 1998 ~ c.~ Data of Approval Kazis Nayashlda, Dlraotor Dapartmant of Transportation _nM 2s Is98 % ~ ~ Date of Approval Abraham Wong, Division Ad ~ istrator Federal Highway Administration The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator Mr. Kazis Hayashida, Director Federal Highway Administration State Department of Transportation P.O. Box 50206 Hii.~hways Division 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Rm 3202 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Ho:iolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808)541-2700 (808)587-2220 The proposed completion of Keatakehe Parkway will consist of a 4.0 kilometer (2.5 mile) four- lane divided urban arterial that will connect Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway; ' rnad at the PactPrn Imaukal terminus of KPalakPhe Parkwav~ and r.onstni _tion of nev: or mndifiPd intersPntians of Mamalahoa Hiahwav Old Mamalahoa niahw^v P^I^ni Road and KPalak .hP Parkwav. The project will address system linkage needs; existing transportation demand and capacity needs; safety needs; and economic development needs. It will have impacts on land use, socioeconomic conditions, noise levels, traffic conditions, rare and endangered species, and archaeological resources. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT STATEMENT The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, became effective January 1, 1970. This law requires that all federal agencies shall prepare a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is, therefore, required to have an EIS prepared on proposals funded under its authority if the proposal is determined to be a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. EISs are required for many transportation projects as outlined iri NEPA. The processing of an EIS is carried out in two stages. Draft EISs are first written and forwarded for review and comment to federal, state and local agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise and are made available to the public. This availability to the public must occur at least 15 days before the public hearing and not later than the time of the first public hearing notice or notice of opportunity for hearing. Normally, 45 days, plus mailing time, will be allowed for comments to be made on the Draft EIS unless a time extension is granted by the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT). After this period has elapse, preparation can begin on the Final EIS. A Final EIS is prepared to reflect the distribution of the Draft EIS by including the following: 1. Basic Content of the Draft EIS as amended due to internal agency comments, editing, additional alternatives being considered, and changes due to the time-lag between the Draft and Final EIS. 2. Summary of public hearing comments. 3. Summary of comments received on the Draft EIS. 4. Evaluation and disposition of each substantive comment. Administrative action cannot take place sooner than 90 days after circulation of the Draft EIS to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or 30 days after submittal of the Final EIS to the EPA. Both the Draft and Final EIS are full disclosure documents which provide a full description of the proposed project, [he existing environment, and analysis of the anticipated beneficial or adverse environmental effects. General Reviewer Information In compliance with the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (amended in 1988) and a 1991 Presidential Executive Order, numbers throughout this Final EIS are presented in metric units with the English equivalents in parentheses. Per Section 11-200-18 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules, substantive text changes made for this Final EIS are indicated by double underlines. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S•i S.1 INTRODUCTION S-1 S.1.1 Applicant and Project Summary S-1 S.1.2 Accepting Authorities .................................................................................S-3 S.1.3 Purpose of This Document ...........................................................................S-3 S.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION S-4 S.3 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................S-4 S.3.1 System Linkage Needs..........._ ..................................................................S-7 S.3.2 Existing Transportation Demand and Capacity Needs S-7 S.3.3 Safety Needs... ...........................................................................S-7 S.3.4 Economic Development Needs ....................................................................S-7 S.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND IDENTIF=(CATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .....................................S-8 S.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION S-10 S.5.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation .......................................S-10 S.5.2 Short-Term Construction Period Impacts ....................................................S 10 S.5.3 Long-Term Impacts ....................................................................................S-17 S.5.4 Cumulative and Secondary Impacts ..........................................................S-19 S.5.5 Mitigation Commitments .............................................................................S 20 S.5.5.1 Short-Term Mitigation Measures .............................................................S 20 S.5.5.2 Long-Term Mitigation Measures .............................................................S-22 S.6 MAJOR ACTIONS PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES ............................................................_...............5 23 S.7 UNRESOLVED ISSUES ............................................................................S-24 S.8 NECESSARY APPROVALS AND PERMITS ................................_...........S 24 CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 1.1 BACKGROUND _...................................1-1 1.1.1 General Description Of The Project 1-1 y . 1.1.2 Histor 1-4 1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT............_ 1-5 1.2.1 System Linkage Needs 1-5 1.2.2 Existing Transportation Demand and Capacity Needs 1-7 1.2.3 Safety Needs ......................................._......._............................................1-7 1.2.4 Economic Development Needs........_ ................._.......................................1-7 1.2.5 Proposed Intersection Improvements and New Intersections 1-10 1.2.6 Detour Road 1-10 1.2.7 Conclusion ..................._.................................,....._............................._...1-12 CHAPTER 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2-i 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED INITIALLY BUT REJECTED FOR FURTHER STUDY ................................................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 First-Cut Screening 2-1 2.2.1.1 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................2-2 2.2.1.2 Description And Evaluation Of Alternatives Eliminated In The First Cut .....................................................................................2-4 2.2.1.2.1 Transportation System Management (TSM) And Public Transit Alternative 2-5 2.2.1.2.2 Improvements To Existing Corridors ..........................................2-5 2.2.1.2.3 Build Alternatives Within The KealakehE; Corridor .......................2-6 2.2.2 Second-Cut Screening ..............................................................................2-15 2.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER STUDY IN THE DRAFT EIS............2-16 2.3.1 Evaluation 2-16 2.3.2 Description of Alternatives Selected for Further Study in the Draft EIS.......2-16 2.3.2.1 No Build Alternative........._........._ ..................................._............._2-16 2.3.2.2 Alternative 10 2-17 2.3.2.3 Alternative 11 ....................._........._...................................................2-17 2.3.2,4 Features Common To Both Alternatives 10 And 11 ................2-17 2.4 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COSTS ...................................................................2-20 2.5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR IDENTIFICATION ........................2-20 CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-i 3.1 LAND USE AND SOILS .........................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Regional Setting and Projected Growth ........................................................3-1 3.1.2 Project Area and Soil Types ..........................................................................3-4 3.1.3 Zoning and Land Use Plans and Policies .....................................................3-8 3.1.3 1 Hawaii State Plans And Controls ..........................................................3-8 3.1.3.2 Hawaii County Plans And Controls .................................._................3-11 3.2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ............................................................_....3-15 3.2.1 Population and Ethnicity ...........................................................................3-15 3.2.2 Housing ....................................._....................,....................._............3-17 3.2.3 Employment and Income ......................._.........................................__.....3-18 3.2.4 Environmental Justice ........................................................................_....3-18 3.2.5 Likely Future Social Trends ...................................._..........._.....................3-19 3.2.5.1 Characteristics Of Economic Growth 3-19 3.2.4.2 Geographic Distribution Of Growth ....................................................3-19 3.3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES _ .................................................3-22 3.3.1 Transportation........._....__ ......................................................................3-22 3.3.1.1 Roadway Facilities .............................................................................3-22 3.3.1.2 Traffic Conditions........_ ...................................................................3-23 3.3.1.3 Accident Data..........._........._ 3-25 3.3.1.4 Bicycle And Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................3-26 3.3.2 Water Supply System ........................................._..................................3-28 3.3.3 Drainage System ........................................................................................3-29 3.3.4 Wastewater System ....................................................................................3-29 3.4 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY .............................................................................3-29 3.4.1 Local Meteorology ......................................................................................3-29 3.4.2 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................3-30 3.4.3 Attainment Status of the Project Area 3-30 3.4.4 Monitored Air Quality ..................................................................................3-31 3.5 NOISE AND VIBRATION .....................................................................................3-32 3.5.1 Characteristics and Measurement of Sound ..............................................3-32 3.5.2 Federal Noise Abatement Criteria ..............._.............................................3-33 3.5.3 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................3-35 3.6 GEOLOGY, PHYSIOGRAPHY, AND SITE CONTAMINATION ..............................3-36 3.6.1 Geology and Physiography ........................_...........,..................................3-36 3.6.2 Hazardous Waste Sites ...............................................................................3-36 3.7 VOLCANOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKES 3-37 3.8 WATER RESOURCES ..........................................................................................3 40 3.8.1 Surface Water Bodies, Floodplains, and Wetlands .....................................3-40 3.8.2 Groundwater ..............................................................................................3-40 3.9 TERRESTRIAL FLORA .........................................................................................3-42 3.10 TERRESTRIAL FAUNA .......................................................................................3-43 3.11 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES ...................................................3-44 3.12 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.,.._ ...................................3-47 3.13 PARKLANDS...._ _........................._......3-52 3.14 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES ......................................................._..3-53 CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 4.1 LAND USE AND SOILS ..........................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Potential Impacts ........................................................................................4-1 4.1.1.1 Impacts on Agricultural Activities ....................................................._.4-1 4.1.1.2 Relocations ........................................._............................................4-2 4.1.2 Relationship of the Proposed Action to Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls for the Affected Area ..................................................4-2 4.1.2.1 Hawaii State Plans and Controls ..........................................................4-2 4.1.2.2 Hawaii County Plans and Controls .......................................................4-6 4.1.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................4-7 4.2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY .....................................................................4-8 4.2.1 Potential Impacts on Economic Activity ......................................................4-8 4.2.2 Potential Social Impacts on Residential Areas..,...._ ..............................._....4-9 4.2.3 Potential Social Impacts on Commercial Areas .........................................4-10 4.2.4 Conformance with Environmental Justice (EO 12898) ................................4-10 4.2.5 Potential Impacts on Community Services and Tax Base ...........................4-12 4.2.6 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................4-12 iii 4.3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES ...................................................4-13 4.3.1 Potential Transportation Impacts ...............................................................4-13 4.3.1.1 Methodology ......................................................................................4-13 4.3.1.2 2015 Traffic Conditions ......................................................................4-13 4.3.1.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................4-19 4.3.1.4 Transit ...............................................................................................4-20 4.3.1.5 Mitigation Measures ...........................................................................4-20 4.3.2 Water Supply System Impacts ....................................................................4-20 4.3.3 Waste Water Impacts ..................................................................................4-20 4.4 AIR QUALITY, CLIMATE, AND METEOROLOGY .................................................4-20 4.4.1 Methodology ...............................................................................................4-21 4.4.2 Potential Impacts ........................................................................................4-24 4.4.2.1 Microscale Impacts ............................................................................4-24 4.4.2.2 Mesoscale Impacts ...........................................................................4-24 4.4.3 Mitigation Measures .....................................................................................4-29 4.5 NOISE AND VIBRATION _.4-29 4.5.1 Traffic Noise Prediction Methodology ........................................................4-29 4.5.2 Potential Impacts .......................................................................................4-30 4.5.3 Reasonable And Feasible Analysis of Mitigation Measures .......................4-34 4.6 GEOLOGY, PHYSIOGRAPHY, AND SITE CONTAMINATION ..............................4-36 4.6.1 Potential Impacts .....................................................................................4-36 4.6.1.1 Grading Plan .....................................................................................4-36 4.6.1.2 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management ........................................4-40 4.6.2 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................4-40 4.7 VOLCANOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKES .............................................................4-40 4.8 WATER RESOURCES .........................................................................................4-41 4.8.1 Potential Impacts.._ ..................................................................................4-41 4.8.2 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................4-41 4.9 TERRESTRIAL FLORA .........................................................................................4-42 4.9.1 Potential Impacts ........................................................................................4-42 4.9.2 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4-42 4.10 TERRESTRIAL FAUNA .....................................................................................4-42 4.10.1 Potential Impacts .....................................................................................4-42 4.10.2 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................4-43 4.11 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES ..................................................4-43 4.11.1 Agency Coordination .................................................._............................4-43 4.11.2 Potential Impacts .....................................................................................4-45 4.11.3 Mitigation Measures _...............4-45 4.11.3.1 Translocation Plan......_ ....................................................................4-45 4.11.3.2 Fire Plan ...........................................................................................4-47 4.11.3.3 Roadway Lighting Design ............................................................_..4-48 4.11.3.4 Conclusion........_ ..................................................................................4-48 4.12 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..........................................4-48 4.12.1 Section 106 Requirements ......................................................................4-48 4.12.2 Historic Structures ..............._...............................................................4-50 iv 4.12.3 Archaeological Resources ........................................................................4-50 4.12.3.1 Trails ................................................................................................4-68 4.12.3.2 Platform and Site Complex ..............................................................4-70 4.12.3.3 Lava Tube Complex .........................................................................4-70 4.12.4 Consultation and Community Input ...........................................................4-71 4.13 SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION ..............................................................................4-72 4.13.1 Evaluation of State Site 50-1 0-28-1 81 85 ...................................................4-73 4.13.1.1 Proposed Action ..............................................................................4-73 4.13.1.2 Description of the Section 4(F) Resource ........................................4-73 4.13.1.3 Impact on the Section 4(F) Resource by the Proposed Action........4-76 4.13.2 Evaluation of State Site 50-10-28-18749 .............................................._..4-76 4.13.2.1 Proposed Action ..........................................................................._.4-76 4.13.2.2 Description of the Section 4(F) ResourcE :........................................4-77 4.13.2.3 Impact on the Section 4(F) Resource by the Proposed Action........4-77 4.13.3 Evaluation of State Site 50-10-28-18750 .................................................4-79 4.13.3.1 Proposed Action _.........................._..............4-79 4.13.3.2 Description of the Section 4(F) Resource..._ .............................._...4-79 4.13.3.3 Impact on the Section 4(F) Resource by the Proposed Action.... ..4-79 4.13.4 Avoidance Alternatives 4-81 4.13.5 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................4-84 4.13.6 Summary and Conclusion .........................................................................4-85 4.14 PARKLANDS 4-87 4.14.1 Potential Impacts . ..................................................................................4-87 4.14.2 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4-87 4.15 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES ..........................................................4-87 4.15.1 Potential Impacts ....................._.............................................................4-87 4.15.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................4-88 4.16 ENERGY ............................................._............................................4-89 4.17 CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACTS ....................................................4-89 4.18 POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ......................_.................................4-91 4.18.1 AirOuality ......................................................................................._.....4-91 4.18.2 Noise and Vibration ...........................................................................4-93 4.18.3 Water Resources ....................................................................................4-94 4.18.4 Traffic Mitigation .......................................................................................4-94 4.18.5 Solid Waste Management and Hazardous Was[e 4-95 4.18.6 Mitigation for Agricultural Activities.._ ...4-97 4.18.7 Mitigation for Historic and Archaeological Resources 4-98 4.19 PERMITS AND APPROVALS ..........................................................................4-98 4.20 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND MAINTENANCE OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .........................._..............4-98 4.21 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES.....4-100 CHAPTER 5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 5-1 5.1 PUBLIC NOTICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SLOPING PROCESS ...........................5-1 v 5.1.1 Consulted Parties and Small Group Meetings ...............................................5-1 5.1.2 EISPN and NOI Comments 5-4 5.2 DRAFT EIS NOTICE .............................................................................................5-5 5.3 OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ..............................................................................5-6 5.3.1 Public Hearing 5-6 5.3.2 Written Comments ........................................................................................5-6 5.4 COMMENTS MADE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND RESPONSES ......................5-7 5.5 WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DRAFT EIS COMMENT PERIOD AND RESPONSES .................................................................................5-9 5.5 LIST OF COMMENTERS 5-89 CHAPTER 6.0 LIST OF PREPARES ........................................................6.1 DOCUMENT PREPARATION .....................................................................................6-1 TECHNICAL STUDIES ................_..............................................................................6-1 REVIEWER 6-2 CHAPTER 7.0 FEIS RECIPIENTS ...........................................................7-i CHAPTER 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................8-i APPENDICES A Hazardous Waste B Endangered and Threatened Species B.1 Correspondence and Coordination B.2 Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species C Historic and Archaeological Resources C.1 Correspondence and Coordination C.2 Description of Section 4(f) Resource C.3 Fully Executed Memorandum of Agreement D Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form AD-1006) E Coastal Zone Management Act F Army Corps of Engineers Correspondence G Public Participation G.1 Notices G.2 Public Hearing G.3 Letter to Draft EIS Commentors INDEX vi LIST OF FIGURES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S-1 General Location S-2 S-2 Typical Section ......................................................................................................S-5 S-3 Proposed Detour Road Corridor .........................................................................S-6 CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1 GeneralLoca[ion ................................................................................................1-2 1-2 Typical Section 1-3 1-3 Principal Roadways North of Kailua-Kona ........................................................1-6 CHAPTER 2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 2-1 Keahole to Kailua Roadway Plan ........................................................................2-3 2-2 Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ...............................................................................2-7 2-3 Alternatives 6, 7, 9, 9A and 98 .........................................................................2-8 2-4 Alternatives 6A and 8 .........................................................................................2-9 2-5 Alternatives 10 and 11 and Detour Road Corridor ............................................2-18 2-6 Proposed Detour Road Corridor .......................................................................2-21 CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 Existing and Proposed Land Use in the Project Vicinity ....................................3-2 3-2 Landowners Within the Project Corridor .............................................................3-5 3-3 Soil Types in Project Vicinity ...............................................................................3-7 3-4 Recommended State Land Use District Boundaries ........................................3-10 3-5 Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Designations ..............................3-13 3-6 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan Project Area _......................3-14 3-7 Bike Routes in Kailua-Kona ..............................................................................3-27 3-8 Five Major Volcanoes of Hawaii ......................................................................3-38 3-9 Special Aquatic Sites in Project Vicinity ....................................................._.....3-41 CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1 Air Quality Receptor Locations 4-25 4-2 Noise Monitoring and Prediction Locations .....................................................4-32 4-3 Alternative 10 Limits of Construction ...............................................................4-38 4-4 The Preferred Alternative Limits of Construction ...............................................4-39 4-5 Endangered and "Candidate 1" Species .........................................................4-46 4-6 Archaeological Sites Recommended for Preservation .....................................4-69 4-7 Section 4(f) F; ,,sources ......................................_...................................._......4-74 4-8 Archaeological Site 50-1 0-28-1 81 85 ................................................................4-75 4-9 Archaeological Site 50-10-28-18749 ......................................_......4-78 4-10 Archaeological Site 50-10-28-18750 ................................................................4-80 4-11 Section 4(f) Avoidance Alternatives ..................................................................4-82 vii LIST OF TABLES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts S-11 CHAPTER i .O PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-ia Selected Existing and Future No-Build Traffic Conditions: A.M. Peak ................1-8 1-1b P.M. Peak ............................................................................................................1-8 1-2a Queen Kaahumanu Highway/Kealakehe Parkway/Harbor Intersection Performance: A.M. Peak ...................................................................................1-11 1-2b P.M. Peak ..............................................................._.........................................1-11 CHAPTER 2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 2-1 First-Cut Comparison of Build Alternatives 2-10 2-2 Project Schedule ...............................................................................................2-22 2-3 Project Cost Estimates ......................................................................................2-22 CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 TMK Parcels Within the Kealakehe Parkway Corridor ........................................3-4 3-2 Summary of Soil Types ............._......................................................_...............3-8 3-3 Population Trends ............................................................................................3-15 3-4 Ethnic Breakdown in West Hawaii .....................................................................3-16 3-5 Housing Trends in West Hawaii ........................................................................3-17 3-6 Population Projections For Hawaii County (Series M-K) ....................................3-19 3-7 Population Projections For The West Hawaii Region ........................................3-20 3-8 Hawaii County Planning Department Projections 3-21 3-9 Projected Housing Demand In West Hawaii._ ................................................3-21 3-10 Existing Levels-of-Service at Selected Intersections 3-24 3-11 Existing Levels-of-Service on Selected Roadway Segments ............................3-25 3-12 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ................_.................._....3-31 3-13 Monitored Ambient Air Quality Levels......._ .....................................................3-33 3-14 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) ......................._..................................3-34 3-15 Measurements Of Existing Noise Levels (Leq) .................................................3-35 3-16 Occurrences of Formal Features and Site Types _ 3-49 3-17 Site Complexes Along Alternatives 10 and 11 By Formal Feature Type...........3-50 CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1 Compliance with Land Use Plans and Policies ...................................................4-3 4-2 2015 No-Build Alternative Traffic Conditions: Intersections ..............................4-14 4-3 2015 No-Build Alternative Traffic Conditions: Roadway Segments .................4-15 4-4 2015 Build Alternatives Traffic Conditions: Intersections .................................4-17 4-5 2015 Build Alternatives Traffic Conditions: Roadway Segments .....................4-18 4-6 2015 Roadway Levels-of-Service ...................................................................4-19 4-7 Predicted Worst Case One-Hour CO Levels (ppm) ............._.....4-26 viii 4-8 Predicted Worst Case Eight-Hour CO Levels (ppm) ........................................4-27 4-9 Mesoscale Pollutant Burden Emissions ...........................................................4-28 4-10 Existing and Predicted Leq ..............................................................................4-30 4-11 2015 A.M. Peak Leq (One Hour) .......................................................................4-31 4-12 2015 P.M. Peak Leq (One Hour) .......................................................................4-33 4-13 2015 P.M. Peak Leq (One Hour) in the Six Unit Residential Area ....................4-34 4-14 2015 P.M. Peak Leq (One Hour) with Soundwalls ............................................4-35 4-15 Archaeological Resources Recommended for Data Recovery and Preservation (Alternative 10) ......................................................................4-51 4-16 Archaeological Resources Recommended for Data Recovery and Preservation (Preferred Alternative) ..........................................................4-55 4-17 Archaeological Resources Recommended for Data Recovery and Preservation: Common to Alternatives 10 and the Preferred Alternative, and the Detour Road Corridor ........................................................4-59 4-18 Archaeological Resources Recommended for No Further Work .......................4-65 4-19 Evaluation of Avoidance Alternatives ................................................................4-83 4-20 Permits and Approvals ....................................................................................4-99 ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1 INTRODUCTION S.1.1 Applicant and Project Summary The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Highways Division of the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (SDOT) are filing this final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as the lead federal and local agencies for this project, the proposed completion of Kealakehe Parkway in Hawaii County, Hawaii. Figure S-1 shows the general project location. When completed, Kealakehe Parkway will connect Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. An east-west (mauka-makai) road connecting Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway has been included in roadway and land use plans since November 1989. However, more detailed planning of the Parkway was not initiated until the State of Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC) developed a project called the Villages of La'i'opua to provide affordable housing units in the West Hawaii region. Additional objectives of the planned community include the provision of necessary infrastructure and facilities to support both the proposed residential units and also regional needs. The planned community roadway system includes the construction of the portion of Kealakehe Parkway within the community, which was completed in August, 1995. However, because the Kealakehe Parkway corridor continues beyond the limits of the HFDC project, HFDC was unable to complete the full length of Kealakehe Parkway. In September 1990, the Governor accepted the Kealakehe Planned Community Final Environmental Impact Statement. Kealakehe Parkway was one of two proposed regional arterial roadways described in that EIS. However, to fully achieve its goals, Kealakehe Parkway would have to be extended from the HFDC property line east (mauka) to Mamalahoa Highway. Therefore, the SDOT initiated a State-funded feasibility study and the environmental review process for the completing segment. Later, when federal funding was obtained for the completing segment, the EIS became a document subject to both State and federal environmental regulations. S-1 ~ ~ m a ~ T m 1 V W Q ~ a C = Q O ~ LL y a v ~ O = F" O I I O D~W W I ~O ~ Z WU~ ~ 1 Sd Ny g~ y O y 0 P~ ~ 1 k _ a~¢ ~ ~~a ~~G~ w~ a-~ OP a> !TP~PS OLD Y ~ Z ~,p,MALAHOA HIGHWAY = ~ Y O y -J J Q > vaas~_ U x i as~~ in ; ~ p~eo O a b~G J W ~ A S O \ ~ ~ 7 ~ Q W ~ ~ p W J ¢ - a ~ z W O ~'y Y ?i,;b ~ Q QQG lsi Q O~ w z y W Py O U Y ~ N\GN~ a 2 a yJ Y J O ~ Mp,N Z KP'P'ND o~ ~A 6 OJ~~t, y;o~S y N ~ I/ O r , N ~ m ~ ~ L ~ 1 1v Z/ E ~ m Lp~ d Y W 0 I.L Q Y N ~ 0 Y C C C C~ Z ~ ~ a Y Z a. ~ o z® S-2 Upon its extension to Mamalahoa Highway, Kealakehe Parkway will satisfy four types of needs: • system linkage needs; • existing transportation demand and capacity needs; • safety needs; and • economic development needs. S.1.2 Accepting Authorities The accepting authorities of the final EIS are the Hawaii Division Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration and the Governor of the State of Hawaii. S.1.3 Purpose of This Document This final EIS has been prepared to demonstrate the project's compliance with: • the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); • Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act; • Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS); • FHWA guidelines (FHWA Technical Advisory T-6640.8A (October 1987)); • Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR 1500-1508; and • the Hawaii Administrative Rules [Title 11, Chapter 200 Environmental Impact Statement Rules (August 1996)]. This document identifies and assesses the environmental and social impacts that could result from the completion of Kealakehe Parkway. Preparation of a final EIS requires a detailed analysis of'. • the affected area; • the purpose of and need for the project; • alternatives considered; • the relationship of the proposed action to land use plans, policies, and controls; • contextual issues; • required approvals; • potential impacts; • comments received and responses to those comments; and S-3 mitigation and enhancement measures. The EIS process has been designed to enable project sponsors to develop awell- planned project that is sensitive to the physical, natural and social environment within which it will exist, and ensure that adverse impacts, after appropriate mitigation, do not exceed acceptable levels. Coordination with interested and affected parties is also required and must be documented. S.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed project consists of three elements: • a four-lane urban arterial (see Figure S 2) that will extend between Mamalahoa Highway and the previously constructed portion of Kealakehe Parkway within the Villages of La'i'opua; • a construction detour road at the eastern (mauka) terminus of the completing portion of Kealakehe Parkway (see Figure S3); and • improvements to the existing and future intersections of Palani Road, Old Mamalahoa Highway, Mamalahoa Highway and Kealakehe Parkway (see Figure S-1 The detour road will maintain traffic flow during the construction of the eastern (mauka) terminus of the project. After completion of the project, through traffic will travel on Kealakehe Parkway and residential access to a small number of houses at the Parkway's eastern (mauka) terminus will be permanently rerouted to the detour road. The project description also includes a list of environmental mitigation measures, as described in Section S.5. S.3 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed Kealakehe Parkway will address four types of needs: S-4 o ~ ~ ~ N ~ U = ~ Q ~ ` ~ ~ E _ ~ N G~ V dD N E_ ~ N ~ E ~ ~ E ri a~ N ~ > O N ~ d CO N Z 1 0~ W ~ a E U ~ cDN W~ O m (n d C N J = ~ Q W E N U) ~ ~ ~ a m U Q O a0 ~ 3 - J (D z ~ Q (~"J r E L~- Y (O N ° r- O 0 E _ ~ N ~ E 0 (7 T ~ ~ L ~ (n c E ° ~ u O m E (V N ° ~ T a d a M c 0 a E a ~ ~ N ~ v m ~ N o Q ri T U d E O ~ ~ ~ m ~ c ~ a~ ~ 3 ~ o ~ o O ~ Z ~ ~ N O m ~ Q S-5 ~s ~a ~ ' o~ 1 aye d _ ~ o'c o' FL ~ a ~ ~ ,dr\ O ~ ~ a`aa[ \ Qa` r \ 1 ca ~ o ~ - o ~ ° / ~ ~ ~ _ off.., oC s 8 ~ o 000 ~ o p ? U ? ? c ~ ~ W ~ g v ~ .i a O ~ a:r E ~ O d ~ Y ~ " ~ ~ ~ V a a c w o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0~ acE ~ ~ Y Q w ~ ~ a Ha 4 ~ ~ I O o. w a ~ d o ~ Y o ~ i-,~ c O / N ~ o- LL o ~ ~ d I N C C d o / -o°E $ W U d ? o ~ a ~~4 0 a /O4~ / acE a m o E o c_ ~ ~ N ~ m 0 0 / r l ~o - - - _ _ o Z® S-6 5.3.1 System Linkage Needs The area is presently served by two State highways: Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway. Although Queen Kaahumanu Highway extends continuously through the area, the State Route System presently terminates where Mamalahoa Highway becomes Palani Road. Palani Road, a County roadway, connects Mamalahoa Highway with the town of Kailua-Kona. To provide a continuous State Route System, a State roadway that connects Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway is needed. S.3.2 Existing Transportation Demand and Capacity Needs Several roadway segments in the area experience Levels-Of-Service (LOS) of E or F during the morning and/or evening peak travel periods. LOS E means that very long traffic delays are experienced. LOS F is worse and is characterized by extreme delays and queuing that may cause severe congestion and affect movements at intersections. (The 1985 Highwav Capacity Manual defines six Levels of Service ranging from best "A" to worst "F" conditions.) In part because of existing levels of congestion, Kealakehe Parkway has been identified in various plans, such as the current Island of Hawaii Lona Range Highwav Plan and the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (April 1991), to improve existing traffic circulation throughout the Kealakehe area. S.3.3 Safety Needs Between 1986 and 1990, there were 165 reported accidents on Palani Road. Kealakehe Parkway will divert traffic from Palani Road, and because of its superior geometries, Kealakehe Parkway will be safer than Palani Road for the types and volumes of traffic anticipated. 5.3.4 Economic Development Needs West Hawaii is one of the fastest grog: ig areas in the State of Hawaii. Population growth and urban development is likely to continue, particularly in the Kailua-Kona area in the North Kona District. Kailua-Kona, a designated subregional planning area, is envisioned by both the County and State of Hawaii as the location of substantial S-7 future urban development. Most of this growth is expected to be generated by expansion of the resort industry in the coastal areas of South Kohala and North Kona, creating an increased demand for new housing, schools, shopping areas, and parks. In conformance with these governmental expectations of future growth, several large- scale development projects in the vicinity of Kealakehe Parkway have been announced. Most notably, the HFDC is currently planning to construct the Villages of La'i'opua, a multi-use project which will increase the population of the area by approximately 14,200 people upon completion. In addition to the Villages of La'i'opua, several other large projects are proposed for the region. These include a West Hawaii branch of the State university (with associated housing and other land uses); development of the Queen Liliuokalani Trust lands; development plans for Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; development plans for Palani Ranch; and expansion of the Kaloko Industrial Park. The U.S. National Park Service is also developing the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park on lands west (makai) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and north of Honokohau Harbor. The Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park has been established to further the preservation, interpretation, and perpetuation of traditional native Hawaiian activities and culture. The Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park is expected to be a major regional attraction which will generate traffic. S.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ~Q IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The No Build alternative, one transportation system management (TSM) and public transit alternative, improvements to existing roadway facilities, and 14 build alternatives have been considered. The build alternatives are numbered 1 through 11, and also include Alternatives 6A, 9A, and 9B. The No Build alternative is addressed iri this final EIS. The TSM and public transit alternative has been eliminated from further consideration (see Section 2.2.1.2.1). S-8 Evaluation criteria were used to screen the build alternatives. These criteria were: • consistency with State and County regional plans; conformance to the State Route Sys[em; • design speed of 60 km/h (40 mph); • minimum radius of not less than 135 meters (443 feet); maximum grade of not more than 11 percent; • residences directly affected; • religious, recreational or educational facilities affected; • impact on botanical sites; and • impact on archaeological resources. Results of early investigations indicated that Alternatives 6A and 8 had the fewest negative impacts, and they were therefore selected initially as the two alternatives to be addressed in more detail in the draft EIS. However, after a botanical survey and historic and archaeological field reconnaissance was performed along the alignments of Alternatives 6A and 8, it became apparent that these alignments would need to be further refined, and that more detailed botanical and archaeological investigations were required. Alternatives 10 and 11 were then developed as improvements to Alternatives 6A and 8, and Alternatives 10 and 11 were selected for detailed analysis in the draft EIS. Alternative 11 has heen identified as the Preferred Alternative for the completing segment of Kealak .he Parkwav. This alternative will he a four-lane State hiahwav extension of Mamalahoa Highway joining the hiahwav just south of the Palani °^~d/Old M^m^I^hoa Highway Junction It will extand 4.0 kilometers (25 milesl in the oast-~~/PGt (mauka-makail direction and connect with the uppermost Hart of the previoush~ ronstructPd nortinn of Kealakehe Parkwav. located within the HFnC's \/illanPS of I a'i'onua (see Finure S-11. The identification of Alt .rnativ . 11 as the Pr .f .rred Alternative was haled on three factors potential impacts on endangered and rar . species. potential impacts gn arc.haeoloai .al resources and cost. The immediate vicinity of Kealak .he Parkwav .ontains ar .haeoloaical reso it ..s and rare plant species The level of impact nn these resources is minimized by identifying S-9 Alternativ 11 ov .r Alternative 10 This determination was made in consultation with the l1 S DPnartment of the Interior Office of the Secretary U.S. Fish and Wildlife Conii^o l~lAlC\~ on({ tF1P State. Nistnrin prP.SP.rVaflOn Office. The determinations were mad in conformance with Se .tinn 106 of the National Hi_ctoric. Preservation Act of 1966 4PCtion 4(fl of the D nartment of Transportation Act of igO,B and Section 7 of the Fnd^nnPred Sn .Ties A t of 1974 In addition Alternative 11 will he annroximately ~6 million IPS¢ Pxn nsive to construct than Alternative 10 This difference in cast is due to th ^mo rnt of fill and .xc.avatinn r .a Tired for Alternative 10 Altho mh Alternative 11 has hPen identified as the Preferred Alternative. formal ^^~~^*i^^ ^f the Pr (erred Alternative is not mad .until the R .cnrd of Decision (RODI is rSCIIP.d. Further discussion is provided in Chapter 4.0. S.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Adverse and positive impacts are expected as a result of the completion of Kealakehe Parkway. Adverse impacts will be mitigated wherever possible and offset by project benefits. S.5.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation A matrix comparing the construction period and long-term impacts of the No Build, Alternative 10 and the Preferred Alternative is found in Table S-1. A summary of mitigation measures for each adverse impact is also provided. S.5.2 Short-Term Construction Period Impacts Short-term construction period impacts include the generation of fugitive dust, temporary disruptions to the flow of traffic along Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road, noise and vibration from construction activities, interference with agricultural activities in the construction zone, conversion of vegetated areas to a transportation use, impacts on archeological resources, and impacts on endangered and threatened and candidate species. S-10 O ~ O N O Ct N N ? ~ > - ~ > m o ` m c m c Y Q ~ ~ Q N O ~ ~ ~ > S O N O O = - r E `ro c E ~ ~ m y N E ~ E_ `m N N a (n Q ~ U ~n ~ " O ~ ro U N N U (tl ro ro ~ E E E ro E E 6 c E rn c E v7 p E _ o v c ~ E c ` ~ O U N O U H ~ ~ ~ ` N p C C C C U ~ ~ U ~ ~ U £ c ~ £ c ~ m ~ m a m.~ c E ~ ~ ~ 3 c i° ~ o U J N y J ~ ~ U J y v w 3 ~ m = 3 N 'o a y ro a m a ma ~ c o~ u o~ Na ~ my ~-o S r o v a E y e ° a~ a ~ o a o N m m o m Y n J m m J c q ~ o o m E m E o ~ N m° `tl ~ vii m a Q NI ~ ro~ N c J w ~ 2 v E~ N U aroi E m > U N ~p b O O U x J N N ~ r m~ -roa o ro o-m 3 ~ m c ro m e c m~ n m S m ~A.. E ~a~a~ No~g~ c°'ia~io.m Q~a°i arom ~O-DO 3~ C m B T U o d o~ ro E c ~ t ro Q ~ o~ N° N y a o ro o ~ L ro ~ m g ~ U .n 9 `o m m 3 -o m m r d Q m L ro a U D C m N m a o -o ro c -o N o a n. ~ ~ ~ m U U N C C H C E= 3 c ro m c m m E ~ E ~ ° aroi i0 m ro o `m o~ m E c Y ~ o m m Q E ro m N_>m>m c u~~,~ c c m E o° `n c ro a° c~ a o o E o m a o a o 0 0~ E Q }i m a c o 0 A > a-ci ~ m m 'o v m o a v ° c ° m~ E o U a a~ ° o ro m F J¢ o> o h m-m a 1- J m rn ro m E m ~ W ~ E a U° ro o ro m m m c N E q u m> `d w ~O E U O U N C L ~ D_ > C U C C _ > O U~ ~ o > in m E ~ a ° m E U D U m ° ~O ° n axi ¢ U T L o A V C £i > O (n ~ O N ~ o m y U > > ~ M ~ m Jm E ~ a m ~ ~ro Z o o Z o Z 7 y U ~ Z ~ 7 v m, b m o v; ro m ro ro ~ ¢ m o E m c E ro ~ E = c E t Z c E Z c E LL c ° E o N O O U N O U F C ro ? f- ro N ro N N C ~ W - C C C O O G ~ Q 6 u ~ ~ p U 7 F j ~ ~ U_ j O x Q ¢ ~ ZZ ~ Q Q `t ~ m a $-11 n N O O O_ O N N N > N > ~ > O m m c m ' G _C ry C M d O d O Q N O W ~ o Q o O Q ro E o ? o ? `ro o > r `m c o ro ~ ~ `m c v E z E in E in G in ¢ <n a O N O N O N U N U N f ~ ro ttl m `m m ro m E E E E E E d E to c E N c E ~ 0 0 E E E ~ o ~ m o o 0 c ~ U ~ a U ~ ~ m > m a c m C ZI U N N C J O~ m E~ ro ~ N 3 0 C N O r C N~ N O U C N 0 D- U O N N O N N E 'O L 3~ ~ N N~ YJ ~ Z' N a m u O y U N 'O O O N O roO ~ ~ Z' N O O N V n E o. y 2, N m Q _ ~ o ~ N ro~ _ m a E_ ~ m `ro O N% E C VN U U N N N O J ro 41 N X N` A C O~ ~ Vi p a d N~ N O N C O E D, N O. N E ~ U N U > = C N N N N N ro N iA C C GG « ~ a~ o L o E a c J~ ~ o U ~ ~ ro ro ~ a o~ U~~ A A c~ 0 3 c o 0 o a°i z°I m co o m> a m~ E N w ~ a~ o N Y a ~ ~ a~ V U u E _ro ~ N° ~n a m o 3~ a~ p r V a Z m m o U m ro ~ u~ ro c _ N o~ ~ a N -O ~ p L Q m~ N aa- a m ro m¢~~> E o m~ ro c ma ~ a~~°ro xI tl7 C 7 E -o m a o. a o 5 'O m E E_ ~ o f- c E X % E~ a`"i v a o v.J L O S J `m m e -o o. 3 m c ~ c c I J ro a ~ g v .p ~ C E 3 a E m c c v o o E E c c> E 3 I m o E 3 m c m° o A C O ~ `o o~ ro~ ~ j r Z o m ro~ aNi ° E N o ~ -OO aci ro ro~ m f W~ o o~ y >m D o ui o 0 0 o m o ~ a>> m U m c ~ ~ `o M p ~ o ~ -o ~ o a a U 'o U ~ o -o c°° c ~ a A N O ~ C C U U c tp > E N N C O ~ 7 7 ~ J N V ~ U U 10 C ~ N ~ N C > O N U C 4J N C ~ C U "O O m N N N O C ~ Q ~ N N O Z O N O 9 Z j d m~ z ~ _ .N. ~ N N ro I C J ~ ~ .N.. ~ O ro C E ro U N C E ro C O N ~ O - O E z c E N c z c E z E E i0 a m E m ~ ? m m N. m ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ o E~ ~ U ~ ~ u~ r- U O ~ d Z ~ ~ a ~ .a o > ~ Q ~ w H a Z U G O ? O Q Z x 5 m 5-12 m ro O O N O C ~ O O O N N O N - C N > O j ~ ro a a~ ~ m ~ m ro c i'e~ mQ c ~ `m c m E ro o a m` c « a ~ ° Q m o-a ~ o Q ~ A o Q ~ o <C r ro m o Q E o > N m ° ~ E ro ~ E `m m a L c E m Q ~ E ~ F~ m rn E to Q of ~ m Q cn V V Q " N N 3 O v F ro U ro ro N d ro N (tl ro U ` E E E ro aao ~ E ro d o E ~ o E v p m ~ o E - E - F_ c o - E c c U m o 2 ~ _ ~ m a E o ° o F j ~ T ~ F V1 ro N N L L ro N U ~ ~ U L c O1 ~ U ~ ~ g m m m ~ > m ~ m g ~I ~ m c v 5 m m E p E -mo m m m m a m o ° m 'y Yo m 3 m~ N~ n- y ~ 5 9L% 0 5 0 _a m~ N~ c E 5 m~ m - s ro `m ~ E~ E Y N p Q 0 0~ L m C E N ro 0 N N C u0 O_ -O O a N C 6 ~ I m o 0 6 ~ ~ N t `o m.a E E C a m~ o U N o= E ~ ~ ~ N E E > > C J O S] ~ O ro N N ~ N 9 a ~ C C (tl ^ Z L L 3 ro N L p (p ~ m ~ - ro a O V L Y O) C N D O S~ m m ro m N N "O N N d "O W ~ 9 N > p ro~ ~ J O C C'O t0 ~ C O N N N 3 N O U E J LL ro C O a j/~ N U~~ O O ro~~ _ > d E C N O M E N V Z O~ OU O N Ol N y E U~ ~O S C D > O ro~ N ~ E_ >i C ~ O L E .N. L D V? C d O~ C 9 O pI N N N O V1 U O ro~ V Q ro> o a~ m~ a`~~ ~ m o m~~ M U o .o m ,o c ro o ro 3 °c' a N N U H C« ~ ro ~ m m `m ~ E° -p E E c m~ Z? Z c c S m E~ o o E y L C a o'-° E ~ ro a U o y m o° ro° a E -a xl ~ 3 Q r U o° E aNi d C p o ~ `m mar o c -moo - a I c a ~ S. ro o~ 0 3 Z o~ E o ~ 3 F C C N c~ a m ro° o N 2 0 -o m r. x ° c a 2 ro ~ a ~ W fJ c ~ c a c ro m c m' c m n m t m o m ro a d d y m `m c~ ~ v o o m ~ m m Y ~ -'o ° E c° U S a~ S ~ m~ a ~ 3 9 axi U ~ 3 m c7 ti A E E 0 N m a m E r C C C a Z O ~ Z C N Z O 9 N Z j N Z ~ N Z o Q 'J U N N U N N U N N N N E N ~ E N N E ro O O C E Z C E Z C E O E O E O E C C ~ UI O U O ~ O H H H VI ro N ro N U ~ ~ U of ~ U ~ w O U C ~ a ~ o w n a Q J ~ ~ w w x U O ~ ~ a Z n m m Q 5-13 m N D O D D o > ~ ro > > ~ > ~ c m m c m ' ~ C C ~ C w D Q N O N O Q O R m o Q m Q m o Q E o o o • m - - m r ~ E `ro ~ o `m c E `ro Q ~ E_ Z E_ in E_ ~ Q N N Q N UJ Q N N t ~ U N ~ U N ~ U N m m ~ ro m ~ m m ~ E E E E E E d in c E cn c E u~ c E o E o E o E o m o ~ m o ~ m ~ h r U ~ ~ U ~ ~ U ~ m _ n~ ~ ~ t ~ a "~O o N a O. S ~ N ~ O > > N ~ N N U p N ~ p~~ 0 O N N > ° ^ 0 3 ~ m m ~ c aroi a .L. o 'o n -o v m n m M ~ ~ m a a ° ~ o uai o~ 3L°' croi o a ~ E w m a m N ~ N o- 3 c m° V m~ ~ o N~ m R- te a T m N 3 m 4 E° c E c o o E E y a o ~ 3 ~ a z,o 0 a n ro~ ~ m ro N a m a N N a o a g E o ~ n~ N o o ro a o_ m m R I c a' U' m E~ ° m~ N c Z m a ~ Q> o C m 3~ a o N w e 3 a m o P v N Q ~ $ro Z a O U N N O U° Y N C N ° N U .N. N N U N N N y T~ Q Q O ro N N L` N O N Ut. n N U 7 p p~ ~p U d N c c m m~ m~ ro~ o m m E m o L ~ E p a m W O C w` m o E S -'o E E ro E~°~ 'E ~ c ~ o> z c c~ E c 0 o c o o~ A> C ~ m a~ E ~ E c o ~ m o~ t aai ~a E ° ~ o ° N o m o A O ~ m h C ro o n m y `o -p a ~ m ro 3~ ~ m ~ ~ m m m y m °a' W V ~ S o c a b N c a E m t ~ c c `m c p m c c p ~ n U a r ~ a m a ~ U ~ m m ~ U L ~ T m E E 0 N m m E ro ~ ro c m a C m a c m m Z ` Z o m Z o z ~ z 9 ~ Z 'J N Q N 7 N ~ .N. Q N .N. K N o E o E o E Z Z c ~ Z c E Z c E o E o E o E O ° N O ° N O U N ~ F ~ H ~ F Z ~ O U Q O Q C ¢ > Z_ > t0 ~ I U' w 2 ~ u O ~ Q O Y .1 O S O O O ~ 3 ~ U L a x ~ c O i w U 2 Q O ~ a a w=~ O~S ~ ~ O din >w w m a S-14 n a N o N ° ~ O O ~ m N ~ N m D > > m m ~ ~ m ~ C RJ D C O. C N ~ E c m ro E `m c r O Q ~l O U~ ~ O Q Sl E o ¢ ro o c m o > o > m y ? o m` - m` r c E m ~ -o ~ c E `m Q ~ ~ E_ m ° i° « in E_ ,Lm~ c_ L N N_ N~ ~ Z ~ N N U //1 U R Q N _ U N F ro ro O N ro U~ ~ ro N N ` E E N ~ E~~ E E G ~ o E ~ o~ E E o N o E c E c E m E._ c - E U ~ ~ U ~ E ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ a a C N ~ C in ~ N N Ol N ~ ~ > ro ~ n 4 x V ro L R N ~ ~'C-~ O N N U r ~ N X ~ ~ ~ E N~ ~ d O D N y ro ro N ~ N ~tl Q J U ~ _ N N N c O E ° E o o E 'o v a°i o_ v d.v ro ° 5 3 a ~ p c o E c 3 ~ a a E m a m m o o m£ ~ E ro Z, E o m ro -'0 7n m m m~ c° c m o ro E m a c° R m m ro `o a m~~° E m m o m 'o _'m E ~ N m o a ~ ~ t 3 a c m ~ ~ t E ~ o a m ~ -°o ° o ro m ~ t0 w o ro r o 3° om v o a z m ~ m o~ N U m~ c N E y°~ `n ~ ~ d 9 Q o a ro r, c ro v a= m° o~ o~ ~ E S N ro m G ro J N Y c N N N N N U N q~ y p n m E ~ ro °1 ro o f E~ ~ a ~ c ~ E a J d pC C E-° cJma Ec a ° cm~-o Eo m E°._ cm~ En ~ ° m t ro E o t E m s E c co O- w m E -o d C o u ro~ o ro u oI= o ro ~ m `m N o ro° J ro m f' W V ~ -30 ~ E 3 m c c % m c j c c Ja > m r c °J -o E c c m o o° m ° o J c o o m ° m c. o m p U i 1~ ~ o ~ m U ~ > m ~ a .r ~ :c` = U E ro .c ~ m T ti A E 0 N o a V A m N N N Q N Z O O Z O O Z O y Z ~ Z ~ N Z Q ~ Q ~ Q 7 N ~ .N- ~ ~ u ~ ~ .N. c E ° E o E = z c E z c E z c E o E o E 4 E C C C O_ ° N ° U N O j R H ro ~ ~ ro y ~ ro y v_ N _ C p C ~ U ~ ~ U ~ U ~ w H U O Q C U ~ Q w ~ Y o w ~Z O „ ~ c7 cn G ~ O 1 Q Z w O¢ x Z O w ~ a ~ ~ Q w ~ ~ i m LL ~ a 5-15 m N O D 9 O O O C ~ N N O N > N > N > ~ ~ > N C C ~ N ~ N N ~ C ~ C r O U N N O Q N O Q N O E N - a N VO a N O G N > ~ ° o o o > O ° -m - r c o~ `m ~ E m c E `m ~ `m Z N E ~ ~ E ~ N m ` a vNi to Q <n Q cn Q ` U ~ Vi U Ui ~ U IA ~ N N N • m ~ m m m ~ E Eck E ~ E E E d N c ro u E in c E u~ c E cn N _ c ~ o E c ~ E c ~ E c o N o m` o m` o N N ~ N ~ N ~ ro ~ U~ `m ~ ~ U ~ ~ U ~ N C ~ N C _ ~ ~ D .N_. ~ ~ N N ~ N ~ N ro U 3 N ~ D y ° N 1] D_ N ~ a w ~ a E ~ _o N i m° m o N o m u 9 E .J N -o ~ o a E o. N x 3 V N v ro d o c s ~ - c o `0 m 6 ~ ro mcS~ p o o m'~.o ~ o ro ~ m~ ~ ca`o 0 E a m ~ E r U r a°i ~ ~ N E ° m~ ~ a a _ A ro ro m o m p v m o o -o o L N -o m °i E E_ c Z N o ~ ~ p Z u N N to E 3 m m L ~ ~ Sl N N A N N ~ J O ~ rN. - Q vN N p N U (d U d 9 Q P N a¢ m a> v o p m ro o o m m o v° N m a m ~ ~ y m p g N m m m m m m m a -o E c H~ 7 m o m v E c k ro c` s E is o E u p N ~ m C p S ~ m c v E c U- a c c E Z Z c E ~ E°" Q a L O p_ p N- o o p o E 3 N m ~ r, c a > o E c c -o c E ro v c - o E E C ~ 3 c c A C O ° E ro o E ~ L ~ E c E E F r i ° 2 p r m m a r ~ ° E f m y m a w y a m m io m m N N o c m a c N U N~ N ro N W_ C v T D C J L C C C C C L C C>~ N 3> D_ p~ v 3 m m U °m ~ E_ ° Q U ~ S aci ~ U a ~ m m T A 7 H! m a m m N UCJ ~ = -c o °c' -o o c m z o ~ N Z o N z o y ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z j ,N «N m ~ m N ~ ~ a~ ro U m o c E m E ~ E ~ 2 ° E ° E ° E ° Z C - Z C - Z C - Z ° o U E C C o ~ m o m o ~ `m o U ~ ~ U ~ ~ U ~ w r- ~ m U C R U ~ O C7 6 ? ~ Q ~ w ~ D U D a~ ~ OQ ~ ~ J= x Q ° ~ 2° S G T a > Q m a r 5-16 S.5.3 Long-Term Impacts Potential long-term environmental impacts of the proposed project include: • Land Use. The completion of Kealakehe Parkway will convert nearly 26 hectares (64 acres) of open space presently in agricultural use to a paved roadway. These impacts will be localized and acceptable within a regional framework since the project will affect only 0.0004 percent of the total agricultural acreage in the North Kona District. The soil types affected are not highly ranked for agricultural purposes. Both alternatives will require the relocation of one residence. A transportation corridor will be placed in proximity to some existing residential areas. The project will be supportive of development projects in the vicinity without modifying current land use trends and plans. • Social and Economic. Social and economic impacts will be mostly beneficial, including the expenditure locally of construction funds and enhanced access in the region which will contribute to overall economic activity. Residential access to a small number of homes at the eastern (mauka) terminus of the project will be permanently rerouted to the detour road. The project will, however, displace one residence, No businesses will be displaced. • Infrastructure and Public Facilities. The impacts of both alternatives will be beneficial, particularly on the roadway system. The proposed action will: - relieve traffic congestion on Palani Road, - establish access to and improve mobility for existing and proposed developments within the Keahole to Kailua area; - facilitate access to and the provision of community services; and - allow traffic generated by the Villages of La'i'opua and other existing and proposed Kealakehe communities to travel directly between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road. Air and Noise. Studies performed for this project indicate that air impacts from future traffic volumes on the proposed roadway will meet applicable standards. Noise levels, however, if not mitigated, we 1 exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) at a small number of homes at the -..astern (mauka) terminus of the project. A noise ~ ~II ~ ould provide ^ 5 ihst^nti^I ben .fit and meets the criteria for S-17 .asonableness and feasihility Therefore. a noise wall with visual mitination ~~~ill he provided at the eastern (ma ~kal t .rminus of the nrnie .t • Geologv. Phvsiographv. and Site Contamination. The proposed action will affect the landform only within the project's construction zone. Embankments could affect the drainage characteristics of the affected area. An accident on Kealakehe Parkway could result in the release of hazardous materials which would be handled in accordance with applicable requirements. • Volcanology and Earthquakes. The proposed action will provide an evacuation route for area residents and access for emergency vehicles and supplies. • Water Resources. Since there are no surface water bodies or wetlands within the project site, adverse impacts to surface waters are not expected. Groundwater impacts are also expected to be minimal. • Terrestrial Flora. Approximately 26 hectares (64 acres) of vegetational communities will be cleared for the roadway. The types of vegetational communities which will be affected are abundant in the region. • Terrestrial Fauna. The faunal comrnunity which will be affected is characterized by exotic and feral species common in the area. • Endangered and Threatened Species. Both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 10 will directly affect two endangered Loulu Palms (Priichardia affinis). Alternative 10 would also directly affect a population of Ko'oko'ulau (Bidens micranthra ssp. ctenophylla), a "Candidate 1" plant species, and indirectly affect two endangered Uhiuhi trees (Caesalpinia kavaiensis). Kealakehe Parkway c=uld have secondary impacts on Lhe Ko'oko'ulau and Uhiuhi 1rP.P.S. • Historic and Archaeological Resources. The Preferred Alternative will affect 54 arrhaenlnniral sites inr.luriina one burial and four trails. Alternative 10 would affect 67 sites. A Memorandum of Anreement as required by Section 106 of the National Historic. PrP.SP.rVatlOn Act of 1966. Section 4(fl of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. and Chanter 6F. HRS. has been executed and step elates the resources affected and the mit19ation process Isee P,nnendix C;1. S-18 • Parklands. The proposed action will have no impact on parklands, including Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park, other than to enhance accessibility. • Visual Resources. KPalakehe Parkway and the d .tour road ~^~ill permanently Mock A~~stina ~^~PStern Im^k^il viGtas of PI .v .n residences. For those not immediately adjacent to the roadway, however, visual impacts will be minimal. S.5.4 Cumulative and Secnndaw Impacts A rum Ilative impact is th impact on the environm .nt produced by the proposed ^ction when added to nth r past present and reasonahly forPSeeahle future actions regardless of proponent. Other ^ctinns such as a University of Hai^~aii branch. HFI~CS Villages of I a'i'ooua nP~^~ schools and oth r infrastructure nroiects are proposed for the area near "^^'^'~PhP P^rkv~^v If unmitia^t d the cumulative impacts of these and other actions In the shldv ^rP^ h^VP the DOtP.ntla t0 hP. S .VP.rP.. affPCtln? Sl1Ch arP.aS aS: • transportation ~a~ater s Inply and other infrastructure. arr.haeolopical resources: and endangered and threatened sper.ies_ H ON~PVPr other ^ctions ~^~ill he romnlet d rPaardless of ~a~hethPr the proposed action is constructed Therefore sin e development plans for rh.e area are not predicated on the romnl tion of K ^I^k h P^rkwav c Imulativ imna .ts ~a~ill he v .n~ similar hetween th . No R gild and Ruild scenarios. SPrond^rv imp^cts ^re imp^cts th^t h^v the potential too .cur later in time or farther repio~Pd in dirt^ncP but ^re still rP^SOn^hh~ forPSeeahle The construction of ' hP P^rk~ h^s ihP potential to induce development in vacant and unplanned ^ ^^'~^^~nt to the P^rk~^~^v Furthermore Pm~ironmental and social impacts can occur ^s result of th ind iced development Therefore. the potential serondarv imr^^`^ of the proposed action are induced development and its concomitant environmental and social im an rts. S-19 S.5.5 Mitigation Commitments This section summarizes commitments to minimize adverse environmental and social impacts. Positive and minor adverse impacts do not require mitigation. Additional details of the mitigation measures will be developed during the project's design phase (e.g., agriculture and noise mitigation). S.5.5,1 Short•Term Mitigation Measures Temporary construction impacts will be mitigated by the following measures. Additional mitigation measures may be implemented if construction activity produces greater than anticipated impacts. • Traffic. A maintenance of traffic plan will be developed during the design phase. This plan will include the detour road that will convey through traffic on Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road during construction. The maintenance of traffic plan will also address access to parcels adjacent to construction activities, such as the residential area located west (makai) of Palani Road on lands owned by Palani Ranch. • Air duality. Fugitive dust control measures will include: - minimizing land disturbance; - using watering trucks and covered trucks; - stabilizing the surface of dirt piles; - minimizing unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities; - using windbreaks effectively; - limiting vehicular paths and stabilizing temporary roads; - grading roads and parking areas adjacent to the construction site to prevent dirt from washing onto paved roadways; - restoring any disturbed land not used to original conditions; - removing unused materials; - removing dirt piles; and - restoring all vehicular paths to original conditions and preventing future off-road vehicular activities. • Noise and Vibration. Measures to minimize construction noise impacts will include limiting construction activities to daylight hours and requiring construction S-20 equipment to have mufflers in good working order. Should blasting be required, it would be conducted in accordance with all applicable standards. • Agricultural Activities. During construction: - stock-proof fencing will be placed around the construction site to safeguard and secure livestock; - cattle crossings and access to existing jeep roads will be provided; - -^^tina ~•~^tPr distribution infr~stnicture ~^.~ill he maintained as mu .h ash oossihle; and - fences and stone walls affected by construction will be restored and repaired. Additional details of agricultural mitigation will be developed during project design. • Water Resources. Erosion during construction will be mitigated by the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) established before construction begins, and a landscaping program to be implemented in conjunction with construction. Sanitary waste generated during construction will be collected from portably. units as required. • Endangered and Threatened Species. Afire plan to r .duce the loss of vulnerahle gpPCi s ^nd h~bit^t in the event of a fir and a translo .anon plan for the end~na red nul i P^Im (Pritch~rdi^ ^ffinisl and Uhiuhi TfP.P. (Caesahinia ^ ••-'~I h prPO~red ^nd imnlemented for the Preferred Alternative and Altern^tl\P 10 Roadway luminaries will b° ~!°cinnerl rn minimize imnar_.ts on minratina hirds • Historic and Archaeological Resources. Approved plans addressing data recovery, interim and long-term preservation, and burial treatment will be developed and implemented prior to roadway construction. Plans will be discussed with the SHPO, the Hawaii Island Burial Council, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and other affected parties. Plans will be prepared in accordance with the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). S-21 S.5,5.2 Long•Term Mitigation Measures Long-term adverse impacts will be mitigated by the following measures: • Land Use and Agricultural Activities. Relocation assistance consistent with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended, will be provided for the one residence that will have to relocate. Other mitigation measures described in this section will lessen the impact of the roadway on adjacent residential areas. Measures to mitigate impacts on ranching and other agricultural activities include: - provision of stock-proof fencing; - access from Kealakehe Parkway to existing jeep roads; - maintenance or replacement of affected east-west (mauka-makaij water lines; - maintenance of existing paddocks, corrals, water systems, and roads; - preservation of beehives and orchard-related activities; and - maintenance of access to existing ranch employee houses. • Secondary Development. The nroiPCt ~~~ill not include the nlanninp or construction of intersections th^t ~~~ould provide access to adiacPnt parcels. • Social and Economic Activity. After construction, the detour road will remain in place to facilitate residential access, • Infrastructure and Public Facilities. Kealakehe Parkway is itself a measure to mitigate existing and future traffic conditions. • Noise. A `^i° `^"It provid cuhst^ntial ben .fit and me .ts the criteria for on hlenesc nd f sibilih Therefore a nois v, all with visual treatment will he pro~id d ^t the ^stPrn !m^uk^l terminus of the protect where noise levels woulri othen~'isP exceed the NAC in 7015. • Geology Physiography and Site Contamination. Impacts to the physiography of the area will be mitigated through a roadway design that preserves existing contours as much as possible. Cut and fill will be balanced to the maximum degree practical. S-22 • Volcanology and Earthquakes. Kealakehe Parkway is itself a mitigation measure for volcanic and earthquake hazards in the area. In case of emergency, the Parkway could be used as an evacuation route. • Terrestrial Flora. Impacts to the terrestrial flora will be reduced by roadway landscaping. • Terrestrial Fauna. Project landscaping will help mitigate impacts to the regional fauna. • Endangered and Threatened Species. After roadwav construction. implementation of mina^tion mP^~ irPS ~•~ill continue in .ludina nn-poina activities associated with the tr^nslor^tion and fire plans In addition roadwav liphtina will be designed to ~ninimi~P the effect of light ynrP^d nn th mipratorv patt .rns of the endannered '-'^•••^"^n petrel (PtProdrom^ oh^eonvnia s^ndrainhenGisl th . threatened Newell's the^n~~^ter (Puffin ~s ^uri ul^risl ^nd the "Candidate 1" hand-pimped storm petrel (OrPanodroma Castro nrvntoleucural. • Historic and Archaeological Resources. The FHWA and SDOT will ensure that the provisions of the MOA ^re implemented to mitinatP imparts pn the archaaolonical ~a ~ affected by K .alakehe Parkway. • Visual and Aesthetic Resources. Adverse visual impacts created by embankments will be mitigated by landscaping. S.6 MAJOR ACTIONS PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES Kealakehe Parkway will be consistent with governmental plans, policies and projects in the area. Specifically. The Hawaii County General Plan (November 1989} and the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (April 1991) anticipated major growth in the area surrounding the Kealakehe Parkway corridor. Among the larger of these developments is the HFDC's Villages of La'i'opua, a project which is expected to increase the population by 14,200 people over the next 20 years. Other projects of similar scale S-23 are proposed for the general area. Proposed developments are discussed in greater detail in Section 3.1_.3. The State land use designation for some large parcels within the Keahole to Kailua area has been changed from Agricultural to Urban, including State-owned lands supporting the development of the Villages of La'i'opua. The County land use designation is also Urban. • Kealakehe Parkway was identified in the State's Transportation Functional Plan (1991), the Island of Hawaii Long Range Highwav Plan and the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (April 1991) as an important, high priority, necessary improvement to the road network in this area. Kealakehe Parkway will also be consistent with the Hawaii State Plan (June 1991) and its priority guidelines. • The County has just completed a new waste water treatment plant in anticipation of population growth in the area. • SDOT is planning the widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway to better serve existing and future transportation demand in the area. The relationship of Kealakehe Parkway to land use plans, policies and controls for the affected area is described in more detail in Section 4.1.3. S 7 UNRESOLVED ISSUES ..,i .,~tr~ nKnn normite rAmain to ha A(:(7111rP. C~. F-..:____..... - - - 5.8 NECESSARY APPROVALS AND PERMITS The following permits or approvals may be required prior to construction of Kealakehe Parkway. Additional permits and approvals may also be necessary. State • DLNR, Hawaii Island Burial Council - Burial Treatment Plan Approval Department of Health National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (storm water discharges from a construction site) S-24 Department of Health -Noise Permit Countv - Department of Public Works Permit for Excavation of Highway Department of Public Works -Grading, Grubbing, Stockpiling and Excavation Permit S-25 CHAPTER i .O PURPOSES OF AND NEED FOR ACT10N CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 BACKGROUND 1.1.1 General Description Of The Project Th propos d Kealakehe Parkway will b . a four-lane urban arterial in the North Kona Dictri .t of H^~•~^ii Co mtv Ha~~~aii extendinn east (maukal from Oueen Kaahumanu High~•~av and Honokoha ~ Harbor Road to a point near the intersection of Mamalahoa ~iah~~~^v ^nd Old M^m^I^ho^ Highwav Isee Fia ire 1-il. Ac sho~~~n in Figure 1-1 the ~yPCtern portion of the P^rk~•~av was completed by the State of Ha~~~aii Housing Finance and DPVelonment Corporation IHFDGI in August. 1995 as oart_of their Villages of I ^'i'opua project The State of Hawaii Department of Transportation ISDOTI and the u:.. t., n,J...l..l ~t.alla.. lC4.1 ~AIA1 nrnnnee to ovtenri tha Parkway as chniarri jmauka\ to Mamalahoa Highwav The ~•~idth of ^ typical section of the road~a~av will be 36 meters (190 feetl (see Figure 1- 91 (Roadway metrication standards have been based on A Policy on Geometric DPGj(,n of Hiah~•~^v and Streets (149011 The necessary right-of-way will he wider. dependino nn the specifics of ihP topography and the reguired roadway profile at that po=nt Oth r elements of th . proposed action include a deto it road at the eastern Imaukal terminus of Kealakehe Parkway: and construction of new or modifi d intersections of Mamalahoa Highwav. Old ^^^m^I^ho^ High~•~^v Palani Road and Kealakehe Park~a~av_ 1-1 W G =g~ o ' ; ~ g 5 3 m a ~ T ~ ~ d m ~ ' a ~ ~ 2 LL T ~ ; o H x ¢ a U ~ 2~ O I ~ O z z I ~5 O OFW W I 8~ ~Y s ~ J ~ W > W, I ~ g~ y a ~ O ~P~ OFa \G~ v ~ a z ~ OPT ~ z ¢a> MPMP pL0 Y ~ Z 3 MpMALAHOA HIGHWAY = ~ Y O to -J ~ ~a ~S` U Y ~ ; '~ea\a pAOb O as E /~i0 Q W i ~ m ~ ~ a \ a ~ ~ W ~ w Z npc ~ ~ x ~b 2W0 ls~ ~ o W Q a o ¢ ~bQ e, Z s w A Py Y ~ a _ ~ a H (n Y ~ ~ PNJ Z KPPNUM o4`Oo yob t oJ~~~ coy N ~ O m m m ~ L a U Z m o E w t_a cm o LL Q s aY~~ Z U W f o~~N = Q U ~ o Y S Z S O % a ~ Z® 1-2 m - o ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ U ~ 1 Q ¢ ~ ~ ~ T E_ ~ N T N E ~ N ~ E ~ r- E N ~ ~ > O ~ ~ CO N Z ~T 1 oN W E U ~ O N m w 2 ~ a a c N J = m Q (D NO ~ N ~ ~ ~ J ~ T t ~ W E _ ~ Y CO N ~ O 0 E _ ~ v ~ r 7 0 ~rj O w L ~ ~ c E a o O N E N ro a° r ~ r a Q ri 0 a a E _ N A N ~ 4 N (ED CV ~ J ri T ~ U a E N ~ ~ m f--' C m ~ ~ ~ 1- ~ p i o ~ ~ ~ ¢ z Q O of Z 1-3 1.1.2 History An east-west (mauka-makai) road extending from Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway has been included in roadway and land use plans since November 1989. However, more detailed planning of the Parkway was not initiated until priority was placed on addressing the existing and future housing needs of West Hawaii. Because of projected population growth in this area, there is an acute need for affordable housing. In response to this need, the HFDC developed a project called the Villages of La'i'opua, or "Kealakehe Planned Community." The Villages of La'i'opua is intended to implement the Governor's Comprehensive State Housing Plan in West Hawaii. The primary objective of this planned community is to provide affordable housing units in the West Hawaii region. Sixty percent of the units developed will be targeted to those meeting the income criteria for affordable housing, and 40 percent of the housing units will be sold at market prices. Additional objectives of the planned community include the provision of necessary infrastructure and facilities (including roadways, sewers and a new high school) to support the proposed residential units, and also regional needs. The Villages of La'i'opua roadway system includes the constructed portion of Kealakehe Parkway. However, because the Kealakehe Parkway corridor extends beyond the limits of the HFDC project, HFDC was unable to complete Kealakehe Parkway. Therefore, for Kealakehe Parkway to fully achieve its goals, including the enhancement of access to Kealakehe High School (which is sr•.hedulPd to oven in September. 1997 and is within the Villages of La'i'opua), Kealakehe Parkway will need to be extended from the HFDC property line to Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road. The project addressed in this final EIS is this completing roadway segment. The HFDC portion of Kealakehe Parkway was completed in August 1995. Therefore, the roadway segment now proposed will connect a previously constructed segment of Kealakehe Parkway to Mamalahoa Highway, thereby establishing a through route. In September 1990 the Governor accepted the Kealakehe Planned Community Final Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) and the rules and regulations of the State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC). This environmental impact statement (EIS) 1-4 identified and assessed the environmental and social impacts that could result from the Kealakehe Planned Community, including the roadway infrastructure that the HFDC proposed to construct as part of the planned community. Kealakehe Parkway was one of two proposed regional arterial roadways described in the EIS. With the environmental process completed for the HFDC's planned community and associated infrastructure, the SDOT then initiated aState-funded feasibility study and the environmental review process for the completing segment of Kealakehe Parkway to Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road. Since federal funding was later obtained for this completing segment, both State and federal environmental procedures (pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (DOT) 49 U.S.C. 303, and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)) are being followed. f.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT The purpose of the project ("the proposed action") is to address needs and demands of the following types: system linkage needs; • existing transportation demand and capacity needs; • safety needs; and economic development needs. 1.2.1 System Linkage Needs The area is presently served by two State highways: Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway (see Figure 1-3). Although Queers Kaahumanu Highway extends continuously through the area, the State Route System presently terminates where Mamalahoa Highway becomes Palani Road. Palani Road, a County roadway, connects Mamalahoa Highway with the town of Kailua-Kona. To provide a continuous State Route System, a State roadway that connects Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway is needed. 1-5 ~ O O ZZ F Z U O ~ A/1 N F o c' ~ J / ~I Y ~ ~ i~~ o Z _ ~ ~ o ~ ~ N O O O U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Q a o Q- / W C~ U K ~ ¢ ¢ W W ? Z Q Z " ~ &l • a ' ' / ro u I 4 ~ ' I 3 i wed 3 Y W e r ~ Q 3 f-~/ O J ~ ~ a Q a J w QL~w "N~, • J rn 1~~ a ~ Q Z = w ~ ~ ~ Y ~ J ^ S I..L O s• Z Z ~ ~ a • ~ • ~ ~a ~ i t ~ ¢ C ~ a J.~ S~ d Q ' z ~ ~ J a W ~ LAHOA FtWY~ a • ® g ~ N ~ Z 7 L k' ~ ~ ` W M W ~ LL L.L ~ l N Y O ? Q Z ~ W Z y J LL ~ Y 3L• J U po N ~ ~K Q N V O J W ~ _ ~ O N ~ ~ Y ~ ~ Z® Q ~`i W = Y 1-6 1.2.2 Existing Transportation Demand and Capacity Needs Existing traffic is frequently congested on several of North Kona's roadway segments. As shown in Tables 1-ia and 1-1 b, several roadway segments experience Levels-Of- Service of E or F during the morning and/or evening peak travel periods. (The 1985 Hiahwav Capacity Manual defines six Levels-Of-Service, ranging from best to worst conditions, which are labeled A through F. The proposed Kealakehe Parkway is expected to achieve LOS C.) In part because of existing levels of congestion, Kealakehe Parkway has been identified in various plans, such as the Island of Hawaii Lono Range Hiahwav Plan (May 1991) and the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (April 1991), as necessary to improve existing traffic circulation throughout the Kealakehe area. The completion of Kealakehe Parkway, which will be designed to a higher speed than Palani Road, will provide an improved, alternative route to Palani Road for the transportation of people and goods within North Kona and between North Kona and other regions of the island. It will aid in alleviating existing traffic congestion on Palani Road by being able to convey larger volumes of traffic at higher speeds. 1.2.3 Safety Needs Between 1986 and 1990, there were 165 reported accidents on Palani Road. Kealakehe Parkway will divert through traffic from Palani Road, and because of its superior geometries, Kealakehe Parkway will be safer than Palani Road for the types and volumes of traffic anticipated. 1.2.4 Economic Development Needs Wes[ Hawaii is one of the fastest growing areas in the State of Hawaii. Although the State's population only increased by 15 percent from 1970 to 1990, the population of West Hawaii tripled during this same period, increasing from 14,472 to 43,373. Population in the North Kona District alone increased 62 percent between 1980 and 1990, from 13,648 to 22,248. The number of housing units in West Hawaii increased 115 percent between 1980 and 1990. 1-7 Table i-ia SELECTED EXISTING AND FUTURE NO-BUILD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A.M. PEAK Existing (1993) Year 2015 Volume Volume Percent Roadway Segment (veh/hr) LOS (vehlhr) LOS Increase Mamalahoa Highway: between Kaiminani Dr. and 658 E 705 E 7.14 Old Mamalahoa Hwy. Palani Road: between Old Mamalahoa Hwy. 630 E 880 F 39.68 and Kealakaa St. between Kealakaa St. and 445 F 550 F 23.60 Oueen Kaahumanu Hwy. Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.: south of Kaiminani Dr. 462 D 870 'B 88.31 between Honokohau Harbor Rd/ 214 E 400 'B 86.92 Kealakehe Pkwy and Palani Rd "assumes queen Kaahumanu Highway is widened to four lanes. Table 1-ib P.M. PEAK Existing (1993) Year 2015 Volume Volume Percent Roadway Segment (vehlhr) LOS _ (vehA+r) LOS Increase Mamalahoa Highway: between Kaiminani Dr. and 331 D 420 E 26.89 Old Mamalahoa Hwy. Palani Road: between Old Mamalahoa Hwy. 349 E 540 F 54.73 and Kealakaa St. between Kealakaa St. and 340 F 525 F 54.41 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.: south of Kaiminani Dr. 815 E 1040 'B 27.61 between Honokohau Harbor Rd/ 449 E 680 'C 51.45 Kealakehe Pkwy and Palani Rd `assumes queen Kaahumanu is widened to four lanes. Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, K ' U he Parkway Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Impact Report, November 1993. 1-8 Population growth and urban development is likely to continue in West Hawaii, and particularly in the Kailua-Kona area in the North Kona District. Kailua-Kona, a designated subregional planning area, is envisioned by both the County and State of Hawaii for substantial future urban development. For example, in the County's Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map, the region that encompasses Kealakehe Parkway is designated for urban expansion. Keahole to Kailua has been reclassified from agricultural land use to urban land use. Most of this growth is expected to be generated by expansion of the resort industry in the coastal areas of South Kohala and North Kona. In conformance with these governmental expectations of future growth, several large- scale development projects in the vicinity of Kealakehe Parkway have been announced. Most notably, the HFDC is presently planning to construct the Villages of La'i'opua (see Figure 1-1 HFDC's project is an attempt to reduce the island's affordable housing shortage by providing over 4,000 residential dwelling units for approximately 14,200 persons within the next 20 years. The Villages of La'i'opua will accommodate a variety of non-residential uses as well, including new elementary and high schools. The high school is expected to oven in September 1997. One of the most important purposes of the proposed completion of Kealakehe Parkway is to convey traffic originating at or destined for the Villages of La'i'opua, including traffic generated by the high school. Kealakehe Parkway will provide the Villages of La'i'opua with access to both Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road so that the new traffic volumes associated with the Villages of La'i'opua will be accommodated without affecting the existing residential areas of Kealakehe. In addition to the Villages ~f La'i'opua, several other large projects have been proposed for the region. These include a West Hawaii branch of the State university, with associated housing and other land uses; development of the Queen Liliuokalani Trust lands; development plans far Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; development plans for Palani Ranch; and expansion of the Kaloko Industrial Park. The U. S. National Park Servi is also proposing to develop the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park on lanas west (makai) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and north of Honokohau Harbor. The Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park has been established to further the preservation, interpretation, and perpetuation of traditional 1-9 Native Hawaiian activities and culture. The Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park is expected to be a major regional attraction which will generate traffic. Levels-Of-Service are already poor for many roadway segments in the area, even without the future growth that is expected. Traffic volumes will only increase as the population in the region continues to grow, producing increasing congestion. Tables 1-1a and 1-1b provide a comparison of existing and future traffic volumes. Kealakehe Parkway will help provide new capacity to convey traffic associated with future growth in the Kailua-Kona area. 1.2.5 Proposed Intersection Improvements and New Intersections New intersections will be constructed at the eastern (mauka) terminus of Kealakehe Parkway. These intersections are necessary to accommodate the future volumes of traffic and traffic movements associated with Mamalahoa Highway, Old Mamalahoa Highway, Palani Road and Kealakehe Parkway converging within a relatively short distance of each other. Because of projected traffic volumes expected on Kealakehe Parkway after it is completed, improvements to the intersection of Kealakehe Parkway and queen Kaahumanu Highway will be warranted. As shown in Tables 1-2a and 1-2b, Levels-Of- Service will be E or F for several of the movements at this intersection if improvements are not made. The SDQT will improve this intersectiorLas part of the Queen Kaah imams widenino nroiect i .2.6 Detour Road To maintain the flow of traffic during the construction of the eastern (mauka) terminus of Kealakehe Parkway, it will be necessary to construct a detour road. The detour road will convey through traffic traveling on Mamalahoa Highway, Old Mamalahoa Highway and Palanl Road while the future intersections at the eastern (mauka) terminus of Kealakehe Parkway are constructed, and a portion of Palani Road is realigned. After Kealakehe Parkway opens to traffic, the detour road will remain in place to provide access to a small number of homes on Palani Ranch. 1-10 Table 1.2a QUEEN KAANUMANU NIGNWAY/KEALAKEHE PARKWAYMARBOR INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE A.M. PEAK Year 2015 Volume LOS w/o Performance Turning Movement (vehlhr) Signalization w/Signalization (overall intersection NB left-turn from Highway 70 B operates at SB left-turn from Highway 280 F approximately LOS Left-turn from Harbor 65 F C or better) Through movement from Harbor 15 F Right-turn from Harbor 30 A Left-turn from Kealakehe Pkwy 405 F Through movement from Kealakehe 30 F Right-turn from Kealakehe Pkwy 270 D Table 1-2b P.M. PEAK Year 2015 Volume LOS w/o Performance Turning Movement (veh/hr) Signalization w/Signalization (overall intersection NB left-turn from Highway 85 C operates at SB left-turn from Highway 350 F approximately LOS Left-turn from Harbor 65 F C or better) Through movement from Harbor 35 F Right-turn from Harbor 100 A Left-turn from Kealakehe Pkwy 430 F Through movement from Kealakehe 30 F Right-turn from Kealakehe Pkwy 240 D our e: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Kealakehe Feasibility Studv and Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Impact Report, November 1993. 1-11 1.2.7 Conclusion The constructed portion of Kealakehe Parkway, which is limited to the Villages of La'i'opua, does not satisfy the needs identified above. Completion of Kealakehe Parkway to Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road is needed to satisfy the system linkage, transportation demand and capacity, safety and economic development needs stated above. 1-12 CHAPTER 2.0 ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the alternatives initially considered but rejected for further study; the alternatives considered in the draft EIS; and the Preferred Alternative that has b .Pn s .I ..ted. Four categories of alternatives were evaluated to determine how well they would satisfy the project purposes described in Chapter 1.0. These categories of alternatives are'. • the no action or "No Build" alternative; • Transportation System Management (TSM) and public transit alternative; • improvements to existing corridors, i.e., widening Palani Road or improving Hina Lani Street; and • completing Kealakehe Parkway within the corridor that is proposed (the "build" alternatives). Fourteen alignments within the proposed corridor have been evaluated. Section 2.2 describes those alternatives selected from the four categories above that have been eliminated from further analysis. Section 2.3 describes those alternatives selected from the categories above that are addressed in Chapter 4.0. Section 2.4 provides the project schedule and cost, and S .rtion ~ descri6 s the Preferred AltPrn^tivP that has he .n sel ..ted and the basis for its selection. 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED INITIALLY BUT REJECTED FOR FURTHER STUDY 2.2.1 First-Cut Screening A first-cut screening was performed to eliminate those alternatives that would not achieve the project purposes, or clearly had relatively high levels of environmental impact. Section 2.2.1.1 describes the evaluation criteria employed in this first cut 2-1 screening, and the alternatives eliminated from further study are described in Section 2.2.1.2. 2.2.1.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA The first-cut screening was based on the following evaluation criteria: • consistency with State and County regional plans; • conformance to the State Route System; design speed; maximum grade; minimum horizontal radius; and residential parcels and public facilities affected. Each criterion will now be discussed in more detail. Consistency with State and County Regional Plans The completion of Kealakehe Parkway must be consistent with State and County plans. The Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (April 1991) and the Island of Hawaii Long Range Hiahway Plan (May 1991) address the need for and establish an integrated system of roadways to form a surface transportation network in the North Kona region (see Figure 2-1 Kealakehe Parkway is included as one of the proposed roadways in the State and County regional plans. Conformance to the State Route Svstem The State Route System is the backbone circulation system for the movement of people and goods between various regions of the island. Since roadways on the State Route System are generally higher speed facilities with greater traffic capacity, the selected alternative should conform to arterial road design standards. Additionally, the proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway should connect to Mamalahoa Highway in such a way as to form the through route, rather than forming the stem of a T-intersection. Connecting Kealakehe Parkway to Mamalahoa Highway as the through route will provide better traffic operations, since the higher speed facilities will form the through route. 2-2 ` ~ ~ li < J ` < ~ w m S ~ ` > o o W ~o ~aa2G a ~T U' ~ J N< pia C ~ N pp RR Z p 6 7 V WR pY6 f LL ~ _ ~y Z I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ z 3a w~ ~ c ~ y ~ w b ~ _ m w e ~ o a~ _ ~ S J Q _ ~ ! ~ oRrvE 83 - 5 w ~ S~ ~ W ¢ U 0 y ~ G F~~ z~ <7N? O Q 1 ~ ~ p \ ~ « , , ¢ W ~ Y <y 160 ~ ~o, y ~ 2 tt ~ \ 1 I 33 ~ Q Y or ~ \ 5~ V ~ Vii, y Y Q r., G 1 n O Y J _ w > r w I ~ g J ~ O V Q U Y x w 5 ~ ~ ~'I• 11.1 w~ x I 3 1 ism ~ v-. W - w ~~i, m a~i i~u, 'zgQ ~ ¢ o ~ w .7 m ~ ¢ 3 ' g\TV DRIVE ~ ~ a n Q n 0P ~ ~ L..~ a p ~ ~ ~3AIH0 ~__°z m ~ ~ ~ / ~cw7 7, m m e / ~ m ~1 p p Qb% oa< 0 3 9 ¢aV ~ x ~ ~ Z (j m 0 T I r N~ o m m < O w O Y 'I~ U I~ fl O N N 2-3 Design Soeed The design speed of a roadway is determined by the terrain and type of facility proposed. The grade of the terrain on which the proposed Kealakehe Parkway will be constructed is relatively steep. The design speed of the proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway is 60 km/h (40 mph), and it is anticipated that the posted speed limit will be 56 km/h (35 mph). Maximum Grade Maximum grade depends on the roadway classification, design speed, and terrain conditions in the area. In accordance with statewide standards for an arterial roadway, the maximum grade should not exceed 10 percent. Minimum Horizontal Radius The horizontal curves in a roadway alignment affect the speed at which vehicles can safely and comfortably travel on the roadway. The minimum radius is that dimension at which vehicles can comfortably maintain the posted speed limit while safely traversing a turn in the alignment. The minimum horizontal radius for an arterial roadway with a design speed of 60 km/h (40 mph) and a maximum superelevation rate of six percent is 135 meters (443 feet). Residential Parcels and Public Facilities Affected It is highly desirable that the proposed alignment have minimal impacts on residential areas. The proposed alignment should also minimize irnpacts on community facilities, including churches, parks, recreation centers, schools, clinics, and hospitals. 2.2.1.2 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED IN THE FIRST CUT Alternatives considered but rejected in the first cut were the TSM and public transit alternative, improvements to existing corridors, and 10 of the 14 alignment alternatives proposed for the corridor within Kealakehe. These rejected alternatives will now be described, and the basis for their rejection provided. 2-4 2.2.1.2.1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) AND PUBLIC TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE The TSM and public transit alternative to the project would consist of implementing transit or para-transit systems in the region and selected transportation control measures (TCMs), such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and ridesharing programs. The applicability of this alternative to the still rural conditions of this part of North Kona is not clear. This alternative would not satisfy the project purposes of eliminating the discontinuity in the State Route System between Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway, and providing a link between the Villages of La'i'opua and Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further study. 2.2.1.2.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING CORRIDORS This alternative consists of widening Palani Road or upgrading Hina Lani Street. Palani Road could be made a State facility; widened to four lanes; and realigned to have a minimum radius of 180 meters (600 feet), a maximum grade of 8.5 percent, and a design speed of 60 km/h (40 mph). Thr: right-of-way for Palani Road would need to be widened to a minimum of 36.6 meters (120 feet). This alternative would link Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway by a State facility, eliminating the discontinuity in the State Route System. However, contrary to existing State and County plans, it would not provide access from the Villages of La'i'opua to Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road. It would also affect up to 71 residences and a religious facility. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further analysis. Improvements to Hina Lani Street, a recently completed County roadway, could be made, and the road converted to a State facility. This alternative would eliminate the discontinuity in the Slate Route System, but contrary to State and County plans, would not provide access from the Villages of La'i'opua to Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road. Moreover, existing truck traffic experiences operational difficulties on Hina Lani Street. Trucks that are eastbound (mauka-bound) on Hina Lani Street can have difficulty climbing the steep uphill grade and making a left turn onto Mamalahoa Highway after 2-5 coming to a stop at the intersection. This left-turn movement also creates difficulties for through traffic traveling at high speed on Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road. These existing difficulties would become even more significant when considering the truck traffic projected for the future. For these reasons, the alternative of improving Hina Lani Street was dismissed from further study. 2.2.1.2.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVES WITHIN THE KEALAKEHE CORRIDOR Fourteen alignments within the Kealakehe corridor have been considered. Ten of these were dismissed during the first cut screening, and the rejected alternatives are discussed here. The evaluation of most of these alternatives was presented in the Kealakehe Parkway Technical Memorandum (October 1992). Alternatives 1 through 5 were developed for the Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC) to assure the feasibility of linking the Villages of La'i'opua with Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road (see Figure 2-2). Thereafter, to reduce the impact that Alternatives 1 through 5 would have on residential parcels, and to improve upon the profiles of these alternatives, Alternatives 6 and 7 were developed (see Figure 2- 3). Following a public information meeting held in Kailua-Kona in August 1992 that introduced the first seven alternatives, Alternatives 6A, S, 9, 9A and 9B were developed. Figure 2-3 shows Alternatives 6, 7, 9, 9A and 9B, and Figure 2-4 shows Alternatives 6A and 8. Alternatives 1 through 9, 6A, 9A and 9B were evaluated against each other using the criteria described in Section 2.2.1.1. Table 2-1 summarizes this screening analysis. Of the alternatives analyzed in the first cut screening, two (6A and S) were selected for further analysis. These two alternatives passed the first cut screening because they are the only alternatives that meet all of the design criteria and have reasonable engineering solutions. (Alternative 6 was dismissed because of engineering and economic considerations, see following section.) 2-6 ~ tti0hwa~rAZ• - ~~ar~ : J s i? ~ ~ ~"`"Y~ ~y01d Mamalah°..~rf°"~~ _ y~ I _ _.l"_ f - Fem. J~r ~ ~ ,../~y L ~ .d ~Yf~ 1 : ~ ~M1. ~ _ Alternative 3 . ~ `i: .rte:^~ i ~ ~ YP•, ~ iVjy ~ 'z . r"_ Alternative 4 ~ ~s_.~" : ^ '-.o- ~ r1 r-. ~ ~ KIWI ~f{.C ~ ,r. ~ . r a mow. r Irv. ` ~ ~ 1!O _ r: ;a Iternative 1 ~ ~ ~ • I . 1 ~ ""Kealakaa Street ~ , r 'rr ~ ; .Alternative 2 ly ~ Alternative 5 u , ~ 4 ~ ~ r . • r _ '1 - t i ^ ! ^y r _ ~..lJy.. ~j w - / 'r - _ ^ , .J _ - - ' ice. - ' Constructed Parkway o ioo zoo aoo 2 SCALEICALEI°S ALTERNATIVES 1 2 3 4 AND 5 Figure soo i2oo KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS SCALE IN FEET 2-~ . male d"_~ac; 1` - ._-Old sr`OS ~ -~'\-L~'`' .pia': > ` ' Altemative 9B °\y'~~•~`''F`,%~.9y~~~ f ~ Altemative 6 _-~-~_"YY~~//~~ ~~.~.^-f-•~„~~-,w~ a_--.-~.,-.`~^•-~: ~ ~ t _:~-'^'"1 i\ ~ , ._:r'~ ten,' v~ ~ Altemative 9A f' ; '~~Kaalaku Street = ~ j .nom • y ~ ~ ~ i'{; s \ f N f~ Alternative 7 • ~1":,;,~Ylr^ "~'"~y~ _ ~ T l...i. Alternative 9 _~,...-'"~.r'-~ ~ ~ 7~ j~^~ .c t.. ~ ~ _ 'ter` ~/a.--~../~...1',tJ ~ S n ' vY ~,ConstructedPukWay ' _ .~i.1.~~y 0 700 200 300 tl SCALE°s ALTERNATIVES 6, 7, 9, 9A AND 9B Figure soo 1200 KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS 2~V aaa~ao SCALE IN FEET 2-8 Mema~aho ~ a~^~'y d Mamal T] ~i-~ 'Y~~9 ~i"'~ r'!,~ C '!-'^~~"_"Y~~~~M.,-.ter'" ,f~ "tr' S ~ ~'\,{,yiv ~ '`rw-~i~. j~_t-..,u"/~"'~": ~,v'~'4~ rte.,"-..~ .~,i\~-ti'7~ ~f,~4,,, ~~-~`~.~~%`'~~C~a~?~aaSiree^~~- \ `t_; Alternative 6A - Alternative S yw~~~`_,~, ',~.~'°,=~t ~ r`~.`{--~ I L, ti ~,_._r.--'"` ,-~,:,_.:~~;.._..._----vim--~~.~~.,~ .~T`aw~~.....-...`i,.`-~,~.~,,,` . val..! ~r-- - +-Constructed Parkway ALTERNATIVES 6A AND 8 Figure scale in meters soo i2oo KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS 2-4 scale in feet 2-9 O } } } O N Z ,a m Y s'+S' cOD N Z N O) ~ M ~ N O ~p ~ ~ C O N fA ° y~ co } } } ~ ~ c~ z ~ s ~ o Z a a x $ C CD } } } ~ N N Z ~ m ~ ~ v N k' r N LL ~n } Z: } ~1' ~ o Z ~ a v O C 41 ~ a z ~ ~v 'R y v } } ~ ~ r~ Z M ~ v ~ o ~ ~ o d c~ } } } t~ ~ ~ Z m ° t ~ r' ~ E " ~ C v O W V N } ~ } ~I. c0 v Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ti-< ~ m y ~ m = 7 ~ ~H O r C C r«:: M F m m y LL C ~ a ~ ~ m 3 ~ v ~ ~ ~ E o ~n -o -o ~ = ~ a U ~ o r ~ m ~ d ~C v N C N N N L N 3 ~ ~ L ~ ~ a ow E Y o ~ ~ Y ~ E mQ Y ~ ~i N O y T O N C f v x A w N r ~ ~ ~ U N N x - A o v 3 V 3 C O C C U U l0 C c ~ v v y ~ ~ y w O~ m y V cTia c o. -~'o ~ a~ ~ m ¢ o ~o~~~ ~ ~ ~ (0 ~ U vi p p }Z v_! O O ~ 01 ~ CC ~ ~ U L a >Z~Y .RQ C Ol C y 01 O N O T Cl ~ ~ N N~ ~ v U¢ U~ O ~ ~ ¢ ¢w w ~ Z 2-10 Alternatives 1 through 9, 6A, 9A and 9B are described below. • Alternative 1. The proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway would intersect Palani Road forming the stem of a T-intersection. The alignment would conform to State and County regional plans, but not to the concept of the State Route System forming the through route. The design speed would be 60 km/h (40 mph). The minimum horizontal radius would be 350 meters (1,150 feet). The alignment's maximum grade would be 11.9 percent, which would exceed the maximum allowed for an arterial. This 3.1 kilometer (1.9-mile) alignment would divide an existing community and would affect six residential parcels. Therefore, Alternative 1 was eliminated from further discussion. • Alternative 2. The proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway would intersect Mamalahoa Highway at the Hina Lani Street intersection, forming afour-legged intersection. These roadways would intersect at odd angles, forming an undesirable intersection configuration where turning movements between Hina Lani Street and Kealakehe Parkway would be difficult. The 4.0 kilometer (2.5-mile) alignment would conform to State and County regional plans, but would not conform to the concept of the facilities on the State Route System forming the through route. The design speed would be 60 km/h (40 mph), and the minimum horizontal radius would be 180 meters (600 feet). The maximum grade of 12 percent would exceed the maximum allowed for an arterial. No public facilities would be affected, but four residential parcels could be affected. Alternative 2 was eliminated from further discussion. • Alternative 3. The proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway would form the through route with Kealakehe Parkway joining Mamalahoa Highway south of the Palani Road/Old Mamalahoa Highway junction. Palani Road would be realigned to form the stem of a T-intersection at its intersection with Kealakehe Parkway. Alternative 3 would conform to State and County regional plans, and the concept of the State Route System forming the through route. This 3.9 kilometer (2.4-mile) alternative would have a 60 km/h (40 mph) design speed, a minimum horizontal radius of 180 meters (600 feet) and a maximum grade of 10.4 percent which would exceed the maximum allowed for an arterial. This alignment, however, fragments an established residential subdivision and may affect as many as 24 residential 2-11 parcels. No public facilities would be affected, but the alternative was eliminated due to the potential residential impacts. • Alternative 4. The proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway would intersect Palani Road, forming the stem of a T-intersection. While the alignment would conform to State and County regional plans, it would not conform to the concept of the facilities on the State Route System forming the through route. The design speed of this 3.0 kilometer (2.0-mile) alignment would be 60 km/h (40 mph). The minimum horizontal radius would be 320 meters (1,050 feet) and the maximum grade would be 9.3 percent. This alignment would run between existing houses and would affect three parcels. No public facilities would be affected, but the alternative was eliminated due [o the criterion of the State facility forming the through route. • Alternative 5. The proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway would intersect Mamalahoa Highway at the Palani Road/Old Mamalahoa Highway junction, forming the south leg of a cross intersection. The 3.9 kilometer (2.4-mile) alignment would have a design speed of 60 km/h (40 mph) and a minimum horizontal radius of 180 meters (600 feet). The maximum grade of 12 percent would exceed the maximum allowed for an arterial. No residential parcels or public facilities appear to be affected. The alternative would conform to State and County regional plans, bu[ would not conform to the concept of the facilities on State Route System forming the through route, and therefore was eliminated. • Alternative 6. The proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway and Mamalahoa Highway would form the through route, with Kealakehe Parkway joining Mamalahoa Highway just south of the Palani Road/Old Mamalahoa Highway junction. This alternative would require realignment of a short segment of Palani Road to form the stem of a T-intersection with Kealakehe Parkway. This alternative would conform to State and County regional plans and the concept of the facilities on the State Route System forming the through route. The 3.9 kilometer (2.4-mile) alternative would have a minimum radius of 210 meters (700 feet), a maximum grade of 8.8 percent, and a design speed of 60 km/h (40 mph). The upper area of this alignment would affect two residential parcels, but no public facilities. Alternative 6 was eliminated from further discussion because it would require a retaining wall on the order of 13 meters (40 feet) tall, an excessive amount of excavation, and an associated high level of cost. 2-12 • Alternative 6A. The proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway would form the through road, with Kealakehe Parkway joining Mamalahoa Highway just south of the Palani Road/Oid Mamalahoa Highway junction. This alternative would require realignment of a short segment of Palani Road to form the stem of a T-intersection with Kealakehe Parkway. This alternative would conform to State and County regional plans and the concept of the facilities on the State Route System forming the through route. This 3.9 kilometer (2-4 mile) alternative would have a minimum radius of 240 meters (800 feet), a maximum grade of 8.8 percent, and a design speed of 60 km/h (40 mph). The upper area of this alignment would affect four residential parcels, but no public facilities. • Alternative 7. The proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway would form the through route, with Kealakehe Parkway replacing approximately 1.25 kilometer (4,100 feet) of the northernmost portion of Palani Road before taking a westerly (makai) heading. This alternative would also require realignment of a short segment of Palani Road to form the stem of a T-intersection with Kealakehe Parkway, approximately 430 meters (1,400 feet) south of the Hao Kuni Street intersection. This 3.7 kilometer (2.3-mile) alignment would conform to the State and County regional plans and the concept of the facilities on the State Route System forming the th ugh route. This alternative would have a minimum horizontal radius of 350 meters (1,150 feet), a maximum grade of 10 percent, and a design speed of 60 km/h (40 mph). As many as 22 residential parcels and a religious facility may be affected. Alternative 7 was eliminated from further discussion. • Alternative 8. The proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway would be a continuation of Mamalahoa Highway, joining the highway just south of the Palani Road/Old Mamalahoa -lighway junction. This alternative would also require realignment of a short segment of Palani Road to form the stem of a T-intersection with Kealakehe Parkway. This 3.8 kilometer (2.4-mile) alternative would conform to State and County regional plans and the concept of the facilities on the State Route System forming the through route. This alternative would have a design speed of 60 km/h (40 mph), a minimum horizontal radius 305 meters (1,000 feet) and a maximum grade of 9.5 percent. Three residential parcels may be affected. 2-13 • Alternative 9. The proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway would form the through route from the west (makai) terminus and tie into a future mid-level road. Alternative 9, however, would not conform to State or County regional plans. This alternative would be severely restricted in its ability to convey traffic to the region's major arterial, to the activities proposed east (mauka) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, and to the Honokohau Boat Harbor. The length of the alignment would exceed 4.8 kilometers (3 miles). The design speed for this alternative would be 60 km/h (40 mph) and its minimum radius would be 670 meters (2,200 feet). The maximum grade of 11.8 percent would exceed the maximum desired grade of 10 percent. Three residential parcels may be affected. No existing public facilities would be affected. As the alignment crosses into the Villages of La'i'opua, substantial adverse impacts to that development would occur. This alternative's north-south alignment would also have additional impacts on properties beyond (south of) the HFDC's Villages of La'i'opua development. Alternative 9 was therefore eliminated from further discussion. • Alternative 9A. The proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway would form the through route. This alternative would conform to State and County regional plans and the concept of the facilities on the State Route System forming the through route. This alternative would be 3.5 kilometers (2.1 miles) in length and would have a design speed of 60 km/h (40 mph). Alternative 9A would have a minimum horizontal radius of 455 meters (1,500 feet) and a maximum grade of 11.4 percent. No public facilities would be affected. Since the grade exceeds the maximum grade of 10 percent, and two residential parcels would be affected, this alternative was eliminated. • Alternative 9B. The proposed segment of Kealakehe Parkway would form the through route. This alternative would conform to State and County regional plans and the concept of the facilities on the State Route System forming the through route. This alternative would be 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) in length and would have a design speed of 60 km/h (40 mph). Alternative 9B would have a minimum horizontal radius of 560 meters (1,850 feet) and a maximum grade of 14.3 percent. No public facilities would be affected. Since the grade exceeds the maximum grade of 10 percent, and two residential parcels would be affected, this alternative was eliminated. 2-14 2.2.2 Second•Cut Screening After Alternatives 6A and 8 were selected in the first-cut screening, an alignment refinement process was performed. This refinement process was based on a botanical survey and a historic and archaeological field reconnaissance. These two surveys allowed the two additional criteria of impacts on botanical resources, and impacts on historic and archaeological resources, to be applied to Alternatives 6A and 8. The botanical survey was conducted within a 91 meter (300-foot) corridor centered on Alternatives 6A and 8. A report was prepared that provided a description of the general vegetation types in the area, and an assessment of the potential involvement of the project with endangered and threatened plant species. The botanical survey indicated that none of the plant species observed along Alternatives 6A and S are presently listed endangered or threatened species. However, two colonies of Ko'oko'olau (Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla), which is a "Candidate 1" species, were found along Alternative 8. (A "Candidate 1" species is a rare species that could potentially be listed as an endangered or threatened species in the future.) The archaeological field reconnaissance was also conducted within a 91 meter (300- foot) corridor centered on each alignment. The purposes of this reconnaissance survey were to help develop an alignment that avoids significant archaeological sites and to determine the scope of future research. Therefore, while helpful in refining an alignment, a preliminary survey is not sufficient to submit to the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) State Historic and Preservation Office (SHPO) as part of an EIS. The archaeological reconnaissance survey identified 86 archaeological sites along Alternatives 6A and 8. Twenty-two of these were recommended far data recovery/preservation or partial or complete preservation. These initial findings indicated the need for a subsequent, more detailed archaeological inventory survey of the area, and also indicated that the alignments of Alternatives 6A and S needed to be modified to minimize impacts on significant archaeological resources. 2-15 2.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER STUDY IN THE DRAFT EIS 2.3.1 Evaluation Because of the botanical and archeological findings summarized in the previous section, it was determined that Alternatives 6A and 8 would need to be modified to minimize the overall level of impact on archeological resources. Alternatives 10 and 11 (described in Sections 2.3.2.2 and 2.3.2.3) were then developed as modifications of Alternatives 6A and S, and were selected to be the two build alternatives addressed in detail in the draft EIS. Alternatives 10 and 11 would have fewer impacts on archaeological resources than Alternatives 6A and 8 because of the significance of the specific resources affected, and the nature of the irnpact on those resources. They were therefore selected as the two build alternatives to receive additional study in the draft EIS. The No Build alternative was also considered in the draft EIS and is considered in this final EIS as well. The No Build alternative provides a baseline for assessing the environmental impacts of the build alternatives. 2.3.2 Description of Alternatives Selected for Further Study in the Draft EIS 2.3.2.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build alternative consists of the existing roadway network and those roadway improvements other than the project addressed in this final EIS that are expected to be in place relatively soon. In addition to the existing roadway network, this alternative includes: • the segment of Kealakehe Parkway that was completed within the Villages of La'i'opua in August, 1995; • the widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway from its present two lanes to four lanes between Keahole Airport and Palani Road; and 2-16 intarsartinn imnrnvemenis at Oueen Kaahumanu Hinhwav and Kealakehe Parkwav 2.3.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 10 Figure 2-5 shows Alternative 10. Kealakehe Parkway would form the through road with Kealakehe Parkway joining Mamalahoa Highway just south of the Palani Road/Old Mamalahoa Highway junction. This 4.0 kilometer (2.5-mile) alternative would require realignment of a short segment of Palani Road [o form the stem of a T-intersection with Kealakehe Parkway. Alternative 10 would conform to State and County regional plans and to the concept of the facilities on the State Route System forming the through route. This alternative would have a design speed of 60 km/h (40 mph), a minimum horizontal radius of 275 meters (915 feet) and a maximum grade of 9.0 percent. One residential parcel would be affected. No public facilities would be affected (see Table 2-1 2.3.2.3 ALTERNATIVE 11 Figure 2-5 shows Alternative 11. Kealakehe Parkway would be an extension of Mamalahoa Highway, joining the highway just south of the Palani Road/Old Mamalahoa Highway junction. This 4,0 kilometer (2.5-mile) alternative would require realignment of a short segment of Palani Road to form the stem of a T-intersection with Kealakehe Parkway. The alignment would conform to State and County regional plans and the concept of the facilities on the State Route System forming the through route. This alternative would have a design speed of 60 km/h (40 mph), a minimum horizontal radius of 275 meters (915 feet), and a maximum grade of 9.5 percent. One residential parcel would be affected. No public facilities would be affected (see Table 2-1 2.3.2.4 FEATURES COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES 10 AND i i Alternative 10 or 11 would be a four-lane State highway with two westbound (makai- bound) lanes, two eastbound (mauka-bound) lanes, a center median, and shoulders on both sides. Figure 1-2 shows a typical section of the proposed roadway. The 2-17 4'ia ~ ~•~r~. Old Mamalah°aN~9hway °a Mi9hµay o - . r~ . \ ,,,~--,L.~.a.a. Detour Road Corridor ° `+l`~~'-`~;~= =~_--ter/- w ' _ . --~--i • 1. jj7~~ ~i t\ ~ r.4~---'h,xNl fry.,.."Y l _ ' f ~v' 1.~~~ =~~~1~-~~~,,;;,~,~~ K kaa Street ~ ~ Alternative 10 ~ _"1' i _ ~ "i ,`1r w }ti fire _•--["~~--/~.,n~1\ ~vl~~~. Alternative 11 ~ --°,,,v~~t,.:,~,L..,,~, ~~.~i`~''..,~.-.U, y ! ` j t't ~'~~..r'~ /"i'y~~~r~v--'^--~,r w-~--.'fir:^' 4~.~~.,~.1,~.~.J r,:. « .~G. l...- -r ~'1 .-r',-1.^ ~~r~'~ i .l.'~v_ i.\_~ ./ef.~"~,ri~ lam' -~-Constructed Parkway ° '.o~ ALTERNATIVES 10 AND 11 AND Figure ~ scale in meters DETOUR ROAD CORRIDOR 6°° ,z°° 2.5 ~ KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS scale in feet 2-~$ typical section would be 36.6 meters (120 feet) wide, but additional right-of-way would be required in most places for excavations and embankments which would be necessary to achieve the proper roadway profile. Excavations would have a slope of 1:2 (vertical:horizontal) while embankments would have 1:3 slopes. The limits of the right-of-way to be acquired for the project would be established during the project's design phase. Having two lanes in each direction would better handle forecasted levels of traffic and allow vehicles to safely pass slower moving trucks. The paved shoulder could accommodate bicycle travel in each direction. The center median could accommodate an underground utility corridor. The me;dian's width of 8.6 meters (28 feet) is established by safety considerations, and is necessary to provide a recovery zone. Both alternatives would require a new intersection to connect Palani Road and the detour road with Kealakehe Parkway. The intersection would provide left-turn pockets for those turning from Kealakehe Parkway onto Palani Road or onto the detour road, and a median acceleration lane for vehicles making left turns onto Kealakehe Parkway from Palani Road or the detour road. Other improvements could include acceleration and deceleration lanes on Kealakehe Parkway to make turns off or onto Kealakehe Parkway. This intersection may also be signalized. Xeriscape landscaping would be provided. Details of the landscaping would be determined during the project's design phase. Approximately 230 meters (750 feet) of the portion of Kealakehe Parkway just north of the Villages of La'i'opua would be a transition zone from the typical section of Kealakehe Parkway within the Villages of La'i'opua (which is different from that proposed here) to the typical section shown in Figure 1-2. The profiles of Alternatives 10 and 11 have been optimized to balance the volumes of cuts and fills to the maximum degree practical, thereby minimizing the need to truck material on or off-site. Ample production from nearby quarries exists to satisfy fill requirements, if necessary. 2-19 With either Alternative 10 or 11, a detour road from Mamalahoa Highway to Palani Road would be required to maintain the flow of traffic during the construction of the east (mauka) terminus of Kealakehe Parkway. The corridor of the detour road is shown in Figure 2-6. The detour road would have a minimum radius of 180 meters (600 feet) and a design speed of 40 km/h (25 mph). It would have a 10.4 meter (34-foot) typical section, excluding embankment and excavation, and would provide one 3.6 meter (12- foot) lane in each direction and 2.4 meter (8.0-foot) shoulders on each side. The detour road's northern terminus would connect to Kealakehe Parkway directly opposite Old Mamalahoa Highway. The intersection improvements will be similar to the Palani Road/detour road intersection. Acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes and left-turn pockets would be provided. This intersection may also be signalized if traffic conditions warrant. 2.4 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COSTS The present schedule of the project is shown in Table 2-2. The approval processes are expected to be completed by mid 1998, and construction is expected to begin by 13tP. X001. Kealakehe Parkway is expected to open for service in ZQQZ. However, this schedule is contingent on additional appropriations from the State Legislature. Estimated costs for the completion of Kealakehe Parkway are shown in Table 2-3. These estimates include design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of all elements of the proposed project. ~ 5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR IDENTIFICATION Altern tip 11 h s b en identifi d ac th Pref rr d Alternative The identification of Altern^tiv 11 ~~^c m^de ^fter f ill v^I~^tion of the imRantc of the alternatives. the comments received fter noblic re~ie~ of the draft FIS and the commPntc made at the form^I noblic h ^rinq The back for this decision is minimisation of potential impacts on r^rP ^nd end^npPr d co ies ^nd ^r h^eolo9iral r sour c (in I idina Section 4(fl prooerti~l. and cost. 2-20 z Wm ~ , 2 \ ~c~\1ry a E ~ A~ J ~ N 0 !0 p ° j"' ~ ~ l0 / r ~ _ O o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ / ` ~ ~ O O i' ° c W ~ W H 'd ~ Q > a ° > V r ¢ a~ P , 'C Y ~ a Qroa 1 ~ W ~ cE a w ? ~ / a-- ~ ~ p I o ~ W a j.l 8 ~ C aE Q Y - W f- _ _ I ~ M N CV ~ - ' U ~ ~ 0 hJ ~ ~ O L.L a n / N - C ~ ~ ~°E N t q~> ~ °a~Q c«a ~ _ / 4p~ a c E m O C N C Q Z - m ~ m u u m / N O _ _ 0 2-21 Table 2.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE Start Right-of-Way Acquisition Mid 000 Start Construction Late 2001 Construction Duration 18 Months Source: Parsons Brinckerhott, p]w iR97. Table 2.3 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Alternative 10 Preferred Alternative Detour Road Design $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $61,000 Right-of-Way 3,600,000 3,500,000 213,000 Construction 39.700,000 34.600.000 605.000 TOTAL $47,300,000 $41,600,000 $879,000 Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff. February 1995 2-22 Although AIt .rnative 11 has heen id .ntified as the Preferred Alternative. formal ~~le~tion of the Preferred Alternative is not made until the Record of Decision (RODI is Ism Altarnati~io 10 would directly affect two endangered species. the Loulu Palm IPritchardia affinis) and the uhiuhi tree ( a .salrinia kavaiensis). and the candidate ~p i s Ko'oko'olau (Ridens micrantha ssn. ctenophvllal. Alternative 11 will directly affect only the endangered o it i Palm and indirectly affect the endangered uhiuhi tree Therefore Alternative 11 has fewer impacts nn rare snecles than Alternative 10. Alternative 11's impacts on endangered sn ..i .c wec P~ ill be mitigated. AIi rnative 11 ~~~ill also disturb fewer archaeological resources than Alternative 10 Alternative 10 ~~~ould affect 68 archeological features. while Alternative 11 will affect 53 features In addition Alternative 10 would affect two Section 4(fl properties. while Alternative 11 ~~~ill affect only nn . `~tlon_4(f) property. Alternative 11's archeological impa .ts wig II he mitigf t~ ecl Fin~^Ily Altern^tiv 11 ~~~ill be almost ~6 million less expensive than Alternative 10. Ahern^tivP 10's higher cost can be attributed to more excavation and fill activity Alt rnativ 11 in I id s the provision of environmental mitigation measures as d .sc'ri6~ ed in Cha t The No Build Altern^tive ~~~^s not identified as the Preferred Alternative because it ~~~ould not ~ovide a rontinuous State Route System between two State hiahwavs. QUPPn Kaahumanu Hiah~~~ay and Mamalahoa Highway. Conq stion on Paani Road ~~~ould ~•~orsen thus rontributing to the nntential for mor .traffic. accidents. In addition. the No B iild Altern^tive ~~~ould not facilitate access to the \/illaq s of a'i'ooua to s^rooort this plann .d community development. 2-23 CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The purpose of this chapter is to describe the environmental conditions in the area potentially affected by the project. 3.1 LAND USE AND SOILS 3.1.1 Regional Setting and Projected Growth The proposed Kealakehe Parkway will be located on the west side of the island of Hawaii in the North Kona District, about 3 kilometers (2 miles) north of Kailua-Kona and approximately 11 kilometers (7 miles) south of Keahole Airport. Kailua-Kona is the major activity center of West Hawaii. Historic Kailua Village is a town center and primary visitor attraction. A mix of resort, commercial, light industrial, and residential uses surround Kailua Village. In 1990, North Kona had a population of 22,284, which represented a 62 percent increase over the 1980 population. The coastal areas of North Kona and South Kohala are expected to experience further growth, significantly increasing the demand for new homes. A major development which will substantially increase the supply of homes in the area is HFDC's project, the Villages of La'i'opua (see Figure 3-1 This 390 hectare (960- acre) project will be a mixed-use residential community that will include: 4,100 residential units; a golf course; • an elementary and a high school; public facilities; and a commercial shopping center. One purpose of this master-planned community is to increase the supply of "affordable" housing in West Hawaii, and 60 percent of the units will be "affordable." 3-1 PLANNED SUBDIVISION COMMERCIAL yZP{ PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL ~..r f . ~ PALAN/ i PROPOSED ~o DETOUR RD ~ ' VILLAGES OF ' • tA'I'OPUA HIGH SCHOOL y ~ KEALAKEHE °o LANDFlLL KONA ~o~. ^ INDUSTRIAL RETAIL '~f~ PARK GOLF S~ ENTER) COURSE .QUARK INDUSTRIAL \GN.NP~ PARK EXPANSION AGRICULTURE KONA AREA POLICE KALOKO STATION STATE PARK INDUSTRIAL Nu SEWAGE PARK KRajt~M . ~ : ~ TREATMENT LANT QUEEN UUUOKALANI GOLF COURSE ~ CHILDREN'S CENTER CIVIC & Qv~F-~ ~ BUSINESS CENTER Keahuolu Pt. RESORT/REC. KALOKO-HONOKOHAU NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK Kaloko Pt. l F Existing Land Use Wawahiwaa Pt. Proposed Land Use PACIFIC OCEAN proposed Parkway Constructed Parkway a SCALE IN KILOMETERS 2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES Figure Z® a~~ IN THE PROJECT VICINITY 3-~ SCALE iN FEET KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS 3-2 Once completed, this planned community will generate many of the vehicle trips that will be accommodated by Kealakehe Parkway. Other developments that will affect the region are proposed nearby. Queen Liliuokalani Trust (QLT) plans to develop its holdings east (mauka) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway between the Villages of La'i'opua and Palani Road, and also a parcel adjacent to the Kona Industrial Park. The first of these developments is the construction of a retail center. This center is located on 20 hectares (50 acres) of Trust land within a 127 hectare (315-acre) area zoned for a regional commercial center. In addition, QLT proposes to expand the Kona Industrial Park. The State is also planning for urban development on approximately 1068 hectares (2,640 acres) east (mauka) of Keahole Airport. This project includes a West Hawaii branch of the State university and residential and industrial development. In addition, the following smaller developments are proposed closer to the Kealakehe Parkway corridor: • the subdivision of two areas of agriculturally zoned land near the proposed eastern (mauka) terminus of Kealakehe Parkway; and the construction of affordable housing between Palani Road and Old Mamalahoa Highway. Infrastructure projects and social services are being constructed, planned or expanded to support the expected population increases. For example, a 10 900 cubic meters-per-day (m3/day) (2.89 million gallon-per-day (mgd)) sewage treatment plant (STP) has just been constructed to replace the existing STP in Kailua-Kona. The Villages of La'i'opua will contain a new high school, elementary school, and neighborhood parks. SDOT is also proposing to widen Oueen Kaahumanu Highway ~tihich inrludPS imorov menu to its int rsection ~~~ith KPalakPhP Parkway. In summary, continued growth in this region is expected, and government investments in the necessary infrastructure and support services have been occurring. 3-3 3.1.2 Project Area and Soil Types The corridor of the proposed Kealakehe Parkway is located on the western (makai) slope of Hualalai and includes lands owned by the Robert Greenwell Trust, Palani Ranch Company, Lanihau Corporation, and the State of Hawaii (see Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2). Table 3.1 TMK PARCELS WITHIN THE KEALAKEHE PARKWAY CORRIDOR Approximate Area of TMK Total Parcel Owner 7-4-2-8 644 hectares (1,590 acres) Palani Ranch Co., Inc. 7-4-6-12 12 hectares (29 acres) Robert Greenwell Trust 7-4-5-47 133 hectares (328 acres) Robert Greenwell Trust 7-4-8-05 83 hectares (206 acres) Palani Ranch Co., Inc. 7-4-8-60 23 hectares (56 acres) Palani Ranch Co., Inc. 7-4-8-13 222 hectares (550 acres) Lanihau Partners 7-4-8-17 311 hectares (769 acres) State of Hawaii Source: State of Hawaii, Department of Taxation, April 1993, revised April 1995. Figure 3-1 shows existing and proposed land uses near the proposed Kealakehe Parkway. Present land uses within the corridor consist of 0.4 hectare (1.0-acre) housing lots on the east (mauka) side, and agricultural activities including ranching, fruit orchards, coffee growing, and bee keeping. One commercial property, Orchard Marine Corporation, is east (mauka) of Palani Road, near Palani Junction (see Figure 3-1 The area surrounding the corridor includes residential lots, schools, a police station, a rock quarry, a community landfill (now closed), and the Kaloko Industrial Park. 3-4 z " ~I a L`- Z ~ MP~P~oP W ~ a_- MA ; 2 O~~ W ° c W ~ O ~ ~ a U MAMALAHOA ~ F ~ m ( ~ HIGHWAY ::::1 & ~ • ~ O W I ~ o~ 6 O r < 6 W w N 1:' Y Z d ~ \ 3 w O Q ~ v G~) ~ a. ~ Z a :Z ~ V H w ~ < N~GNwP ~ a J Z O Q W Z c i ~ y ~ S = ; ~ ~ _ , W C ~ ~ j ~.KPPN~MP W O \ r , ~ avF,E.~ ~ J o ~ m ~ o o ~ L L O ~ O Y O C Y O O = Y Q w W o ~ $Z O Y 3 L~ z a o ~ ~ ~ 3 Q o ~ Q V Z 3-5 According to the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the project area consists of four soil types and two miscellaneous land types (lava formations) (see Figure 3-3). Table 3-2 summarizes the characteristics of the soil types and the following paragraphs describe the lava formations. A'a Lava Flows (SCS abbreviation: rLVI. This lava is rough and broken. It is a mass of clinker, hard, glassy, sharp pieces piled in tumbled heaps. In areas of high rainfall, it contributes substantially to the underground water supply and is used for watershed. This lava has practically no soil covering and is bare of vegetation, except for mosses, lichens, ferns, and a few small Ohia trees. It is at an elevation ranging from near sea level to 4,000 meters (13,000 feet} and receives from 25 to 635 centimeters (10 to 250 inches) of rainfall annually. It is associated with pahoehoe lava flows and many soils. Pahoehoe Lava Flows (SCS abbreviation: rLWI. This type has a billowy, glassy surface that is relatively smooth. In some areas, however, the surface is rough and broken, and there are hummocks and pressure domes. Pahoehoe lava has no soil covering and is typically bare of vegetation except for mosses and lichens. In the areas of higher rainfall, however, scattered Ohia trees, ohelo berry, and aalii have gained a foothold in cracks and crevices. Pahoehoe lava flows are found from sea level to 4000 meters (13,000 feet). The west (makai) portion of the proposed roadway will be constructed in these rock formations. A soil analysis published in the University of Hawaii's Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification Island of Hawaii (1965) classified the entire area as 'E', or very poorly suited for agricultural productivity. Soils are found within the eastern (mauka) portion of the project area. These soils have a maximum thickness of 25 centimeters (10 inches) on top of the underlying lava formations. Punaluu and Kaimu soil types are classified as Pasture Groups 3 and 5, respectively. Pasture Group 3 is defined as unimproved pastures consisting mostly of kiawe, koa haole, klu, cactus, lantana, ilima, ipiuma, opiuma, natal redtop, and Bermuda grass. Pasture Group 5 is defined as unimproved pastures consisting mainly of natal redtop, Bermuda grass, lantana, Christmas berry, guava, Japanese tea, and bush indigo. Kona and Puna soil types 3-6 3 0 M ~ ° ~ N\GH~p~ _p, o ~ g 3 0 o v c' w o x i?~ FPM AI..AF1~A ~ M W o ~ ~a m o- ^Y ~a YY O •'r + ~ p~+ s•: J a. a.~ m a~ Y._ a.~ ~:~e , t O~O~ f ??t~ ~?+tt p Z HIGHWAY ~e o .~t~i + bib v .~!*\.::~~.y.`~.:::. U +a+ ++?+a++w, ``~~w . ~ - ~ ~.?+f+?? ~ ~ ~~(~~~t o ? + t + Y .~e~ , o Q.. .~x~ 3 Z . ~ ~ c 3~6~$ r,~ ~ ~ a _J O 'f 'QUE'EN':~i~ i.i ~ ` 't~<: m y...~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ W 3 ti~~~~ ~ o G ~ = b k = - O a ~ Y Q ~ O Z Z W F 8 a ~ z W w 1 ~ N U Z ~ o o LL Q _ z 8 Z _ Uw ° z U _ a G Q O U1 W U L1 J N G ~ a o ~ U (/1 G j O -L - U 3 G 3 3-7 are classified in Pasture Group 7, which is defined as unimproved pastures consisting of hilograss, glenwoodgrass, yellow foxtail, carpetgrass, and guava. Table 3.2 SUMMARY OF SOIL TYPES Soil Parent Percent Primary Type Material Stoniness Drainage Slope Uses Punaluu Pahoehoe Lava Rocky Well-drained 6 - 20 Pasture Kaimu A'a Lava Extremely Well-drained 6 - 20 Native Woodland Kona Pahoehoe Lava Rocky Well-drained 6 - 20 Pasture Watershed Puna A'a Lava Extremely Well-drained 3 - 25 Woodland Pasture Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survev of Island of Hawaii State of Hawaii, December 1973. 3.1.3 Zoning and Land Use Plans and Policies This section contains brief descriptions of planning documents that address this area. 3.1.3.1 HAWAII STATE PLANS AND CONTROLS Hawaii State Plan and Functional Plans The Hawaii State Plan (June 1991) establishes broad goals, objectives, and policies. It mandates the preparation of 12 functional plans that translate the goals of the Hawaii State Plan into more detailed proposals in such areas as agriculture, conservation, recreation, transportation, and water resources. 3_g i inoie~ Hawaii State Land Use Controls The State Land Use Commission (SLUG) has divided all land in the State into four land use districts: Urban, Agriculture, Conservation and Rural. Each district has specific land use objectives and development constraints. Recommended State land use district boundaries are shown in Figure 3-4. Kealakehe Parkway would traverse lands designated as Urban, Agriculture, and Conservation. It would be the responsibility of private landowners to petition the Land Use Commission or the County of Hawaii (depending on the hectares and type of reclassification requested) for actual land use reclassification at the appropriate time. Coastal Zone Management Act (Chapter 205A HRS) Kealakehe Parkway will be located within the State's coastal zone. The objectives and policies of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management {CZM) Program protect and manage Hawaii's coastal resources. Federally assisted activities affecting Hawaii's coastal zone, such as Kealakehe Parkway, must be consistent with the CZM objectives and policies. La'i'ooua Planned Communitv Kealakehe Master Plan HFDC is planning to construct the Villages of La'i'cpua which is expected to be completed by the year 2010. When finished, this project is expected to increase the population in this area by 14,200 persons. According to the La'i'ooua Planned Communitv Kealakehe Master Plan (September 1990) (hereinafter referred to as the La'i'opua Master Plan), an east-west (mauka-makai) roadway which would extend through the Villages of La'i'opua and link Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway is needed. This recommended roadway is called Kealakehe Parkway in the La'i'opua Master Plan. HFDC completed the portion of Kealakehe Parkway within the Villages of La'i'opua in August, 1995. The proposed completion of Kealakehe Parkway beyond the limits of the Villages of La'i'opua is the subject of this final EIS. A C Am::::.i::.i::.,:s. ,,,,:,::.:„ ,,,.! .::,::.,:, mn: C 5:.;!:ci;ixiiiiii C U 4 u Keahole Pt. 4 ;:..r.... C A r, U J �. 1 A C _� il a -,:,,,,,,,::::,:,,,:::„:„:„:„,,,„:„:.::::,:::A„,,,,„:„,,,,,,,,,„„„,,,,,,,::„,,,,,: u C \,,,,, ...:"„„„„.„:„,.„„„„„„„,,,....„„,„„,„:„.„,:,.. . \------ z U . . .:.,„:„„„„„„,„„.:,.:„,,,„, U .....„....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:„:„.:.:.::::::„::„„„,„:.:::::::„„:::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:..„.::.:::::::.4......... ....... ...::,:,,,,,:,:,,,,,:::,..,:„.,:„..::,:,:,:,,,,,:::::::::::::::::::::::.::...:.:.:.:.:.:...............................:.,::::;,u„;:::...::,,,,„„,„::,.„,„,.;,„„„„„,,„„„„,.„„: ....:.:::::,,,:„.,„„„„„„„„,„,,,:„,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,„„„„„.::::„....... ::,:,:,:,:,:::,„::::::::::::„. .:„„,„.„,i„„„„,::::,„, ....„„,„. .:„„„„„,:,,,,„„,„„„,!„.,,,„:„.E.,!„„„„„„„:„,„:„.„,„„„,.„„„„,..„„„„,„„,„: U Kealakehe 6-VA Parkway Project Area C Honokohau Bay U N PACIFIC OCEAN A .. \ A - .4iiiiii U LEGEND U Recommended change to Urban Kailua >: Bay Source: State Land Use District Boundary Review: Hawaii, 1995. U R` 2 RECOMMENDED STATE LAND Figure scaleinkilometers USE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 3_4 ® 0 1/2 1 scale in miles KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS 3-10 West Hawaii Regional Plan The Office of State Planning's West Hawaii Regional Plan (November 1989) (hereinafter referred to as the Regional Plan) includes goals and objectives for West Hawaii development. The Regional Plan also designated 'subregional planning areas," one of which is the Keahole to Kailua-Kona area. The Regional Plan directed the County of Hawaii Planning Department to implement a planning process for this area. The Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as the K to K Plan) was the result of this planning process, and is discussed below under County plans. Island of Hawaii Lonq Range Highwav Plan The Island of Hawaii Lonq Range Highwav Plan (hereinafter referred to as the Long- Range Plan) established a primary circulation system for the island based on existing and projected land uses and population distributions. The Long-Range Plan identified major roadway corridors that would require improvements if they are to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic demands. The Long-Range Plan stated that a new east-west (mauka-makai) road is needed between Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway to provide access and circulation within the Kealakehe area. This rerommendPd ro^dtArv ~A~^s intended to meet vear 9010 traffic demands n the second high st oriorih in Tier On o; the I gng-Rance Plan Tier One ~roi cts ^ddr ss rorridors th^t h^vP the greatest r ,acity needs The roadwav would ,Pain ^t ^ ar^de-Leo^r^ted interchange gn O~ePn Kaahumanu Highwav and ..i._~ . nA,...... L. L,.. L-Jir. L.urov Hoar Palahi Pnarl continue P'tii nn ~ o - 3.1.3.2 HAWAII COUNTY PLANS AND CONTROLS Hawaii Countv General Plan The Hawaii Countv General Plan (November 1989) (hereinafter called the County Plan), established goals and objectives and applied them to geographic areas, including North Kona. The County Plan includes proposed east west (mauka-makai) connections between Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway in the vicinity of Kealakehe Parkway. 3-11 A Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map has been prepared to suggest future land uses in the County. The land use for the project corridor shown on the LUPAG map is urban expansion (see Figure 3-5). Hawaii Countv Zoning Areas within and surrounding the corridor have County zoning classifications of Agriculture and Unplanned. Hawaii Countv Special Management Area The Special Management Area (SMA) was established pursuant to the 1975 Shoreline Protection Act. The proposed Parkway is not located within the SMA. Keahole to Kailua Development Plan The K to K Plan was prepared to help guide the overall development of North Kona and is the implementing tool for the County Plan. The K to K Plan was adopted by the Hawaii County Council in November 1990. Figure 3-6 shows the planning area of the K to K Plan. The K to K Plan proposes the following new facilities: • anew civic and business center, approximately 4,500 new residential units to be built by 2010; a municipal golf course; • a regional sports complex; a West Hawaii branch of the University of Hawaii; and • resort development in the range of 1,500 units. The K to K Plan recommended roadway improvements including two new east-west (mauka-makai) roadways linking Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway. One of these proposed roadways, "Kealakehe Drive", has an alignment similar to that proposed for Kealakehe Parkway. Figure 2-1 shows the land use and roadway plan from the K to K Plan. 3-12 o Z oY F N u/ U ~ O Y O U ` ' .y ~ y d i ~ a~° w ~ ?Z Q O C c o p 7 0 y C O y 0 {4il~ 41 ~xaa~i3pda'v ~ ° o `~Py Z owo~~~x5 ~ a v a0~ ~`G~' o ~ zaa~oooZ~ I I O~~ P owo wax- ~ a- ,Z,o i¢ w Q O M AMP~'P w ~ o a ~ a w W w w v~ ~ AM AL A _ ~ :HIGHWAY::. ,r Y. o Q D ~ J Cn: Qb'Qa ~ : / W f/f \ _'~p. 2 ~ Q O \ : \ y ~ Y ~s Z a x O ~~o, ~ _ w ~ O a J Y 4 Q W x: Z z ~ PP~~MRN o H K ~ d a Q °GO~ o d. a ~~~N ti y a w ~ c d o O a O_ E ~ o° Z ~ ~ O u Q t 0_ 7 N O T O L ~ O ~ O m Z Y ~ O O z K . a' O = O W W Q Q LLQ ~ g= o Y (J C a~ 3 U ( Wl Y ? N N L Y Y 2 Q v U 3 0 ~ o t Q ~ ~ ~ o 3 m N~ d Q ~ ~ vo Z® 3 3-13 i •Y_y_ 1 \ : ~ `~(~l ~I ly ~l ~)L ICI -1 \ ~ ~ p ` R_~MM/w b y_ Y~ ' / 11 ' ' ' 1 ~ V v R~~~ ~°0 1 ~ J '9~ ~ ~k'',~': ~1 ! / ~ ~ 1~~' KEAHOLE TO KAtLUA - ;.`.;;v.~~r•~•...:.;V;..:::::::..~«..... PROJECT AREA !ri ~'4: r.... ti...... • • ~ ~ R~hwl ti:;::.:; ~ cY....~`. Ilw YMy. KEALAKEHE .~R~ r w Wrw.Y 1~ ~O~R PARKWAY • R 1 ~ M PROJECT AREA _ W M~~i~ ~M1~~` w..w O'n• M VN N'`VJ R~>f f~ wr•w M J PACIFIC ..wr.w -In - .e~'-J~' Source: Keahole to Kailua Development Plan, April 1991. ~ K^H^LVU ~ / N °~¦~i KEAHOLE TO KAILUA Figure scale in kilometers DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT AREA 3-6 ® o s.ooo ,o.ooo KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS scale in feet 3-14 In summary, recent planning documents (such as the La'i'opua Master Plan and the K to K Plan) anticipate substantial population growth and development of infrastructure in this area, including a connector road between queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mar•;alahoa Highway where the completion of Kealakehe Parkway is now proposed. 3.2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 3.2.1 Population and Ethnicity West Hawaii has been one of the fastest growing areas in the State. Its population nearly tripled from 1970 to 1990 (from 14,472 to 43,373). Table 3-3 shows particularly high growth rates (greater than 60 percent) in South Kohala and North Kona, where several major resorts were developed in the 1980s and early 1990s. Although the population of North Kona grew faster than the entire island, the island has been growing rapidly overall. It increased in population by approximately 45 percent between 1970 and 1980, and by nearly 31 percent between 1980 and 1990. Table 3.3 POPULATION TRENDS Year Year % Change Year % Change Geographical Area 1970 1980 1970.1980 1990 1980.1990 North Kona District 4,832 13,748 185% 22,284 62% South Kona District 4,004 5,914 48% 7,658 30% South Kohala District 2,310 4,607 99% 9,140 98% North Kohala District 3,326 3,249 -2% 4,291 32% Total West Hawaii Area 14,472 27,518 90% 43,373 58% Hawaii County 63,468 92,053 45% 120,317 31% State of Hawaii 769,913 964,691 25% 1,108,229 15% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population. Number of Inhabitants Hawaii 1970 1980. and 1990. The ethnic breakdown of West Hawaii is shown on Table 3-4. Overall, the population contains a significantly higher percentage of whites and a significantly lower proportion of Japanese when compared with the ethnic breakdown of Hawaii County. 3-15 0 m a ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ V 0 ~CDO <NU~7~ ea ~~~o~~7 c~pm < N r N N~ N Z 0 OI R V ~NrnvNm O i Yd i 0 ~ N CON 0 V7 D700D NM~ .Q ^ CD In O [7 E e s 'a Q 4 C 2"~aQ a2 a2 aq F t o N N n O N< O ~ ~ ~6 3 l vZ O ~ ~~~o~i c~cno ;Q ~ = IA ~ < CV Q1 4 ~ Z FQ o ro 0 of o~ _ m C O ~ N m~~~ _ ~C o` = t 6 c f ~ v <O1 tO C01[]N't W W 2,p ~af0 oN7~ON p E ~ ai c~ ~ N 'm Z a 0 a 0 p~ o O A C O~i~ON V ~ c 0 ~ CJN NN ~ U Y d i 8 p~ ~ ~ ~N~~®Nt~O A E ai ~ ~ r~ ~ m N f/1 C N U N C V7 m C ~ O N O N ~ ~ `y ~ m ~ G W ~ ~ ~ U (~j 'CL a~ f30 ~ ~ ~ ¢I~U(L-~xOF ~n 3-16 The other racial groups' proportion of West Hawaii's population is roughly the same as the proportion for the entire island. 3.2.2 Housing Table 3-5 indicates the total number of single- and multiple-housing units available in the West Hawaii area. Although the number of residential units increased by nearly 55 percent between 1980 and 1990, West Hawaii's population increased at a slightly higher rate (almost 58 percent) during the same period. In North Kona specifically, population increased approximately 62 percent, while the housing supply increased at a slower rate (44 percent). Table 3.5 HOUSING TRENDS IN WEST HAWAII 1980 1990 % Change NORTH KONA 1 -Unit 3,648 6,144 68% 2+ Units 3,275 3,846 17% Total 6,923 9,990 44% SOUTH KONA 1 -Unit 1,751 2,586 48% 2+ Units 327 342 5% Total 2,078 2,928 41% NORTH KOHALA 1 -Unit 983 '1,394 42% 2+ Units 141 146 4% Total 1,124 1,540 31 SOUTH KOHALA 1 -Unit 1,560 2,910 87% 2+ Units 406 1,325 226% Total 1,966 4,235 115% Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 General Housing Characteristics Hawaii- Census of Housing and 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Population and Housing Characteristics Hawaii. 3-17 There are no minority or low-income communities within the general vicinity of the project limits. Near the eastern (mauka) terminus, there are five residences used by Palani Ranch employees. 3.2.3 Employment and Income The civilian labor force within the County increased from 43,550 to 61,550 between 1980 and 1990, approximately 41 percent. Hawaii County experienced fluctuations in the unemployment rate in the early to mid-1980s. Unemployment declined from 7.5 percent to 3.8 percent between 1986 and 1990, however. Median household incomes in West Hawaii are generally higher than the median household income for Hawaii County (which was $29,712 in 1989). In 1989, income ranged from $29,617 in Census Tract 213 in South Kona to $40,489 in Census Tract 215.97 in North Kona. All the census tracts in North Kona had populations with median household incomes greater than the countywide median in 1989. Census tract 215.02, with a medium household income of $33,103, was the lowest in North Kona. 3.2.4 Environmental Justice Executive Order 1?R9R "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justin . in Minority and I gw Income Populations" sinned Fehniarv 11 1994. requires federal agencies. includinn the FHWA. to identify and avoid "disnrongriionately high and adverse" P.ft .ts oft .dP.ral projects pn the health and environment of minority and low income populations In order to comply with the provisions of the Fxec.utive Order. the following must he addrP.SGP.d'. The relationship of FXP.gntIVP. Order 12898 to the nroiect Existing minority jfonulations and low income groans and communities in the nroiect cnrridgr Public. nartigipation efforts with minority and low income nnnulations Sensitivity to inority and low income nejghhorhoods and communities Anv health riskc to the minority and low income groans 3-18 MPac irPS tg avoid. minimise andlor mitigate imnar•.ts: and An analysis of the impacts gn sensitive cgmmimities 3.2.5 Likely Future Social Trends 3.2.5.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH West Hawaii's economy is based on the visitor industry, construction, diversified agriculture, ranching, and high technology initiatives in ocean science and astronomy. The visitor industry is the largest in terms of size and potential growth. Recent resort and hotel developments on the island have been concentrated in the North Kona- South Kohala region, and, since most proposed hotel developments within the County are located in this region, it is expected that this concentration in North Kona-South Kohala will continue. 3.2.4.2 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH Population projections for the island have been made by the State Department of Business and Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT Table ~-6 displays th .cP nroiPCtionc through th year 2020 'ne facto' nnnulation includes the numher of \14110x4 nn th isl^nd (^v ran daily visitor nog ilationl in addition to the resident n_nnul^tion ThP4e nroiPCtions which were mania in 199E nrPdint a 2015 Hawaii County resident non it^tion of 189 100 ~•~hich i4 56 gercPnt higher Than the Cnuntv's 1990 nogulation Table 3.6 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR HAWAII COUNTY Year 1995 2000 2010 2015 ZOZO Resident Population 197 00 taboo 17 r ! 1$~1Q4 244 Detacto Population 165 400 1I2.14Il 207.600 228 700 2~1-~.Q4 Source Hawan State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, December 1996 3-19 The Hawaii County Planning Department distributed the 1988 Series M-K Projections among the nine districts of the island. Table 3-7 displays the projected population allocated to the West Hawaii region through the year 2010, the last year of 1988 projections. According to the County Plan, West Hawaii's population will be nearly 46 percent of the island's resident population by the year 2005, and North Kona will comprise 25 percent of the island's population by the year 2005. According to the La'i'ooua Planned Community Kealakehe Master Plan (September 1990), North Kona's population will comprise 27 percent of the island's population, or 56,200 people, by the year 2010. This share of islandwide population will be greater than North Kona's share of the island's population in 1990 {19 percent). Table 3-7 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE WEST HAWAII REGION Year 1995 2000 2005 2010 District North Kona 29,300 36,400 45,200 56,200 South Kona 8,900 10,100 11,400 12,900 North Kohala 4,400 5,000 5,600 6,300 South Kohala 11,600 15,300 20,100 26,500 West Hawaii Total 54,200 66,800 82,300 101,900 West Hawaii Share of Islandwide Population 38% 42% 46% 499'° Source. KPMG Peat Marwick, Market Assessment for Kealakehe Planned Community, Exhibit II-C, July 1990 The County Planning Department has also developed three sets of population projections based on growth in the visitor industry. The Series A projections are the most conservative, assuming very modest growth in the visitor industry and the demise of the sugar industry. The Series C projections are the most optimistic, assuming very high rates of growth in the visitor industry. Table 3-8 shows [he County population projections for the three sets of assurnptions in selected areas. 3-20 Table 3.8 HAWAII COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECTIONS YEAR 2005 Series p B C Hawaii County 173,000 217,000 258,000 West Hawaii 78,715 98,829 117,390 North Kona 43,250 54,350 64,500 South Kona 10,899 13,671 16,254 North Kohala 5,363 6,721 7,998 South Kohala 19,203 24,087 28,638 Source: Hawaii County Planning Department, The General Plan Hawaii County, November 1989. Table 3-9 displays the projected housing demand in selected districts. Since the population of West Hawaii is projected to grow substantially, a demand for approximately 25,540 units of new housing in West Hawaii by the year 2010 has been projected in a market study for the Villages of La'i'opua (Market Assessment for Kealakehe Planned Community (July 1990)). In North Kona, the demand for new housing could be 9,130 units by 2005 and 13,680 by 2010 (La'i'opua Master Plan). This represents an average crease of 570 units per year. Table 3.9 PROJECTED HOUSING DEMAND IN WEST HAWAII Yesr 1995 2000 2005 2010 District North Kona 2,920 5,800 9,130 13,680 South Kona 1,210 1,720 2,210 2,870 North Kohala 370 630 850 1,160 South Kohala 1,540 3,020 4,830 7,440 West Hawaii 6,240 11,450 17,330 25,540 Source: KPMG Peat Marwick, Market Assessment for Kealakehe Planned Community, Exhibit IV-E, July 1990. 3-21 3.3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.3.1 Transportation 3.3.1.1 ROADWAY FACILITIES The region's roadway facilities are shown in Figure 1-3. The area is presently served by two State highways, Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Mamalahoa Highway is a two-lane minor arterial that provides circulation between Waimea and Kona along an eastern (mauka), inland alignment. Queen Kaahumanu Highway is a two-lane principal arterial that provides regional circulation between South Kohala and Kona, and access [o the Keahole Airport and resorts on the Kawaihae Coast. The SDOT is presently studying the widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway to four lanes between Keahole Airport and Palani Road, Three County thoroughfares presently serve the project area, Old Mamalahoa Highway, Palani Road and Kuakini Highway. Old Mamalahoa Highway provides circulation and access to agricultural and residential areas on the eastern (mauka) slopes above Kailua-Kona. Palani Road is generally a narrow two-lane facility that connects Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway, although Palani Road is a four-lane divided facility between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Alii Drive. Kuakini Highway is primarily atwo-lane north-south facility that provides access to the Kona industrial area. Several two-lane street facilities provide east-west (mauka-makai) circulation in the North Kona District. These include Hina Lani Street, Honokohau Harbor Road, and Kaiwi Street. Kealakaa Street is a local two-lane roadway that is generally aligned north-south. Kaiminani Drive is a two-lane minor arterial that extends in the east-west (mauka-makai) direction and provides access into Kona Palisades Estates. 3-22 3.3.1.2 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Since intersection capacities usually control overall roadway operations, traffic conditions at seven critical intersections within the study area were evaluated using methodologies in the 1985 Hiahwav Capacity Manual (HCM). Peak hour field observations were conducted at the following intersections: • Mamalahoa Highway and Kaiminani Drive; • Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road and Old Mamalahoa Highway; • Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kaiminani Drive; • Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Honokohau Harbor Road/Kealakehe Parkway; • Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kaiwi Street; Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road; and Palani Road and Kealakaa Street. Additional information is provided in the Kealakehe Parkway Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Impact Report (November 1993), hereinafter referred to as the Traffic Report. Existing operating conditions at these intersections were classified by Level-of-Service (LOS). The 1985 HCM defines six Levels-Of-Service labeled A through F, corresponding to best through worst conditions, respectively. The levels are defined by average user delays, a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. A detailed definition of the Levels-Of-Service values is provided in the Traffic Report. Table 3-10 summarizes the existing Levels-Of-Service at the intersections studied. Many turning movements currently experience undesirable Levels-Of-Service conditions of E or F during a. m. and/or p.m. peak hours. Roadway capacity analyses were also conducted on selected roadway segments. Operating conditions on critical segments are shown on Table 3-11. Several roadway segments experience undesirable Levels-Of-Service of E or F during the a.m. and/or p.m. peak periods. 3-23 Table 3.10 EXISTING LEVELS-OF-SERVICE AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS Intersections A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Mamalahoa Hwy/Kaiminani St Left-turn from major street A A Left-turn from minor street C D Right-turn from minor street A A Mamalahoa Hwy/Palani Rd/ Old Mamalahoa Hwy Left-turn from major street A A Left-turn from minor street E D Right-turn from minor street A A Palani Rd/Kealakaa St Left-turn from major street B A Shared lane from minor street F C Queen Kaahumanu Hwy/Kaiminani St Left-turn from major street A A Left-turn from minor street E E Right-turn from minor street A A Queen Kaahumanu Hwy/Kealakehe Pkwy/Harbor NB left-turn from major street A B Shared lane from Harbor C E Queen Kaahumanu Hwy/Kaiwi St Left-turn from major street C E Shared lane from Kaiwi St F F Left-turn from Kaiwi St F F Right-turn from Kaiwi St A F Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Kealakehe Parkway Feasibility and Environmental Impact Statement: Traffic Impact Report, November 1993. 3-24 Table 3-11 EXISTING LEVELS •OF-SERVICE ON SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS Location A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Mamalahoa Highway n/o Kaiminani Dr. D D s/o Kaiminani Dr. E D n/o Old Mamalahoa Hwy. E D Palani Road s/o Oid Mamalahoa Hwy. E: E e/o Kealakaa St E E w/o Kealakaa St. F F e/o Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. F F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. n/o Kaiminani Dr. D s/o Kaiminani Dr. E s/o Hina Lani St C C s/o Kealakehe Pkwy. E E n/o Kaiwi St E E n/o Palani Rd E E s/o Palani Rd. E= E Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Kealakehe Parkway Feasibility and Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Impact Report, November 1993. Notes: 1) n/o -north of 2) s,~o -south of 3) e/o =east of 4) w/o = west of 3.3.1.3 ACCIDENT DATA Information on accidents occurring between 1986 and 1990 was collected from SDOT for the following roadway segments: Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Kaiminani Drive and Palani Road; • Mamalahoa Highway between Kaiminani Drive and Old Mamalahoa Highway; and • Palani Road between Old Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. 3-25 Between 1986 and 1990, there were: 196 reported accidents on Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Keahole Airport and Palani Road; • 104 reported accidents on Mamalahoa Highway between Kaiminani Drive and Old Mamalahoa Highway; and • 165 reported accidents on Palani Road between Old Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Palani Road experiences a relatively high proportion of non-collision and fixed object accidents. Between 1986 and 1990, non-collision and fixed object accidents represented 63 percent of the total number of accidents. On Queen Kaahumanu Highway, only 32 percent of the accidents were non-collision and fixed object. More information is presented in the Traffic Report. 3.3.1.4 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The goals of the Bike Plan Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan (April 1994) are to promote the efficient and safe movement of bicycles throughout the State, and to make biking in the State attractive to visitors and residents. The Bike Plan identifies bikeways that exist, are currently under design, or are proposed. The term bikeway refers to a bicycle route, lane or path. Within the vicinity of the proposed Kealakehe Parkway, the only bicyclES facility is an existing bicycle route running along Queen Kaahumanu Highway from Keahole Point to Kailua-Kona (see Figure 3-7). According to the Bike Plan, no bikeways are proposed along Kealakehe Parkway, the section of Mamalahoa Highway to which Kealakehe Parkway will connect, Palani Road, or Old Mamalahoa Highway. There is no existing pedestrian circulation system within the Kealakehe Parkway corridor because it is an open agricultural area. However, existing pedestrian facilities within the Kealakehe area include sidewalks in residential areas and public access to the shoreline. 3-26 { ~ o N s o` ~ L~ p~ O ~ MAMP~P~ c'°N' c OHO - m o N C X ~ O Y ~ W d U AHOA ~ _3 ' MAMAL _ J = N Y HIGHWAY 1 i ~ i \K Q I 06 Z o O in ~ d' Y ~ ° 66 Q w O Y Q 3 $W ~ m Y ~ a o ,GO a Z a W o w c 7 N\GNwP~ ~ a W = W C O y 2 ~ -o W KPPN~MPNU o~jo o ~ m co 9 ~ ti~ aJ(LF. a u T O ~ o m ~ ~ o ~ a° t L o O O x ~ s y o O y O C u Y O y S y Q .o ° Z ~ ~ ~ U x° W a p ~ ~ Q z ~ z5 W O U d Y N W ~ y 3 Q m U o vii 3 a ~ rn z® 3-27 The island of Hawaii has an official trail system presently consisting of approximately 60 trails and paths. One of these, Mamalahoa Trail (State-owned, public access), crosses the portion of Kealakehe Parkway that has already been constructed within the Villages of La'i'opua. Trails which are no longer used were among the archaeological resources encountered in studies performed for this project (see Section 4.12). 3.3.2 Water Supply System Kahalu'u Wells A, B, C, and D are located about 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) east (mauka) of the coast just north of Keauhou. There is also a new potable water well in the vicinity of Kalaoa, east (mauka) of Mamalahoa Highway. Four primary reservoirs serve the project area: a 1000 m3 (300,000-gallon) reservoir and booster station at the 99.1 meter (325- foot) elevation on Palani Road; a 400 m3 (100,000-gallon) reservoir and booster station at the 180 meter (590-foot) elevation on Palani Road; a 200 m3 (50,000-gallon) reservoir and booster station at the 285 meter (935-foot) elevation on Palani Road; and • a reservoir and a booster station at the 99.1 meter (325-foot) elevation on the northern boundary of the Villages of La'i'opua. In order to meet future water demand, the Water Use and Development Plan (February 1992) proposes that approximately 46 wells be drilled about 4.0 to 5.6 kilometers (2.5 to 3.5 miles) inland in the 460 to 550 meter (1,500- to 1,800-foot) water resource development zone. Wells would be tied into an 80 centimeter (30-inch) transmission line to bring water to the junction of Palani Road and Mamalahoa Highway. The estimated cost of this water system is $218.9 million. In addition, to help satisfy the demand of the Villages of La'i'opua, HFDC must drill new wells above the 490 meter (1,600-foot) elevation and provide a water distribution system. 3-28 3.3.3 Drainage System There are no drainage structures within the project corridor since the property is undeveloped. The project corridor consists primarily of lava and thin layers of Kaimu, Punaluu, Kona, and Puna soils; rainwater generally percolates rapidly. 3.3.4 Wastewater System The proposed corridor is not presently served by a central wastewater collection system. Residential, commercial and industrial activities in the vicinity presently rely on private cesspools or treatment plants. Hawaii County has just completed construction of a 10 900 m3/day (2.89 mgd) sewage treatment plant (STP) on State- owned land in the Kealakehe area, west (makai) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway (see Figure 3-1 This plant will replace the 4000 m3/day (1,0 mgd) STP at the Kona Industrial Subdivision that serves Kailua Village. The new plant will serve the Villages of La'i'opua, but its capacity will need to be increased by about 8000 m3/day (2.0 mgd). 3.4 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY 3.4.1 Local Meteorology The State lies within a region of prevailing northeasterly trade winds, but the western coast of the island of Hawaii is sheltered from the trade winds by high mountains. Local winds such as land/sea breezes and/or upslope/downslope winds tend to dominate the wind pattern in the Kealakehe area. During the daytime, winds typically move onshore. At night, winds generally move downslope and out to sea. Still air occurs about 29 percent of the time at nearby Keahole Point, The annual temperature in the area is affected by elevation above sea level, distance inland and exposure to trade winds. The project site's leeward location results in greater variation in [he temperature profile compared to windward locations at the same elevation. At the Old Kona Airport located about 3 kilometers (2 miles) to the south, average daily minimum and maximum temperatures are 19°C and 28°C (67°F 3-29 and 83°F), respectively. The extreme minimum temperature on record at this location is 8.3°C (47°F), and the extreme maximum is 34°C (93°F). Because of its leeward location, the Kealakehe area has a relatively dry climate. Some rainfall occurs in conjunction with winter storms, and some occurs during summer afternoons and evenings as a result of the onshore and upslope movement of moisture-laden marine air. At the Old Kona Airport, average annual rainfall is about 61 centimeters (24 inches), but may vary significantly from year to year. Average annual rainfall at the project site is estimated to range between 64 and 76 centimeters (25 and 30 inches), depending on elevation. 3.4.2 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards National Ambient Air Quality Standards ('NAAQS') have been established for for sPV .n major air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO„), ozone (03), particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10), PpQ~ (particulate matter smaller than 5 micronsl, sulfur oxides (SO„), and lead. ThP standards for mnne and PMo F ~~~Pre GtablishPd in SPntemher 1997. National and State standards are summarized in Table 3-12. 3.4.3 Attainment Status of the Project Area The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments require that EPA designate areas as being in or out of compliance with the NAAQS. Areas in compliance are termed "attainment areas." The State of Hawaii is an attainment area for carbon monoxide, ozone (old standardl and particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), the pollutants of primary concern for a roadway project. 3-30 Table 3.12 NATIONAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Standards Hawaii Federal Federal State Primary Secondary Pollutant Standard Standard Standard Carbon Monoxide 1 Hour 10 mg/m3 (9 ppm) 40 mg/m3 (35 ppm) 40 mg/m3 (35 ppm) S Hours 5 mg/m3 (4.5 ppm) 10 mg/m3 (9 ppm) 10 mg/m3 (9 ppm) Nitrogen Dioxide 1 Hour 24 Hour Annual (Arithmetic) 70 uglm3 100 ug/m3 100 ug/m3 57.7.11flLf~ ~.211~/~ Annual (Arithmetic) I,LSLq(iiL 15y PM10 24 dour - 150 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 Annual (Arithmetic) - 50 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 Ozone 1 Hour 100 ug/m3 Hour 150 ua/m3 LOS onml 150 iia/m3 (.OS ooml Sulfur Dioxide 3 Hour 1300 ug/m3 - 1300 ug/m3 24 Hour 365 ug/m3 365 ug/m3 Annual (Arithmetic) SO ug/m3 SO ug/m3 Lead 3 Months (Arithmetic) 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 Sources: Hawaii Department of Health, Environmental Management Division, Clean Air Branch, 1997. 3.4.4 Monitored Air Quality Air pollutant levels in Hawaii are monitored at a network of sampling stations operated under the supervision of the State Department of Health (DOH). Very little data is 3-31 available for the Kona area. On the recommendation of the DOH, Hawaii Electric Lighting Company was contacted for ambient air quality data. The data, presented in Table 3-13, are from the Keahole and Kawaihae monitoring stations and are the most recent data publicly available. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide data is from the Keahole monitoring station. Carbon monoxide data is from the Kawaihae monitoring station. The data show that existing ambient air quality satisfies State and federal standards. These data are representative of the air quality conditions within the study corridor. 3.5 NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.5.1 Characteristics and Measurement of Sound Several characteristics of sound affect its impact. These include the sound level (loudness), the frequencies involved, the period of exposure to the noise, and changes or fluctuations in the noise levels during exposure. Loudness is measured in units called decibels. Since the human ear does not perceive all pitches or frequencies equally, noise levels are adjusted, or weighted, to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the A-weighted decibel, or dBA. Since dl3A describes a noise level at just one moment, and very few noises are constant, ways of describing noise over extended periods are needed. One way is to describe the fluctuating noise heard over a period as if it were a steady, unchanging sound. This type of an average is called the equivalent sound level, Leq. Leq is the constant sound level that, for a given situation and time period (e.g., 1-hour, Leq (1); hourly, Leq(h); or 24 hours, Leq(24)), conveys the same sound energy as the actual time varying sound. 3-32 Table 3.13 MONITORED AMBIENT AIR QUALITY LEVELS Parameter/Loeation 1984 1985 1991 Sulfur Dioxide/Keahole Period of Sampling (month) 12 1 No. of 24 Hour Samples 325 25 Range of 24 Hour Values (ppb) <1-8 <4-6 Avg. Daily Value (ppb) 0.1 0.6 No. of Federal/State AAQS Exceedances 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide/Keahole Period of Sampling (month) 12 1 Number of 24 Hour Samples 325 25 Range of 24-Hour Values (ppb) <1-2 <1-2 Average Daily Value (ppb) 1.1 1.4 Number of Federal/State AAQS Exceedances 0 0 Nitric Oxide/Keahole Period of Sampling (month) 12 1 Number of 24-Hour Samples 325 25 Range of 24-Hour Values (ppb) <1-9 <1-7 Average Daily Value (ppb) 2 2.6 Number of Federal/State AAQS Exceedances 0 0 Carbon Monoxide/Kawaihae Highest one-hour level (ppm) 1.0 Second highest one-hour level (ppm) 0.3 Highest eight-hour level (ppm) 0.6 Second highest eight-hour level (ppm) 0.3 Source: State of Hawaii Department of Health, 'Hawaii Air Quality Data for the Period of January 1985 to December 1987.' Notes: 1) Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide monitored at the Keahole Monitoring Station 2) Carbon monoxide monitored at Kawaihae 3.5.2 Federal Noise Abatement Criteria The FHWA has developed noise impact criteria. The State has adopted the FHWA criteria as its standard. Table 3-14 lists the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). 3-33 Table 3.14 FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA (NAC) Activity Leq for Noisiest Description of Category Traffic Hour Activity Category A 57 (Exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary 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(Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 (Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B. p Undeveloped lands. E 52(Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Source: Federal Aid Highway Program Manual (FHPM), 23 CFR Part 772 "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise," 1962. Notes: Leq(h) is the one-hour energy equivalent sound level. The interior noise levels (activity) apply to: (1) indoor activities for those parcels where no exterior noise sensitive land use or activities are identified, or (2) those situations where the exterior activities are either remote from the highway or shielded in some manner so that the exterior activities will not be affected by the noise, but the interior activities will. The study area includes some land uses in FHWA noise categories B (residential, schools, churches and parks) and E (residences, schools and churches) which could be affected by noise from the proposed project. 3-34 3.5.3 Existing Conditions Field measurements of existing noise levels were taken on January 7, 1993. Measurements were taken at the Kona Church of Christ parking lot east (mauka) of Palani Road; approximately 20 meters (66 feet) southeast of the intersection of Palani Road and Old Mamalahoa Road; and in the residential area off Hikimoe Street south of Halolani Street. The measurements taken are summarized in Table 3-15. Table 3.15 MEASUREMENTS OF EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (Leq) Location A.M. Peak Midday P.M. Peak Kona Church of Christ 58.5 N/A 56.6 Palani Road and Old Mamalahoa 65.9 67.5 64.1 Hikimoe Street 49.0 N/A N/A Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 1993. The measurements show that one site monitored slightly exceeds the NAC exterior standard of 67 Leq for residences, churches and schools. The intersection of Palani Road/Old Mamalahoa Highway has an ambient noise level of 67.5 Leq. Two sites, Kona Church of Christ and Hikimoe Street, have noise levels substantially below the NAC standard, at around 57 and 49 Leq, respectively. 3-35 3.6 GEOLOGY, PHYSIOGRAPHY, AND SITE CONTAMINATION 3.6.1 Geology and Physiography Hawaii is the youngest and largest of the eight major islands in the Hawaiian group. The island is comprised of five volcanoes: Kohala, Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Kilauea, and Hualalai. The proposed project will be located on the lower slopes of Hualalai, extending from the ~omnlPtPd ce~tion of K .alak .hP Parkwav within HFD .'s Villaa .s of I a'i'onua, to an elevation of about 400 meters (1,300 feet) near Mamalahoa Highway. The s+te would be 11 to 13 kilometers (7 to 8 miles) west (makai) of Hainoa Crater, Hualalai's summit, on a lava flow estimated to be between three and five thousand years old. Two types of lava typical of shield volcanoes, a'a and pahoehoe, occur along the proposed alignment. A'a lava flows have two components - a hard, dense core and a sharp, jumbled portion known as clinker. Pahoehoe lavas generally have a smooth flow surface and contain abundant small gas vesicles. Flows range from less than a meter to several meters in thickness. In the project area, soils on these lava flows have a maximum thickness of 25 centimeters (10 inches). Construction of the proposed Parkway will therefore occur directly in rock with little need to remove soil overburden. 3.6.2 Hazardous Waste Sites The land use analysis in Section 3.1 indicated that there has only been one commercial or industrial use (Orchard Marine) within the proposed corridor. In addition, field observations have not revealed prior industrial or commercial activities along the alignments. However, the following ,government agencies were contacted for information on reported hazardous material releases or spills within the corridor: Federal: The United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division, Honolulu, Hawaii. 3-36 State of Hawaii: • Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Commission on Water Resources Management, Honolulu, Hawaii; • Department of Health (DOH), Environmental Management Division, Honolulu, Hawaii; • Department of Health (DOH), Hazardous Waste Section, Honolulu, Hawaii; • County of Hawaii; and • Fire Department, Hilo, Hawaii. Private: • Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELLO), Inc., Hilo, Hawaii. Correspondence with these groups is presented in Appendix A. Almost all of these agencies indicated that there were no known hazardous waste sites within the study area. However, the Kailua Landfill was identified about 800 meters (2,600 feet) south of the proposed alignments. This landfill has been closed. A list of cesspools in the vicinity of the project was also obtained. Since the project is located in a critical wastewater disposal area (as determined by the Hawaii County Waste Water Advisory Committee), no new cesspools will be allowed. Existing and pending Underground Injection Control (UIC) permits in the area were also disclosed. In summary, based on site inspections and records maintained by the government agencies listed above, there appear to be no existing hazardous or solid waste disposal sites along either alignment. The nearest solid waste facility is approximately 800 meters (2,600 feet) from the corridor. Therefore, hazardous waste or other contamination is not expected to be encountered during construction. 3.7 VOLCANOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKES The study corridor is on the western slope of Hualalai. However, Hualalai is older than Kilauea and Mauna Loa, which are still active, and its eruptions occur less frequently. Hualalai last erupted in 1800-1801 from several vents on its northwest rift zone. Lava emerged at about the 490 meter elevation (1,600-foot) level, north of the project site, and created a flow that extended to the ocean north of Keahole Point (see Figure 3-8). 3-37 KOhfAL'A MTN PROJECT VICINITY t ~~yIAUNA KEA .led HUALA~~I Keahole Point MAUNA OA~ KILAUEA Contour Interval 1,000 Feet LEGEND Hualalai Lava Flow of 1801 SOURCE: VOLCANOES IN THE SEA, ,983. ° z° 3° FIVE MAJOR VOLCANOES Figure N scale in kilometers OF HAWAII ° 5 ,5 3-g KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS scale in feet 3-3fi The intervals between the latest volcanic eruptions, including the 193 years since the last one, have led geologists to conclude that a Hualalai eruption is highly probable within the next two centuries, and could occur within the next few decades. Four types of direct hazards are associated with eruptions: lava flows, tephra falls, pyroclastic surges and volcanic gases. Each type of hazard has been given a hazard zone designation. According to the State Land Use District Boundary Review (1992), 'the level of hazard can vary considerably within any hazard zone, either gradually or abruptly. Differences can best be determined by specific site studies.' Lava flows are the most common of the direct hazards, and pose the greatest threat to property. The Hualalai area has been designated Hazard Zone 4 for lava flows (with Zone 9 having the lowest risk and Zone 1 having the highest). Hazard zone boundaries are approximate. The percent of Zone 4 covered by fresh lava from Hualalai since 1800 is approximately five percent, while the total coverage of Zone 4 by fresh lava since 1240 is less than 15 percent (Volcanic and Seismic Hazards on the Island of Hawaii (1990)). The second type of volcanic hazard is tephra, which consists of volcanic ash and coarser fragments produced by fountaining lava and explosive eruptions. With a Hazard Zone of 2 (on a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 representing the greatest risk), tephra is not considered a significant hazard in the Hualalai area. A second zone (2A) is designated for Hainoa Crater (the summit) and the northwest rift zone of Hualalai. However, the project area is about 8 kilometers (5 miles) outside of this zone. The third volcanic hazard, pyroclastic surges, is not associated with Hualalai. Pyroclastic surges are clouds of ash, rock fragments and gas which move at high speeds outward from source vents. Volcanic gas is the fourth type of volcanic hazard. Volcanic gas has the same hazard zone rating as tephra, so all of Hualalai is located in Volcanic Gas Hazard Zone 2. Volcanic gas hazards are greatest immediately downwind of active vents. As air mixes with the gas, however, its concentration diminishes. 3-39 Indirect hazards, such as earthquakes, are usually associated with volcanic eruptions. Earthquakes are produced by movements of the volcano as it swells before an eruption and shrinks during an eruption. Earthquakes caused by the movement of magma under Hualalai have occurred relatively infrequently compared to Mauna Loa and Kilauea. A large earthquake (measuring 6+ on the Richter Scale) will be more likely on the other side of the island near Mauna Loa and Kilauea. 3.8 WATER RESOURCES 3.8.1 Surface Water Bodies, Floodplains, and Wetlands Based on site reconnaissance and United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps, there are no streams or other surface water bodies within the project area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps do not identify any floodways or floodzones within the project vicinity. As shown on Figure 3-9, the project area does not contain any special aquatic sites (as defined in 40 CFR 230 Subpart E). These are no vegetated shallows, riffle and pool complexes, mud flats, sanctuaries and refuges, or anchialine pools in the project vicinity. Coral reefs and wetlands are located along the coastline, several kilometers from the project site. 3.8.2 Groundwater According to correspondence from the State of Hawaii DLNR-Commission on Water Resource Management (February 1993), the project overlies basal groundwater. Water levels range from about 0.5 meters (1.5 feet) above mean sea level at queen Kaahumanu Highway to approximately one meter (four feet) near Mamalahoa Highway, north of the proposed Kealakehe Parkway. A State well drilled at elevation 244 meters (800 feet) along Palani Road encountered a head of 0.5 meters (1.5 feet) and contained water having a chloride concentration of 3-40 J U T 2 Ta ~ 5 a ~ ~ ~ ao ~ ~ I ~ ; m LL v Q N v O ! 4 LL y p c ~ o~ ~ i ~ aCg Z O~~ Z 3 ~ 1 ~3 : x J N W W W g€ ~ o~ y a ¢ ~ ~P~ III ~ I ~ ~ Y Qa ~ ~ 1~G~ Z ~Z ~°P U a> P~P~,P ~ U N W Y p 3 ~A~AHOA HIGHWAY ,°e Y ~ w 1 r d'a ~ _ Y z ; 1 peo ~ CA a a 6% A W w E GA a ~ W 2 \ \ \ ~ O- m Y W \ ~ o ~ J id ~ \ _ ` p z U W O.pC `j ~ ~ Y Q ~a O ~ ls~vP >6 o N Z m Q `~G~ ¢ rn ~ U y W ~ N~ 3 Q w t J _ ~ ~ LL Q I- cI~ ~ $ U ~ p PN~ ~ W Z KPPN~M ~ d. c~R 6- m J~~~ ~ ~Oto$ ~ a m Y O '\J'~ O N O on ~ $ Y N m m ~ ~ d ~11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t0 O T ~ I.L Q Y Y w oma om ~ c ~ Z W y m C Q U m O C o B = O ~ ~ R O R ^ x Y Z li o Z 3-41 2800 ppm. The well is now sealed. There are no data regarding monitoring wells and well permit information for the remaining project area. Because of this basal lens, the water is slightly brackish where water levels are greater than 0.9 meters (3.0 feet) and becomes more brackish where the head drops to less than 0.6 meters (2.0 feet). Although this basal water is not potable, it can be used for irrigation. Due to the fresh basaltic lava flows, contaminants can easily percolate downwards and enter this resource. According to State Department of Health (DOH) records, there are no public drinking water sources close to the proposed roadway. However, private wells may exist. Groundwater injection wells occur in the area, and the Villages of La'i'opua has submitted applications for additional groundwater injection wells. 3.9 TERRESTRIAL FLORA The following section summarizes the conclusions of the botanical survey conducted for this project (Kealakehe Parkway Extension Alternatives 10 and 11 Botanical Survey (October 1993)). This section focuses on the methodology of the survey and the plant community types encountered. The potential involvement of endangered and threatened species is discussed in Section 3.11. The botanical survey was conducted on July 22 and 23, 1993. The objectives of the survey were to: • provide a general description of the major vegetation types; • inventory the flora; search for endangered and threatened species protected by federal and State laws; and • identify areas of potential environmental problems or concerns and propose mitigation measures. The survey methodology included examining relevant secondary sources such as prior botanical studies conducted in the area, maps and aerial photographs. 3-42 Botanical resources were identified within a 91 meter (300-foot) survey corridor which extended 46 meters (150 feet) on both sides of the proposed centerline of the alternatives. Plant associations and distribution, substrate types, topography, exposure, drainage, moisture gradients, and grazing damage were recorded. Plant identifications were made in the field when possible. Plants that could not be identified in the field were collected for later identification. Four major vegetation types were identified: • mixed forest; grassland; koa haole shrubland; and mixed shrubland. Most of the land through which the two alignments traverse has been previously disturbed. These vegetation types are described in more detail in the Kealakehe Parkway Extension Alternatives 10 and 11 Botanical Survev (October 1993). The area supports native species, including some which are rare and endangered. Approximately 17 percent of the 143 vascular plants surveyed are native species. Among the native species, 1 S are indigenous, and seven are endemic. Endangered, threatened and rare species are discussed in detail in Section 3.11. 3.10 TERRESTRIAL FAUNA The following section summarizes the Survev of the Avifauna and Feral Mammals at Kealakehe Prooertv North Kona Hawaii (August 1989), which was prepared for the Villages of La'i'opua, and subsequent coordination for this project that has occurred with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and DLNR. Anew faunal survey for the completing segment of Kealakehe Parkway was not performed because: the survey at the Villages of La'i'opua was conducted immediately adjacent to the proposed Kealakehe Parkway corridor; habitat conditions for animals are quite similar to the conditions at the Villages of La'i'opua; and • the survey results at the Villages of La'i'opua were unremarkable. 3-43 It is therefore expected that the findings of the survey at the Villages of La'i'opua are relevant to the proposed completion of Kealakehe Parkway. The objectives of the survey at the Villages of La'i'opua were to: document what bird and mammal species occur on the property or may likely occur given the type of habitats available; provide some baseline data on the relative abundance of each species as well as general habitat preferences; determine the presence or likely occurrence of any native fauna, particularly any that are considered endangered or threatened; if endangered or threatened species occur or are likely to be found on the property, identify what features of the habitat may be essential for these species and suggest how those resources may best be protected; and determine if the property contains any special habitats that, if lost or altered, might result in a significant impact on the fauna in this region of the island. The survey recorded 1 S species of exotic birds. The abundant species were Japanese White Eye (Zosterops japonicus), Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis), House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) and Zebra Dove (Geopefia striata). No endemic land or water birds, nor resident or migratory indigenous birds, were recorded. Endangered and threatened species are discussed in more detail in Section 3.11. The survey documented a few feral mammals: Indian Mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus), feral cats and the skeletal remains of pigs and cows. In conclusion, the observed zoological resources of the project site appear to consist of common, abundant species that are broadly dispersed, although some rare and endangered sea birds may occasionally fly over (see Section 3.11). 3.11 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES This section focuses on rare species encountered in the project area. Coordination with the U.S. FWS and DLNR has occurred in accordance with the requirements of the federal "Endangered Species Act of 1973" (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) and the State of 3-44 Hawaii's Endangered Species Act (Chapter 195D, HRS). Agency coordination is discussed in more detail in Section 4.11. Copies of correspondence may be found in Appendix B.1. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 grants authority to and imposes requirements upon federal agencies regarding endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, or plants ("listed species') and habitat areas of such species that have been designated as critical ("critical habitat"). In addition, the State of Hawaii's Endangered Species Act (Chapter 195D, HRS) states that any species designated endangered or threatened under the federal law is also deemed endangered or threatened under the State law. In addition to the species that have been determined to be endangered or threatened pursuant to the "Endangered Species Act," DLNR may, by rules adopted pursuant to Chapter 91, determine any indigenous species of aquatic life, wildlife, or land plant to be endangered or threatened for a number of factors. "Endangered" species are those that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of their ranges. A "threatened" species is one which is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. "Candidate 1" species are those for which the U.S. FWS has evidence of vulnerability, but there are not enough data to suppor#ormal proposal as an endangered or threatened species. In D ..Pmher 14c14 the U.S. FWS had formally listed 51 plant species on the island of Hawaii as endangered, with seven of those 51 species being extinct on the island (Plants Hawaiian Islands Listed Proposed or Candidate Species Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (December 15, 1994)). Only one plant species was proposed for listing as endangered. In addition, there were 16 "Candidate 1" species, with three of the 16 being extinct on Hawaii. In September and October of 1995, the U.S. FWS proposed the listing of a total of 74 Hawaiian plants for addition to the threatened and endangered species list (see Appendix B.2}. Only 16 of the 74 plants are found on the island of Hawaii. However, none of the 16 will be disturbed by the proposed Parkway. In No~Pmher 1gA7 the U Fl^~S orovid d the current ~tat~~ of the plants noted in i'rleir orinin^I SDPf IPC letter d^t d March ~ 1444 and a follow-un Ie-tter_ dated 3-45 SPptPmh r 9fi 1997 The scat ~s of species described below reflects the Nnvemher. 1997 rprrespnndenr.P. Pritchardia affinis, the endemic Loulu Palm, is located in the project corridor. This species was listed as endangered by the U.S. FWS in 1994 (Report on the Endangered Loulu Palms (Pritchardia affinisl Found within the Palani Road Corridor (April 1995)). Historically, the palms were found exclusively in the Kohala Mountains and along the western and southwestern coasts of the island of Hawaii. Most plants are associated with areas of human habitation or development, and were cultivated by the Hawaiians. endangered species are also found on a'a lava flows near the alignments, as follows: • Two uhiuhi trees (Caesalpinia kavaiensis), an endangered species, were found immediately south of the Alternative 10 corridor. (Uhiuhi trees are also present on the a'a lava flow which occupies much of the Villages of La'i'opua (Botanical Survey Kealakehe Planned Community (November 1989)). A preserve has been established within the Villages of La'i'opua to protect those trees, as well as other rare plants found at the Villages of La'i'opua. Wahine noho mauna or aupaka (Isodendrion pyrifolium) occurs within the Villages of La'i'opua. • 'Aiea (Nothocestrum breviflorum), a tree belonging to the tomato family, is found within the Villages of La'i'opua and east (mauka) of the Kaloko rock quarry. • a sedge (Mariscus faurien is also located east (mauka) of the quarry (L.A. Mehrhoff, U.S. FWS). • Halapepe (Pleom^'^ h~..a~iiancicl ie nnnciriorori taro t7nP. plant was found within ^f I ^+'opu^ ^nd individu^Ic were also found oast Imaukal of the rock y^rn~ (Rot^nic^I Survey KPalak he Planned .ommunity (November 198911. • SPVPraI NPfandla fniinri nn the a'a IaVa fl,nlu ?aSt imaukal Of the. ~lla~frV. T~•~n snP .ies of plants designated "Candidate 1" and "Sne .ies of .nncern" are located along Alternative 10 or on surrounding lands, as follows: • Ko'oko'olau (Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla) is found on the lower slopes of Hualalai. The alignment of Alternative 10 passes through a population of this 3-46 species. It is also found within the Villages of La'i'opua (Botanical Survev Kealakehe Planned Community (November 1989}). Puapilo or maipilo (Capparis sandwichiana), considered vulnerable (Manual of the Flowering Plants of the Hawaiian Island (1990)), is widespread throughout the dry coastal and lowland areas. 1n addition. the Fl^~S h~s noted in cuhcPnuent coordination that several species of sea birds may transit the area Th .ce snecias are' the ndano red Hawaiian petrel IPterodroma nhaeoovaia sandwichensisl: the threaten d Newell's shearwaieilPuffinas anrirularisl and the "C'andidatP 1" bandiumned storm n trPl (Or•. ~nodroma Castro rrvntole rural 3.12 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following is a summary of the archaeological inventory survey conducted for this project, An Archaeological Inventory Survev And Limited Subsurface Testing of the Proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension Alternatives 10 And 11 and the Addendum Report to the Kealakehe Parkway Extension (June 1994). The significance assessment of the archaeological findings has been approved by the Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), in accordance with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (see Appendix C.1 The SHPO has determined that all sites found within the construction zone of the proposed Parkway and detour road are "eligible" for the National Register of Historic Places. The archaeological survey was divided into two parts: an inventory survey of the alternatives and an inventory survey of the detour road. For purposes of this discussion, the inventory survey refers to Alternative 10 and Alternative 11 (the Preferred Alternative}, and the addendum report refers to the detour road. The archeological inventory survey for the project covered over 83.4 hectares (206 acres) of three "ahupua'a" in the North Kona district: Kealakehe and Honokohau I and II. An 'ahupua'a" is a Hawaiian land division that extends from forested uplands across agricultural lands to the ocean (mauka to makai). Most of the project area lies within the "ahupua'a' of Honokohau I and II. The portion of Kealakehe Parkway 3-47 currently under construction lies largely within the Kealakehe 'ahupua'a" and was previously surveyed. The archaeologists conducted pedestrian sweeps, typically spaced at 15 to 23 meter (50- to 75-foot) intervals, within a corridor extending 46 meters (150 feet) on both sides of the centerlines of alignment alternatives. New and previously identified sites and/or complexes were documented and mapped, along with the general condition of the site, surrounding topography and vegetation, and the presence of subsurface remains and artifacts. Lava tubes encountered were explored to the fullest extent possible. Limited subsurface testing was conducted at representative sites. Radiocarbon dating was used on selected sites containing datable materials. Possible burial sites were tested for evidence of human remains. Sites and features dismantled for excavation were reconstructed after excavation to maintain their integrity. Previous archaeological studies in Honokohau I and II were also reviewed. Archaeological feature and site types found within the corridors were then evaluated for significance in accordance with the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. A recommendation of 'no further work' suggests that sufficient data has been collected to mitigate any adverse effect of the project on that particular site. A recommendation of either 'data recovery° or 'preservation' indicates that a site is more special, and potential project impacts on the site should be further assessed. Eighty-iwo sites showing evidence of prehistoric and historic activities were identified along both alignment alternatives. Eighty-three sites were identified by the SHPO (see Appendix C.1 However, one of these sites is not within the project area. The 82 sites contain 286 features. The sites were categorized into 19 types (see Table 3-16). Multi-feature site complexes were the most commonly identified archaeological resource, with 37 site complexes being found within the alignment corridors. These site complexes have been broken down into their formal feature types in Table 3-17. Modified outcrops, terraces, enclosures, and walls/wall segments comprise nearly 75 percent of all features, and indicate relatively intense use of the area for agricultural purposes. Of all the sites encountered, 7 sites were recommended for either complete or partial preservation; 60 sites were recommended for data recovery; and 15 sites were recommended for no further work. 3-48 Table 3-16 OCCURRENCES OF FORMAL FEATURE AND SITE TYPES Formal Feature/Site Type # of Occurrences % of Total Features Ahu 2 0.7 Alignment 2 0.7 Cart Road 2 0.7 Cupboard 1 0.4 Enclosure 53 18.5 Kerbstone Trail 5 1.7 Lava Blister/fube 11 3.9 Modified Outcrop/Sink 28 9.8 Mound 40 14.0 Papamu 4 1.4 Paved Area 3 1.0 Petroglyph 11 3.9 Platform 26 9.1 Site Remnant 2 0.7 Stone Basin 1 0.4 Terrace 55 19.2 Trail 3 1.0 Wall/Wall Segment 37 12.9 TOTAL 286 100.0 Source: Cultural Surveys Hawaii, An Archaeological Inventory Survev and Limited Subsurface Testing of the Proposed Kealakehe Parkwav xtension. Alternatives 10 and 1 t, June 1994. 3-49 «e EAOOO¢¢¢ QQoooooooooa as ¢ a W ~ E TTTaaa aaTTT--rrrTTOrs aaoo a as ~ 0+0 0 00 0 r T F~ ~ Q Z W J ~ O ~~aaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaax xa xa x W W W W ~ m~1 m ~ a am a d W ~ ~ ~ ~ m c E W d ~ > > a>> a1 a~ d ~ ~ m aoi m•c ~ aoi ~ m a c~ ca •-¢~cn'-~~'c ~~aa=~xa E a~x F F u QQ c'_,Q~Q m coi ~Q c~i ~Q m c~i^~~ m oar ~'o:~v m OW a ._m._o•c~--•-•---x•camm~~na1.-'a a1 Z ~ e ~v01Q 2a O. oi~a 01014 rn""xS N c y ~ o"01m ti Q ~ LL Q~--- ~a ~ QQ'-' Q~ m ~ a1 c1V~Q m O ~ m m m ~ `01 m m = E F- E o1 m E ~'f ~ W x x 2 x a x 2 x x a 2 d W M' a~ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 0 a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ m a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 m a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 m a1 a1 Z~ a aaaaaa aaaaaaaaao_aa as a a ~ O ~ E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v o 0 J~ N a1 ala~g;a;~1 ::°?°?°:°:°:r?m°3°:~a? a~ ~ Qm ~nninminm min in nv>n~nn~nn~n~n mm m m C7 Z O J H S o 1[10 0 a0~0 M N~a0O C0 0 O 0 W yM i s , Orr ~~CD I~CO [000 NMO Nr N M ~ T r r N N N N N M M !C y W J a 0 v W ~ 070 CONO dp 1~0rMrNs~ RCOM Mlf7 1~ O 0 ~ CD V f~00N NNM Rln lfl l~f~OD 010 CO aDN N N N q 0 T O O T N N N N N N N N N N N N M M f g I~ n rte' McO CDmMm MmmMOm W OOmMO Om M O y y T T T r T T T r T T r T r T r' T T r T T m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O_ O O O O O O O T T T T T T T T T T r T T T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 3-50 W eMg °aaaoooo ooo~ ~ ore o 0 ~ = T T r Q W J • e G a ~~2x22x2 xxxx W aaaaaaaa aaaa ~ 6 W W a~ WO. C cn ~°~coi °'_oc'>jyao-c~i°' m f. v ~mQ ~Qv~QQ ui uiC o w c ~ W C a~:-:c:-:m c;-:•-~ ~:-cc Q m r a h o ~ aa.o a~~ mQ U v~Q • ~ ~ x m m ~ C = 2 x xx aQ2 z m 1? W w a C ~ H Q y y a a ~ Q~ x x x x x x x x x xxxx ~ • a~ a~ a~ a~ ~ a~ a~ m a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ m Z~ n a afiaaaaaa aaa- v ~O ~ E EEEEEEEE EEEE W y, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - • U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o Qm y ~ n~n~n~~~ ~~<nto y .=a G7 o w > Z ~ c~ ~ o Q 'O y ~ J m J N C~ C Q N m m O d U t N y 0 c~ v cD n r~ v in n CO T N v ~ p d x~ Z y~ C1 = e ~n ~n ~n ~n cD co cD co co n n n m ¢ x ~ x K y ~ a axon J ~ a - y o v x~ o m C ~ N m C la N ] m F rn conrnoconcoo Tv~nn Z~ m' z n~ $v m ~ o'er N ChMM C'QRV ~ ~~tl9~ (n ~v) d O =E~Em=_ IN "M n nnnnnnnn nnnn F- ~ m¢¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ U ~ y y T T T T ~ x m Z ~ ~ ~ ' m aD aD c0 aD CD OD aD m aD ao a0 c0 ~ a ~ x d N N N N N N N N N N N N N U : (n O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O T T T T T T T T O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-51 Archaeological investigations of the detour road are discussed in the Addendum Report to Kealakehe Parkwav Extension (June 1994). Nine sites showing evidence of archaeological significance were identified within the detour road corridor, one of which, State 50-10-28-18730, was also identified in the main roadway corridor. Therefore, while the addendum report records the presence of nine sites, only eight of these sites are additional to the sites previously identified. Therefore, the total number of sites along both alignment alternatives and the detour road is 90. Limited subsurface testing was conducted at two representative sites within the detour road corridor. No human remains were discovered. Site types and their functional interpretation include two habitational platforms, two habitational enclosures, three complexes (two habitational/agricultural and one agricultural), and iwo cattle walls. Of the nine sites encountered, none were recommended for complete preservation. However, one site was recommended for partial preservation. Six sites were recommended for data recovery, and two were recommended for no further work. No historic architectural structures exist within either alternative corridor or detour road corridor. 3.13 PARKLANDS Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park is located on a coastal strip extending from Wawahiwa'a Point to the Honokohau Boat Harbor. It is north of the proposed Kealakehe Parkway and west (makai) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The Kaloko- Honokohau National Historic Park also includes more than 200 hectares (500 acres) of State-controlled waters of Honokohau Bay. A high level of citizen involvement helped establish the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, and, in light of the substantial population increase projected for the North Kona district, the Park will be a significant open space resource for the future population. The Park includes ponds, sacred Hawaiian burial sites, habitat for waterbirds, waterfowl and shorebirds, and many archaeological resources. The federal government owns the onshore portion of Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park, up to the State's right-of-way for Queen Kaahumanu Highway. 3-52 Immediately adjacent to the Park is Honokohau Boat Harbor, a small marina with a launching ramp, boat storage facilities, boat repair and a restaurant. There are no State parks within the immediate project area. The only State park in the Kailua-Kona area is the Old Airport State Park. It is located approximately 5 kilometers (3 miles) south of the project site. No County, community, or neighborhood parks are within or adjacent to the corridor. However, the Villages of La'i'opua is expected to include two neighborhood parks and a park adjacent to the proposed elementary school. The County has proposed development of a golf course south of Kealakehe Parkway and east (mauka) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway (see Figure 3-1 This 1 S-hole public course will include a one hectare (three-acre) clubhouse site that will be accessible from major roadways. It will serve the community and provide a physical buffer around the existing landfill. 3.14 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES The following viewsheds (i.e., the area visible from a viewpoint) exist in the project area: • Makai: the Kona Coast and ocean, including Honokohau Harbor and marina, and Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park; and • Mauka: the slopes of Hualalai. The western (makai) viewshed from the corridor is primarily open agricultural land with scattered residential and commercial structures. Houses occur along Palani Road and both sides of the upper portion of Hina Lani Street. As the hillside slopes downward towards the coast beyond the residences, it is covered with low vegetation and thickets. Scattered trees are also present. Queen Kaahumanu Highway runs near the coast, and beyond Queen Kaahumanu Highway is the shoreline and ocean. From the bottom of the slope looking eastward (mauka), the east (mauka) side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway has several large warehouses extending from Hina Lani Street almost to the proposed Kealakehe Parkway intersection. The view upslope from the highway is further obstructed by a quarry and a large water tank. 3-53 Upslope beyond the quarry and water tank, the view of Hualalai is an important scenic resource. Until recently, the hillside appeared as mostly open space with some residential development. However, with the completion of Kealakehe Parkway within the HFDC project, one now views the lower portion of Kealakehe Parkway extending part way up the hillside. 3-54 CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter describes the environmental consequences of the Preferred Alternative (~It .rnativ .111 and Alt .rnative 10. The No Build alternative is used as a basis for comparison. Except where noted, "Kealakehe Parkway" refers to all elements of the proposed action: the Pref .rred Alternative or Alternative 10 and the detour road. 4.1 LAND USE AND SOILS 4.1.1 Potentiallmpacts The project's primary land use impacts will be on existing agricultural activities in the roadway corridor. The relocation of one residential structure will be required. 4.1.1.1 IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES The No Build alternative would not affect agricultural activities in the corridor (cattle grazing, coffee and fruit tree orchards, and beekeeping). The impact on agriculture will not be a substantial regional impact because of the extent of pasture lands remaining in areas east (mauka) of the project. The North Kona district has approximately 69 000 hectares (170,000 acres) designated by the State as agricultural lands. The removal of about 26 hectares (64 acres) through conversion to a transportation use, or 0.0004 percent of the total acreage designated agricultural in North Kona, will not be a major regional impact. Although the project's impacts on agricultural activities will not be significant from a regional perspective, there will be an impact on agricultural activities occurring at Palani Ranch. Measures to mitigate these impacts are discussed in Section 4.1.3. Of the seven soil types present in the project corridor, four will be directly affected by Kealakehe Parkway. These soils are not prime or unique farmlands, or farmlands of statewide or local importance. 4-1 Coordination with the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was conducted. The NRCS was provided with form AD-1006, 'Farmland Conversion Impact Rating,' for determination of whether the project would be built on farmlands subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The NRCS scored Alternative 10 (Site A on the form) as 17 and the Preferred Alternative (Site B on the form) as 30. A score of less than 160 means that a site receives minimal consideration for protection under the FPPA, and is therefore not subject to the FPPA. (Form AD-1006 is presented in Appendix D.) 4.1.1.2 RELOCATIONS Both Alternative 10 and the Preferred Alternative will minimize the need for relocations (minimizing the need for relocations was one of the screening criteria discussed in Section 2.2). Kealakehe Parkway will require the relocation of a leased residence on Palani Ranch property near the eastern (mauka) terminus of the project. No businesses will be relocated. There are relocation sites available for the residential use that will be displaced, such as other lands owned by Palani Ranch. Available relocation assistance is discussed in more detail under "Mitigation Measures" (see Section 4.1.3). 4.1.2 Relationship of the Proposed Action to Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls for the Affected Area In the following discussion, the compliance of the proposed Kealakehe Parkway with relevant government plans, policies and controls is assessed. Kealakehe Parkway's conformance to these plans and policies is summarized in Table 4-1. 4.1.2.1 NAWAII STATE PLANS AND CONTROLS Hawaii State Plan The proposed project supports the goals of the Hawaii State Plan (June 1991) dealing with economic objectives and policies, the physical and natural environment, and transportation. 4-2 h c m _ ~ 10 o ~ ap c ~ d 3 3 O Opt C« N l0 c 3 h ~ V •Q (0 C U1 p .N N y V U p 0 3 y 0 y 0 C d in i° E ~ 'c~c E a'o c~ N t m~ t O ~ r ~ E ~ `tl ~ m` ov y r.o m ~ mmG2 i~ 0 ; c> a c W ~c o m ~ O a c~~ UmN ~~coc~~m~ ~ O~ y y W ~ w ~ N ~ ? c~~ dI V C .L.+ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N C ~ ' ~ ` ~ ~ fL0 cc~ O C cq~ ~ UoG Ecm aoN U~~~mv.c2Y N ~ ~ oN ti ~ 0 aNiv c m N O1 ~ ~ N ~ > C p 0 7 p N 0. U1 Wit.. l0 ~ ~ y ~ C. 'r ~ Q c ,,a m e aoi m m ~ O l0 N O d N l0 C~ a C C4 ~i vi ~ N c0 N pl p D N p Q W O~ C O Q Y C p j a ~ ~ N y U U l0 y~ y O _ N ~ N ~ N W LO h ~O Z 0 7 O) C O) p~ W N d d~ N ~ ~ td W N 0. N N~ N~ p N U N p~ 0 d r ~ y lC O F U E C~ * W ~ c min m c a N N N.N d 0 0 ~ ~ mn~ w:~E wa wHaxia .o O 5 ~ and m m ~ m x y 3 v z ~ E Q °a m c a ~ d a F= m ~ .3 c C a~ da c m m ~ m m~ o =a ip in c o ~ _o m -p3 .3 ~3 c m c t m pf S Su U NS r 4f r `m a 0 m m 4-3 h y c _ ~ m W M W ~ L 3 ~ ~ ~ y N C p ac yam m o E O~C o~ 30~ c .ILw~ a.. p aci avi% W C p, p c in W Y d t0 c v 3 m Ct d~ a c~ 3 'o ~ ¢ a m U c N tY o ~ ~ _V C C N N C C y ~ p ~ A O RL"' Q. j 0 m 7 R 4 d ~v .N ~ l0 'p p r Z ~ LO N O ~ O ~ O_ N o6 0~~`~ a~~ c~ ~3 ~°c~ m m L 2 c o H~ q Q! ~ l0 ~ C ~ w ^C1. ~ Cl O c ~ ~ v) N ~ ` ~ ~ O N d W 41 7 c c d co a N D 0r ~o U m u~ C7 m ~ ~ C ~ O t R Z O g., m and m m x y 3 C1 a m E Z ~ Q d c c d ~ C7 aEi ~ ~ ri d ~ ~ m a m O ~ m Y aCi V U° ~ a~~i Ea ~ _ po o U L N ~ ~ d ~ ~ O S v> Y O o L m Y U C C r OJ N a i C Q 7 i U a d _3 v m 2 4-4 In accordance with the Plan's economic objectives and policies, Kealakehe Parkway will facilitate commerce through improved transportation service, and will contribute to the quality of life by enhancing mobility. It will also contribute to the economy by providing largely federally-funded construction jobs, and will therefore be consistent with the guideline encouraging federal investment in the neighbor islands. In accordance with the objectives and policies for the physical and natural environment, the proposed Kealakehe Parkway will minimize impacts to the existing environment, and where unacceptable environmental impacts might occur, mitigation measures will be implemented. Since the proposed work will be located east (mauka) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, it will not adversely affect [he shoreline area. Impacts on the physical and natural environment are discussed in more detail in other sections of this chapter. Kealakehe Parkway will ensure that the transportation needs of the Villages of La'i'opua and other existing and planned urban areas will be adequately met. It will also enhance access to Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. Although there are some policies with which the project appears to conflict, such as the preservation of open space, provision of affordable housing is a high priority. Housing requires infrastructure, and as existing infrastructure reaches and exceeds capacity, infrastructure improvements become necessary. In many instances, agriculture, open space, and housing are conflicting goals, especially where land is scarce, and the appropriate response is to strike a balance in the State and County plans. The balance that has been struck in these plans is to designate the vicinity of Kealakehe Parkway for urban expansion, and designate other areas for open space. Transportation Functional Plan Of the twelve Functional Plans, the Transportation Functional Plan (1991) is the most relevant. Kealakehe Parkway and Interchange was listed in the Transportation Functional Plan as one of the implementing actions for the road infrastructure system in West Hawaii. 4-5 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act (Chapter 205A HRS) The proposed work will be within the State's coastal zone. Under the CZM program, federal projects must conform with guidelines addressing seven areas: recreation resources, historic resources, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, economic uses, coastal hazards, and managing development. The Office of State o'^^nina fOSPI Coo^ct^I 7nnP Manaaement has reviewed the Proaram Assessment Fa__..•._ ^.a s,.. tt,c~ ert (ln Fohrnani 7n iaQR tha (1CP icenari its roncurrenre with 1hP M assessment The C7M's Proaram Assessment Form and OSP d .fermination is orovid .d in Aooendix F. Island of Hawaii Long Range Hiahwav Plan P^rk~ ^v ~~ill fulfill th rP nmmendation of the I ono-Rana Plan to construct ne~~ four I n rteri~l P^ct ~~PCt Imauka makail roadwav through the Kealakehe area nPhaPen M^m~l^ho^ ^nd O ~PPn K^ahumanu Hiahv~avc ThP oroooced action does not includ the K ^hkehP `;C'Pnl(` Route a nrooosed roadwav west /makail of Queen !'-^~~'m^n i Hiahv~~v ThP ouronc c of conctr ~ctina the Kealakehe Scenic Route are differ nt from the auroocPC of K alakehP Parkway and this coastal roadwav does not o c^rily nP d to h ^lianed with the western end of Kealakehe Parkway to meet its nn Ic Th romolPtina seameni f tt i U he Parlneiav addressed in this document ~ s ind pendent functional utility gnarl from ihP Srenic Route 4.1.2.2 HAWAII COUNTY PLANS AND CONTROLS Hawaii County General Plan Kealakehe Parkway is consistent with [he County Plan by helping meet the infrastructure needs of the urban growth directed by the County Plan. Figure 3-5 showed that Alternative 10 and the Pref .rr .d Alternative will traverse zones designated for urban expansion on the County's LUPAG map. 4-6 Hawaii County Special Management Area (SMA) Sinc no nortinn of the proposed Parkwav is located in the SMA. the proiect will not require an SMA p rmit from the C;nLniV of Hawaii. Keahole to Kailua Development Plan The K to K Plan (April 1991) describes Kealakehe Parkway as an integral part of the development scheme for the area (Section 3.1.3.2.4). The K to K Plan noted that the existing road network is inadequate to meet the needs of future growth, such as the Villages of La'i'opua which, alone, will increase the population by 14,200 persons. Figure 2-1 shows the roadway plan contained in the K to K Plan, and this roadway plan includes Kealakehe Parkway. Summary In conclusion, Kealakehe Parkway complies with appropriate State and County land use policies, plans, goals, objectives, and controls, and will facilitate implementation of the Hawaii State Plan, the Transportation Functional Plan, the Island of Hawaii Lono Ranoe Highway Plan, the Hawaii Country General Plan, and the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan. The No Build alternative would not advance the implementation of the land use plans that have been developed for the area. 4.1.3 Mitigation Measures Agricultural Activities Measures to mitigate the impacts of the project on agricultural activities will consist of the following: provision of stockproof fencing wherever the right-of-way abuts grazing areas; provisio~ of stockproof gates where needed for construction access and existing jeep roaps; • access to allow the maintenance of east-west (mauka-makai) waterlines, if necessary; 4-7 provision for constructing corrals and loading facilities north and west (makai) of the lower section of the corridor to service those pasture areas which will otherwise be severed and isolated from the balance of the pasture areas while pasturage use continues; • to the greatest degree possible, maintenance of existing paddocks, corrals, water disVibution systems, and roads; preservation of beehive and orchard-related activities; and • provision of access across the detour road between existing ranch employee houses and tha_agricultural areas. Details of the stockproofing methods and other mitigation measures will be developed during the project's design phase. Residential Relocation Since Palani Ranch owns additional homes and vacant lands in the immediate vicinity, Palani Ranch may be able to provide an on-site location for the residential displacement created by the project. State and federal residential relocation assistance programs will be made available. For example, since the project will use federal funds, it will comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended. This federal program provides relocation assistance that is available to all residential relocatees without discrimination. 4.2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 4.2.1 Potential Impacts on Economic Activity The No Build alternative would not create economic activity in the region. Moreover, since the No Build does not remedy existing or future traffic congestion or safety concerns, the No Build would actually be a drag on economic activity. In contrast, the construction and operation of Kealakehe Parkway will have positive social and economic benefits through: the expenditure of construction funds; enhancing transportation service; and 4-8 • enhancing the value of bordering lands by potentially enhancing access. The project will also increase land values in the general area by enhancing circulation and providing potential access to new areas. However, while property values will generally increase, the value of a few specific parcels may be negatively affected through the project's localized visual impacts on parcels which will be adjacent to future embankments, and perhaps through the reduced utility of some "remnant" parcels created by the roadway alignment. 4.2.2 Potential Social Impacts on Residential Areas jjyc section dic uccec the prniP t'c social impacts. Th . nroi .nt's conformance with Executive Order 1?A4A F dPral Actions to Addr ss Fnvironmantal Justine in Minority o,.... ~i-.a~,...~ .,...a i ...a_Innnmo Pnni ilatinns is riicci icGprl in SP.ntinn 4.7 4. i.su Kealakehe Parkway will create minimal adverse social impacts on the surrounding areas since they are generally open space, except at the eastern (mauka) terminus. At this terminus, there are ~ residences used by Palani Ranch employees which will be between the proposed Kealakehe Parkway and the detour road. These residences will experience construction on all sides (Kealakehe Parkway to the east and the detour road to the west). In the short-term, [he detour road and its traffic will disturb these residences. Once constructed, through traffic will be diverted to the completed Kealakehe Parkway. Residential access, however, will be permanently rerouted to the detour road. The completion of Kealakehe Parkway will have beneficial social impacts regionally by enhancing access and mobility, such as for the future residents of the Villages of La'i'opua. The No Build alternative would not create social impacts on the neighborhoods in the area except in the area of the proposed eastern (mauka) terminus. The ~-unit residential area is being considered for a proposed subdivision, so that even if Kealakehe Parkway were not to be built, construction activity proposed by others will still affect this area. 4-9 4.2.3 Potential Social Impacts on Commercial Areas The No Build alternative would not have an impact on established business districts, such as Kailua-Kona and the Kaloko Industrial Park. Kealakehe Parkway will not have a direct, long-term impact on established businesses and employment levels. The only business near the project area is Orchard Marine, a nursery, whose business activities will not be directly affected by the required right-of- ways of the build alternatives. Likewise, farm buildings will not be affected. Ultimately, Kealakehe Parkway will have a positive indirect impact on nearby business areas by improving accessibility, regional circulation, and the level of transportation service. For example, HFDC is planning an 8.9 hectare (22-acre) shopping center on the northern boundary of the Villages of La'i'opua, east (mauka) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The Parkway will make this center highly accessible to people traveling from eastern (mauka) areas, improving its commercial viability. The detour road will not affect businesses. v 2 4 Conformance !¦%%±1! Fnv!r^!±!±•p-^-tal Justice IEO i 28981 - ^ 4 "Ethnic RrP^kdo>.A~n in N~PCt Ha~•~aii" lSectinn 3 21) descrihes the nooulatinn in the North Korn district ^c 5Q percent ~~~hitP Kealakehe Parkwav will he constr Ind in open cn re r s c Irrenth aced for agriculture and ranching ThP only neighborhood th~t ~•~ill bP ~ff rted by ih proposed protect is a few houses IonatPd ne r the P^st rn (m^uk^l terminus of the nroieM Kealakehe Parkwav will he constructed to th P^ct (m~ukal and south of this neighborhood and The detour road will b? rnnctnlrted to th north and ~•~PSt (makail of This neiahborhood._ThP orooertv is n~tined b~ P~hni R~nrh ^nd the ho IsPS are used as rentals for its emolovPPC._ One of the hglICPS in this nPiahhorhood will hP displaced Acr_.ordinn to Palani Ranch. the ten ntc rP minoriti s nd e^rn ^ small to modest ranching income c ronlPm nted by ~ hr 'no Ilo~~ ore ^nd f^rming income Based on this information this ood dPCPnes protection and r th provisions of x cutivP Order 17898. F * I 1 t' h ^i ice iF1P rPSI('IPn1S are mingrltlPC and maV hP low income 4-10 ThP nrnvicions of Fx .rutive Ord .r 19898 were tested to determine whether the nroiect ~•~ill have a disnronortionafely hioh and adverc_e effect on this existing community. The ~ of FO 1 Rq8 w r cummarizPd in SPr`tlOn 3 9 4 and inrh~dP identifvinn minority and low inrome pro ipc in ihP nroiect corridor ronductina ouhlic participation efforts with the affect d community identifying potential health risks' and avoiding. minimizing and mitigating imparts \^~ith rPCOPrt to the o ihlic narticioation rPauirement ouhlic nartirinatinn was actively colicit d through a c riec of public informational and small groan meetings. These meetings IPd to th d vPlnpment of 14 alt .rnative Parkway alinnments and two "^m^tivP detour road alignments as described and evaluated in detail in Chanter Z.Q. ThP m^ior coci~l impart nn the small r sidential area at th . mauka (Pastern) nroiect t rminus ~•~ill bP temporary ronstr irtion nn all sides (Kealakehe Parkway to the east ^nd the detour road to the west) follo~•~ed by the Iona-term enclosure of this area by roadways nn herms Tt m sur c re nrnnoc d to minimize the impacts to this rommunity ThP detour n h c he n d signed to pr serve the int arih of the rommunity within the context of th existing hod ise Farly alignments for the detour road would have romnromic d th communih b~ ceparatinn r sidential units from associated orchard no f rmina cti~ities ThP d to it road was realigned to keen the rommunity intact SInrP this romm~nih currently CPC C ihstandard accesses to their homes a portion of ihP detour ro^d ~•~ill rem~in ^fter ronctniction to provide permanent access. This will not only impro~P Pxictinn conditions but ~•~ill provide residents with acr_.ess to the n ~I built KP~I^kehP P^rkv^v In addition the landowner has disr.ussed potential relnc~tion sit s for the residence to bP relocated QrrPSC to the ffPCted ho isec ~ ill bP maintained throughout the ronstruMion period ' ~ ~ Pt1P P^rk~ ~v ^nd the d tour road ~•~ill Dose no health ricks to the small ~P~~dPntial rommunity_ In ronclusion IthoLgh ihP m^uk^ (eastern) terminus of the nroiect will affect a small neinhhorhood dP4Pr\Ing O 19RA8 protection all of the relevant provisions of FO 4-1 1 X848 hav ben satisfied P ~hlic narticioatinn was antively solicited. there are no ~~^~•h ricks and impacts have heen avoided. minimi~ad and mitigated. Therefore thP~P will bP no disproportionate imna .t to minority and Inw-income oorndations. 4.2.5 Potential Impacts on Community Services and Tax Base The No Build alternative would not have an impact on community services or the tax base. Kealakehe Parkway will enhance the provision of community services by increasing accessibility of emergency vehicles. Accessibility to community facilities such as schools, recreation centers, churches and businesses will improve for area residents. Kealakehe Parkway will provide access to the new high school in the Villages of La'i'opua, so that high school traffic will not affect existing residential neighborhoods. Property taxes will not be collected on the acreage converted to a transportation use. Therefore, the roadway will decrease yearly property tax revenues in Hawaii County by approximately $1,500. 4.2.6 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures to lessen the impact on the residential land uses at the eastern (mauka) terminus of the project will be necessary. Mitigation measures will need to address: access to the homes between Kealakehe Parkway and the detour road during and after construction; dust control; runoff and erosion control; and noise controls. Mitigation measures to address these concerns are described elsewhere in this final EIS. 4-12 4.3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 4.3.1 Potential Transportation Impacts 4.3.1.1 METHODOLOGY To analyze the project's impacts on transportation facilities, analyses were made of future traffic conditions for both the No Build and build alternatives. Forecasts of a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for roadway segments were made for both scenarios for the year 2015. These forecasts were developed in conjunction with the planning work for the proposed Queen Kaahumanu Highway corridor improvements, the Long-Range Plan (May 1991) and previous traffic studies conducted within the area. Traffic modeling using the TRANPLAN model was then performed. Additional information is provided in the Kealakehe Parkway Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement Traffic impact Report (November 1993). 4.3.1.2 2015 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS No Build Traffic Conditions The future No Build roadway network was modeled to develop a baseline condition against which to measure the traffic impacts of the build alternatives. The No Build roadway network included the following roadway improvements, in addition to the existing network: • the segment of Kealakehe Parkway that was completed within the Villages of La'i'opua in August 1995; and • the widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway [o a four-lane freeway between Kawaihae Road and Palani Road. Under the No Build alternative, the intersection movements forecasted to have significant delays {LOS E OR F) during a. m. and/or p.m. peak hours are shown in Table 4-2. Similarly, Levels-Of-Service for selected roadway segments would have significant delays except where it is assumed that Queen Kaahumanu is widened to four lanes (see Table 4-3). 4-13 Table 4.2 2015 NO•BUILD ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS: INTERSECTIONS A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Volume Volume Turning Movement (vehlhr) LOS (veh/hr) LOS Left turn from Kaiminani Drive to Mamalahoa Highway 125 F 125 E Left turn from Hina Lani Street to Mamalahoa Highway 170 F 300 F Left turn at Old Mamalahoa Hwy to Palani Road 75 E 50 E Left turn from Kealakaa Street to Palani Road 125 125 Left turn from Kaiminani Drive to Queen Kaahumanu Highway 300 F 200 F Left turn from Hina Lani Street to Queen Kaahumanu Highway 200 F 275 F Left turn from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Kealakehe Parkway 255 E 330 F Left turn from Honokohau Harbor Road (Kealakehe Parkway) 70 F 60 F Through movement from Honokohau Harbor Road (Kealakehe Parkway) 5 F 20 F Left turn from Kealakehe Parkway 200 F 250 F Through movement from Kealakehe Parkway 15 F 15 F Left turn from Kaiwi Street to Queen Kaahumanu Highway 125 F 180 F Left turn from Oueen Kaahumanu Highway to Kaiwi Street 375 F 325 F Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Kealakehe Parkway Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Impact Report, November 1993. 4-14 Table 4.3 2015 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS: ROADWAY SEGMENTS Roadway Segment A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Mamalahoa Highway: Between Kaiminani Dr. and Old E E Mamalahoa Hwy. Palani Road: Between old Mamalahoa Hwy. and Kealakaa St. F F Between Kealakaa St. and Oueen Kaahumanu Hwy. F F Oueen Kaahumanu Hwy.: South of Kaiminani Dr. B` B` Between Honokohau Harbor Rd.~ B` C` Kealakehe Pkwy and Palani Rd. Source: Parsons 8rinckerhoff, Kealakehe Parkway Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Impact Report, November 1993. Note: 'Assumes Queen Kaahumanu Highway is widened to four lanes. 4-15 Should the No Build alternative be implemented, traffic conditions to and from the Villages of La'i'opua would be poor since the east-west (mauka-makai) road network would have difficulty accommodating the demand created by the Villages of La'i'opua. Palani Road already experiences congestion, Hina Lani Street does not directly serve the Villages of La'i'opua, and the western (makai) portion of Kealakehe Parkway would not provide access between the Villages of La'i'opua and Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road. Build Traffic Conditions With the completion of Kealakehe Parkway, intersection movements forecasted to have significant delays (LOS E or F) during a. m. and/or p.m. peak hours are shown in Table 4-4. The build alternatives' Levels-Of-Service for selected roadway segments are forecasted to vary between LOS B, with the Queen Kaahumanu Highway widening improvements, and LOS F (see Table 4-5). Signalization of intersections at the Pastern (maukal end of Kealakehe Parkway will not be determined until the design phase of work. It should be noted that the traffic analysis conducted for the Villages of La'i'opua assumed an extension of Kealakehe Parkway to Mamalahoa Highway. Comparison of the No Build and Build Traffic Conditions Roadway capacity analyses of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, Mamalahoa Highway and Palani Road are shown in Table 4-6. Without Kealakehe Parkway, Palani Road is projected to have extremely heavy traffic volumes that will be above capacity. Palani Road would experience LOS E between Old Mamalahoa Highway and Kealakaa Street, and LOS F between Kealakaa Street and C}ueen Kaahumanu Highway during both the a. m. and p. m. peak hours. The completion of Kealakehe Parkway will provide a preferred route between Mamalahoa Highway and t]ueen Kaahumanu Highway and will reduce traffic flow on Palani Road. These reduced volumes will improve roadway operations and decrease 4-16 Table 4.4 2015 BUILD ALTERNATIVES TRAFFIC CONDITIONS: INTERSECTIONS A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Volume Volume Turning Movement (vehlhr) LOS (vehlhr) LOS Left turn from Kaiminani Drive to Mamalahoa Highway 70 E 80 E Left turn from Hina Lani Street to Mamalahoa Highway 80 E 125 F Left turn at Old Mamalahoa Hwy to Palani Road 75 F 50 F Left turn from Kaiminani Drive to Queen Kaahumanu Highway 50 F 180 F Left turn from Hina Lani Street to Queen Kaahumanu Highway 160 F 250 F Left turn from Honokohau Harbor Road (Kealakehe Parkway) 65 F 55 F Through movement from Honokohau Harbor Road 15 F 35 F (Kealakehe Parkway) Left turn from Kealakehe Parkway 405 F 430 F Through movement from Kealakehe Parkway 30 F 30 F Left turn from Kaiwi Street to Queen Kaahumanu Highway 150 F 225 F Left turn from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Kaiwi Street 300 F 275 F Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Kealakehe Parkwav Feasibility Studv and Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Impact Report, November 1993. 4-17 Table 4.5 2015 BUILD ALTERNATIVES TRAFFIC CONDITIONS: ROADWAY SEGMENTS Roadway Segment A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Mamalahoa Highway: Between Kaiminani Dr. and Old D D Mamalahoa Hwy. Palani Road: Between old Mamalahoa Hwy. and Kealakaa St. C D Between Kealakaa St. and Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. E F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.: South of Kaiminani Dr. B' B' Between Honokohau Harbor Rd./ B' C" Kealakehe Pkwy and Palani Rd. Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Kealakehe Parkway Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Impact Report, November 1993. Note: `Assumes Queen Kaahumanu Highway is widened to four lanes. 4-18 Table 4.6 2015 ROADWAY LEVELS-OF-SERVICE NO-BUILD BUILD Two•Lane Highway Capacity AM PK PM PK AM PK PM PK Mamalahoa Highway n/o Kaiminani Dr. E E D D s/o Kaiminani Dr. E E D D n/o Old Mamalahoa Hwy. E E - - Palani Road s/o Old Mamalahoa Hwy. E E - - e/o Kealakaa St. F F C D wlo Kealakaa St. F F D D e/o Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. F F E F Four-Lane Highway Capacity AM PK PM PK AM PK PM PK Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. n/o Kaiminani Dr. B B B B s/o Kaiminani Dr. B B B B slo Hina Lani St. B B B B s/o Kealakehe Pkwy. B B B B n/o Kaiwi St. B B 8 C No Palani Dc B C B C s/o Palani Dr. B B B C Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Kealakehe Parkwav Feasibility Studv and Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Impact Report, November 1993, the accident potential on Palani Road. The portion of Kealakehe Parkway that was completed in August, 1995 does not satisfy this need alone. However, even with Kealakehe Parkway, the segment of Palani Road east (mauka) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway will still experience significant delays, and the Palani Road/Queen Kaahumanu Highway intersection is also forecasted to experience over capacity operating conditions during the p.m. peak hour. 4.3.1.3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES In accordance with the Bike Plan Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan (April 1994), no bikeways or pedestrian facilities are being designed for Kealakehe Parkway. Shoulders on both sides of the roadway measuring 2.4 meters (8.0 feet) will, however, 4-19 provide sufficient room to accommodate a bike lane or a bike route. Because of the relatively steep grade, extensive use by cyclists is not expected. 4.3.1.4 TRANSIT Hawaii County's Mass Transportation Agency (MTA) administers the Hele On Bus public bus system. The system provides fixed-rate scheduled bus service on seven routes, with one route operating between Hilo and Kona. This route uses Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road to access Kailua-Kona. Once completed, Kealakehe Parkway will provide a safer and less congested alternative to Palani Road. Therefore, MTA may choose to alter its Hilo-Kona route once the Parkway is completed. 4.3.1.5 MITIGATION MEASURES The project is itself a measure to mitigate existing and future traffic conditions. 4.3.2 Water Supply System Impacts None of the alternatives will affect the existing water supply system in this area, and therefore there will not be a need for mitigation measures. 4.3.3 Waste Water Impacts None of the alternatives will affect the existing waste water system, and therefore there will not be a need for mitigation measures. 4.4 AIR QUALITY, CLIMATE, AND METEOROLOGY A complete description of the air quality study conducted for this project is contained in the Kealakehe Parkwav Air Quality Report (November 1993). The following is a summary of the results. 4-20 4.4.1 Methodology Model Pollutants that are related to motor vehicles are relevant to this project. These include carbon monoxide (CO), non-methane hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxide (NOX), ozone (03), and lead (Pb). Transportation sources account for a very small percentage of regional emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO,) and particulate matter (PM~o), and therefore detailed analyses of these contaminants are not warranted. CO impacts are localized. Even under the worst meteorological conditions and most congested traffic conditions, high concentrations are limited to a relatively short distance (91 to i83 meters (300 to 600 feet)) from heavily traveled roadways. Consequently, it is appropriate to predict concentrations of CO on a localized or 'microscale' basis. The microscale analysis applies mathematical models (mobile source dispersion models) to predict carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations at specific locations under even conditions of traffic, roadway geometry and meteorology. The models attempt to Describe extremely complex physical phenomena. However, all models contain s mplifications and approximations, and they are therefore designed to be conservative, i.e. overpredict concentrations of pollutants. In addition, the CO levels estimated by the model are the maximum concentrations expected because they are based on the simultaneous occurrence of all worst case parameters (peak hour traffic conditions, conservative vehicular operating conditions, low wind speeds, low atmospheric temperature, neutral atmospheric conditions, and worst-case wind direction). Microscale air quality modeling was perforr ~,d using the most recent version of the EPA mobile source emission factor model, iaiOBILE 5A (User's Guide to MOBILE 5A. Mobile Source Emission Factor Model (March 1993)), and the CAL30HC version 2 air quality dispersion model. These models were used to estimate existing, future No Build, and future Build carbon monoxide (CO) levels in the project area. The CAL30HC version 2 air quality dispersion model (User's Guide to CAL30HC version 2 0' A Modeling Methodolooy for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations near 4-21 Roadway Intersections (November 1992)) is a modification of the CALINE3 model (CALINE3 A Versatile Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollutant Levels Near Hiohwavs and Arterial Streets (1979)). The model estimates air pollutant concentrations downwind of a roadway assuming that pollutants emitted from motor vehicles traveling along a segment of roadway can be represented as a 'line source' of emissions, and that pollutants will disperse in a Gaussian or 'normal' distribution from a defined 'mixing zone' over the roadway being modeled. Principal inputs to the CALINE3 model include: the geometry of the roadway being evaluated, including its length, height, width, and number and location of lanes; the locations of the sites for which air quality estimates are being determined (i.e., receptor locations); an estimate of the rate of vehicular emissions (based on number and type of vehicles) for each pollutant; and assumed meteorological conditions, including wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability class, temperature, and mixing height. CAL3QHC version 2 allows the user to specify such parameters as capacity and signal type and progression. This model has been approved by the U.S. EPA for nationwide usage. HC and NO, emissions from automotive sources are of concern primarily because they are precursors to the formation of ozone. Since the reactions through which ozone is formed are slow and occur as the pollutants diffuse downwind, elevated ozone levels can be found many miles from the sources of the precursor pollutants. The effects of HC and NOX emissions are therefore generally examined on a regional or 'mesoscale" basis. Motor vehicles have historically constituted a major source of lead emissions to the atmosphere. Lead levels have decreased significantly and will continue to do so because of the mandated decrease and elimination of lead in gasoline. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the impact of lead emissions is not warranted. 4-22 Meteorological Conditions The transport and concentration of pollutants emitted from motor vehicles are influenced by three principal meteorological factors: wind direction; wind speed; and the temperature profile of the atmosphere. The values for these parameters were chosen to maximize pollutant concentrations at each prediction site (i.e., to establish a conservative worst-case situation). Persistence Factor Peak 8-hour concentrations of CO were obtained by multiplying the highest peak hour CO estimates by 0.7. This factor, recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), is necessary because vehicle volumes fluctuate downwards from the peak, vehicle speeds vary, and meteorological conditions change over eight hours as compared to a single "worst case" hour. Analysis Years Microscale carbon monoxide analyses were performed on the existing conditions (1993) and No Build and Build scenarios for the project's design year of 2015. Background Concentrations To account for CO entering the area from upwind sources, a CO 'background' level must be added to concentrations predicted from the project's motor vehicle emissions. A value of 0.3 ppm was used for the 1-and 8-hour background levels. This value is based on recommendations by the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH). It was assumed that these values will remain constant for all years of analysis. This is a conservative assumption since future decreases in CO emission levels are predicted because of expected reductions in average fleet emissions. 4-23 4.4.2 Potentiallmpacts 4.4.2.1 MICROSCALE IMPACTS CO levels with and without the project were estimated at five locations (see Figure 4-1 and Tables 4-7 and 4-8). Sites were selected on the basis of existing and estimated future traffic conditions, and included the locations where the greatest project-related air quality impacts will occur. Sites included sensitive receptors, such as residences, along the project alignment. No violations of the federal 1- or 8-hour carbon monoxide standards are predicted adjacent to the Kealakehe Parkway corridor. Likewise, the No Build alternative will not violate federal standards. However, a violation of the State's 8-hour carbon monoxide standard is predicted at the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road. Areas located near congested intersections generally have elevated carbon monoxide levels because of vehicle queuing and congestion. This violation would be present under both the No Build and build alternatives. Since the build alternatives will slightly decrease the exceedance of the standard at the northeast corner receptor, the project would actually reduce this violation. The project will therefore conform to the goals set forth in the New Clean Air Act. 4.4.2.2 MESOSCALE IMPACTS Regional pollutant burdens of CO, HC and NOx were computed based on estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT}, average travel speed, and vehicle types for all major roadways in the study area. The results of the mesoscale analysis (Table 4-9) indicate a slight decrease in the regional emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons under the build alternatives compared to the No Build. This reduction (less than 3 percent) is primarily from reduced vehicle delays on Palani Road. 4-24 SUBDIVISION COMMERCIAL ~y1P~ ~G P ~ LAS O~~ ® RESIDENTIAL L ~ PA~ANI ~ ~ PROPOSED ~9a DETOUR RD. l ~ VILLAGES OF ~ ~ LA~I'OPUA \ ® O o ~ log ' Sr ~~GNVd P~ fl V KAP~U~PN Q~~~~ Keohuolu Pt. LE END Kaloko Pf. ~ Air Receptor Location Existing Land Use Wowahiwoa Pt. ~ Proposed Land Use Proposed Parkway PACIFIC OCEAN Constructed Parkway a SCALE IN KILOMETERS 2 AIR QUALITY RECEPTOR LOCATIONS /Figure z® oSCA~z~~oo KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS T-~ 4-25 a nnmrmmNCn--rnmm~omcoco t0 N C 00~ OOCO CD CG ~ V ~O elG 00 m r 9 d 7 m c~ O N i r rO nnmrOmNGOrrnmm~Ommin N 000 rOOtO CO CD lf7 <~LI < V 000 Q a~ H J 'C W - > > rr (D n+n O>f7 V V nONrNOO~MMM W m. Q0 000rrr(p ~p ~p ~p (V N(Vr000 J O N 0 V L M QI O nLL] mr r a m0 mM `7MrMMM O „ 01 0 0 0 ~ in O 0 0 r ~ r r 0 0 0 r P = W ~Q W ~ ~ e a ~ o R W c~ic°1ic°'i~m~~~~a~~~md F~ IA yp ccc E EEa EE°'~ ~ ~ ~ a~ a U U U U V~ U v U°°~~ m „ U UU F Q o ~¢~~ZV~i~zv3icWi~Z~zc3nvwiz~w~ N ~ r N M r N M r N M c r N M< r N M a Q. r.=r N(V NM cb C7 V ~ lh to iA c~ 0 ~ 3 ~ d o W % i. a a m ~ f L ~ 'c 2 ~ ~ T ~ ?i Y c C E O ~ `w s y~j a o, °m ~ ~ ~ $ n N~ ~ Y~ Y N p N s ~ W m Em m a°iim a~ic0p `0 me m v~~ ~a a da OY~ Y ~ v~~ N ~ O d 1 ` W m m a a Z in z E r N M v ~n d ~ ~ 'f. y ZI 4-26 'e Or CO fO I~~I~I~OI~~NONapl Lp to lp m N 0 0 0 0 0 0 of v st < C~J < Ch fV 0 0 0 O r ~ d ~ m d O r r Cp (O f~p)f~~<~ONaN~D1~rO ~ r 0 O O O O O O a< O~ f 7~ C 7 (V O O O J a N W W ~ J ~ m_~ incevvo~mcor~vcocolnvc~mco V QN oco~~~<ccv~~~~coc ~ 2 ~ F ~ ~ C M ~ ~(D V 00)D)p)Np~NO~Op1 C7 MOJ CI ~ „OI 000 X000') ~ ~ ~ ~~.-0000 ~ W K r ~ W ~ W N Q v e ~o mda~a~ ~a~ a~~ y M r C C C C C C c c C C c c C C N~ N N N 61 O 0 0 0 0 ~ O O O ~ p ~ .0 E O d 6 ~a~U VUUUUUV VUU~r.~ a O h d N N~ W~~~ W W~~ W W~ N~ cv 3 oc m z~n ~nMZ ~nv~zcnw o O O ~ NC7~ N(h~NC7 «NC7~ ~N(7 ~ W NfV Nc'7 M[hM <a ~f a 0 h In -y v p ~ o O _ _ ~ W e ~ Y J J~~ ~ d T = = L L a= d ~ ~ rn °a „ o m m ~ m ~ m m a~ n o 0 N¢ Q C~ C Y Y ~ Y N (Q II ~ -C ~C N c N ~O p ~ ~ > c A a a t0 ~ ~ J ~p J y 0 N ~ v~~ ~a a Oa C3xx x d ~ u N ~ O N q N ~ A d a a`zrn r a r N M ~ ~ ~ y O = ~ ZI 4-27 z 4 ~ C x i O q i = z ` O `n V CV °n~ N = o Z O M c y Y C a~ ~ m' = 80 W Z oa W ~ uEi a v `oa m ~ ~ m et F ~ ~ Z N a a = o a ~ ~ J o 0 O m ~i a o = m 6 J o ~ a v f~A ~u O1 V r~ o O _ Z rn W ~ O ~ n ~ M O ~ C ~ E co of d ~ Q M ch co u _ N ld O 4 a E ~ ~ U 9 O O ~ N cF e ~ S u N f ~ C ~ 7 ~ N N m` ~ pN ~ N ~ O ~ a a° ma Z m o 0 4-28 There is a slight increase in nitrogen oxide levels (less than 1.5 percent) predicted with the build alternatives. This is due to increased VMT predicted with the project and the nature of nitrogen oxide emissions to increase as average speed increases. Section 161 of the Clean Air Act Amendments {CAAA) requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain emission limits and other measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each region. Since the study area is currently classified "attainment" by the U.S. EPA, no implementation plan to contain emission limits exists. The mesoscale analysis, however, demonstrates that the project will not cause significant deterioration in the study area. 4.4.3 Mitigation Measures Because the project will not produce air quality impacts greater than those projected for the future No Build alternative, no air quality mitigation measures are proposed. 4.5° NOISE AND VIBRATION 4.5.1 Traffic Noise Prediction Methodology To evaluate the potential impacts of Alternative 10 and the Pr .fPrred Alternative, future Leq under the No Build and build alternatives were projected using Stamina 2.0, a computerized version of the FHWA's Hiahwav Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Report FHWA-RD 77-108 (1984). The major inputs to the model are speed, vehicles per hour by vehicle class, and the spatial relationship between the roadway and the receptor locations analyzed. The 2015 projected peak hour traffic volumes were developed in conjunction with the queen Kaahumanu Highway improvements project. Vehicle mix and speed were obtained from field measurements, and were assumed to remain constant. Alternative 10 and the PrPf rrPd Alt .rnativP were assumed to have the same projected traffic. Before future noise levels were predicted, the model was calibrated to existing conditions based on the noise monitoring that was conducted (see Chapter 3.0). 4-29 Table 4-10 displays the monitored levels and the model-generated Leq. The model replicated the existing conditions satisfactorily. Table 4.1 O EXISTING AND PREDICTED LEG Existing A.M. Leq Existing P.M. Leq Location Measured Computed Measured Computed Kona Church of Christ 58.5 58.1 56.6 56.3 Palani Road at Old Mamalohoa 65.9 65.0 64.1 63.7 Hikimoe Street 49.0 48.4 N/A N/A Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, October 1993. 4.5.2 Potentiallmpacts Potenti^I noise imo^ctc are either chart-term or Iona-term in nature This section conf~inc ^ dic uccion of the Iona-t rm imnactc assn iatpd with the oroiect Refer to Section 4 1 ~ 2 fOr a dISCLI$$LOIl ^f tho ehnrt_tarm imnariS rP.l atP.d TO_ COnc_trn CtlOn ciivitiec Ar ordina to th 4f~0T ~oic Analvcic and Ahatm nt Policy (Policvl (snnroved h~ FHl^~A on IunP 7B 19471 traffic noise imnactc occur when the ~Pdicted noic levels ^onm^ch or xcppd the FHN1A Noise Abatement Critera (NACI (Gpp Section 4 5 1 or v~h n the or dirt d noise levels substantially exceed .the ~I tina noi~P IPVPIC °ADDfOa('h" means 1 dRA less than the NAC and "substantially excPPa Th exictino noise IP~PIc" me^n an increase of at (Pact 15 dBA Whpn traffic pQj^^ imn^ tc occur ^bat mpnt must be considered. Noise impacts are dependent on changes in vehicular volumes, travel speeds, and distance between the noise source and receptor. Theoretically, to have an increase in noise levels of 3 dBA, one or a combination of the following would be necessary: • a doubling of hourly traffic volumes on one or more streets passing anoise- sensitive site; • an increase of vehicular speeds of 24 km/h (15 mph} on one or more streets passing anoise-sensitive site; and/or, 4-30 • a reduction of one-third in the distance between auto or truck traffic and anoise- sensitive site. Noise impacts associated with the project were assessed at existing and future "sensitive receptors," such as residences and golf courses, as presented in Figure 4-2. Tables 4-11 and 4-12 show computed Leq levels for a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Three scenarios were analyzed:- . No Build alternative; Alternative 10; and • the Pr .ferr .d Alternative. Table 4.11 2015 A.M. PEAK Leq (ONE HOUR) Preferred Location Existing No Build Alt 1 O Alternative Residential Unit 58.7 61.5 65.1 65.1 Kona Church of Christ 58.1 60.8 61.7 61.7 Hikimoe Street 48.4 51.4 57.3 57.2 Proposed High School N/A 48.6 54.7 55.2 Proposed Neighborhood Park 1 N/A 49.0 53.3 54.1 Proposed Neighborhood Park 2 N/A 49.4 52.5 52.7 Proposed Golf Course N/A 53.2 62.1 62.0 Existing ~jX Unit Residential N/A 62.8 71.5 71.5 Area (Proposed Subdivision) Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, May 1994. 4-31 PLANNED SUBDIVISION COMMERCIAL _ y~P{ PROPOSED INTERSECTION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ~ IMP OVEMENTS RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL ::i'~:::::: _ . ~Nf ~ ~ 'P PROPOSED : LLAGES OF p'9p DETOUR R ~ LA'I'OPUA ,5,, t 0 o,, s l 0 O f, 1 N\G~~P'I AGRICULTURAL V ~A~~µ. o~~~~ Keahuolu Pt. IFS © Villages of La'i opus Golf Course © Residence of Palani Road Koloko Pt. O Kona Church of Christ Parking Lot Approx. 66' Southeast of Polani Junction © Residential Community at Hikimoe St., South of Halolani St. Wawahiwaa Pt. ® Six-Unit Residential Area (Proposed Subdivision) Existing Land Use O Monitored and Prediction PACIFIC OCEAN ~ Proposed Land Use Proposed Parkway Q Prediction Constructed Parkway ° z NOISE MONITORED AND Figure SCALE IN KILdAETERS Z® PREDICTION LOCATIONS 4- 2 SCALE IN FEET KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS 4-32 Table 4.12 2015 P.M. PEAK Leq (ONE HOUR) Preferred Location Existing No Build Alt 1 O Alternative Residential Unit 57.3 61.8 65.9 65.9 Kona Church of Christ 65.3 61.2 62.5 62.5 Hikimoe Street 47.4 51.6 57.9 57.9 Proposed High School N/A 48.9 54.9 55.4 Proposed Neighborhood Park 1 N/A 49.2 53.6 54.4 Proposed Neighborhood Park 2 N/A 49.6 52.8 53.1 Proposed Golf Course N/A 53.8 62.3 62.2 Existing ~ Unit Residential N/A 63.1 72.4 72.4 Area (Proposed Subdivision) Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, May 1994. ~^~ith the Pxr•POtion of the Pxictina cix rnit rPCidPntial ar a (dice Icced more fully helowl the ectim~ted f rture noise IPV Ic ar II \aithin the NAC In the worst r_.aGe scenario. the incrP sec in tr^ffic noise IP\PIC ^ttrlhlltPd YO Kealakehe Parkv.~av are oredicted to r^noP fron_I ^ooroxim~tPly 1 dRA to almost Q dRA well below the "suhstantially exceed" definition of the SDC)T Pnlicv Th oroooced high school and_ neinhhorhood ~fl predict d to h^\ cliahtly more noise with the Preferred Alternative than A1jPrn^ti\e 10 With the Prefetro~+ ~Ircrn~rivo thn nrnnnced high s .hoot will e •oeriencP ^n incre^ce IPCC th^n 7 dRA in cnmoaricon to the No Ruild alternative.. This do c not ^noro~ch the NA nor is nncidered a substantial increase. The n Ivcis does oredi t one loc^tion the six unit residential area nn Palani Ranch nronerty aced b\ r^nch Pmnlov Ps \•~here traffic noise impacts will occur Rv 9O15 this cubai\icion r~ v h ve one hour I en of 79 dRA exceeding the 67 dRA NAC; Q th \ or5t sP seen^rio for the "Fxictin? Six Unit Residential Area" nroiected - - -JPI In ih"t ^rP^ to PXCPed the NAC: a mnrP dPtalled analVSlC Of that arP.a'S I API roieMions m^de using the actual lonations of each of the existinn d Ilina unit As sho\•m on T^hIP 4-14 oroiected noise levels in the area range from lo\ of `+4 dBA to ^ high of 71 dRA Four of the cix nronediec are predicted to have nnise le\Pls beln\ the NAC_ Properties 5 and R the two residences located nearest trz 4-33 K .alakehe Parkway. ar . predicted to have noise levels that exc.Ped the NAC Therefore abatement to radar.. noise I .vels at these properties must be considered. Ta61e 4.13 2015 P.M. PEAK Lea IOne Nourl IN THE SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL AREA Receptor Projected Location LYa Pronertv 1 Property 9 Proms X2$.1 Pronertv 4 Property 5 2 Property ~ u,Q h!ntes Praoertir=_ are nnmhwrr_d from north to south Cn rre P rcon= Rr n kerhoff NovPmher 19~ 4 5 3 Reasonable And Fe?~ilfl analysis Of Mitigation lylp~gurrac Tha SDOT Policy includes the follo~•rino criteria to determine whether noise ahatement I~ reasonaht .and feasible- . Provides a minimum noise reduction of 5 dRA. n_ _i .,r r.t i., ovnPPri G4~, non oar rPCidancP henefited The _t numh r of rPCid nc c prof ct d ~ ill in lode all d~~~Pllinn unite -owner occupied hrn!cac rent^I unite mobile homac etc All unite henefited by a 5 dRA_nr more noise red Iction will ba punted rapardl cc of ~~rh ther or not they were identified as impacted vIPWC from imnac«^,, ..;a,,..r`PC are a major nnnclrieratinn in the reasonahleness of noise ahatement measures- .....t..l.-...rl.a ~.nae uihorn ahenh!YP. iraffir` npISP. IPVP.IS afP. . (ter .at .r consid-""""" .,ter.., than 7n riRA nr wham IarnP. inrrP.a Sec nVP.r P CIPd tU u- - - - ^t'nn nnICP IPVPIc are an11 CIDatP.d. C'rPatar COnS'~'""_.:__ nl.r,...r{..I .,.nac alnnn hinh~~ravs In a nP.W IOCatIOn rPSid nti^I ^re^c ronctruMad hafore an Pxictina highway residential areas in plate long ~n axictinp hiah~•~av for an extended period of time. 4-34 . C'onsidPration of adverse s?nvironmental efforts and h .nefi .ial reduction of Sonstr Iction noise. ~e i`~rn m^in tvo s of constructed mitination are seundwalls and earth herms Soundw^Ilc ^rP never^Ilv the most cost- .ffertivP measure to minimise harm glans a rorridor Ac ^ aen ral r II earth hPrm_c nrovide_ shout three dBA more noise redo tion th^n w^Ils of n Ial h inht Howev .r niven the hinhPr elevation of the pLonocPd ro^dvr^v in relation to the suhdivision earth h .rms are not an aooronriate to mitigate noise in this ar .a of the corridor. Since noic levels t the h o residenti^I units are orniected to Px PPd the NAC' in 915 co Ind~~^II ^t ^ heinht of either 1 S meters (six feed or 9 4 meters (fl feed was mod IPd nd P~ I I^ted Icing th FHh(A model Ontima ThP wall would hP 61 meters (,~00 fP t) Inns ^nd nl^r d at th do of K alakehP Parkway's pavement nearest to the r sid nc s ThP r sultc (CPP TabIP 4-141 indiratPd that- the 1 8 mater (six fond high b^rrier ~ ill orovidP ^n ^cceot^bl IPVPI Of nOICP rP.(iLCflOn (a dPCrPaBP. of mOFe than 5 dRAI Table 4-14 X015 P.M. PEAK Lea (One Hourl WITH SOUNDWALLS Barrier Height Recaotor Q~1 1.8 m 2.4 m _ [O ftl 16 ft1 property 55 ~7$..r2 ~Q PronPrty 66 Z~..Q ~2`~..~. ~7~.2 ni.,f F3a i r =fit meterc (9001eeIl IDDD. OIRnP Parsons 6nnckerhoff. Novemher 19~. ThP nekt stPn Is to determine ~~rh ther the 1 8 meter (Fi-fnotl snundwall Is reasnnahle F 'L,I n rriteri^ snPCified in the SDOT Policy (see above) The aonlication of the crrt ri^ is described below- ThP II 11 chi v substantial voice red~tion of least 5 dBA. For olannina Iroo th ost of th ~ ^II ~ ill bP similar to the cost to a retaining wall. The t' t c t o r IInP^r met r of a standard 1 8 meter (6 fnotl steel-reinforced 4-35 rronnrete r .taininn wall is 8840 in 1990 dollars. The requisite wall will. therefore. cost qsn 600 or X25 300 oer benefited residence. less than the maximum $35.000 cost ner benefited residence soecified in the SLOT Policy. The o~•mer of the affe tPd reciden es Palani Ranch stated no ohiection to the construction of a noise wall he .auc . it would minimise traffic noise impacts on tenants. The ~•~^II will be constructed east fmaukal of the affected residences. minimi~ino its •%c~ ~=1 intrusion The ran h r ouested aonrooriate aesthetic treatment ~oncictent with the nroi ct ^r ^ Th K .^I^kehe Parkway berm ~•~ill also minimize _localiz_ed visual imparts of the noise wall. Since Ke^I^k he P^rk••~^v will b new high~•~av constmcted_in an area ~a~here there Pxictinn residences that ~•~ill b affected by traffic noise from the new highway ~°^ter consideration chn ild be given to nrovidino noise mitigation ner the SDOT Poli v Th noic ~•~a(I will hay minimal environmental impacts. if provided with aesthetic. treatment. In cumm^rv co ind~•~all that is 1 S met .r 16 feefl hioh by 61 meters (700 feed loon inn ^rc to a i^lift ^s re^conahlP and f .asible oer the SLOT Policy Therefore. the ronctr ictign of the caundwall is likeh~ However final commitment will not he made until this oroiact's Re .ord of f) .cicinn is acreoted. 4.6 GEOLOGY, PHYSIOGRAPHY, AND SITE CONTAMINATION 4.6.1 Potentiallmpacts The No Build alternative would not affect the geology, physiography or hazardous waste characteristics of the project area. The build alternatives are assessed as having the impacts described below. 4.6.1.1 GRADING PLAN The Kealakehe Parkway will have a 36 meter (120 feet) minimum typical section, plus additional right-of-way (ROW) required for excavations and embankments. Kealakehe Parkway will conform to the existing contours of the hillside wherever possible. 4-36 However, cut and fill activity will be needed to achieve acceptable grades on the roadway. Preliminary estimates indicate that Alternative 10 will require approximately 1 300 000 m3 (1,700,000 cubic yards) of total earthmoving. The Preferred Alternative will require approximately 1 100 000 m3 (1,400,000 cubic yards) of total earthmoving activity. The zones of earthmoving for Alternative 10 and the ~ferred Alternative are shown in Figures 4-3 and 4-4. As described in Section 3.1.2, a thin veneer of soil covers the lava bedrock at the project site. To minimize erosion of the soil, sediment and erosion control measures will be implemented. Th oroi ct'c National Poll itant f~ischame Elimination Svctem (j~DF41 oermit for storm \•~ater dic harp c from a construction cite will give details as to the 1vgPC of Procion control exact location. incn ..tionc and maintenance ~ocPdurPC ^nd nth r details involving storm water mitigation Snecifirations will .....~I i.....lomonf o Roet AAanancmant Priority Plan in rPgllll Il lt' CUII control erosion- Measures will include installation of silt fences, minimizing the area of exposure to that required for immediate construction, and planting, hydro-mulching or covering exposed areas and excavated material. Silt fen Pc ~ ill he utili~Pd at the dov~ndoo side of graded areas to rrontrol sheet PfOSlnn Sediment basins debris ~ nr riadlYnn hacinC may alCn bP l1cPd fOr ,g,Pdiment remov^I from runoff wher . it is deemed fe-cihle. The heed to import or export fill materials to or from the job site will be reduced by using material that is excavated from other portions of the roadway. A preliminary b~,.ancing of cut and fill indicates that approximately 16 000 m3 (21,000 cubic yards) of material will need to be disposed, which is about 0.015 percent of the total earthmoving volume. Final cut and fill requirements will be determined during the design phase of the project. ^~h r ut fills nd other gr^ding \ nrk is reauired State federal and County grading ~ gill bP enfor Pd to r d is Procion Runoff of drainage water during ~ ~ctructign m v be controlled h\ nrooer nrading clone roiindina warning and rontouring BPrmc t the ton of r its \ ill divert water from the cwt fare RP-vegetation trill follo\ ar ding go r^tionc and if noccible native sneciec will h . utilised Fresh 4-37 ~ as J~ad+ U 1 1 h s st y 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 sv.N t s~ l ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ / 1 ~ ~ i, 11 \1 i II \ ~ I ALTERNATIVE 10 LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (PROPOSED PARKWAY) ` i I - CONSTRUCTED PARKWAY 1 ~ ~ 1 1 ~1 11 ~ ~ ~ , s=AEE'" METEPS ALTERNATIVE 10 LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION Figur-e z Y.EALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS 4- 3 G ®750 i500 L~ SCALE IN FEE' 4-38 i ~ a ,4„ ? qi a~ ~ ~ ~ ~a 1 t~ r- i is `~f,ti f~, PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 11} LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (PROPOSED PARKWAY) ONSTRUCTED PARKWA r ?5 Figure PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION u KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS 4- 4 i 4-39 rnu±s and fills will bP m ~InhPd and nlantPd incrementally so that no clone area remains harrPn 4.6.1.2 SOLID AND NAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT Based on the information provided in Section 3.6.2, project construction will be unlikely to uncover contaminated sites. However, construction will involve the use of some materials that are designated hazardous. The handling and disposal of hazardous materials during construction is addressed in Section 4.18.5. There will be no solid wastes generated from the operation of Kealakehe Parkway. Highway accidents may, however, involve the release of hazardous materials. Such spills will be handled in accordance with applicable procedures. Any accident that involves spills or release of hazardous materials or petroleum products will be reported to the Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office CHEER), pursuant to State Environmental Response Law requirements. Appropriate containment and disposal procedures will be followed under the supervision of the HEER. 4.6.2 Mitigation Measures Impacts to the geology and physiography of the area are minimized through selection of alternatives that preserve existing contours as much as possible, while still meeting roadway design guidelines. Cut and fill will be balanced so that the transportation of material to and from the site will be minimized. 4.7 VOLCANOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKES The No Build alternative would have no impact on the present conditions. Since Kealakehe Parkway will provide an evacuation route for area residents and access for emergency vehicles and supplies, it will also be a mitigation measure for volcanic and earthquake hazards in the area. 4-40 4.8 WATER RESOURCES 4.8.1 Potentiallmpacts Impacts to surface water resources and wetlands are not expected under the build alternatives because there are no surface water bodies, wetlands or floodplains in the project corridor. Wetlands and coral reefs, depicted in Figure 3-9, are located several kilometers from the project site and will not be affected by Kealakehe Parkway. An Army Corps of Engineers permit is not required because the project will not affect any surface water bodies, floodplains, or wetlands (see Appendix F). Replacement of open, vegetated land by a highway will result in an increase in surface runoff. However, the project area soils are quite porous, and when it does rain, runoff percolates rapidly into the ground. Traffic will result in some petroleum and other pollutants in the runoff. Changes in the existing landform by cutting embankments and creating berms will affect existing surface drainage patterns. From the perspective of the coastal waters, Kealakehe Parkway will comply with all water quality standards to protect and where feasible, restore the recreational value of coastal waters. The No Build alternative would not affect the existing water resources. 4.8.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures addressing roadway runoff after construction are proposed. Mitigation measures will be employed during project construction to control storm water discharges. Because of potential adverse impacts to groundwater supplies and nearshore marine ecosystems, an erosion control plan will be an integral part of the project, This topic is discussed in Section 4.18.3. 4-41 4.9 TERRESTRIAL FLORA 4.9.1 Potentiallmpacts The No Build alternative would not have an impact on the terrestrial flora. Completion of Kealakehe Parkway, however, will require the clearance of approximately 26 hectares (64 acres) of vegetated area. With the exnention of isolated h~ urr h s of .ertain .ndana .red and thr .atened olani snPCies tree ~ertion 4.111, the types of vegetational communities that will be cleared are abundant in the area, and their loss is not considered regionally significant. The areas to be j~farted are not critical hahitat areas. Impacts will be minimized by limiting the construction zone and providing erosion and sediment controls. 4.9.2 Mitigation Measures Xeriscape landscaping will be provided to replace lost vegetation. Details of the landscaping will be developed during the project's design phase. 4.10 TERRESTRIAL FAUNA 4.10.1 Potentiallmpacts The No Build alternative would not affect existing faunal conditions. The project will convert faunal habitats into roadway and embankment. However, Kealakehe Parkway will not threaten the relatively common faunal community in this area. As discussed in Chapter 3.0, many of the birds and mammals present in the area, such as the common myna, the House Sparrow, the Indian Mongoose, rats and mice, are considered nuisances by some and are easily adaptable to urban environments. 4-42 4.10.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures will be necessary for the project. 4.11 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES 4.11.1 Agency Coordination The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) were contacted in September 1993 to discuss the presence of endangered and threatened species. In October 1993, a coordination meeting was held with the U.S. FWS to discuss the conclusions in the botanical survey report. Based on its review of the botanical report, the U.S. FWS was unable to determine whether formal Section 7 consultations would be required. On December 16, 1993, a letter was sent to the U.S. FWS requesting its official review of the project. On March 8, 1994, the U.S. FWS issued a response indicating that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) should initiate formal consultation with the U.S. FWS to ensure that endangered species are adequately protected. Formal consultations would ensue after the submission of a biological assessment (as required by 50 CFR Part 402 of the 'Endangered Species Act of 1973") that 'addresses the effects of the project as a whole, which include cumulative effects." In October 1994, additional biological information was submitted to the U.S. FWS. Also in 1994, the U.S. FWS listed the Loulu Palm (Prichardia affinis) as an endangered species. On January 12, 1995, the U.S. FWS received an FHWA request for formal Section 7 consultations. A subsequent meeting with the U.S. FWS on March 2, 1995, determined that the Loulu Palm would need to be addressed in the botanical reports for the project. This decision triggered preparation of the Report on the Endangered Loulu Palms (Pritchardia affinis) Found within the Palani Road Corridor (April 1995). At the same meeting, the U.S. FWS also determined that the draft EIS could serve as the biological assessment for the project. The draft EIS was submitted to the U.S. FWS in July, 1995, with a request that it be reviewed as the project's biological assessment. 4-43 On SeotPmb r 18 i4 5 the I S FWS and the Department of th .Interior (DOII Office of th Serr tangy c Ihmitted a written request for additional information. A meetinn was held on Novemher 1 1445 to discuss the U S FWS' reanirements for additional information FHl^rA suhmitt d ^dditinnal information to the U.S. FIMS on Novemher ?7 1995 to complete its hiolonical assessment. In letter ~ d~ted F hmarv 16 1948 (c P Appendix B 11 th . U S FWS rendered its biolooic~l opinion of non-ieopardv nn Alternative 10 and the Preferred AlternativP_ The opinion fn used nn thr P cDP iPC IRid ns mi .rantha can ct .nophvlla Caesalninia ^pd Pritch~rdi~ ^ffinicl that v~ill he aff rted by at least one of the ^IYPrn^tIVPC Pritch~rdi~ ^ffinic wac not incllldPd in the original species letter. but was ^ddr cc din th formal SPCtion 7 concultation ThP other cpecies descrihed in SPCtion 4 11 were not cuhiert to thic formal consultation hecause thev are found nn curroundina I^nd but ^re not likely to hP adversely affected by the proposed action (cog FINS I tterc d^tPd Febru~rv 16 1446 and SPOtemher 76 1996 in Appendix B 11 ThP binlopi ^I opinion of non-jeopardy fnrmalh~ roncl IdPd the SPCtion 7 Consultation pror~,g~. ~t^rS letters of SPOtPmher 96 1446 and No~Pmber 17 1447 undated information nn ~~.hPTher ddltlnn"I cop IPC h^\P been IISt d clnrP ihP n^arCfl 1444 CnP.(:125 IP.ttBr It ~tiac le coed th t PIPOmPI h^~i^iiancis and NPrauriia nvata previously listed Proposed ~n npered bPC mP listed Endangered on October 10 1446 ThP FWS stated that neither of thec A n cn iec re in the protect area 1ceP Appendix B 1) The stahic of r r .a ' C r'nn 4 11 is accurate as of Novemher 17 1497. Ac riPCrrihed in Section 4 11 the ^!S not d in Parlv onsultation that several species r hirers m ~ tr ncit the nroiPCt ^r a (the endangered Hawaiian petrel !P/Prodroma ~~PODLOhS ndr~ichPnsicl the thr atened Ne~~~Pll's chParwater (Puffinus alrricularisl rL, ~ ri~ra h^nri romped dorm petr I fOreanodroma .astro crvotolaururall. n the No~emhPr 17 1447 I tter the FWS stated that there are no known rerroros of these cDPCIP~ in the protect area and therefore they were not subiect~ ~ ion nd therefore not included in the February 16 1996 biological ornnlon All agency consultation efforts are documented in Appendix B.1. 4-44 4.11.2 Potentiallmpacts The No Build alternative would not affect endangered or threatened species. The locations of rare plant species in relation to the proposed action are shown in Figure 4-5. Alternative 10 will pass through a population of Ko'oko'olau (Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla), a "Candidate 1" plant species. At present, Ko'oko'olau is not a listed or proposed endangered or threatened species. Alternative 10 is also close to two uhiuhi trees (Caesalpinia kavaiensis), an endangered species. Alternative 10 will not directly affect these trees since they grow outside of the project's construction zone, but the trees could be affected through secondary impacts. Although the Pr .f .rred Alternative will avoid direct involvement with Ko'oko'olau and uhiuhi trees, these species could be d stroved or removed by future land use development and improved arc..ss~ ihility of parcels adjacent to the right-of-way. I~pro~ in,~,; ^^^^^ibility ~•~ould incre^se fire risk bPra isP of the araa's drv conditions. Both Alternative 10 and the Pr .f .rred Alternative will directly affect two endangered Loulu Palms (Pritchardia affinis) located along Palani Road. The larger of the two palms is about 15 meters (50 feet) tall and is located on the grounds of Orchard Marine plant nursery, near the building. The smaller palm is about 9 meters (30 feet) tall and is located immediately downslope (west) of Palani Road, about 15 meters (50 feet) south of an electric pole. 4.11.3 Mitigation Measures In th F hr i r~ 16 1Ag6 hioloaic^I opinion the ~^rS reacested that a translocation pl^n ^nd ^ fire plan be implPmPnt .d. a ~ + TRONSLOCATION PLON ~ ~ I n ~ ill bP developed to mitiga~t , impa is to ihP ndanp r d o ilu o ~ (Prit h rdi ffinisl Pf01PCtlOn of the h' +~oc~ rr`aosalninia kavaiensisl will ~ ti ~ ~ this nl^n hecause of the pot ntial of secondarv impacts- 4-45 Mamalahaa ~d Mamalahoa N`N'f' O H _ _5t~ - Itti ' I a • - ~ ii Detour Road ~ - '~r ~,ua: - _ i +~in _ . - . - sac • / h 'C" - . :Q.:i ~ ~ ~ Y _f_ o , _ ae ..r. ; I. \ ~ ~ rq ~ l~~ gin, . I Aiton mu~c 1. sa ~ , yw _ . ~ 1..,.. , - '~~wSG 3E0 . Preferred Alternative _ ~ * _ , LEGEND u:: (Bidens micrenfha ssp. ctenophylla) +rc. Uhiuhi (Caesalpinia kavaiensis) FA • Loulu Palm (Prftcbenlia affinis) Note: Elevations in feet above mean sea level;~~~... ~ ENDANGERED AND Figure 2 scale in meters u "CANDIDATE 1 SPECIES 4-5 0 700 200 ~ KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS scale in feet 4-46 T~•~o Halms xist ~•~ithin the orgposed construction gone of the oroiect The smaller ~f fhe h•~o Halms Incated immediately downslope (west? of Palani Road. will bP franenlaniPd The larger upclODe ?alm WIII be DfOYP.ntP.d bV a rP.talning Wall. Prior to the dart of constr Irtion a botanist will inspect the palm to be transplanted to dPiPrminP the orob^bility of a successful transplant Th .hotanist will then tranmlant the o^Im in nr cPNP aonroved by the FWS. The hotanist will collect seeds for nrnn^g^tinn in the event the palm does not survive the tranmlant. In ^ddition to oll sting ceedc from the smaller Halm. a botanist will also collPC.t seeds from the I^rger palm ~•~hich is located on the nrrnlnds of the Orchard Marine Plant ^ r Im^uk^? pf P^I^ni Road In order to IeavP the larger palm in-place both during onctnlction ^nd ro^dw^v operation a protective retaining wall will he built. The oroiect constr Iction Ton ~•~ill therefore bP narrowed in the area t~ nrntect the 123~l11 The hot^nict ~ ill ^Ico collect ceedc from the endangered uhiuhi trees and place them_ Iona with ceedc from the palms in a nurcen~ tp germinate After the seeds have ~nrnutPd the hoi^nict ~A~ill plant the cP dlingc in a site approved by the FWS The bot^nict ill continue c^rP ^nd maintenance of the seedlings for six months after they been of c d in th ground to Pnc Ire their establishment The tranclncatinn plan ~•~'ll h comolPt d six months following the planting. To ncurP th ores n^tion of the I n Ilu Halm and uhiuhi trees potential nrPServe ~^^^~ionc for off-cite m^n^oament of th translocated species include: ih Housing Fi^^^^^ no.,vL,.,mont (lnrnnratinn (HFr1C1 uhiuhi preserve (57 he .tare (14-acre site?? the Amv reernvell Fthnobotanical wardens: the Tnkvo ,rP .n orooerty or I anihau Partn?re~alani Ranch orooerty. 4 11 3 2 FIRE PLAIT A fire nl n ~ ill b de~Plon d to reduce the potential loco of cnPCiPS and hahitat in the event of ^ fir The plan will indicate: Id ntification ^f the raennneil-ile flrP. Cnnir0 aOP.n CV: 4-47 object listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) must be given an opportunity to review a . the annronriate point of contact in case of fire' . the annronriat . .hain of rnmmand . identification of those r .cooncible for extinguishing fires . location of those endangered and thr .atened and candidate snarl s rep lirina protection from fire' and . duration of the plan. The fire elan will he distrihuted to various fire stations throughout the ar .a In addition. roadway signage will he posted to alert drivarc of notential fire hazards The plan will ha implemented during construction and transition into tha nost- constn~ction phase. 4.11.3.3 ROADWAY LIGNTING DESIGN Althounh the FWS indicated that there are no records of listed endann .r .d or candidate sner.ies of sea birds in the protect area. measures to minimize notential impacts to sea birds are naverthelass provided. Street linht luminanes where provided. will be designed to reduce glare and shield light from migration birds. When possihle the SDOT will use The Newell's Shearwater I fight Attraction PrnhlPm_ A Guide for Architects. Planners. and Resort Managers in designinn the luminar~~ 4.11.3.4 CONCLUSION All mitination measures found in Section 4.11.3 will he undertaken in cooperation with and rP.VIP.WP.d bV the FWS and the f)I NR t~ivision of Forestry and Wildlife. These are the agencies whir.h oversee the protection of endannered species. 4.12 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.12.1 Section 106 Requirements object listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) must be given an opportunity to review a project's impacts. Regulations of the ACHP reference a "Criteria of Effect" which must be applied. A project is deemed to have an effect if it would change those characteristics of a property that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register. If an effect is found, the "Criteria of Adverse Effect" must be applied. The "Criteria of Adverse Effect" are as follows: An undertaking is considered to have an adverse effect when the effect on a historic property may diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to: • physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property; • isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property's setting, when that character contributes to the property's qualification for the National Register; • introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting; • neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction; and transfer, lease, or sale of the property. For most subsurface archaeological sites, 36 CFR 800.9(c) is applicable, and states: Effects of an undertaking that will otherwise be found to be adverse may be considered as being not adverse...when the historic property is of value only for its potential contribution to archaeological, historical, or architectural research, and when such value can be substantially preserved through the conduct of appropriate research, and such research is conducted in accordance with applicable professional standards and guidelines. 4-49 4.12.2 Historic Structures There are no historic architectural structures in the study area that can be affected by any of the alternatives. 4.12.3 Archaeological Resources The results of the inventory survey are described in An Archaeological Inventory Survey and Limited Subsurface Testing of the Proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension Alternatives 10 and 11 and the Addendum Report to the Kealakehe Parkway Extension (June 1994). The reports identified the following archaeological sites encountered as summarized in Tables 4-15 through 4-18: Sites located exclusively within the Alternative 10 corridor (see Table 4-15); • Sites located exclusively within the Preferred Alternative corridor (see Table 4-16); Sites located within the combined Alternative 10 and Preferred Alternative corridor, and the Detour Road corridor (see Table 4-17); and • Sites recommended for No Further Work (see Table 4-18). The Preferred Alt rn^ti\e will affect ~,4 archaeological sites 71 cites located • lusi\ h ithin th Preferr d Alternative corridor (see Tahle 4-161 24 sites lor_.ated within the corridor ommon to Altern^tive 10 and the Preferred Alternative (see Tahle 4 171 ^nd nine cites ^lonp th Preferred Alternative corridor and the detour road that ranuire for no further ~•~ork (c P T^hIP 4-181 In comparison Alternative 10 will affect ^7 CAPS 7R sit c to ^ted exclusively with ihP Alternative 10 corridor (see Fipllre 4-151 74 cites to ^t d ~ ithin the orridor ommon to Alternative 10 and the Preferred Altern by (c P T^hl 4 171 ^nd 1~i sit c alonn the Alternative 10 corridor and the detour ro^d th^t rep lire for no f Irth r work IseP Tahle 4-181_ Fh,N~A applied the "Criteri^ of Fff rt" and "Criteria of Adverse Fffe~t" (36 CFR 800 91 to the 84 sits ^ffected by th Preferred Alternative The eval rations were ri nn the imn^r•tc of the PrPferr d Alternative the archaPOloair_.al sinnificanoe of the cltPS nd ih r ('OmmPndPd YfPatmPnTC fpr ihPSP C11P.S The "C;ritPria of Fffect" and "Criteri^ of Adverse Fffect" were not applied to Alternative 10. 4-50 9 ~ M C C d ~ E ¢ ¢ rc EAOOO o0o a o 00 0 o ~ m~ o Z u O ~ a °oo0 000 0 0 ?0 0 w W ~ H W W d 0 ~ ~ m ~ 22 2S~ 2 2 22 = ~ZQ ca aaa aaa a a da a H ~ ~ d W ~ W T ~ ? ~ Y d C~G~Q C ~ ~ ~ ~d~ ~~m~3 r m-- > > S > > > > > > a > > m `o m m m m DQW C a~aa on uggg 443 0._o ~~~m ~'2222m 7 c=aS m= mmmo~ `o~mm ma mm~ NS ~ 2 OF J ~ m a aaaa aa¢ a~aa~~ r` a0Q F' ~ = a 2 ~ Iii. m a a o. > > > - ~ ~ o o m x N x ~ 'm x c c o QC o o~~ ~a-xi`m~oa~`m~oa~ ~ m~ O H ~~cE~°'o ~y~'o~mo~omoa~iom~m c~~vooaO/i`°awi°' z d ~-~~E~~~va~a•°i~~°v~~~°~~~a~~a~ acv,°~'~~'m `(n N O O L ~ L~ ~ Y~ y ~ ~ O y O U a ~ ~ U S V W ~ V« `°'~~CDC^o ~c`ro `~°o~~ °mr'~m m~m`n~m m°_'iOOOO° N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~Np T ~ ~ iC CO CO QJ W W OD fD OJ fD aD CD M~~~~ N N N N N N N ~ h O O O O O O O O 0 0 O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ON O~ i0 0 O 4-51 ~o m e~ d ~E~Q ~~a~ ~ EAOO o000 0 ?ooo o~ m~ Z m O e > eoo 0000 0 °ooo ~ ~ W ai! N W W d o O x ~ Z a ~ as =aaa a =a=a ~ Q o a a a ~ y ~ 6 ~ ~ W W D r Jv>> ~ ~ a Q = C a~i c a~ ~ ~ d ~ a~ N ~ m vWZ"' o vaaaaam'm¢ as aaa daa_`~,m~~3>>rc¢¢~`~~ H O Q~ u ~^~a~~ ~ o~ ~aa sari v ~ ~`t v v o~~a v v W u, C ma m m m m aU m2 ~ m m m m m m m~c a...:-:~•c c m m m~c~c C Qj ~xroxxxx~~x xx xxx xxxa~c¢QQQxxxQ¢ a ~ Q a = V ~ ~ a -o a ~ ~ o W m ~ a~m_m`~ ~m`~ t ~ °-m C T yaE~E ~~,~~a>>EaS~EE~~,a a~~~m~E~Lg W m mc°>m>m~s~3~~c°~~~mc°~~~mm~~o~c°~oo~m~moioo i H _ I ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ J ~ CU ~ - O V W ~ y d pp~~ma°a~RNN~ amo°MO ooo°~nvvmv~vv~v y NNNNNNNNNNNN NNN NNNNN~ ~(p (p (p (p (p CO Cp (p V to p0p~~ ~p~ ppV~~ CO QJ f+]NI~ N~ N N N N N m iF 07 OD ~ 07 W O~ O] N 00 N ~ ~ y ao cb ~b ao cb ao o~ oS ab cb o3 H H N N N N N N N N N N N O O_ O_ O_ O_ O O_ O O_ O O O O 0 0 0 OO O 0 0 0 0 4-52 m M C C m A O O o_o DO ~ O ~ Eml ~ a O ° c ~ u o 0 00 00 0 ~ ~ dd dd W W iil N! W W W d m ~Q aQ a a as as a H } ~ d W W W YI ~ 'C r ~ ~ m ~ N N a -~OF. o ~ m V V Q~ ~ m ' a~ m m o o a~ d a o o a~ m a m m o° o o a~ o l0 ~ ~ ~ O " Q ° > > ~ > > > > > ° > > > > o m > > 5 > O r a ~ o [L ~ p a o o g g y o 0 0 0° o 0 0 ~ g g v v J F. .~J 7 =T¢S m o,= rn mmrno,w~ ammo>cn ~ o~mmmmm mm 1~ ¢ ~ ~ Q ¢ Q ¢ ¢ Q ¢ v_ Q Q ¢ Q v Q Q ¢ ¢ ¢ Q Q ~ ~ = Q _ ~ V ~ Q ~ x ~ x Y = x x ~ O a°. v v aE a ~ Na ~ E Ea v a_ E ~aaaL ~ ~ E Z H mmo°~mo m~°'m5arni°~mom`°°°mo`°m>>> o~° W m~~ o m y~ o N~ o y o~~°~° U `m a~ o 0 0~ o m ~ HH mad J m J OJd ~a~r ~ F-~aa vi-~-~~~ ~yFa ~ in o cn ~ ~ rn ~ ~ O ~ V W ~ ~c~u,m~c^o amrV.~~n~~~~amoUm~m^CmUOwT C72 co co cp co cD co co cn c° cn co cn co co cn co r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n N r~ m m o v v v v ~n ~n ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ m x co o~ co m ~ co ~ m r ~ r ~ N N N N N N N N o o_ o_ d o_ d 0 0 00 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 4-53 • r m ~ E A ~ O 0 ~ ~ w ~r o c a v a O F~ m ~ d u o Q ¢ ° ro2 ~ Se fN w a m W ~ ~ 9 y N d W d • w z ~ ~ d O v a ~ Q a Q a a t ~ 0 O ~ a` m p w NJ " ~ o o ~ o W W W v w¢ Z r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ A N Q~F. 7 ~ ~ E O °a V a = C N N N N U ~ N N N N N w¢ a VWZC C ~ m'~¢~~~~~~ W a ¢oa M T ~ v W W C ~ v ~ ~ o~¢ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v 1~ ~ Q W Y C a m c a ..I 7 O~ O~ O~ m cn Q = Qi m 07 Ol Oi m o O Q J d QQQ QQQQQQ ~ ~ ~m WDa m € u r.J a p, _ ~ 'o d o m v = p [ W N N n Q _N A ~ N N {L o m H e t .a a Q N 0 0 0 x 0 0 O Z m ~c .'c o w ~ W ~ m ~~«v.~ °-~w~ ~ m v Su 2 c7 u oy 6 L>>>> ~ a>>va~v~-o ~ ~ o a g 0 a N N O O O~~ O O c C C O c y N ~ `m u y ~ ~ ~ o r v cayo a aSac._ O - W N I, O O ~ C O A V L ~ P ~ N m_ N ~ ° 0 Z ~ N C ¢ ~ ~ O °m°a _ - ~ZOacy~mUOwwC7 a P; t a °y;°,T z v N ^ = m N N N N N N ~ 1.1N m ~ h w .Q°a-v = y D W N s c N N t U= ~ C r Z v J Z_ N C T ZU J a L!] In N N d U v N N~ H W v N O 7C CO N 01 LN ~ IL N m ~ m Z ~a¢r ii t N Z N 41 fn (n W.-..-~.-. a ¢ F- m m U ~ H N N U ~ in N ¢mU0 =vyv O O ~ m O o N ZI 4-54 9 C C ~ EE o o aoo 0 Eo o m ~ Q v c 0 O w o o 0 ~o° o Q ~ d > ~ W o H~ aQ a a aaa a d D ~QH m O Q ~ a aa~ ga ~aa~~ 5 o.a•~ A ma'm m g 0 0 0 0 y V V Q LL X22 Q2 =SS22m ma °-m m o m~ o>a o,`o~o~o~ ~ ~ W ~ a ati~~'x=ax aaaaaa F ~Q~ ~ _ _ ~QW ~i w~ ~A y to y lO y d j N ~ V i a O d d C E N N U N L O r N N m QG f Eom~~m~E~mm~`~'mE m~~m-~a'a~iE~coc D r omyd~~hd~~iddNaQ'~ a~~d~o~o~~~m W in Q m o~ ~ ~ ~cn m~ a y v C c a~i ~ a~i CJ ~ U CG ~ ~ ~ Q J G V W ~,am ~o oamCJ~c+~coo amc~owwc~ramU ~ V.m. o00 00 ~oooo~T~n vo>~on°a°n~i~ono~ ~ ~ r N N N ~ ~ c0 eD aD aD m a0 ~ r N N N N N N WMIN o_ 0 000 0 ~i voi ~ uoi ~ ~ 4-55 0 E o0 0 0000 0 0 u Z a C ~ • ? Q°- F Q w > ~ W • W R • 2 2 HW as na.a a axaa a W d f a d ~Z~ Q U U ~ R tC ~ {0 ~ W W.0 0 ~cn~Yx~ m m~ ~fOEa~~ a ~~d~a~ ~ QOJ 7 ~ ~r`~,-° gm~o mvai~a-`-'c m gm~~ g~m~mo d V W Q « ¢ ~Q~~Q~ncnQ x ~x rno, x .m2 oio,rn ~rn`o>x o,x `o~ - c ~aa a aaa as a a R C'i~W o a vv ~ x J F~ v Q Q Q W Q W C ~ ~ Q~W ~ .o ~ m~ =O~ xo ~ gi o- x ~ ~ o" a~ a V~d • `ma~~ QLt~~~~~m mdRm~ ~ v o0 ~ Q a S a o€€ ~ T Tt d m a H~ L>> y a~ r~ v~ v U c c Q O O C N y O G' FF ` 41 h m 0 C O m N N y W o ~°~~mm°'o~_m`c~i~yma ~c~i~c~i~~°~`-`-°~ffi~a~a~ W ~ ¢m o oyJ~ m ~ o m o o LL t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ UU O V = O ~ ~ ~ amD ~ a?D W W ~ N c~ ~ (zQ~', LD /yU; O W /Ly~L•, /(z'J; (zx~; - -yT~•, /yY~~ /yJ~', ~r ~ ~ r r r r r- r T r T r ~ lV ~ lV ~ ~ lV •V `V ~ lV lV lV N N O ~ < V N A M N N N N N N ~ YI _O O _0000 O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4-56 9 M C ~A pp 00 O ~ 0 ~ G L Z a Q C o p p p p Q C OI ~ N W • W a~ is W ~ ~a as a d ~Z> ~aF a~ Q~.Q C yWj ~ Z ~ ~ m m d m ~ d m~~ m m d~~ m~ m~~ t0 ~ W W 9 o as a~`~, m3 ~a~~'m_ m ~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ m r ~ m « > 0>>>5>>S>>5>>>>a J N u ,p o n o g ~ o o~~~ a o 0 0 o g g o g o o g g o 0 d V W Q'.~_. ~ x2 xQ~Q QxQQmtnV~ c rnrnoi`o~oi~rnoio~`o~rnoirnoi¢ _ ~aaaaaaaaaaaaaa-- 10 ~ ~ W ~ ~ x F O Q ~ V r WpLL _ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ - ai w o I` O~ N 7 N O N x O C y d m d m 0 O. L L N .0.. aQ ~ o'HOa~ci°c'm"om~>>-oTirn-oTicom~~~oo,~~~~~~~m C « ~ ~ ~ d ~ m ~ c~F~~ y ~ y~ aka-'~~~ ='fig°~~ Z y a ~y j ~a ~ aaa °~in r ~ o W o- ~ _ Y y ~ ~ NU U Q V W = ra ~ Z O a d¢~ X Y N^~ a m U p w w C7 2~~ Y ,n ~ m ~i Ri R'i ~i Ri ~i ~i ~i ~ ~i ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~i'n in ~ ~ ~ ~ V~ ~ ~ N ~ a^D CC a0 ~ o ! M 41 r ~ N ~ ~ N NN o 00 ° 0 ~o ~ 4-57 ~ ~ E o 0 0000 e ° m : t e Z~ a m V s s Z ~ W F C o ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 Q W ~ N a a ~ ~ W O a ~ W W d ~a a a aaaa _ ag+ r C1 D W ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ o ~ Z ~ d z O ~ Q Y a ° w b W W ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ z¢m a aVJ C C Q~°~~mmmmmm~am~ d p°a d V W ai+ ~ ~=QQQS22222 QN2 d ~ ¢oa ~ t3 ~ W O m J F o~.r = j WCW ~ ' ~ N U a ~ W ~ a € O~ X~ C X y G Q 9 `0 ~ ~ m VWO. o a~~~'aaEm E d t Q o U N y~~ ° a~ m N a tf 8 u ~ w a r g Z M a s ~ N l0 y~ 6 w 'gin v m y ~S a v W cn o 3 ~ ~ r ~ a H of ~dn ma` 8 g u T d c a- ~ a axa~~ O ~ 0 H I, O N tL~ m t V L C a~0 L N G S ~ ~~c00omc~ou`~i^m~~~~c°°coc ~ ~ a V in~~in - z m. y ~ o ~ ~ ; ~ o ;0 ` N w y N ~ = In ° ~ N N Y_ ~ d v -0 U ~ ~a~ `m ~y~ `mom O Nc7 V? n ~ Q ~ mm'' p mG5°~m n n ~nn~ to m y V `m v_+a~ H xy y ~oo.c N N NNNN ~ m C7 ~4JNN ~iagF¢ NN! 0 0 0000° ~ r" ¢m~° T d yy O ~ ~ 1 VI b Z 4-58 ~ a a s a a a o C - d7 - e71 ajJ NJ etJ ad ~ ~ 0 00 0 0 op Z s Q d r 9 C d ~ O EEaaaao p p pp D Em ~ =O s~ OV Q ~ e W Q C Q~ Q Q~ q p O p W ~ ~ N W~.~.iO • C~OQC am xx x OQOW ~Q xxdxx x a xa H~~C ~ as a W T LL G n. a s a s a a a ~ QOWQ ~ oooo~°mm°mm m m m ~'Q.-. d V W 6 p, ~ m m mx~22~22 2 2 2 ~ ._a ~ C7~W ~Oaaaamamm°amm m m m ~ ~a~Q {O ~ C N N N N N N ~1 r7 N N N N ~ N x (0 ~ ~FFO mmmm~~aNiaNi~aNiaNi aNi ~ aNi Q=x W C C~ ~~xx~xx x x x Q = p = Q a QCWF 6 a d ra>j>j>j>j>jEaE~ Q~ oo~~oo ~`>0yo~o~oroo~o~o°o°`~ Z~ O N N f N U N>- U r U U U U U m U l9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ai F- ~ a~ y c~ c~ c~ c~ c d Y d H ~ ~ YY Y~ acne ~ in J ¢ m W Q =a ~ m ¢mU ¢ m U p o ~ rnrn ~ F V H ~~m roiroim~~ ~ ~ ~ r`~i rr~i m~ O o ~ o ® ~ g T ~ o ~ M A ~ O Ob 07 OD ~ c0 M O=~ ~ r,- y~ N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 01pn0 ~1p O O 100 4-59 ~ > > > a 0 0 0 ~ o ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ O ? c ar. ~ Q G y ~ E m o 0 0 0 ..O mF zw c OW H ~ m Q N e W Z ~ ° o v c5 H W a yyj4QC W 0 ~ZyOj~ W ~ _ _ ? ~ ~QOCp oQ a a a tp W C1 d h ~WyLLjaQ r ~ ~ O d ~ m • E a ~ ~ d ~ ~ C "c c a~ a~ m d a~ ~ c d C>W Wow ~ a aEgm~ ~ 3 cE ~ ~ = O C y m om o, om m om o~ ci c ~ ~ > > > > > c m OWFO o e¢ ¢ ¢¢a¢~ a 5"m~"m .o o~ ~ a"~o F. OQ u ~ x ~c~ca m mm m O~ZWV ~ mUm~a a as a ~ci Woao a a W _ ~ O = ~IOi.W~ ~ ~ DEC m mm~a~aci d~m~x~ o `m~`m° mo`mm~o a W Z a o,~ E~ ~ ~ m~[L a ~ a>> a,~_ a>> a,5r ~ paa N ~~~NaO1io`~oroo°,~~o aci ~0~0'0~0~0~0 W~ o~ c o c ~ c~°° `m v° o ~ c o ~ r W d W N ~ W~ W~ U ~ 7 ~ N~ N ~ N N N D) N ~ W in ¢ m ~ ¢ ~ in ~ Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ~ j U - O O U O W w U 2 W = m m m rnrnrnrn a m U ?w w ~ Z ~ , O O V .m+x rn m rn N A « m ~ m N N ~ ~ ~ ~p N C7 M N O O O O O O O O 4-60 ~ a as a o as "e 0 00 0 m ~ m O ~ E ~ 0 00 0 Em O m~ Zv s OW ~ m ~ Q A o ~ oq o NW o+ a a a W F. ~ Yl yyjSQO • C~Cp~ a o ~ ~ZW~ Ao~~ za Oa0C0 ca ~ OyoCV d f~ ~W WQ p Y a W m ~ C ~ ~~oc~i ~g~oamo ~riod~mo~ooo~~oo ~ Ca~Op ~ moo mmcm ~ m~~~_~~--o~~~~ 7 ~ m mm `o>mmc~' Z2 c~2~ u m2 mmm m mm E' a Q Z W ~ as aaa~ o~ a =~a aaa= as W p a~ a x W Q ~ O = = O F ~ ~ o ~~>C a o~d omao~'dEa~a oa a~Na d~ QWFZ a. ~ `~nv'i~~oE~'wm`oCOE ~=mm~c-'~ m~ ~ W N a~i o in U o H ~ = r Y r~ N M~ m m m~ a v m v~ v v v c Z y O O ~ V o: N N m • m ~ r H N pj ~ c0 N N N O ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ 4-61 • Q ~ a o °n ~ ~ o ~ ~ m m ~ o ~ o ~ ..O m~ OW ~ f" ~ u Q N c W Z " ° o N W p~ W E.~ h W d Q C m ~ZW~ a~' _ _ ~Q~O e a a H ~ W V d W W u.C^ T ~ ~ ~ O m E d' d~.7 a NdQdm~mm may mm a~m° roc~Nma~a~ d V W W ° m~~'-~~w~~ ~w ~~w m v c E~~~~~ ~ _ ~ _ " ° > > m > > S 5 > > Y > > 5 ~ y m m c > > > > F~ OQ Ov ° NO'Qi~acimo,rnoi oim~a`o~ rno,c7~~nmco~a,o~o~o~ W Q~ Q W a ¢a~a~aaa as ¢a a¢Q a°aaaaa D = W _ ~ O} = w m L c m a ~ ~LL~G m s ~ nv,~ darn o QWFZ ~ T`Na -coicy~~~~oN~~-~ c ~=c°i~_ D Q Q m o3~ v 3 ~ ~ m ~ `m ~ ~ ~ ~ 03 J _ ti O ~ ~ J W O ~ m -~Y N NNN~ NN~SN ~ YJ ~ ZOdC1¢ N N N ~ f' V a v v e v v v v v v~ c~ v v v ~ a v v Nv c Z N O ~ ~ ~ ~ o A O °J ~ M_ tl! y ~ N N O_ ~ ~ O 4-62 ~ aaa as a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 p o d a o 0 0 0 o O O 9 O « Q d m ~ E A p p p D O O O m ~ ~ O O ro~ Z v a OW ~ ~ m Q F~ e a a Z w ?o0 0 0 0 ?o N W ~ W F a -y W d Q p o a Z W~ a• ?xx = x x xx pQWO aQ aaa a n. a as H ~ W V 4 ~ W LL p 9 m P W Q Y J W O m ~ Odp~ ~ c m ~Ea~o Eda~dmda~ma~ma~dda~d d V V W a« ¢a~ ~~~a ~~~~~3~~~ c3~~~3 a R a=Oc ~ ~s~~Qoooa ~_g_gg_g~_g4_goo_oo_ooSm O Q~ O u ~ `0='"~a rno,ax rno~o~rno,rno,o,rn~, mrnmrnrn x r JF,pF--- LL x ~ aaa aaaaaaaaaNaaaaa OQZp = m WQ p C W x = O ' _ F' ~ W > p m o ~ m o m ~ aci ~ aci aci uci aci N Q W F Z a °c' coif E~mc o E m s o,E E o,o~E o,~ c o 0 Q r E~.. o>>,-co>>>o dSi'oda~S'ia~ p Q r m~ m ~~~a ~ c~~~~~~ y v, ~ m h w ~~~aa W a y a w ~ ¢ in 3~~~3~3 ~ W ~ J yVj O =7° ~~N mamUO wwC7 amUO amUOww CI (")M C`'J C")f'70')NNNNN^ V R V V R ~r'N ~ F• V = ~ ~ u~ ~ ~ u~ ~n v~ ~n ~n ~ CD ~ m co cD ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ O O 00u7 CD ~ ~ ~NpN O ~ fh C7 C7 c7 ~ ~ ~ m N f~ ~ ~ ~ rA V ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ N y N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4-63 • ~ o o a~ s o a ~ • N O 0 0 ~ c E a Yai ~ y1 p ~ II' M ~ ~ ~ N C U > O m~ ro ~ ~ O N OW ~ ~ o~ ~a A Y ¢ ~ma - ~Z u O o a ' , o N W ~ V a _~a y ~ J ~ N a Oa0C0 °a ~ f/! ~ W V d` d z U D > W 4. 1~ Q", W W Q Q o °u o e! JOd~ 7 c o, ~ o ~ mz CI V W W a v c w p m f O Q Q F y ~ m= _ _ _ .E ro S a ¢ Da W aQQ ~ ~ «°o w Q~ O W Z .C L yCp O U = O r = ' ~ O (J Z' ~ N ~ IL W ~ Z.~ m = 0 N N N y d N N o j o m L `d y U U a N C N O WF~Z a Eu~i=h~hv~h > ty a W u `o GQ'a f Vof>>4o~o~°oo ~ «oLoac Q .Q N Z Z ® ~ C> G~ G~ C C ~ a C N~ U W w U L W~ W ~w wow~ww ~ ~ Y mad o m~ oa f a~ ~ > y- E O a== J ~ m a~~~8 ¢ _ ~i O Q ~ i Z o~ ac a s=a O O y v_ O N rom ~ oy~T =m N w m..- U y~ ro p E_U~Y a~~m Z~ ~ Z a> y c r Z ~ ro ~ U c ro ro ro ro E o m: ~ U ~NyE ~ =a~moi V ~ ~ ~-o .N LL dm~~ U a¢Q A rn m ~ ~ z ~n in in in Z ~ w C7 ~ ma¢ N N p~j N U° N v7 Q m U O LL= O O U vi O O cn Z 4-64 p,,. as a as A as a as 0 a ccaooooo oim ooao~~~TTT~ 00 r QQ m v C A V O ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 D O ~ w C ~ O ~ W o O ~ 6 W O E ~ ~ W ~y ~ Q `ono,>> ~ > > E E~ ES>>>>>>-Y ~ O 7 ~ mm mx rn° ~ ° mmmmmmm~ F G W ~ ~~aa~'a a~ ~ a ~aaaaaaa J C m m ~ t O W =x ~ a WC QZ = W a a a ~ ~ a aa~ ate' ~ ° a~_ ~ a~~o ~-oa QO H EE°E>.°~EF~ma, EE°~°>>mt V m~ ~ ~ N E ~ o~ ~~~~a W may=aim-F-a~° - °:a~~ ~ in in o ~ ~ o in in ~ in ~ ~ = at ri y.m. o: oo~~corn~noM+~~raimcU+~~cw+~rLLi~ ~ H ~ C ~ r N N~ CO M CD (O CD (O C° CD c0 °pp)c`')~tn f~N N(O~N N(° N R ~ (h (D (~O C°O CO CO~maNDm~ ~on0 ~ y r r r r N N d~ababcbnSeomabcbo~cb ood~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OO~~OiO ~O~O~ ~ 4-65 m c a m« ~ ~ oo¢ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ p w a aQ z u i° C Y V ~ F ~ ~ ~ Y ~ o C ~ a r W ~ ~ `o ~W aAaa= ~ ~a °i ~ O ~ 6 ~ O « 'o W ~ 'C w v CD ~W a~i N > m ~ 'Q E ~ o ~ a~ ~ J O df c d ~ ~ Q o ~ Q Z ~ O~ i c ¢ aO ~ V~ t C mc~j E £N ¢ ao R C LL ~ 4 =Q a? ~ ° a ? V ~ ~ c`^ J ~ c o O W v ~ ~ ~ c t W O Z ~ 5 Q Z ' O O O ~C' ~ m E O U1 O N Q U N L ~ 1Y ~ 6 N E N O L .y N W in U C a O F ° m N Cp pi a m ~ ~0 O V ~ d d N Z'~ m a N 0 W ~ ~'d m ~ ~°roc p ~=z M y 3 C ttl N O-~y ~ Q= ~Y ~n c o ~ a a x O ~ N N ~ U ~ a0 N j 0 0 iC G t0 CI O N ~ a'O ltl F- ~ ~ N y m or~~ Qo £ Z y ~ j N ~ O O y ` UJ ~ N _ Ol N E ~ ~ N U K N ~ C u~i ~ E U ~~da !?~o c7cD,- tnc Y U dmwE =°E M ~ ^ I~ cmp N _ ~N 1L d ~ ~ ~1 U ~ ~ H « « c° CO O) j Nx ~ m CJ N(n (n vl LL 2~~. b) y U W . O v7 Q OJ U O N N N O O O ~ N OO O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o (n Z 4-66 The FHM~A found that the Pr .ferred Alternative will have an "adverse effect" on all the cirec affected by the Preferred Alternative. and therefore. per 3B CFR 800.5(e1f41. the FHWA found that a Memorandum of Agreement IMOAI had in he prepared. In a letter dat.d April 19 1996 (Gee Appendix C.il the State Historic Preservation Officer yHPO1 ron erred with the "adverse effect" assP.nsment and the need for an MOA An MOA \:~as subsegs~enth~ developed. with full npnortunity for nuhlic nomment (see SPCtipn 4 17 41 v~hinh hac been Ginned by the FHWA SHPO and the ACHP Isee O~unonrl v C' 41 The BOA ctahliches the mitigation treatments for the sites (e.g.. data reC`OVPN DfPCPfyatlOn-In-DI8pP.1 and the proness by which the treatment olann will be developed and aonrpved. If Alternative 10 is cPlented in the nroiect's Re .nrd of Decision the "Criteria of Fffeci" ^^d riteria of AdvercP EffPCt" will have to he applied and most likely a separate ~~OA \•~ill have to bP PxP uteri Drior to the approval of the expenditure of env federal fundc for potential dPCtructive activities (3fi CFR 800.3(c)l. T^hlPC 4-16 ^nd 4-17 cllmmari~P the treatment of th .sites aff .rted by the Preferred AltPrn~tivP ^s PctahlichPd by the A4OA as follows: one (il site: preservation-in-Dlace: four (41 citPC p~rti~l or complete or servatipn b It not preservation-in-plane where rhev ^re ^ffected by th .Preferred Alternative_ one (il cite d^t^ r Gov rv and or nervation but not preservation-in-place • thirty-nine (491 sites data recovery and • nine 191 sites' no further work. ThP SItPC rPa lirina for "nn further \•~ork" \~~Pre not include>~f in the MOA sinr_.e it is 'cieliPVed th~i no further scientific data is obtainahlP from these sites hevond what was lir d during the irnentorv survey (e n cite configuration description and plotted In .ate F_..~ ^ en .,n rl_ta rarrniPrv the MOA mandated the preparation of a data rPCOVPfV elan that will specify: ~rte~ to h . data r ..overed 'tip :roh questions to be addr .sled through_ the data recnverv. with an Pxnl^n^tion of their rPlevancP and importance 4-67 . the methods to be ised with an exnlanatinn of their relevance in the research questions . rnntentc_ of the archaeologjnal data rPCnven~ renort• Ll]P rPOOrt review nrncedures: g renort comgletinn date_ . oroooced distrihutinn of the results and • oroooced m thodc by whi .h native Hawaiian aro~ns will he notified when the work beginning and h grovidPd a summary of the renort findings. The follo~•~ing ar the sit S fP.grllfing nrP.CP.rVatlnn iSP.~FigL1rP. 4-61 by the MOA late Site # 50-10-77-00009 Kerbstone Trail (Mamalahoa_Traill ;tat Sit # FO-1 0-97/28-1 4006' Kerhstone Trail State Site # 50-1 0-97-1 3 1 94: Trail (Traditignall . 4tat . 4it # 50-1 0-98-1 8094: K .rbstnne Trail late Site # r,0-10-98-18185 I ava Tube Complex State Site # 50-10-98-19628' Platform 4.12.3.1 TRAILS Ty ' ~ tone tr ilc ~ ill bP cro c d by th Preferred Alternative Sites 50-10-27/28- 1 n006 nd 50 10 8 1809 I ngthc of these trails ti•~ithin the ronctruction ~nnP of the Preferr d Alt rn~tiLP ma^c ~rP 850 m t rc (9 850 feed and 4070 meters f10 120 fPPtl. recnerUtPly The tr ik ^rP oriented in an Pact west (mauka-makail direction These ' ~ h lP hPen nrP~iouch brew hed in numerous nlacPc ThP tr anion I tr it 19itP 50 10 27 14194~nd Mamalahoa Trail (Site 50-10-97-000021 ~ . ,r scar ianri near the OfJPPn Kaahumanu/Kealakehe Parkway interce lion Th .traditional trail was recommended for nreservatinn within the 'rn~cing Fin^nce ^nd I~evPlggmPnt (HFD .l proposed golf crnirse Mamalahoa Trail is g~f Pnc~tonP hgrcP tr^il th^t ~ ^c conctructPd during the nineteenth cPnhirv It has open brP shed in c i r^I nl^res bi nth r Pact-~~~ect (mauka-makail roads including Fn portion of KP^I^kehe P^rkwav Roth trails are in fair to poor r.nndition Aii it its ~ ere ti-ored "4innifir^nrP Criterion A" which indiratPS a site that reflects m inr tr nds in the hicton gf the State or nation ThP kerbstone trails represent two mainr trends in H~~~~ii^n historv~ the alteration of traditional Hawaiian trails for horse 4-6B Mama~h~ ptd Mamalahoa MN'f H _ ~ ,w„ l i o' ~~\gG ~xs - . - ~ \ ~ ro0 "1 tad`s „s, , 19628 / ~ ~ 9 s, f w Detour Road ~ -u• _ / :,,•s _ _ _ - MO / • / ..Qi ,a .........f ~>c-.... - ~ m° .....~._.,..,..,•~Kiay, _ - i ~ SL. .L.. - ~ \ . asc rAr Sae No. 18749 - w~a ~ Site No. 18750 Mf i \ ~~~nnm nauw .vl. . s 1 1 ~ ~ - esc'... Prsfernd Aksmative ~ (ARemative 1 f) ~ . - . , \ , _ 18099 _ \ \ ~ aa: ~ Inset... SRe No. 18185 ~ ~ gpprox. 180 meters (600 feet) west (makai) ....ti. na _ Ske No. _ " Site No.f ~ 00002 13006 ~ Site No. _ 13194 Kaa HwY ~ humanu aan Seelnset ' Queen - - ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ Honokohau Harbor Rd. Note: Elevations in feet above mean aee level 2 'v ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Figure ®o S~a'eiboota's ,Zoo RECOMMENDED FOR PRESERVATION KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS scale in feet 4-69 naval during th .mid to late iS00s. and for Mamalahoa Trail. the subsernlPnt alteration into a i Po trail durino the Oth century and the historic Japanese settlement of uoland and initiation of offee and "tr l .k" farming. Fa .h trail also has at least nne othar signifi an P d sinnation "D" whi .h indicates a site that may yield information imnortant in or .history and history. Although the BOA rea lir s that th .sP trails he gr .served. it does not require DfPSPN"tlnn In DI^ P l"!here Yf1PV VIIII hP affP tPd by the Preferred Alternative The two •••^^t (m^ Ik^ makail k nc~ton trails .xtend well hevond the corridor of the Preferred Altern^tiv ^nd since ether sections of these trails are in hetter c_.nnditinn `~~n the sections affected by the Preferred Alternative nresarvation-in-olace will not bP rP? llfPd \ her th tr^ils \ ill h aff rt d h\ th Preferr d Alternative [3PVOnd the ronstr Iction nne of th Pr fPrrPd Alt rnativP th .trails wilt not he dirt lrhed mho Igh the tr^dition^f tr^il ^nd the Mamalahoa Trail have been recommended for nrPSer\^tion in nr vious ^rch^POlogical studies because hoth trails have heen ore\io lsh~ hrP^ched ^nd ^re only in fair to poor condition where affected by this ~roiect or serv^tion-in-nlac . \~~ill not hP re~uir~d- e 12 ~ 2 PLATFORM AND SITE COMPLEX Site 50 10 R 1962A is I^rge re tanrnllar platform Pncomgassing_a walkway and a t-rr [ - -fruCii re ~^^^r,.,r rL.'., rh° nnctn in nn manna of ihP dPigL road ItS signifi nce desigrntion is "D" indicating that the cite may yield information imnortant jp nrehiston~ ^nd histon The BOA r quires data recovery and oreservation of thin SIB HOW ver the stie ~^°c nor rani lira nrocaniatinn-in-plane The data rP.COV6N nrn^a(f IrPc ~^~erP. dP.S .rlh .d ahOVP. n i~ z ~ ~ eVA TUBE COMPLEX ThP onl\ r h Pologic^I site affected by the Preferred Alt~tive that requires nr s ro lion in nl^ Pie Sit 5O-10-2R-1 A185 a lava tube comnl .x Section 4.13.1.1.2 n .1' r 7 nrn~ irie dPCC'rlntlOn of this site 4PCtion 4 13 1.1.5 describes Ire tmPnt m sores ih t h^vP_h~Pn anrPPd upon by the FHWA SHPO and ACHP and ^'e conditions of t_~OA- 4-70 More details on all sites may be found in An Archaeological Inventory Survey and Limited Subsurface Testing of the Proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension. Alternatives 10 and 11 and the Addendum Report to the Kealakehe Parkway Extension (June 1994). 4 12 4 Consultation And Community Input Copies of the archaeologist's reports were forwarded to the SHPO seeking concurrence with the report's conclusions. Subsequently, the following State and local agencies and native Hawaiian groups were contacted to solicit their input on sites in the project area, significance evaluations, and mitigation recommendations: • Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA); • Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL); • Hawaii Island Burial Council; • Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawaii Nei; • Daughters of Hawaii; • Kona Hawaiian Civic Club; • Native Hawaiian Advisory; • Na Ghana O Kekaha; and Pai 'Ghana Association. Each organization received copies of the archaeologist's reports and a general location map to review. With the exception of the Pai 'Ghana Association, each group also received gone-page questionnaire to elicit comments, and an invitation to attend the November 30, 1994 public information meeting. All coordination occurred with the knowledge of the SHPO. Evidence of this effort is exhibited in Appendix C.1. In ddition the oroi~t'c ^rch^eoloaical findings were nresentPd to the I and and Srnereianh Committee of the Office of Hai aiian Affairs nn August 8 1r146 and a oroie t nr s nt^tion ~ ^s m^de a second time to the Hawaii Island Rual_C:ouncil nn ,`je~ptg{~her 19 1 qA6 Also a draft oL nc~ nnnn was cent to .inht Hawaiian ~ ions fnr revie~~ before h inn finalized A response was received from one nroug (hiu M^I^m^ I N^ K ~oun^ O Ha~~~aii NPiI and a written resoonc_ewas ornvided (~Ae Ann .ndix C 11 4-71 4.13 SECTION 41f1 EVALUATION ASP tion 4(fl of then oartment of Transportation Act. 49 U.S.C. 303 and 73 U_S.C. 138 Irefarr d to h rP^ft r ^c "R ction 4(fl"1 n rmitc the use of land for a transoortation p~iect from a cinnificant publicly-owned nuhlir. Dark. recreation area. wildlife and r•^~~rfov/I r fua nr a historic cite only wh .n the Federal Hiahwav Administration IFHWAI has determined that th rP is no f asihle and prudent alternative to such use and . the project includes all passible planninn to minimize harm_ to the ornnerty race ~Itina from such use. Thus the purpoc of Section 4(fl is TO DfPSPr\/P significant parkland recreation areas. refua c ^nd hictoricl^rch^POlopi al sites by limiting th circumctancPS under which such land can b , uc .d for transoortation projects ThP \•~ord "us in Chic case m .ans . i^nd is permanently incomoratPd into a transoortation fagilitu ihPfP Is a iPmnnrary OCCl1Ddn of lanri that IC arivarSP In terms Of DfPSP.NatlOn of the resource: or ihP prOIPCY4 D(OXITTIITV t tho e'tn c hetantially impalfC ThOSP fllnctlnns That ^lifi/ the sit ^c a SP Lion 4(fl recourse Pv .n though nn land is oPrmanently or tgmpor^rily ^ra /fired This is .celled "ronstr Irtive use." ~IPith r the Pr fPrrPd Altermtiv nor Alternative 10 \••ill use lands from nublirly-owned Qublic o rl.s o rP re^tinn^I f^cilitiPC or wildlife and waterfowl refuges bPC'aIISP there re no s Ich recn IrcPS \~ithin the project limits ThP nearest nuhlicly-owned public o ~ K^loko Honoknh^u N^tional Historic Park located west (makail of Oue~n Kaahumanu Hiahwav. An rrhaPOlogic I site f Its \ ithin the Prot ction afforded by Section 4(fl only if it is nn nr eliaihl for th N^tion^I R gicter of Historic Places and the site has heen Pd ^fter onsult^tion ~~/ith the 4HP0 and the AC:HP to be important for Q(PSPr\ tinn in nl c ThrPP such sites have been id ntifiPd in the project area and their locations rP cho\ n nn FlgllrP 4 7 The SHPO's IPTTPfS of DPCemher 73 1993 n t ^ iQQd (cPP AOOPndfX G ~ anrPO ulih thacP dPTPrminat10r1S The Preferred Alt rn^ti\P \ ill use ooh/ one archaeological site that was determined to be 4-72 PlipiblP for the National RPOISt .r and important for preservation-in-place State Site 50- 1 0-28-1 81 85 (CPP S r•tion 4 12 31 Alternative 10 would us .two sties (State SIiP.S 50- 10 2A 18744 and 50-10-28-187501 etinihle fur the National Renister and important for preservation-in-place. a +z 1 Ev~l~~tion of State Site 50.10-23.18185 Site Tvp . I aya tuhe petronivoh Function Permanent habitation hurials ,~ecial Features (#t 12 nimencion 1020 m2 (11.016 sn. ft l ~IPV^tion 140-155 m 1460-510 ft 1 abrn~P mean sea level 4 13 1 1 PROPOSED OCTION ~proxim^tPly 122 m terc 1800 fP tl of the lava tuhe exists within thPPr .fP~.rr?d Altern tivP onatn/ lion ~nnP (c P FIOfIrP 4 7) ThP remainino 82 meters 1970 feed Q~ur beyond th ronctr Iction ~onP act (ma Ikal of the alignm .nt corridor. The portion of ihP ^linnm nt closest to th I^v^ tube is In .ated heh•~Pen the 122 and 152 meter (450- and 500-fontl elevation levels. e + ~ DESCRIPTION OF THE SECTION 4/f1 RESOURCE Site 1818 is I \ tube sv TPm Inc^tPd hPlo\ an undulating pahoehoP flow which is ~Pntly cIOD1t10 \JPSt (m I. IY (SPP FlgurP 4 !3) ThP area has SCr']TtPrPd pOCI(PYc Of Sell ,~yrf~cP v oPt^tion includes pout koa hole gasses anti air plants. ~P l \ tube cVCTPm IS g IITP PXYPn RI\P anti OntalnS interior Ctrl lr`turec DP1rOOIVDt1S ~Iri Ic nd \ ^nPh of r Ilhlr^I m^terial ThP lava tube consists of a main hlhe oriented in ^n P^ctlwPCt (m^uk^/m^kail dirPr•tion \~~ith a fe\a~ subsidiary tubes extending hort gist n Ps n rn odic II^r tp the main t IhP ThP acrecsiblP portion of the main jUhP Pxtendc ^noroxim^tP!\ 2,~+ met rs (887 feet) east/west Five areas of ceiling roll pce (c Irf re cinlsl cre tP entr^n ec into the lava hlhe ThPCe sinks form light ~~n s \~herP hum^n ^ctivitiec ^pnear to have been focused 4-73 am81ah~ 0~ Mamalahoa ~ H .t10 1$~~1 i \ i350 :zs: ~ ~ ~O ~~nc ,1 Detour Road / ~ _ ~ ,~:K: r _ h . frp Y 04 / ..,5,_...... O ~ K~~t rm _ ,ah-" :AO °K0 ~ Site.No 18749 SiteiJo 48750..,. . J _ j., i ~ ~ --t Alter rr t:ve~ _ . ~ ~ t.. \ ~ . Preferred Alternative :h~ ~ ~ \ so (Alternative 11) \ ~ \ _ Site No.~18185 \ \ \ ~ \ .._._0.0 xw Note: Elevations in feet above mean sea level ~ ~ ~ . ~ 2 0 100 200 300 ®0 e~ale°200 SECTION 4 (f) RESOURCES Figure KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS 4-7 scale in teat 4-74 a, ~ m ~ , ~ ~ C In ~ T O =L d N 01 N 10 `L U'~ C a ~xm c C m2 O N v =°~~o L.~ O m j~ ~ O E U m°ion m ~F? o ~ REF ~ m~ s N N _ ` V NO U N ULL D>~ ~ U U 1 Nom- (0d N J C C i ~y~COLL N~mW N.~ N C ~ U1 ` m- ~ U F ~ N m NV C~ N f6 U N.~ MM ~ 7 ~.C ~ 0 7~ L 7 N N ~ ~ W HIn~U(AU(A In fnQOHF •v TM ~ W 1 ~ N \Q,i ` N O Y ' ~f m ~ < ~ W ~ ~ ! o q w F- Y 2 ~ (n a 4~ C w_ 1., : N .1' ~b• •c~ a aui~ yalew ~ + a ~ w O Y 11 ~~(/\y1\ w /~~R~ N ~ 110 i ` _ ~ p 1~, S m \ , 11 O_ 1 '1 m f O m V~,1~~ \ ~ O_ ~ - o ~s~ ~ m Y I~~ n ~ 1':,1:'~ m ~ ~ m ~ C 7 A ~ \ ~ m x aui~ yolew m a A = m .'9 ~ ~ 5 m E c 5 v m m ~n c m m m O m Y J m f U C C ~ m ~ N cEV~ ~?amoti ~ O o \ U \ m 1 ~ Z N 4-75 The Site 18185 lava the is in good condition Based nn testing results- the hahitation ~re~c IC'h~mherc A and Rl of th lava t IhP Pxhihit aond excavation potential- Anne^dix 7 d ccrib s details of the 1? f .afar .c Pn .punter .d at Site 18185. a + 3 IMPACT ON THE SECTION 4(fl RESOURCE BY THE PROPOSED ACTION ThP tot~l ncro^ hm nt of ihP Pr ferr .d Alternative nn this srte is estimated to he ^pnrnxim~teh~ Fi10 m2 (6 570 cn ft 1 after considering site. houndaries and the nececc^rv nr^dinn \"~nrk in thic vicinity To achieve the desired profile where the croccec Site 18185 It Ic Pxnected that anproxlmately 1.8 meters (6.0 feed of overh Irden m^t rial may need to be removed- To provide a stahle roadway foundation cubcurf^cP voidc and posclbly portions of the tuhe itself. will he filled. n0\"!PV r the spP ificc of th SP tion 4(fl use .annot he orPC.icely determined without het filed can vino (c P Section 4 14 51 i e the nrPCice portion or amount of the tuhP ill bP filled is not kno\"~n ~t Chic time o ndina additional survevinn and detailed aniline~_ V~I~^hIP ~rch~POlonic~l ~rtif^ tc ^nd h~rialc \"~ithin the affected section of the tube will bP d~m^aed during conctnlction if no mitigation measures are implemented The Preferr n Altern ti\e ro Ild therefore c \Prely affe i th historical value of chic cite a 13 2 Evaluation Of State Site 50.10-28-18749 Site Tvp I ova Tuhe F rnctinn Re . Irrent hahitation Burial FF .atur~l_1_ Dimension 350 0 m2 13.765.4 sa. ft 1 Fi_. ..-.K nip m /710 ft 1 nhnvo mean cPa IP.VR a 13 2 1 PROPOSED ACTION ThP lava tube-ic 30 meters (100 f etl south of ih 110+00 centerline stake of ~ a r' I ih' ih rnnetrnMinn 7nnP (SPP FlnnrP 4-71 The 4-76 portion of 1hP alignm nt closest to the site is locat .d near th . 90 meter (730-footl elevation level. e 13 2 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SECTION 4ff1 RESOURCE Site 18749 is I^v^ tube (ceP FIOLfP 4-91 The tub . entranc.P is sit laced along the ^^t Im^ Ik^l Pdg of ^ I^rgP sink located west (makail of survey stake 100+00. The ^urro rndina tPrr^in sloping gently ct (makail consic_ts of eroded nahoehoe with outcrops ^nd ch^Ilo\ coil deposits Vea Tation in the area includes grasses kga haolP and lantana Site 18749 is in f^ir rondition It is a h Trial site with recurrent habitation subfeature comnonPntc It is likely that the interment of the hurial noctdated the hahitation oncuoation. Appendix C 7 des .rih ¢ Sit .18749 in gr .gist detail. e +z ~ II~.PAGT ON THE SECTION 41f1 RESOURCE BY THE PROPOSED ACTION The Pncro^chmeni of Altern^tivP 10 nn this sit \ao Ild bP ihP entire site totaling 350 m` 14 768 ca ft 1 ^fter considering cite houndariPS and the necPSSarv grading work in •'^inity Aogroxim^teh~ 4 meters (8 0 fPPtl of overburden material would need to nP r mov d to chiP\P th d sired ro^d\ ornfil Such Pxcavatign could affect the I^\^ tub To provide a stable ro^dv~^v fn and^tion subcurfa voids. and nossihly the lava • IhP itself would be fillPd_ V lu hIP rtif ctc nd buri^Is \ ithin the affected section of the tube would hP ' m gPd during constr I Lion if nn mitigation mPacurPC are imnlemented Alternative 10 \ Hold th refore 4PVPfPIV affect ihP hlSigrl(1aI VaIIIP. Of this Clte. 4-77 [eol LEGEND 11801 sink ! ~Q ~ tube entrance ~ Q [160) % extent of lava tube `J ` lava tube continues ~ ~ ~ facing O ® cobble paving ~~18~' ~ ® cobble and pebble paving ~ ~.l [60) ~ fire hearth i slope direction A-I `CA1 g', burial/bone scatter (so] \~Bl [llo] ceiling heights in cm. /1 i ~Bi (ilo) height in cm. J o = ' ~ i O Al a ~ [so7 ~ ~ 40~ s 1 i [so] I ~V•\ i Source: Cultural Surveys Hawaii, June 1994. ,.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE Figure acale° 50-10-28-18749 4-9 Z scalc a;n~ KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS ®0 5 4-78 4.13.3 Evaluation of State Site 50.10.28-18750 Site Tvpe: Site Complex Fun .lion: Recurrent habitation: Agriculture: Burial F.a1rP r~rgcl~8_ Dimension 1784.0 m2118.97Z8 sg. ft ) Flevation• 913 m 1700 ft.l above mean sea IevFl 4.13.3.1 PROPOSED ACTION The centerline of Alternative 10 will pass through the middle of thF sitF rmm~lex (see Fig rre 4-71 The site is located at annroximatety the 108+OD~taked location of the alignment The portion of the alignment closest to the cite is located_ near the 913 meter (700-food Flevation level. a 13 3 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SECTION 4If1 RESOURCE Site 18750 is ^ cite romplex roncictinn of h•~o lava tubes (Features A and Cl. a modified sink (F aturF Rl hvo platforms IFeatur s D and Fl. a wall (Feature Fl. mnrrnds (Feature C'1 and a terrace (Feature Hl (se . Figure 4-101. The terrain is ~r^^^d o^hoeho out con with shallow soil pock .ts in thF Inv r regions gf the outcrop VPgPt^tion surrounding ih .site .onsists of koa hale. lac ana and various grasses. Appendix 9 ront~ins descriptions of the eight features in more datail " 3 IMPACT ON THE SECTION 4(fl RESOURCE BY THE PROPOSED ACTION Although ih centerline of Alternative 10 ~~~ould pass through the middle of the site complex h~ri^I r^ve (I^v^ label is th gnly romponPnt in the complex that is imngrf nt for pr sere^tion in pl^re The rave is Igcated 15 meters (50 feed north of the 108 00 nterline st^ke of Alternative 10 within the construction zone._ Althorinh the centerline does not p^ss ov r the -cave the entirF site is ~,ncated within the nr lion nn The ^lignm nt would therefore Fnrrgact nn the site by noroxirtrteh 1764 mz (18 q7R sg ft l after considering site houndariec and thF P ^n grading work in_ th~° ~~~^~^ir~~ AnnrnximatFly 4 8 meters 115 feet\ of 4-79 LEGEND f outcrop edge ~ historic boundary wall 1' outcrop ledge ® cobble paving lava tube entrance facing ® boulder paving f11o) height in cm, it collapse ? test unit o stake location Feature A Feature B (20) (zoo) o .~-t. ,1, Feature C (20) , 1 (so) 65 (700) eo ~ Feature F ~ (s0) 0 Feature D ~ ~ $ ~ . t10) i flush ~ (ao) ; (30) ~ (80) ;flush i ' (100) i 1 ~ ~ Feature H 108 + 00 Feature E ~ (7~) Feature G (35)(15) (20) Source: Culturel Surveys Hawaii, June 1994. It~~s ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE Figure N style in meters ® °~G~ 50-10-28-18750 t~-1 Q scale in seat KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS 4-80 overhurden material would need to be removed to achieve the desired roadwav profile. Such excavation would affect the burial cave. To provide a Stahle roadwav foundation. suhsurface voids. and nossihly the lava tuhe itself. wrnild he filled Valuahle artifacts and hurials within the affected section of the rave would be damaged during construction if no mitigation measures are imolemented_ Alternative 10 would. therefore. severely affect the historical value of this site. 4.13.4 Avoidance Alternatives FlgnrP. 4-11 displays the SitPS 18185. 18749 and 18750 avoidance alternatives. These alt _rnatives are fully d .scrihed in Section 79 Isee FIgI1rP.S 7-9 93 and 7-41 and. with th . exception of th . No-Build alternative. were previously considered for thorough eval cation in this oroi ..t's Draft and Final FIS. However. they were eliminated for vario is r .axons (s ..Section 7?l Tabl . 4-19 Summari es an analysis that determined whether any of these alternatives are f asihlP and prudent to avoid the thr .e Section 41f1 rasp it .es. Th . r .c Its indi .ate that th e alternativ S are not feasible and nnident avoidance alternatives hP.Cau SP. they ither would not avoid icing one of the Section 4(fl resources: would ngt address the nroiPCt's purposes and needs or would have community impacts of an extraordinary magnitude. Archa .nlogi .al reconnaissan .e surveys were conducted for Alternatives 6A and 8 b ~auSP they passed th .first-r rt sc.reenina Isee Section ? ? 11. Some of Alternative 6A'~ surv v res Its can be aooli .d to Alternative 6 hecause they share much of the s^mP alignment (7th .r than the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 10 these are the only ^It rn^tiv c with available ar .haeological data. Site 18185 was found along hoth Ahern^tives F'iA ^nd 8 as well as Alt .rnative 6. Therefore- Alternatives 6. FiA and 8 ~•~Pre ding ialifi d as f aslble and nrudent avoidance alternativPS hased on the fact thPV would not avoid Site 18185. -Pn of the ^void^ncP ^ItPrnatIVP.S wo ild not meet at least one of the oroiect's nurooses ^nd n Pds ^S d srrihed in Section 1 9. The TSM alternative would not address any of the nroiPM's nuroosPS and needs. and the other two non-alignment alternatives (Imorrn~ menu to Palani Road or Hina I ant Streetl would not address the economic 4-81 Manfafahoa ptd Mamalahoa Mme' H . . ~_u ~ , ~unu ' . icso " . rcnr......... !q w„ - ran - t r-Sne No. 18749 _ 18750 . A . , Anernative 10 . . ' LEGEND ~a Alignments of Avoidance Anematives ' Preferred Anernative Preferred Anernatve (Anemative 11) and (Anernative 11) Anernative 10 `Site No. 18185 _ i irY Y%~ Note: TSM and Improvements to Palani Road and Hina Leni Street not shown. °v SECTION 4(f) AVOIDANCE Figure scale in meters ALTERNATIVES 4-11 0 600 1200 KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS scale in feet 4-82 table a.i s EVALUATION OF AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES Avoidance Alternative Reasons For Disqualification ItN°±. ~t Would not meet oroiect's ournosec_ and needc_. Imorovements to Palani Roars Would not mast the economic develonmeni needs of the nrniect herauce if would not provide access from the Villages of I a'i'onua to Mamalahna Highway. Would dicnlace uo to 71 residences innludinn a relinious fanility Imorovements to Hines I ani Would not meet the economic develnnment nPedc_ of the ?roiect becai ice it Street wo ~Id not orovide access from the Villanes of I a'i'ooua to Mamalahoa tLGtilCIdY. Alternative 1 Would not meet oroiect's c_vsfem linkane ni irnnse hecause it would not form a continuous State routes svc_tem anti hecause its maximum grade exceeds standards for an arterial hiahwav Alternative 7 Would not m .et nrniect's system linkage ouroose berauc_e it would not form a contini mus State route syc_tem anti hecai ice sic maximum made exceeds standards for an arterial hiahwav. Alternative 3 Would dicnlacw 7d residences and would snlii an exisiinn neighhnrhood. and therefore. would not be onident. Alternative 4 Would not meet nroiect's svc_tem linkane ouroose hecause It would not farm a enntinunus State routes system Alternative 5 tnr^~ dd not me -1 oroiect's system linkage ouroose because it would not form a rontinunus State route system and hecause its maximum grade exceeds standards for an arterial hinhwav Alternative 6 Would not avoid Site 18185 Alternative FiA t^.rnuld not avoid Site 16185. This alternative was modified to Alternative 10 bemuse of itc_ archaeological imnar_is Alternative 7 tit.^.:~Id dicnlace ?9 r .cidPncas and one communih~ facilih~ and. therefore would not he on[dPnt. Alt -r~nativP 8 tit^~ild not avoid Site 18185 This alternative was modifiers to Alternative 11 (Preferred Alternative) hecause of its archaenlnnical impacts Alternative 9 [nr^~ ~Id not meet orniert's svc_tem linkage ouroose becai ice it would not form ^ continuous St^te route cvMem and here is .its maximum grade .x [?Pds standards for an arterial hinhwav Alternative 9A Id not meet orniert'c system linkage o~rooce herauce its maximum grade exceeds standards for an artenal higM~~av. Alternative 9B t^rnuld not meet orniect's system linkage ?i ~rooc . h .muse its maximum ~^d exceeds standards for an arterial high~~av N [ 1 - Th It t dew=^~=~ =nd evaluat ~ in Section 7 7 S rrP Parsons Rnnckerhoff. 1~7. 4-83 development needs of the oroiect because they would not provide access to and from the Villages of I a'i'ooua and Mamalahoa Hinhway. Seven of the nine alignment alternatives would not address the nroiect's system linkage purpose (see Section 1.2 1). These alternatives either would not form a continuous through route between JVlamalahoa Hiahway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Alternatives 1. 2. 4. 5 and 9) and/or would have maximum grades that would not meet State hiahway standards !Alternatives 1. 2. 5 9 9A and 9B). Non-satisfaction of the proiect's purposes and needs disqualified the above 10 alternatives as feasible and prudent to avoid the Section 4(f) resources Therefore. it was not necessary to determine nreciselv the number of other Section 4(f) resources each alternative would use. The last two alternatives were disaualified because they would have community impacts of an extraordinary maanitude. Alternative 3 would bisect a neiahborhood and displace 24 residences and Alternative 7 would displace 22 residences and one r:ommunity facility It was determined that the splitting of a neiahborhood and residential displacements of such a lame number in a rural area was not prudent. Therefore. Alternatives 3 and 7 were disqualified because they were not feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid the Section 4(f) resources. Jn summary. there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the potential use of the three Section 4(f) resources discussed in this section. The avoidance alternatives described and evaluated in detail in Chanter 2 either would have Section 4(f) impacts, themselves. would not meet the project's purposes and needs: or would have S' ommunity impacts of an extraordinary magnitude. The analysis is summarized in fl Table 4-19. and further substantiation is provided in Chapter 2. g 4.13.5 Mitigation Measures Since there are no feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives to the use of Site 18185. or Sites 18749 and 19750. mitigation measures will be imnlemented to minimize harm to the site(s). If the Preferred Alternative is selected. Site 18185 will be surveyed durina the design phase to precisely locate the site and its artifacts in relation to the Parkway This information will be valuable in determining the precise Section 41f) "use" of the site. and in adjustina the vertical profile of the Preferred Alternative to minimize harm to the 4-84 •~ihe A Ruri^I Treatment Plan and Arrhaeolonical Data RPC.oven~ Plan will be ^^•^d ^nd implemented prior to .nnsir i .tion. Data recovery will include nhnto document^tion of existing nnditionc fi Id ohcervatinns and note takinn. anti remnvai ^rtif^ctc Fxtr^ ted records v~ill he cent to a site deemed aooronriate by the SHPO. jhe H^~~~^ii Icl^nd Ruri^I Cn mril is resnoncihle for orotectina the remains of native ^nd mutt ^onrove in advance the treatment of any burial- includinn mitia^tion me^c~rec How v r annrnval from the Hawaii Island Burial Council cannot be nr^nt d ~ ithout the nr n^r^tion ^nd cuhmiccinn of a Burial Treatment Plan tahinh mutt include information to be developed during the dP.SIOn phase. which cannot commen a until completion of the NFPA nrocass The R iri^I Tfeatm nt Plan will he c ihmitlPd to th . SHPO whi .h will review the elan ^nd fonv^rd it to the Ha~•~aii Icland Burial Council for fits review- Additional consult^tinnc will b made with native Hawaiian groans includinn but not limited to the Office of H^w^ii^n Aff^irc Hui M^I^ma I Na Kuo ma O Hawaii Nei. and individuals that ~^vP f^mili^I or line~l ^ffili^tion ~~~ith ^ncectral Hawaiian remains interred in the hurial Cnordin^tion ^nd roncultation with the Hawaii Icland Riirial Council has already nc iirred hai a ID cemher 1444 and 4entemher 1446 ce Aonendix C'1 Roth ror alt^tionc incl ided nrecentationc b fore the .o moil Co mcil memhers have not c~ ad to the nroiect ~nd h^~e exnr coed a ~~illinan cc to work towards an ^ nt^hle B iri^I Tre^tment PI^n Onc the Burial Treatment Plan is accepted by the '-'^•~•^ii Icl^nd Buri^I Council the FH\~~A and SDOT will implement the plan. If Alt rn tine 10 is selected for constr fiction mitigation measures similar to those descrihed ^bove ~~~ould be implemented includinn a Burial Treatment Plan and Arch^aoloni D^ta Recoven~ Plan for Sites 18744 and 18750. 4.13.6 Summary and Conclusion A ~ d in Section 4 1? coordination ~~~ith the 4HP0 the Hawaii Island Burial C'ntmcil nd n^tI~P H^~~^ii^n nrouns began in 1444 to identify archaeoloaiaal resources th twill be ^ff sled h~ the proposed nroiect and to develop measures to to ih se imp^cts Aonendix C 1 Histories Archaeological Resoumes Correcnondenre ^nd C'oordin^tion ontains documentation of the coordination Pffnrts- 4-85 The Preferred Alternative will "use" one Section 4(fl resource. State Site 50-10-28- 18185: and Alternative 10 will "use" two Section 4(fl resources. State Sites 50-10-28- 18749 and 50-10-28-18750 The SHPO concurred that all three sites meet the criteria for archaeoloaical Section 4(fl resources. The alternatives discussed in Chapter 2 0 were evaluated again to determine whether any one would be a feasible and prudent I. • - • . • • 1- 1 -- - .•1 ' - • - ► •1- , . • II • •- . -. •• and prudent alternative. To minimize harm to the Section 4(fl site(sl a Burial Treatment Plan and Archaeological Data Recovery Plan will be prepared. in coordination with the Hawaii Jsland Burial Council and other Hawaiian ornanizations durinn the design phase of the project for Site 18185 or Sites 18749 and 18750. depending on the alternative that is selected for construction. Once accepted by the Hawaii Island Burial Council. the plans will he implemented. A draft Section 4(fl statement evaluatina the three archaeoloaical sites (one site affected by the Preferred Alternative and two sites affected by Alternative 101 was jncluded in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kealakehe Parkway Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Hiahway. North Kona. Hawaii (July 19951 and was submitted to the Department of the Interior (DOI1. Office of the Secretary. In a fetter dated October 26. 1995 (see Chanter 51 the DOI concurred that "there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the nronosed nroiect" and with the "proposed measures to minimize harm to historic and archaeoloaical resources." In conclusion. there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from State Site 50-10-28-18185. or Sites 50-10-28-18749 and 50-10-28-18750. Reaardless of which alternative is selected (Preferred_Alternative or Alternative 101. the proposed action will include all possible planning to minimize harm to the archaeoloaical site(sl resultina from such use. 4-86 4.14 PARKLANDS 4.14.1 Potentiallmpacts The No Build alternative would not improve access to Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park and Honokohau Harbor. As the number of visitors increases, accessibility would worsen. Kealakehe Parkway will improve accessibility to Honokohau Harbor and Kaloko- Honokohau National Historic Park. However, direct access to the Park will be provided by a future access road that is proposed to intersect with queen Kaahumanu Highway. 4.14.2 Mitigation Measures Since the project will not generate any adverse impacts, mitigation measures will not be needed. 4.15 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES 4.15.1 Potentiallmpacts The No Build alternative would not create visual impacts. With the proposed Parkway, the west (makai) view will experience the fewest visual di: ~uptions since the landscape drops away towards the ocean. In fact, Kealakehe Parkway will open the ocean vista to those who will use it. At present, travelers cannot see the ocean because of structures and vegetation along Palani Road. The eastern (mauka) view of the corridor will be visible from Queen Kaahumanu Highway and from the adjacent Villages of La'i'opua. The existing view will be changed to include a paved roadway and associated embankments and berms climbing the slope. The view of Palani Road will also change where vegetation 4-87 bordering Palani Road will be cleared in the area of the future Kealakehe Parkway/Palani Road intersection. The visual impact on Kaloko-Honokohau t~lational Historic Park users will be minimal. "P^I^kehe P^rk•~^v and the deto it road will hlor.k .xistinn western (makail vistas of Pleven recidencPS Six of those residences are located h .iw .en the Kealakehe Par 'a~ and the detour road Th it vi we will hP binnked 6v the detour road which h^vP emh^nkmPntc th^t re^ch annroximately 8.?_ meters (27 feed ahnve the ~'^tina oradP The nth r fiv r std n s ar to atPd on the co iihern side of ^^'^'-~hP P^rl:•~^v nP^r P^I^ni Ro^d and their views will be hlorkad by the Parkw~av Th -so impacts will b . oermanent , Roadway lighting will be provided only at the intersections initially. This limited amount of lighting, provided to increase traffic safety, will not represent aregionally-significant visual intrusion. In conclusion, Kealakehe Parkway will not generate major visual disruptions except to those immediately adjacent to it. Kealakehe Parkway could decrease the visual impact of power and telephone lines that may ultimately be constructed by others because utilities could be placed underground within the Parkway's right-of-way. 4.15.2 Mitigation Measures To minimize visual impact, the Kealakehe Parkway median and built embankments will be landscaped within the parameters of the State's functional landscape concept (i.e., landscaping that requires minimal irrigation water and low maintenance). Since Kona is largely covered with a'a and pahoehoe lava, this "xeriscape" approach to landscaping could include placing lava rocks or cobbles within the Parkway's median or nn the emh^nkment slop c oncistent with hinhwav safety. If a portion of the median is considered substantial enough for plantings, masses of low-growing native Hawaiian ground cover and other locally suitable ground cover could be planted. Water will be used initially to establish the plantings; thereafter, vegetation will be sustained by the rainfall occurring in the region. Complete details of the landscaping plan will be developed during final design. 4-88 4.16 ENERGY The No Build alternative would not affect electrical energy consumption. However, this alternative would increase vehicle fuel consumption as travelers experience increased traffic delays and congestion. In contrast, the Kealakehe Parkway will decrease vehicle fuel consumption since levels of transportation service will be better, and less fuel would be wasted in congestion and delays. In addition, Kealakehe Parkway will help save fuel by providing a more direct route for many trips, especially those originating and ending at the Villages of La'i'opua. Although some electricity will be needed for roadway lighting and signalization, Kealakehe Parkway will have a minimal effect on regional electrical energy consumption. 4.17 CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACTS According to 40 CFR iS0A.7 "rum rl^tiv imo^ct is th impact on the .rn~ironment ~a~hich r .cults from the incremr-nt^I imo^ t of the action ~~/h .n added to other oast- nrPSent. and ^^on ~Iv forPC PabIP future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non Feder^Il or nercon and rtak .c s r .h other actions. Cumulative impacts ^ result from individ rally minor but toll .ctively significant actions taking nlac . over a period of time." Precept ^nd proposed go~Prnmental and private actions are dPCCrihed in Section " 1 1 ThPCe aCilOr1S InClu~° f`^^cinn rl °~ialnnm°ntc infra sin lCTllre nmlP.ntS. and nP.W choolc including llnivercity of Ha~~~aii hranch Manv of these nroier_.ts were laded in the KP^holP to K^ilu^ n vPlooment Plan IAoril 14911 (see S .ction 4.1.3. 1 Which ~ ^s ^dooted by the H^w^ii County Council Most orniectc_ do not require the romnlPtign of KP I kehP P^rkti A nroier•t that ~~/ill benefit from the proposed action is the F,FDC"c Vill^gec of I ^'i'onu^ Ho~~~PVer this oroiact will hP completed regardless of the completion of the oronos d action Therefore since the davelooment plans for the r re not orPdic^ted nn th completion of Kealakehe Parkway cumulative imo^ctc ~ ill hP ~Prv similar h n.~ Pn the fro Build and Ruild scenarios. 4-89 Th ~m il-tiv im; =rtc of ^II ores nt and nrooosed artinns in the KeaholP to Kailua ^rP^ have ihP not ntial to b c .v .re if unmitigated. Fnr example. housino dgvPloomPntc in th Villaaac of l a'i'ooua areac mauka of KeaholP Airoort and near the P ct (m uk 1 terminus of the proposed action will place cubctantially increased ndc on public infr^cTnirture c irh ac ~•~at r s cooly and c w r treatment cvstemc ^hools ^nd ro^dv~^v f^cilitiec Development nroierts .n ild also damap or d .ctrov rrh Pologi I r cnurcPC ^nd endana reed and threatened ~Priac in the region ThP ^rtm nt of ^nd ^nd ~^t ~r^I R sour c Stat Historic Preservation Division d ribec the renion s "covered ~>ith arrhaeoiogjpal sit s" (c e Aonendix r it In ^adition h•~o Ihiuhi trees (an ne dana r .d co ..i .c) and oooutations of Ko'oko'olau (a C' ndid tP 1 cp~,riesl ^re found adiacenT to the proposed Kealakehe Parkwav and ro ild b dectroved b~ future I^nd ice development nn adjacent areas (cam 4 11 for f iriher dei ilsl Ho~iever the fully ex ited Section 106 MOA Pncures that imp^^'^ of the ro^d on ~rrh~eoloairal cites are mitigated (SP.P. Section 4 12.31: a to lion of n ~~ill be implemented for the h•~o Uhiuhi trees fcPP Section 4 11 3 11 nd fir nl n ~~ill bP de~PlopQd to rice the ootential loss of species and habitat from fire IcPP S lion 4 11 '3 21 The trancloration plan will not cooly to the Ko'oko'olau nnnul ''onc At oreceni Ko'oko'olau is not a listed or proposed threatened or rapid=ngPrPd So i c Other R,Qtential environmental imoacts include dP9radation of ~ ter au lit due to erosion from dichirhed areac and urbanizing areas permanent of ^arir iltur^I I^nd ^nd imoacts to makai to mauka vie~a~sheds. Accoraina to 40 C'FR 1508 8_._ c c~^S~ imnactc ar im~artc that have the oot~tial to occur "I t ~ in Tim or f^rth r removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable." SInrP ti I {.PhP P rl.~ y ~ 'll b conctr i led in an undeveloped area and could enhance cress to ne ~,y_n^rrPlc iT has the ootential to Induce devPloomentc in vacant nd unpJ nned re s di^cent to the Parkv~av Induced develoomentc have the ~ I to h ve ddition^I environmental and social imnactc than indicated in this ~ ~ pie ti d~ h~ ^ffertinp archaeolopiral sits and endangered and thr at n d c~pries ^nd t^xinp public infrastructure Therefore the ootential cPsng r~ imp ctc of K alakPhe Patkwa~ ~~P inrl~ ~rP~l r1PVPlooment and the concomitant m~ironm ntal and social imoacts. To mitia tP the ootenti I for indu Ps d de~PloomPnt the oroie t will not include the rnnstruction of intercectinnc to DfOUdP ^rrP4S to adjacent parcels However the L,,gion inrludinp those n^melc ^di^cent to the Parkwav has h ..n d sipnated for 4-90 Ilrhan expansion in a yariPty of State and Counril land use plans (see .S'P.p11onS 31.3 ^^d 4 1 ?l ands adiacent to the Parkway could be accessed from other roads besides KealakehP Parkway Fnr example. lands north pf the alignment could he ~~~o~~ed from Hina I ani Street. Therefore. it may he difficult to prevent induced rlavclnnmenr if the RtatP anri County choose tp allow development through changes in ^nd .rnlniv ~pninn Currently the undeveloped or unplanned parcels adiacent to th P^rkw^v ^r ~pned Agrir.ulture and .r the State I and Use Districts (see Figure 3- 41 ^nd rnnl^nned ^nd ^grinllhlre under the Co rnty ~onina (SP.P. Firnue 3-61. Should the St^te I ^nd Uce Districts and County inning be changed to urban and residential respectively th oars Ic' landowners may seek to d .velon this area. and would prob^hlv reguect ^ccecc to the Parkway from SDC~T If this occurs SD(~T will not consider c I h a r puect until thPCe proposals successfully complete their Pm~ironment^I r views SDOT will consider the s .condarv and cumulative impacts. in ludic ng=ndanaPr d species impacts when Pvaluatinn the requested access. Th U S Fish ^nd l^~ildlifP SPrvic.P was concerned shout cPnondarv and cumulative imp^ tc during the Section 7 consultation (see Section 4.111. Discussions were held to d fine ar as where th road co Ild directly PnhancP access and it was demonctr^tPd th^t noccihlP future intersections with KealakPhP Parkway will not necPCCrt^tP the dlshlrbance of threatened or endangered species 4.18 POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 4.18.1 Air duality Air quality impacts during roadway construction generally consist of fugitive dust and mobile source emissions from construction equipment. Fugitive D Ict Emissions Fugitive dust is airborne particulate matter and is usually relatively large in particle size. Fugitive dust will be generated by construction vehicles operating around [he construction sites and material blown from uncovered haul trucks, stockpiles, and exposed areas. 4-91 The dispersion of fugitive dust depends on particle size, emission height, and wind speed. Small particles (30 to 100 micron range) can travel several meters before settling to the ground, depending on wind speed. Most fugitive dust, however, is made up of relatively large particles (i.e., particles greater than 100 microns in diameter). Given their relatively large size, these particles tend to settle within 6.0 to 9.0 meters (20 to 30 feet) of their source. R~obila Source Emissions Construction vPhiclPC v~ill emit enain exhaust ~•~hile in operation In addition. sinr.P t,(7 Pmiccionc in r ^ce with d creasing v hirle speed traffic disnintions during ronctmrtion ro ild prod i e short-t .rm elevated oncentrations of CO Mitigation The following particulate control measures related to construction activities will be followed: Site Preparation • minimize land disturbance; • use watering trucks to minimize dust; cover trucks when hauling dirt; stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately; • use windbreaks effectively; limit vehicular paths and stabilize temporary roads; and to the maximum degree possible, pave all unpaved construction roads and parking areas to road grade for a length no less than 15 meters (50 feet) where such roads and parking areas exit the construction site, to prevent dirt from washing onto paved roadways. Construction • cover trucks when transferring materials; • use dust suppressants on traveled paths which are not paved; • minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities; and • minimize dirt track-out by paving site exit road just before entering the public road. Post-Construction restore to original conditions any disturbed land not used; 4-92 • remove unused material; • remove dirt piles; and • restore to original conditions all vehicular paths created during construction and prevent future off-road vehicular activities. To minimize these CO emissions, disruptions to existing traffic flows will be minimized, especially during peak travel periods. 4.18.2 Noise and Vibration Because construction will involve the use of heavy machinery, there will be temporary noise impacts from construction activities. However, construction will normally occur during daylight hours when occasional loud noises are more tolerable. Because of the relatively short-term exposure to any one receptor, extended disruption of normal activities is not considered likely. In addition to construction noise, those in proximity to the detour road will experience increases in noise from the traffic diverted from Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road onto the detour road. With rubber-tired vehicles, ground borne vibration is generally low. Some vibration may be felt with the passing of heavy duty trucks, but this is usually not perceptible except within the immediate right-of-way. It is not anticipated that either of the alternatives will generate unacceptable vibration impacts during project construction. Blasting may be required for certain portions of the excavation. Any blasting will comply with all applicable standards and requirements. Mitigation Two measures which will minimize adverse construction noise impacts are to: • limit activities to weekdays from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p. m.; and • require construction equipment to have mufflers in good working order. 4-93 4.18.3 Water Resources The primary potential for construction-phase water resource impacts will be due to the erosion and sedimentation associated with the project's earthmoving activities and alteration of existing drainage patterns. Coral reefs and wetlands. located several tom ferc from ih nroi ct site will r m^in unaffe ted by construction activitiec (SPP j~nufe :3-~). Mitigation Storm water runoff and erosion during project construction and landscaping will be mitigated through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) established before construction begins, (,anorauv _nnpntPd BMPs_aoolicable to this oroiect include: • use of silt .urtains and silt f .nces • minimizing areas of disturhance c.overina stonkniles: • nlantina of vegetation and/or mulchi^^ nn hinhly orndihlg nr (1nTICaIV P.rotfln? afeflS: ronctniction of dikes or diversions to avoid runoff a .rnsc .rodihle areas. The specific erosion control measures to be implemented will be approved by the DOH when they issue the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit for this project and the County of Hawaii will also require specific measures when they issue the Grading, Grubbing, Stockpiling and Excavation Permit. The erosion control plan will be an integral part of construction process. 4.18.4 Traffic Mitigation A maintenance of traffic plan will be developed during the design phase to accommodate traffic flows during the project's construction. This traffic plan will address: • through traffic traveling on Mamalahoa Highway, Palani Road, and Old Mamalahoa Highway during construction of the eastern (mauka) terminus of Kealakehe Parkway; and maintenance of access to the residences that will be located between Kealakehe Parkway and the detour road. 4-94 One element of the maintenance of traffic plan will be the detour road that will be constructed to convey through traffic while the terminus of Kealakehe Parkway is constructed and a portion of Palani Road realigned (see Figure 2-7). Once Kealakehe Parkway is constructed, residential access will be permanently rerouted to the detour road. The detour road is described in more detail in Section 2.3. 4.18.5 Solid Waste Management and Naza~dous Waste Project construction will require excavation, filling and grading activity. As discussed in Section 3.6.2, the excavated materials are expected to be free of contamination and will be used elsewhere on the project for fill. Since the volumes of cut and fill will be balanced to the maximum degree practical, little excavated material will require disposal. The construction crew will generate solid waste. The materials or substances listed below may be present on site during construction: detergents; paints; metal; tar; petroleum-based products; and cleaning solvents. Mitigation During construction, all waste materials will be collected and stored in a securely lidded metal dumpster. The dumpster will meet all State and County solid waste management regulations. All trash and construction debris from the site will be deposited in the dumpster. The dumpster will be emptied as needed. No construction waste materials will be buried on site. The Contractor will be responsible for implementing the correct procedures for waste disposal. Notices stating these practices will be posted in the office trailer; the Contractor will be responsible for ensuring that procedures are followed. All sanitary waste generated during the construction phase will be collected from portable units as required. 4-95 The following material management practices addressing good housekeeping and hazardous products will be used to reduce the risk of spills or other accidental exposure of materials and substances to the environment. A Spill Prevention Plan will be proposed and followed by the contractor. Good Housekeeoina an effort will be made to store only enough product required to complete the job; • all materials stored on site will be stored in a neat, orderly manner in their appropriate containers and, if possible, under a roof or other enclosure; • products will be kept in their original containers with the original manufacturers' labels affixed; substances will not be mixed with one another unless recommended by the manufacturer; • whenever possible, all of a product will be consumed before disposing of the container; • manufacturer's recommendations for proper use and disposal will be strictly followed; and • the Contractor will conduct a daily inspection to ensure proper use and disposal of materials on site. Hazardous Products • products will be kept in original containers unless they are not resealable; • original labels and materials safety data will be retained; and • if surplus product must be disposed of, manufacturer's or local and State- recommended methods for proper disposal will be followed. Petroleum Products All on-site vehicles will be monitored for leaks and receive regular preventive maintenance to reduce the chance of leakage. Petroleum products will be stored in tightly sealed, clearly labeled containers. Any asphalt substances used on site will be applied according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Vehicle servicing and maintenance activities shall not pollute the environment. 4-96 Paints All containers will be tightly sealed and stored when in use. Excess paint will not be discharged on site but will be properly disposed of according to manufacturer's instructions or State and local regulations. Spill-Control Practices In addition to the good housekeeping and material management practices discussed previously, the following practices will be implemented for spill prevention and clean up: • manufacturer's recommended methods for spill clean up will be clearly posted, and site personnel will be informed of the procedures and the location of the information and clean up supplies; • materials and equipment necessary for spill clean up will be kept in the material storage area on site; • all spills will be cleaned up immediately after discovery; the spill area will be kept well ventilated, and personnel will wear appropriate protective clothing to prevent injury from coming in contact with hazardous substances; • regardless of their size, spills of toxic or hazardous materials will be reported to the appropriate State or local government agency; the spill prevention plan will be adjusted to include measures to prevent spills from re-occurring and clean-up procedures for spills, should they occur. A description of the spill, its cause, and the clean-up measures will be included; and • the Contractor will coordinate spill prevention and clean-up efforts. In addition, the Contractor will designate at least three site personnel to receive spill prevention and clean-up training; these individuals will each be responsible for a specific phase of prevention and clean-up. The names of responsible spill personnel will be posted in the material storage area and in the office trailer on site. 4.18.6 Mitigation for Agricultural Activities During construction • stock-proof fencing will be placed around construction sites to safeguard and secure livestock; • cattle crossings will be provided where appropriate; tines v~ter diGtrih rtion infr~strur•ture ~~~ill he maintained as much as ooe~ihlP 4-97 • access to existing jeep roads will be maintained; and • fences and stone walls damaged during construction will be restored and repaired. Further details of the agricultural mitigation measures will be developed during project design. 4.18.7 Mitigation for Historic and Archaeological Resources During construction, fenced buffer zones will be placed around archaeological preservation features. If additional historic or archaeological sites are uncovered during construction, work will stop immediately, and the appropriate State and County officials will be notified. Construction will resume upon approval by the appropriate authorities. 4.19 PERMITS AND APPROVALS The No Build alternative would not require any approvals or permits. Construction of Kealakehe Parkway is expected to require the approvals and permits found in Table 4-20. 4.20 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND MAINTENANCE OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Construction of Kealakehe Parkway will involve trade-offs between short-term environmental and economic losses, and long-term transportation and economic gains. However, the long-term productivity of Kealakehe Parkway will offset the short- term losses. Adverse impacts from the construction of Kealakehe Parkway will disappear soon after constructicn is complete. Long term traffic conditions will improve. The completed Kealakehe Parkway will: reduce traffic congestion on Palani Road; • reduce travel times; improve the regional State Highway System; improve the safety conditions of travelers; 4-98 `am ~ ~ ~7m °ci v c ~ a d o cn m ~ oa Lil ~U w ~ cc`m °'a"i m~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ Nom= m ~ t0 'O ~ E 7 m n'~ ° acio~ dL aci7o° ~aNi y E U o c ~ `c r N 7 ;C c ~m"LQo N j~ m > vC C y N L G. m N X O m 7~ L d an d p m a p 9 a c m e y m N y V y c m o c s m 3~~ p ~ y c~~ 3 y ~ m 9 o c o c w c J ~ 20~ vi m° ~vr Q ~t mZ o~ a~ L'c ca o ~ .m. J L L N C m m G O L• H O U U C O_ O) N N d ~m ~ N m ~ Y•~ amp II ~ - 3'~ ~ me c ~ a y~ 0~ m m m N N m d Z 0 N L~ ~ ~ O C h m 0_ U IO Q ~ U N O O X y ~ ~omaci m 2coi hym o a w N> m 7 0~ 'o U s o d p L m y d `O > N L UO U W O a a5o ¢ u.¢ in ain ~ d ~ L L C 7 N N U = _ O O O y O y G Y Y N 7 N N N O d 0 r. ~ = C..) ~ ~ tE' ~ ~ ~ t O ~ ~p m m m _ m _ p~ y Of ? ~ aai aai aai api a m a Q om o 0 oa oa = a 0 _ in W `o m c C W C x a a ~ ~ ~ ~ O c > F~ a io d m O ~ c cz ~ ~ ~ i. m n ~ E -'w•E 4 ~ ma x 3 N 6 d~ arna ~ ~ U~'o o°' a W ~`mE d Z m.a~ _ F O L Q1 m ~ ~ Y ~ U Q a N y moo Ea 7 m f Sa m._>. o O x ¢~7 d tll m¢ zocn z V c7inw as ~ 4-99 accommodate and support urban development in the area, including the Villages of La'i'opua; and • assist in implementing the K to K Plan (April 1991) and the La'i'opua Master Plan (September 1990). Considering the long-term productive uses listed above, and the fact that adverse impacts from Kealakehe Parkway will be minimized, the project appears beneficial to the community and to the present and future land uses in the vicinity. 4.21 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Implementing Kealakehe Parkway will require a commitment of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources, as follows: • agricultural lands affected by construction of the project is considered an irreversible commitment. There will be a permanent loss of 26 hectares (64 acres) of open space. P~•~~tina viP~•~c from 11 rPaidPn .PS will h . nerman .ntly bl~cked- archaeclogical resources tyjjj be damaged, destroyed, or lost in constructing the project. • considerable amounts of fossil fuels; labor required for construction, planning, engineering design, landscaping, purchasing, and services; and construction materials will be committed. • construction will also require a substantial one-time expenditure of government funds that will not be retrievable. The commitment of these resources is appropriate since businesses, employees, and residents in the County and region will benefit from the completed Kealakehe Parkway as follows: • savings in time and convenience through improved quality of the transportation system; and • improved accessibility and safety. These benefits are anticipated to outweigh the commitment of resources. 4-100 CHAPTER 5.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS CHAPTER 5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION This chapter summarizes the project's scoping process; public information meetings; and the oral omm nts rP.CP.IV .d at the formal n Ihlic hearing and the written comments that rP r .eiv d nn the draft Fnvironm .ntaf Impact StatP.rTlP.nt (FIST for Park~•~av Responses to each oral and written comment on the draft IS are ^'ro included in this chapter and in addition. other chanters of the EIS were revised as appropriate in r .snonse to the comments. 5.1 PUBLIC NOTICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SLOPING PROCESS The project's Environmental Assessment (EA) was filed with the Office of Environmental Quality Control on July 31, 1992 and the Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN) was announced in the State OEOC Bulletin on August 23, 1992 (see Appendix G.1 A public information meeting was held during the EISPN comment period at King Kamehameha Hotel on August 27, 1992. Approximately 29 participants attended. Subsequently, federal funding for the project was sought and the Federal Highway Administration became involved in the project. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on March 12, 1993 (see Appendix G.1 Coordination involving federal, State and County agencies, legislators, interested parties, and many others was conducted throughout the preparation of the draft EIS. 5.1.1 Consulted Parties and Small Group Meetings The following governmental agencies and officials were consulted on this project. Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5-1 State Aaencies /Officials Department of Agriculture Department of Health Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division Housing Finance and Development Corporation (now the Ho isina and COmmLnltV DPVPIop,~] .ng t Corporation of Hawaii) Office of Environmental Quality Control Office of the Governor Office of Hawaiian Affairs Office of State Planning (now the Office of Phnninq_jn the Department of Business. Economic D velonmPnt and Tourisml State Representatives State Senators Hawaii County Aaencies Mayor Council Members Department of Public Works Planning Department Fire Department Police Department In addition, informational meetings were conducted with the following parties. November 15, 1993 Parsons Brinckerhoff (PBl Office Mayor Steve Yamashiro State Department of Transportation (SDOT) (Honolulu) PB November 16, 1993 Lanihau / Palani Ranch Office Lanihau Corporation SDOT (Honolulu) PB 5-2 December 16, 1993 Kailua-Kona Police Station Virginia Isbell (Legislator) George Robinson (Office of Governor) SDOT (Hawaii District) SDOT (Honolulu) PB December 16, 1993 Orchard Marine Office R. Kelly Greenwell (Robert Greenwell Properties) SDOT (Honolulu) PB December 22, 1993 Countv of Hawaii Council Chambers Council Members SDOT (Honolulu) PB December 22, 1993 SDOT (Hawaii District Officel Hawaii County, Planning Department Hawaii County, Fire Department Hawaii County, Police Department SDOT (Hawaii District) SDOT (Honolulu) PB February 16, 1994 Hulihee Palace Kona Hawaiian Civic Club Daughters of Hawaii Cultural Surveys Hawaii SDOT (Honolulu) PB February 16, 1994 Countv of Hawaii Mayor's Conference Room Kona Traffic Safety Council Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce Kona Community Safety Lane West Hawaii Committee Palani Ranch Company Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference Private citizens SDOT (Honolulu) PB February 17, 1994 Keauhou Shoooing Center Hawaii County Burial Council State Historic Preservation Division Office of Hawaiian Affairs Cultural Surveys Hawaii SDOT (Honolulu) PB 5-3 5.1.2 EISPN and NOI Comments Letters responding to the project's EISPN and NOI were received from federal, State and County agencies, businesses and concerned citizens. Many of the letters from local businesses and citizens expressed support of or opposition to a particular alignment alternative, while governmental agencies addressed technical content of the EIS. Some of the letters were received after a presentation of Alternatives 1 to 8 at the August 1992 public information meeting in Kona. Alternatives 6A, 9, 9A, 9B, 10 and 11 were developed later. All EISPN and NOI comments and comments received following the public information meeting were incorporated in the project's draft EIS. The agencies, businesses and individuals that provided written comments before announcement and distribution of the project's draft EIS are listed below: Federal Aaencv U.S. Environmental Protection Agency State Agencies Department of Accounting and General Services, Division of Public Works Department of Agriculture Department of Health Department of Land and Natural Resources Department of Transportation, Hawaii District Representative Virginia Isbell County Aaencies County Council Planning Department Keola Childs, County Council Police Department Mayor Steve Yamashiro 5-4 Businesses and Individuals Carl Simons, trucking business Honokohau Enterprises Ltd. Insurance Hawaii John Dinmore, Architect Orchard Marine Corporation Lanihau Corporation Palani Ranch Company, Inc. Sue Aronson, Realtor, Kailua-Kona Katherine Augustine Tracy Boynton Pete Greenwell R. Kelly Greenwell Bruce Owensby 5.2 DRAFT EIS NOTICE Th~_ptoiect's dr^ft IS ~~~as fil d ~~~ith th Offi e of m~ironmental Quality Control (O~_OC'1 on I m 1 1995 ^nd ~ ~^s ^nno me din th Stat O OC' BellPtin on lull, 1995 (CPP Aonendix 11 The draft EIS was also filed with the Environmental PfOtPCtIOn Aaanr~ IFPAI Th Notice of Availahility of the draft FIS was published in th~er I RPaistPr on Augl~ t 4 199E (cee Aonendix C' 11 These State and federal ^ ^'~ahlltx,'^'t•oTor! tho nnhlir rnmmonT norinr'1 nn Thp draft EIS. The 45-daV comment oerind form^Ilv concluded on Sertemb r 199 bit public comments ~~~ere cceoted s I to s October 25 1995 io comments ~~~er disallow d hPGa ise th .v w .r .late. RPq ~^tions of th o rncil on nvironmental Quality state that "any other Federal ggensy ~~ith iurisdirtion by I^~~~ shall be a coo rating agency " For this project the only fedPr^I,gq~~,~~ith i irisdiction by I^~~~ besides FHhtA is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Forrtrl Section 7 consult^tions ~^~ere conducted ~^.~ith the Fish and Wildlife Service s described in C'h^oter 4 ^nd documented in ARpendix B The possibility of 5-5 the Fish and Wildlife Service being a c oooeratinq agency was discussed. but the FWS deemed formal Section 7 consultations to be sufficient. 5.3 OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT 5.3.1 Public Hearing Inln compL3nce with federal environmental law. 23 U.S.C. 128. and State law. Chanter 343 Hawaii Ravlsed StatlitPS _(HRSI. a formal public hearing was conducted. Notification of the public hearin~aRn .ar .d twi .e in Oahu-bas .d n .wsq_aners with slat .wide distrib rtion and onne in a Hawaii County newspaper. In addition. more than, 100 aq .n .ies b Isiness .s organizations. and individuals received mailed notice of the, public hearing The hearing was held on August 31. 1995. at 7:00 o.m in the, Kaalakaha Inrermadiata Schnn Cafetorium (74-5062 Oninaa Street. Kaiua-Konal. A record of ^ttendees ~~~^s m^intained and a handout rn ovidinq_q_roject information was ava~iahiP r~ au atte.,dees Isee Apnandix C~.2). The hearing began with a presentation pn th proi ..t and was followed by an opportunity to provide formal testimony., Aooroximately 30 pgonl .attend .d and fiv . of thus . t .stifled all in s Ipport of the ~oiect A certified court reporter transcribed the complete hearing. A coov of the trans rjnt may he found in Appendix C, 7 Comments provided in the formal testimony a.A summarized in Section 5.3 ~a~ith the res op names. 5.3.2 Written Comments Comment letters ~~lere r ceiv d from f deral State and County aq n .i .s business .s orp^niz~tions ^nd concern d iti ens More than 40 per .ent of the letters contained ~ ~ nti~ e romments that are addressed individually in Section 5 4 A larq r nl~ ~mher of I tt rs axpr ssed either qen ral roport for th nroiect or "no romment " All comment letters received are reorod I ed in Section 54 with a list of those who ~~~bmitted ~^~ritten comments in Section 5.5. 5-6 s-a COMMENTS MADE AT THE PUBLIC NEARING AND RESPONSES Angendix ~ rontains a transcript of the formal ouhlic hearing. This section contains naranhracinn of all of the oral comments that were made at the hearing. Oral commentc that ~•~erP alto submitted in writing are not presented in this section. but in Section 5.4. ~`ommantar . Kelly Greanwall. Orchard Marine 1 Concerned ahnut the tightness of the most mauka curve of the proposed Parkway f-Gi \.,a..~'. ",.....n..^ "'..^.111d GLo 4n coo the ror?isle of the rilrva inrrea earl 7 Agreec that afour-lane ar ~~av is annronriate. ^ Would IikP to see a medial strip for aesthetic. and safety reasons. 4 4 roports the project because it is r.rur•.ial to the future of Kona. 5 Igo c not believe th~t the I Halo Palm is truly an endangered snenies since .his nurcery coot^inc ^nnroximately 9f,0 individ lals of this species in Hots. 6 ConrPrn d th~t cit s ^nd ohie tc that have b ..n designated as Hawaiian artifacts ^nd ^rch~eolonic~l rPSO Irces may not actually he such. Response 1 Th r^dii of ~II of K ~I^k he Park~~~av'c c lrves are ~•~ell ahove the minimum repaired by fedPr~l guidelin s Increasing the radius of the mast mauka curve ould result in Dither higher mhankment as the roadway chases the existing g"~^'~ do~~~nhill (~nd therefore greater costl or steeper roadway grades ^ I I hP P^rk• rv is nronoced to be a four-lane highway ac described in Section 1 1 1 It may bP constructed in phases- however. o A 9f~ foot ~ ide mPdi~n is hPing nro~ided for safety and To provide sufficient space for left turn pockets PI^ntings ~~~ithin the median using a xeriscane approach. ~y be ^ romnlichPd ~•~h re sufficient space exists. 4 C:ommPnt noted. 5-7 ~i ThP U ~ Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the I Oulu Palm /Prifchardia affinis) as an endangered species Th .refore. in accordance with the requirements of the Fnd~naered sneciPS Act. it is a sg ..i .c that must be orntected and federal ^ctionc c Ich ^c ro^d~~~^v rronctruction mutt he in full accordanre ~•~ith this la~•~ 6 ThP dP91gn^tion of Hawaiian artifacts and archaeological resources contained in An Ar ha oloni al Imp .ntorv 4 INey and I invited Suhsurface Testing of the Prnnnenri llnalal(oha Parlnuay FXten SlOn. AltematlVP.S 10 and 11 and the Add ndum RPDOrt to Kealak .he Park~aav f.lun . 1A941 has been accented by the ~*^tP Historic. Preservation Offi .er ISHPOI. However. only the most significant ^•^~^POlogical cites will be nreceNPd in place DPOending nn their significance other r c0 RC'PC l III receive "no further ~~~ork" or "data recovery" ac described in SPC.tion 4.12. r`omenenter . G®orae Bennett. Kona Heavens 4ssociation. President 1 S rnnortc the ronstruc+~^^ ^f Iloalakahc Parlnuav anti thinkC it should have hPPn built sooner to accommodate growth in Kona. 2 ('oncPrned ahout thA ~^~r ^f the nroi ct S Invested providing incentives to huilderc ^c ^ ~~~av to xoedite .onstru .tion and lower costs. 4 R IIPV c ro^d~•~^v ~^~ill better dish .rsP traffic. and noise throunhout the area. 4 f) 4(`rlbPd xneri nc of h^vina an art rial roadway close to his home vet justified constr I .tion of the road. 5 Mention d th^t the KP^holP to Kailua D vPlonment Plan includes greenbelts. io~c gins n^thc ^nd hike tr^ilc Inquired why those Chinas were omitted from the oronos .d Kealakehe Parkway. Response 1 C:ommPnt noted. 2 Uce of in Pntivec is ^n ^noronriatP measure to accelerate construction and nt octc Th use of incenii~ c ~~ill he decided durinn oreoaratign of ~~n~tnlction bid documents. 5-8 4 S rtions 4 4 1 and 4 F 9 support th .Comm .nter's statement that the completed KP^I^kehP P^rku~^v ~•~ill better di_ctribute traffic and noise. 4 f Omment noted Sor.ial impacts to residents livinn immediately adjacent to the nrocn~Pd ro^dt•~^v ^re exD cted to h .minimal- except for the residential area to be enclosed by the Park~a~av and the detour road- Section 4.2 details social Im°~acts, K alakehP Par ~~av will initialh~ be ronstnlcted as a rural arterial and will not ...~li Arlo innninn paths nr !-~ilto trails i~IOVCitC}S maV IISP. the SI'lOLtidP. r. QS DODnI^tlOn IDrT ^e C ^nd d VPIODr71P.nt OCC IfS Lrbanl7atlOn InIDfOVP.rT1P.DYS Sllch ^e those mentioned may he considered- r`ommenter .Janet Butler 1 Strongly supports buiLdina-Parkway. 9 n~e~ problems ~•~ith Hina I ani Str et including tr Irk traffic congestion. ^^fety blind mote vehi IP speeds and road deterioration. Response 1 C;ommeni noted. ? The omDletion of Ke^lak he Parkway ~•~ill divert traffic volumes from Hina I ani Street to he 14.ehe P^rk ^v D^rtir Ilarly tru ks The traffic volumes and vehicle L~ exD rienring ^d~ers conditions nn Hina I ani Street should therefore he i~liGPS~. 5 5 WRITTEN CO6.6•ENTS RECEIVED DIIRINC THE DRAFT EIS f~AMMCI~IT P RIOD AND RESPONSES The thirty fig ~ ritt n st^t ments rereived on the draft FIS d Icing the Dublin comment period 1 Ilv 1 qQ5 through Ortnher 7F 19Q~i ~~~ere reviewed and considered and reproduced belo~~ Those letters containing substantive comments are i tei follo~ ed by responses Responses were not prepared for letters which pin not offer romments The letters are arranged in chronoloairal order Fach 5-9 ~b~t^ntiv comment hac b n n imbered in the left margin. and the associated ~Re.,~o be^rc the G^m . n ember Som .omm .nts req iir .d chanq .c. .orre .tionG. or ^-~ditionc to oth r haot rs of the EIS OthPrc asked for clarification of information precant d or it ms beyond the scone of the EIS. I etters resoondinp to the Draft EIS comments ~~~ere sent in Mav 1998 (see AnoPndix l~.J) Thos who provided .omment~ are also being nrovid .d cool s of thi Final S. 5-10 NE Y.Ia tl;A .I.C\Y ET AYO ~ ESTR F.R UF.Ua iii iYl Pi~i)N 1'1~ ~ r411.11vi i1141~~4 1. STATE OF HAWAII DFPA RTME]'T ~)F BII SIN FSti. ECONOMIC DEVF,LOPM ENT & TOURISM ~AVD use coMnussloK Ram IOi. OId Federal Budtling iii Merchant Street Hunolulu, Hawaii H6813 Telephone: SBi-382? July 26, 1995 SUBJECT: Director's Referral No. 94-085-M Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Kealakehe Parkway: Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu w+..ti~,a., North Kona Hawaii we have reviewed the DEIS for the subject project and have the following comments: 1) I Based on the representation of the project area in Figure S-1, it appears that it is located within the State Land Use Urban, Agricultural, and Conservation Districts. 2) The representation of the State land use districts in Figure 3-4, which appears to be taken from the Office of State Planning's District Boundary Review Report, Hawaii, dated 1992, is outdated. We have attached for your information copies of the Commission's State land use district boundaries maps H-2 (Keahole Point) and H-7 (Kailua) which depict the current district boundaries for the subject area. 3) On page 3-10, the following statement is made: "It would be the responsibility of private landowners to petition the Office of State Planning (OSP) for actual land use reclassification at the appropriate time." Please be advised that the correct agency to which private landowners would petition for a change in the district boundaries would be the Land Use Commission or the County of Hawaii (depending on the acreage and reclassification requested), not the Office of State Planning. We have no further comments to offer at this time. EU:HS:th att. 5-11 Qacwnwgg to State of Nawsii Department of Business. Economic Development and Tourism. Land Ilse Commission 1 Section ~ 1 ~ of the final EIS des .rihes the project area as located within lJrhan. Aarin~ilturaL and Con~Prvation Districts 2 FiaUre 3-4 showing The State land use districts_in North Kona. has been revised to show the current land use designations ~ Th final IS no~~~ states that "It will he the resgonsihility gf private landowners to nPtition ither the I and lse Commission or the County gf Hawaii (denendina_on *h~ ^^re^oe ^nd reclassification r .guest .dl for actual land use reclassification ai the aooronriate time- 5-12 w r , wx I [~r.I Li LI _~..,~J'~ '1 " PARSONS BRINCKcRHOFF DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • CO rx, w~" 25 gUPU NI STREET HiLO HAWan 9n]20 TELEPHONE 100819fi 9-~.:2~ Fax 1800963 6996 July 28, 1995 The Honorable Benjamin J. Cayetano, Governor State of Hawaii c/o Office of Environmental Quality Control 220 South King Street, 4th Floor Honolulu, HI 96813 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)/SECTION (4f) STATEMENT KEALAKEHE PARKWAY, MAMALAHOA HIGHWAY TO QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY NORTH KONA, HAWAII APPLICANT - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, HIGHWAYS DIVISION TAX MAP KEY 7-4-2:8; 7-4-6:12; AND 1-4-8:47, 5, 60, 13, AND 17 Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject EIS. We have no comments to offer. Should you need any assistance from our Department, please contact the Water Resources and Planning Section at 969-1421. Milton D. Pavao, P.E. Manager r.G.q copy - Department of Transportation, Highways Division Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc. UVafer brin~! pro~redd 5-13 ti~!~ - 4 rs I ~ Wayne c. carvalno Stephen K. Yamasniro , ( PoOrr a~rJ ,•E , Mayor j \:;'•...~~~:4 James S. Correa si'. pgorv Po4ac ChirJ POLICE DEPARTMENT J~9 Ii~91o1W $IrtN Hilo. N~wW %]303998 (808)%Li1N Fn (808)%43]89 August 1, 1995 Mr. Gary Gill, Director State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control 220 South King Street, 4th Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Gill: SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROJECT TZTLE: KEALAKEHE PARKWAY TAX MAP KEY: 7-4-2-B; 7-4-6-12 7-4-8:47, 5, 60, 13, 17 The above Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been reviewed and we foresee no adverse effect should the project be approved to proceed. Sincerely, I~i.~Co G. ~pwtzcLQcc 47A NE G. CARVALHO POLICE CHIEF JV:if cc:Department of Transportation, Highways Division ~,P"arsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Kona Police 5-14 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, HONOLULU G FORT SHAFTER, HAWAII 96&S&SHO JU ~rnnTOCxa August 2, 1995 Planning Division Mr. Abraham Wong Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Hawaii Division 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3202 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Cear Mr. Wong: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Kealakehe Parkway - Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway - North Kona, Hawaii (HEC-HI) We do r.ot have any additional comments to offer beyond those provided in our previous letter dated June 27, 1995. Since Ray H. Jyo, P.E. Director of Engineering 5-15 ~`omment on Department of the Armv Letter The refer .need I .tter of J me 77. 1995 stated that the proposed nroiect area does not inrlnrlo anv ciirfara water hndies or special aquatic sites. includinn wetlands. The Department of the Armv th .refnre conc.hided that the nroiect will not impact waters of the United States and therefore. a Department of Armv Hermit is not repaired 5-16 BENJAMIN J. CAYETANG aoVERrvOF ya, SUSAN M. CHANDLER. M.S.W.. Pp.D piRECTOft - `''1 KATHLEEN G. STANLEY i~ j1~~1 JERUiV pa'c_-oA r l »h v~rt~ 11'995 STATE OF HAWAII ~ ( - ~ - - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 1390 Miller Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 August 3, 1995 Governor. State of Hawaii c/o Office of Environmental Quality Control 22u South iiing Street. 4th r ioor Honolulu. Hawaii 9G813 Subject: Draft EIS/Section 4(f) Statement Iiealakehe Parkway, Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Iiaahumanu Highway. North bona. Hawaii Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. We have no comments to offer at this time. Sincereh•, Susan M. Chandler, M.S.~i., Ph.D- llirector cc: DOT. Plannine Branch Parson Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc. AN EOUAL OPPOR7UNI7V AGENCY 5-17 FHWN HI-DIV. ID:308-541-?704 RUG 09'95 14:55 No .006 P.C1 (/•r`•:\ STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF HgWgIIAN AFFA~Ra G.r1n1.w ooo.[v.uo. sorts soo i,OMUluLll. ".W/.II 9Gtl1 ]-5].0 a XlJ4/ 10041 itlG~l))) r.L 100!1 LIW 4)90 August 4, 1995 Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration P.O. Sox 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Re: Draft EIS/section 4tf) Statement Kealakehe Parkway, Mamalahoa Highway to Cueen Ka'ahu_manu Highway North Kona Hawa''+ Dear Mr. Wong: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) has the following comments and concerns. OHA has filed a suit in State Court opposing the Housing Finance and Development Corporation's (HFDC) development of Che V111ages of La,'i 'Opus and the anticipated sale of ceded lands. Since the Kealakehe Parkway is an extension of the roadway included in the HFDC project, and because of OHA's involvement in the matter, we would like to be included as a consulting party on the known impacts detailed in the DEIS. Trie DEIS at pages 4-67 and 5-3 includes OHA as a party already intended to be consulted. By this letter, we are requesting that the consultation process begin as soon as possible. In order to facilitate the proposed consultation, please contact Linda Delaney, Land and Natural Resources Officer at 59A-1888. in erely,1 ~ ~ / Dan e R Ca ~ nter Administra or cc: Clayton Kee, Chairperson Board of Trustees 5-18 or rqu,_. g~~"~e 11.5. UL•PARTM BNT OF TRANSPORTATION 9 @Y FEDERAL HIGH wAY ADMINISRtATON ` Hgwxii Division 300 Alx A1onnx BIvJ., Room )202 '+grES tf Ilurrolulu, HI 96650 Nc,rember 2, 1995 IN gERY gLi[q TO HEC-HI Ms. Linda Colburn Acting Administrator OPfica of Hawaiian Affairs 711 Kapiolani Blvd., suite Soo Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Deaz Ms. Colburn subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement) Section 4{£) Statement (1995) Kealakehe Parkway Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway North Hona, Hawaii Thank you for your letter of August G, 1995 on the subject Environmental Impact Statement. The fiawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) teas consulted with OHA's representative on the Island of Hawaii on this project but FHWA welcomes the opportunity to continue coordination with oHA. As discussed with Linda Delaney, Land and Natural F.esources Officer of OHA, the HDOT and FHWA are available to discuss the project with oHA. Pleasm contact Mr. Pat V. Phuny, Transportation Engineer, at (808) 541-2700 tc arranye a meeting. Sincerely yours, Abraham t9ong Division Administrator 5-19 University of Hawaii at Manoa Water Resources Research Cenler Holman I kill 7t;B • 9G4U Uole Slreel Hun ul ul u. Hawau 9tit322 vs nt~ ac> ~ on,x xy Zur 4 August 1995 ~ ~ ^ _ ~ a. ~r• Y- w-yr~ A np 3 "!T Lc 1 r Mr. Ronald Tsuzuki C- Department of Transportation, Highways Division Planning Branch 600 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 304 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 Dear Mr. Tsuzuki: SUBJECT: Drafr EIS for Kealakehe Parkway from Mamalahoa Hwy to Queen Kaahumanu Hwy We have reviewed the subject DEIS and have no comments to offer. Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this material. Sincerely, Rogei S. Fujioka, Ph.D. Director, WRRC RSF:jm an' Equ.ai, oi~i~oaTC~n~~~ c~tPi.t~t~r.r. 5-20 M1K, Hi Of f°, " F United States Department of the Interior WP i O T 9 ~ O ~ s L.S. GEOLOGICAL SC R\'E1' M4ACna WATER RESOURCES DIVISION 677 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 415 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 August 4, 1995 iS ~x Mr. Abraham Wong z'~ Division Administrator Z n z ~ ~ y U.S. Department of Transportation ~ ~ _ r Federal Highway Administration c~- ¢ .,.ter Hawaii Division y . _ Y 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 3202 no z Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 =z ^ i cc > Dear Mr. Wong: Subject: Draft EIS/Section 4(f) Statement Kealakehe Parkway, Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, North Kona, Hawaii The staff of the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Hawaii District, hzs reviewed the Draft EIS, and we have no comments to offer at this time. Thank you for allowing us to review the report. Sincerely, District Chief l 5-21 August 14, 1995 Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration PO Box 50206, 300 Ala Moana Blvd. Honolulu, Hi. 96850 Dear Mr. Wong: We reside in Kona Heavens. The relatively new extension of Hina Lani Road- has been a great boon to all of us in this area. As you must know, before this- addition to Hina Lani, Palani Road was a very dangerous route to travel. Thtr many trucks grinding up the grade or going down in low gear really slowed d3Grta-, the traffic and many serious accidents occurred. All that congestion did impeove._ greatly. However, now Hina Lani presents us with another problem. The very top of the road is very steep. It was not engineered to accommodate heavily~•_ loaded trucks. Therefore we are in favor of building the new proposed Kealakehe Parkway. It appears to fumish the truckers a more acceptable grade`. , to access the upper Mamalahoa highway. Of course it would also fumish access to the new Kealakehe High School and the new planned subdivisions. In the future, as our community grows, it seems to us that one or more additional similar roads farther north would be of great service to us all. As much as we loved our sleepy little village of Kailua-Kona, we are growing and we must accept change. To do this we must approach our new problems with dispatch and clear thinking. The longer we delay the worse our problems become. Sinter ly, Victor and Pat Crosetti 73.1854 Anini St., Kailua-Kona, Hi 96740 5-22 .,ir~~ United States Natural P. 0. Box 636 ~ Department of Resources Kealakekua, HI 3 Agriculture Conservation 96750-0636 Service Phone 18081 322-2484 Fax 18081 322-3735 August 14, 1995 ~i Mr. Abraham Wong Division Administrator _ - U.S. Dept of Transportation P.O. Box 50206 Honolulu, HZ 96850 _ SUBJECT: Draft EIS/Section 4 (f) Statement Kealakehe Parkway Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Hwy, North Kona, Hawaii Dear Mr. Wong: We have completed review of this draft EIS. At this time we have no major concerns with this plan. Because of potential negative impacts to ground water supplies and nearshore marine ecosystems, an erosion control plan should be an integral part of each project phase. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call Mr. Chris Smith at (808) 541-2605 or Ms-Sandra Higa at (808) 322-2484. Sincerely yours, ~ . a ~ .n rT~ ~~/~U Kenneth M. Kaneshiro State Conservationist Tbs Nemrel Ramurcev Ca nee rvnumr Service formedY ma Soil Conewrveoion Se rvme. ' n s9encY al tee U niuJ Sreue Oepenmem o~ Agnc ulm.e AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 5-23 Response to U.S Department of oaricultura. Natural Resources Conservation Service An erosion control plan which will minimise potential adverse impacts to mound water ~2plies and nearshore marine ecosystems will be prepared during the design phase of the project. The erosion control plan will require the use of Rest Management Practices (RMPsI. The specific erosion control measures descrihed in the RMPs will need to be approv .d by the State Department of Health. as indicated in Section 4 1 Et.3. 5-24 I~ ~ I % ~ pOY S. OSRIRO BENJAMIN 1 LAYET O ' ~ Z / ~ ~ ~ I ,clx0 ~ i e r 4 vW ~o.Eaxoe I _J .E~~,,_~ ~,~e STATE OF HAWAII OEPApTMENT OF BUOGET AMD FwANCE x ee c~, ei_reo HOUSING FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BA OVEEN STREE i,SWTE JOB 95: DEV/4819 MONOIULU. NAWA1198Bll fAX IBOB) JB)~B6B0 August 15, 1995 Mr. Keith Nakano Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Pacific Tower, Suite 3000 1001 Bishop Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Nakano: Subject: Kealakehe Parkway Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Mitigation The Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC) is reviewing the subject document for completion of the Kealakehe Parkway. As developers of the Villages of La'i'opua master planned community, HFDC is vitally interested in expediting this project. Inasmuch as the proposed Parkway corridor will be developed on land now consisting of native dry land forest, it shares many characteristics as HFDC's Villages of La'i'opua development. Not surprisingly, several threatened and endangered plant species have been identified as impacted by the Parkway project. As you may be aware, HFDC has prepared a draft mitigation plan for the numerous plant species within the Villages which are threatened or endangered or candidates for such designation. In addition to preserving species in place, we are also proposing to construct two substantial preserve areas within which identified plants, once propagated, can be replanted to reestablish a native dry land forest environment. We believe that development and maintenance of these preserves will provide a significant mitigation action. However, as you may also be aware, the clearing, propagation, improvement, and management of preserves is very costly. We would be interested in conferring with you to see if cooperative action between the Department of Transportation (DOT) and HFDC to accelerate and expand the preserve program could assist DOT in meeting mitigation responsibility for t~he~P~arkway project. N 1 11 11 H F .7 C 5-25 Mr. Keith Nakano Page 2 August 15, 1995 we stand ready to confer with you as necessary and hope that our ongoing program can serve as a base for further action to preserve the dry land forest environment. Sincerely, MICHAEL McELROY Project Manager c: Paul Weissich 5-26 Resnonsa to State of Hawaii. Department of Hudnet and Finance. HFDC ThP FHNrA ^nd SDOT ^onreciate HFD .'s offer of the use of their endangered species plant nr sen~ s The HFDC nr serves are among several that are available for this proiPCt Details of ~~~hich preserves would be used for Kealakehe Parkway will he rasoly d during the desinn phase of the groiect. 5-27 To: Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration POB 50206, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, HI 96850 From: Derek and Margie Park 73-4789 Haiolani St. Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Dear Mr. Wong, it has been brought to our attention that the Kealakehe Parkway Project for the Kona area is in jeopardy. We are residents of the Kona Heavens subdivision. Our home is on the corner of Halolani and Hinalani. Hinalani is a thoroughfare between the main highway and Palani Rd. There are many reasons why we believe that it would be in Kona's best interest to complete the Kealakehe Parkway project. Here are just a few: many large trucks are constantly breaking down due to the' steep grade along Hinalani and this is obviously not only an eye sore but also a dangerous road hazard, Kona is expected to have population growth and its road systems need further expansion to support the growth, and as a needed access the new Kealakehe High School and planned subdivisions are to name just a few! Please make the right decision and support Kealakehe Parkway. Don't make a problem road (Hinalani) a disaster!! Thank you for your support. Sincerely, I 1 ~ ~ iti li i. Derek and Margie rk 5-28 KONA HEAVENS ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 734 Kailua-Kona, Hi 96745 August 22, 1995 Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration P.O. Box 50206, 300 Ala Moana Blvd. Honolulu, HI 96850 Dear Sir: As the president of the Kona Heavens Association, I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors in support of the completion of the Kealakehe Parkway. A major concern that confronts all homeowners of this subdivision is the very steep grade of the recently completed Hina Lani Street mauka-makai connector. We in Kona Heavens are having to cope with spills from cement trucks and other vehicles, boats and trailers breaking loose, a blind intersection at Palani Road, and a tremendous increase in vehicle noise because there are no tonnage limits as in Kona Palisades. However, our support is not limited to issues pertaining only to Kona Heavens. The Board of Directors are behind any plans that will relieve traffic on existing roads, offer a safer truck route with half the grade of Hina Lani, and provide for future population growth. We are expressing our support in the only ways open to us at the moment. These include a letter to the West Hawaii Today Editorial Page, speaking at the August 31st hearing, and writing to the officials involved. Mahalo, 1 ~ ~ George Bennett, President Kona Heavens Association 5-29 i.~ .r,na „^snn^„c_ - =J39A uueen .aam:Tanu ~~gnk'eT' 6aeew.ylau.rC ~crroanv ruroc~a:eC ~ *ad~a~kona ~'96~aC "Cdrna~ne~5erv cz VII I - - cs:aous^eC-'939 eieorcne 16081 3:9 an t Moving ana _ At yOYf s~rrdC~f =acs mie X8081 32955a6 August 23, 1995 Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration PO Box 50206, 300 Alamoana Blvd. Honolulu, HI 96850 Dear Mr. Wong: Being one of the major users of the roadways in Kona, we support the completion of Kealakehe Parkway to Mamalahoa Hwy. Currently, we use Hinalani and Palani roads to access Mamalahoa. Hinalani is very steep for truck traffic. Palani is not quite so steep, however, it is both narrow and has very little shoulder. We lost a truck and it's entire cargo before the runaway ramp was built. Now the runaway ramp has been removed, and 2 stoplights erected in it's place. We have met with the County of Hawaii to build another ramp, however, even with all of their efforts, the ramp may not become a reality. Kealakehe parkway would be an excellent solution in that the grade can be controlled and shoulders built to accomodate truck traffic. The lower exit of Kealakehe Parkway onto Queen Kaahumanu is also located very conveniently for access to and from the Honokohau boat harbor. Most recreational trucks towing boats are not able to keep up with the minimum speed of the roadways. The wide shoulders planned on Kealakehe Parkway will allow these and other slower traffic to use the roadway and not impede the normal flow of traffic. Thank you for allowing our input. Sincerely, Albert Shiotsuka VP Operations 5-30 .August 23, 1995 Fc•~• u~ vir. Abraham Wong, ~WE,I~WAII CONCRETE Federal Highway Administration PO Box 50206, 300 Ala Moans Boulevazd Honoluht, Hawaii 96850 We aze writing in support of the proposed construction of Kealakehe Parkway to Mantalahoa Highway Project. We are the largest supplier of concrete and aggregates to the West Hawaii azea. We have locations in Kona, Waimea and Mauna Kea. We regularly use all available routes from the Mantalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road. Prior to the completion of this project trucks will continue to use either Hina Latti, Palani or Palisades. AR of these roads have obvious drawbacks that have been the subject of complaint for years. As no[cd ut [he EIS there have been numerous accidents along Palarti road Neither Palani. Hina Lard ar Pabsades wets built to accommodate truck traffic and Palisades is cumntly posted with a fo[[[rage limit. Residents in Kona Heavens had asked the County for a tormage limit along Hina Lani as we1L Palisades and l3itra Lani have extremely steep grades that exceed all reasonable guidelines. Palazti is a narrow rural roadway with existing homes very near the roadway and narrow to non existing shoulders. Truck traffic is a major problem for residents and truckers alike on the existing roads which have never been designed for such traffic. Very ofren someone becomes stuck behind a slow moving truck going up Palatri and gets very frustrated In frustration this person may try to pass the slow moving truck where there is no passing lane. Truckers don't wam to be in the way but with no other route available there is no choice. When a fully loaded truck ri going up hill, pulling over to a full stop to let traffic go by is not a good practice, usually is very unsafe and more of a delay for other traffic. This is true because the only places to pull over going up streets like Palani have blind spots when getting back on the road later and when the truck does get going again it would travel the test of the way in a lower, slower gear since it would not have the ability to gain enough road speed on the steep hill to get back into the gear that it was in before it pulled over. As described ur the EIS Kealahehe Pazkway is being designed as a four lane highway to accommodate the expected traffic includmg truck [raffia If it is built m phases we urge that truck passing lanes in the up and down directions be in the fast phase of construction [o make i[ a safe highway It apparently will cost a lot to build. But it won't get any cheaper io the future and without it we will continue to use unsafe roads. At West Hawaii Concrete we want to he a good neighbor. We believe this highway can help us by providing a safe road [o use. Sin//cerel~/y ,,pper~ (.f~'rLO~O Cazl L. Simons President P.O. Bon 1390 COIYSTRUCTIOIY MATERIALS AYD SERVICES Sales Office Kailua-Kona Ready Mix Concrete Aggregates (008) 3243507 Hawaii 7umpmy 81ock Admims[ranve Office 967x5-1390 X6081 329-3561 (808) 329226'] Fax 5-31 Dear Sir: As the secretary of the Kona Heavens Association, I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors in support of the completion of the Kealakehe Parkway. A major concern that confronts all homeowners of this subdivision is the very steep grade of the recently completed Hina Lani Street mauka-makai connector. We in Kona Heavens are having to cope with spills from cement trucks and other vehicles, boats and trailers breaking loose, a blind intersection at Palani Road, and a tremendous increase in vehicle noise because there are no tonnage limits as in Kona Palisades. However, our support is not limited to issues pertaining only to Kona Heavens. The Board of Directors are behind any plans that will relieve traffic on existing roads, offer a safer truck route with half the grade of Hina Lani, and provide for future population growth. We are expressing our support in the only ways open to us at the moment. These include a letter to the West Hawaii Today Editorial Page, speaking at the August 31st hearing, and writing to the officials involved. We invite others to join us in the struggle to improve driving conditions for all. Mahalo, ~ ~ ~ ~ _:,uy-~ i ~~_tic,. 1, Dawn Perry, Secretary Kona Heavens Association 5-32 /i~ ~~~-a ';rsoon~~>~ 9C~?o C..een^aa^.-iv-9rtwav' General Nau~, rr, ~ ~ ~ - -^'ra'. '_^•:»~areu ,end nona ri -~FVn Conia~~er aa~~ce 2. ae. =_re..-939 onone ~d0a1 ?29 blovr~ a".c a :r.-. _ At your s~rvlu! sm,~P .ace, ~~c ss~e ~ ~ " August 24, 1995 Mr. Abraham Wong Federal Hiqhway Adm. PO 8Ox 50206, 300 Alamoana Blvd. Honolulu, HI 96850 Dear Mr. Wong: We are drivers of tractor trailers carrying loads up to 80 tons. Our route requires 2 tractor trailer combinations to utilize Palani Road daily. All of us have been with Kona Trans of over 15 years, and some of us have been driving Palani road almost daily for over 30 years. We should be familiar and experienced with this road as any other driver, however, bringing a loaded trailer down this road continues to be a challenge. Among truck drivers, this road is the most feared-respected hill on the island except for MaunaKea Summit Road. Driving carefully (slowly) does not make us the most popular users of the road in the eyes of other motorists. This concerns us, of course, but there is not much that we can do about it. We fuNy endorse the construction of the Kealakehe Parkway. We hope that this road will be designed with wide shoulders and without steep grades. Respectfully, The Senior Driving Team Alan Henriques Qom. James Zane ' JO~'~ Alex Ako Rodney Acol 5-33 ' PI~~ q WHENCE YIINE EENJAMw J. uYETANO ` ~ ~ EcroN Oi NuiiN 40vEPNOP Oi NwW.u~ JJ ~~`-f ~j 4ss.IV - ~ - STATE OF HAWAII _ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH mncy n,e... ~aN.m P O. BOX 3]]e HONOLULU. HAWAII %E01 August 25, 1995 92-303(2)/epo To: The Honorable Benjamin Cayetano Governor, State of Hawaii cio Director. office of Environmental Quality control 220 South King Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 From: Lawrence Miike Director of Health Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Kealakehe Parkway Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway North Kona, Hawaii TMK: 7-4-2: 8 Thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the subject document. We do not have any comments to offer at this time. c: DOT Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc. 5-34 NERWVI Y. ~IUWB. M D den 'a~mi nE J. Cayetano ~~~~T ~yi STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION a O. BO[ ]MO XONOLVL U. MA W11 96bN O FFILE OF THE SU VE BINTENOENT August 29, 1495 Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Adminis[rator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Adm'_n~s[ra[ion Box 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 95650 Dear Mr. Wong: SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Kealakehe ?arkway, Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahunar.u Hiahwav, North Kona. Hawaii We have reviewed the sub-ect draft EIS and have determined that [he proposed ccnstruc[ion o`_ :~=_aiakehe ?arkway will have minimal impact on the schools area. Thank ycu for the opportunity ~o comment. Sincerely, <'s:~;~ Herman M. Aizawa, Superir.tendert HMA:jml cc: A. Suga Bergin, Hawaii AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 5-35 Ci.) KOP~A-KOIIALA CIIAMBER Of COMMCRCC AUGUST 31, 1995 TO: THE U. S. DEPARTMENP OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FROM: THE KONA-KOHALA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RE: THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF KEALAKEHE PARKWAY TO MAMALAHOA HIGHWAY The Kona-KOhala Chamber of Commerce fully supports the proposed extension of the Kealakehe Parkway to Mamalahoa Highway. An east-west link between the two roadways has been included in Big Island highway plans for over ten years. We fully agree that this extension would satisfy: System linkage needs Existing transportation demand and capacity needs Safety needs Economic development needs Along with these considerations, we would ask that the DOT Highways and the Federal Highways Administration look carefully at the kinds of truck traffic and the economic dependency of the business and consumer community upon this traffic, for the Kona area. We need a SAFE, CONVENIENT truck route from Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu. This would mean this has to be a four-lane highway and graded for truck transportation. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. - ~i ~~i~i IIW1 ~l ill J1~ A,AII I.~A-nilti III 'a d41N l1'~ I'SM 4T,t .X0813!4-h ibJ 5-36 BENJAMIN) CAVEfANO '/'A ~`ea~•A~~~ ROVS OSMIRO f -T 1 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF BUDGEt AND FINANCE Ix RE RV REEER TO MOUSING FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 95:PPE/5110 En DUEEx 8TREET, BWTE Jw xONOLUIV. HAWAII BEE1J cex Iwn sst~osoo ~ n'^ '0= r-a: y> September 1, 1995 DBm~ z~ =arn n ^ ~ v m F~ 10 ayET H ti(7 T0: Governor, State of Hawaii ~ o z c%o Office of Environmental Quality Control =z ~ FROM: Roy S. Oshiro Acting Executive D rector SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kealakehe Parkway We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Kealakehe Parkway from Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway and have the following comments: 1) Paqe 1-1 indicates that the Kealakehe Parkway within the Villages of La'i'opua is still under construction. As of August 1995, the entire portion of the Kealakehe Parkway within the Villages of La'i'opua has been completed. Thus, "under construction" should be changed to "completed" throughout the report. 2) I The name of the Kealakehe Planned Community is "The Villages of La'i'opua," not La'i'opua. - I- 3 1~? *_he Housing Finance 3) Gn DOtaill Cal IIii tigatl0.. IoC: ..1 C.. - , and Development Corporation's (HFDC) draft mitigation plan calls for the creation of an uhiuhi preserve area as well as a second preserve area for aupaka and other threatened and endangered species. We would be willing to discuss with the Department of Transportation (DOT) their providing support for the propagation and preserve management functions of our Mitigation Plan as one means of meeting DOT's requirements. 4) The alignment of the completed portion of Kealakehe Parkway (within the Villages of La'i'opua) was agreed upon jointly by DOT and HFDC. HFDC did not decide on the alignment solely (section 5.4.9 comment 9.4). _ H F A C 5-37 Governor, State of Hawaii Page 2 September 1, 1995 5) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has requested a review of impacts on plant species located on the parcel outside of the highway corridor on the basis of the highway's cumulative effect. We believe that application of cumulative effect is improper, in that (a) highway construction does not facilitate urbanization of the rest of the parcel, and (b) mitigation for species elsewhere on the site would be the responsibility of the landowner of the rest of the parcel, not DOT. The effect on the rest of the parcel should be assessed when (and if) development approvals are sought, and presumably would be subject to the Chapter 343 environmental review process. In sum, it appears that USFWS may be "overreaching" its regulatory authority under Section 7, to require Federal agency consultation on matters which are unrelated to the Federal action. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. c: ~ROnald Tsuzuki, DOT Keith Nakano, Parsons Brinckerhoff 5-38 R~~oonse to State of Hawaii. Denartrnant of Budget and Finance. NFDC 1 The portion of Kealakehe Parkway within the Villages of I a'i'ooua is now descrihed "constru ted" or "comnlet .d" instead of "under construction." 7 Th name of the Kealakehe Planned C;nmmunity has heen changed from I a'i'ooua to th Villanes of I a'i'onua throuaho rt the final FIS. FHh/A ^nd SDOT ^opreci^te HFDCs offer of the use of their endangered species nl=• nrPSPrv s The HFf~ .Ares rues are among s .v .ral that are availahle for this poi ct Det^ils of ~~~hi h pr sen~ s ~~~ould he used for Kealakehe Parkway will be resolved d irina the dasian phase of the project. 4 Comment noted. 5 FHN/A ^nd SLOT note HFf) .'s opinion regarding the treatment of cumulative imr^^'^ ^^d the Fish ^nd N~ildlife Service's us of it a rthority FHWA and SLOT h^~e roncl ided formal Section 7 ons iltations ~~~ith the Fish and Wildlife Service in ^rcord^nce ~•~ith the Endangered S; Acies Act as indicated in Section 4.11.1. 5-39 /38UOL13 tlF.WANIB J. GYETANO E~\~V ,I KALI WATION i,uvFa NOa SIAIE ueP.1F TMEH' ~.I CHAI0..NAN 11 UF. OF IInW V I C T XAY(AIIAN HOMkS COMM6SI0~ G. fiANS?41'~ia'ILn JCr I I [ 3Z r H 'JJ JOBff N. K.N. VA.NAGCCHI DUTY TO THE CIIAIRMA~ STATE OF HAWAII HNC HIy;~~?, ~,y(~ARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS PLAHNiNC BkAHCH Pa 90%16]V IIUNHLL LL. HA WAII Vbg05 September 6, 1995 Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Box 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear Mr. Wong: Subject: Draft EIS/Section 4(f) Statement Kealakehe Parkway, Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, North Kona, Hawaii Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject report for completion of the Kealakehe Parkway connecting Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is acquiring lands in the vicinity for housing and other uses. We strongly support development of this highway project because, by providing an alternative route for people traveling between upper and lower elevations, it will also reduce congestion and improve safety and convenience along Palani Road. To avoid endangered species and significant archeological sites, a composite alternative alignment with a slight "S" curve descending between Alternatives l0 and 11 should be investigated (See adapted Figure 4-5 & Figure 4-6, attached) If you have any questions regarding our comments, please call Joseph Chu of our Planning Office at 586-3838. Warmest aloha, Kali Watson, Chairman Hawaiian Homes Commission Enclosures c: OEQC State DOT (Highways) Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas Znc. 5-40 Ma / [p Mamalahoa Hwy. N wy .w' I ~ srn ~ ~,p ..ter.. .Z,V \ ~ ~ ~ _ [ Detour Road - x - I ~ i x:, _ _ ~ ti . a , _.Y xe _ / . ....K~ _ - ~ _ TMtst - 1 - ~ ~ ,a nb ~ - - v Y \ ~ ~ Attemative 10 _ TO _ „ " 1 ~ FCC ~ ~ ~:E POSSIBI~.,~I.TERti'TII\-'E ROUTE - \ ~ to avoid e"ndangered_species ~ ~ _F, significant archaeological site . Alternative 11 ~ _ ~ !6 - \ LEuEND _ _ (Bidans micrantlia sso. cfanopnyllal - ` (Caesatomie Imvawnas) ,.c .l rt • Loulu Palm y 4: (Pmcnarou alfinis) Iv Note.. cleva0ans in teat aoove mean saa wvel. - i' ' °~'r--60 ENDANGERED AND Figure solo m me[ers n ,oo z°° "CANDIDATE 1 SPECIES 4- r- KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS st`ala in feet 5-41 'Ndrtlalah0a Q,p Mamelahoa Nwy~ `I Site No. - 19629 _ I ( ~SiteNo~• .ice. ~ 9 - 19628 $ I a I t„ ~ . Detour Road / _ ~ _ , _ y _ _ _ me ~ Y . o a° c m -~;,st r _ ~ r_ - ~ Site No. 18749 _ _ Site No. 18750 . , i = _ I, , ~ M, . s... ~ _ atrve 1~ ,y. ~ 1 - Alternative 11 \ ~ -Y, ...1. yr \ p ~ ...._.Rarre ~ - to avoid archeological sines g pecker...,.. y._ Site No. ~ ~ 1. • _ _ 18099 `'1_. ~ set ~ _ _ ~ e ~ ~ ` prox. 180 meters (600 feet) well (makai) Site No. 18185 ~ ~ ~ Site No. _ . Site No.f Ske No. 00002 13006 13194 _ ' Kaahumanu HwY~ _ _ ~ i See Inset... pueen _ _ 1 - ~ Honokohau Harbor Rd. N°te.. Elevenons m feet above mear sea level ' 0 30 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Figure g seelamme,ers RECOMMENDED FOR PRESERVATION ,o0 2~ 4-6 KEALAKEHE PARKWAY EIS stele in feet 5-42 R®snonse to State of Nawaii_ Department of Hawaiian Nome Lands FHWA and Sf)OT apor ..iat~thP I~eoartment of Hawaiian Home Lands' attempt to develop an alinnment that avoids critical sites. However. Fiaure 4-F~ does not denim all of the archeological fP.ahlfP.S that are present in the vicinity. This finure only shows fP.ahlfP.S within the Alternative iD and Preferred Alternative alinnments. In fact. archeologi .al sites o it at high density throunhout much of the corridor. and the "hvhrid" alinnment s_ mnested by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands would affect a heiau complex A meat deal of effort has heen Pxnended to develop an alinnment that simultanernisly minimises impacts both to archaeolonical and hotanical r .soie_ irc?s. 5-43 KEAL.IHOU KONA RESORT COMPANY September 8, 1995 Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Y U lion 502116, 3t)U Ala lVloana tloulevard Honolulu, HI 96850 Dear Mr. Wong: - Please accept this letter in support of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed construction of the Kealakehe Parkway to Mamalahoa Highway. Keauhou Kona Resort Company is a construction company required to use either Palani Road, Flrna Lani or Kaiminani as they are the only mauka/makai "[cock routes" available for our use. As you know these roadways have obvious, dangerous drawbacks to our community. These include extremely steep grades, tonnage limits, narrow to non-e7dsting shoulders and in certain azeas homes aze very near to the roadways. As a conscientious contractor we realize the need for safe roads for our community as well as roads that accommodate our truck traffic. At this same time we are cognizant of the general public's frustration when stuck behind slow moving trucks going up Palani, Hina Lani or Kaiminani. rC ealak>ho Par!R+„v rs being de~irmed as a four lane highway which will arcnmmndat9 West Hawaii truck traffic. We strongly support the EIS in support of this project for a road designed to address the needs of our community. We understand that this road may be build in phases in which case we urge the governing authorities to include, at a minimum, tnuck passing lanes in the first phase of construction. Thank you for your consideration. ~~`''R,~es~pe"ctfully, Frederlck~am Managing Partner of KKRC Kra oho u-Kona Resort Company s .in Eq oat Opportunity Employer Pa rtn ersnro ai dea uhou Lan1 Corporation and Aa:nelmrnrha ln.rstmerrt Corporation ; 1.:C ii A3C 1]'_62 P.V. Sax Sc35 • Kailua-Karca, Hawaii 9o7ii-So85 • Trlrpiiore 13041 3?_'-__'f03 • Fax f303) i3.-i.97 5-44 TRACY BOYNTON ar„EECEiV~ '`?RIN ri rMENI 74-4920-A Palani Road Pe• b80~~3~~dtG7i8 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 F + 8d~);~f~5~0 ~ ~ A _ PIANwtV ' `~~SIO mmo N1NC BRANCF~ p 'o September 8, 1995 o w > ~ Governor, State of Hawaii Rt c/o Office of Environmental Quality Control CO, 220 South King Street, 4th Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Governor Cayetano, ` I am writing in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Phase II of Kealakehe Parkway in Kailua Kona, Hawaii. I have been following this project for over three years now. My position remains the same. I believe that this particular 2-3 mile stretch of roadway is unnecessary, extremely expensive, not well designed, and improperly planned to be of benefit to the majority of people who reside in North Kona and South Kohala. (pg. 3-17) Plans for this roadway were initiated by HFDC so that the state could provide further access to their proposed development called the Villages of La'i Opua. It is my understanding that this 900 acre parcel has been deemed to be a 1 pazcel which has Hawaiian Home Land rights attached to it which may prevent the state from progressing further with the Villages project. If no development is going to occur, there is absolutely no need for Phase [I of Kealakehe Parkway. If the housing project does move forwazd, it can be well serviced by the existing, but unopened, Phase I of this parkway. I would briefly like to address each of the four needs that aze listed as primary reasons for doing this road. As to the system linkage needs, there is no reason at this time that we, the people of Kailua Kona, need a linkage road at that 2 particular place. If the state desires to get federal funding to provide us with a better transportation network, then it is important to plan roads which 5-45 accommodate the people most suitably. What this system linkage section fails to say is that there are several mauka-makai connector roads currently in existence between Mamalahoa Highway and the Queen Kaahumanu highway. Just because they aze not under state jurisdiction does not mean that they do not exist. In fact, to put a third mauka-makai road where Phase II of Kealakehe Parkway is currently designed is going to pose more of a hazard than it will be of help. It would place three to four intersections within a few hundred yazd distance of each other. That spells congestion where none currently exists. Section 5.3.2. is definitely incorrect for the major portion of Palani Road. From the top of Palani Road down to the Queen K. Highway we do not experience ANY long traffic delays unless there is an accident or construction on the road. So 3 there is NO LOS E or LOS F on Palani Road, the Mamalahoa Highway or the Queen Kaahumanu highway until you reach the stretch of Palani Road between the Queen K. and Kuakini Highway. Section 5.3.3. states that there were 165 reported accidents on Palani Road between 1986 and 1990. I believe that this statistic is misleading in the fact that it does not present where these accidents on Palani Road occurred. It is my best 4 guess that if someone were to look at where most of these accidents had occurred, it would be in the stretch of Palani Road between the Queen K. and Kuakini highways. This stretch of Palani Road will not be alleviated of any of its accidents or congestion by the construction of Kealakehe Parkway Phase II. Section 5.3.4. on economic development needs is again untrue in its pomayal of the facts. The Villages at La'i Opua are not under construction. A West Hawaii Branch of the University of Hawaii is planned for several years in the furore and several miles north of Kealakehe Parkway, so it will not help to 5 provide transportation to that area. The other potential developments listed are ones that will be done by private land owners. I do not believe that forty two to forty eight million dollars of our tax money should be spent on a small section of road which will directly benefit only a few private property owners. Kealakehe Parkway Phase II will not directly provide better access to the U.S. National Park 5-46 at Honokohau. Access to the pazk is off the Queen K. highway. The park itself is not even mazked with a road sign on the Queen K., so how are people to fmd it? Park hours aze limited. The road from the Queen K. to the pazk is a rutted rock 6 road which almost requires the use of a 4-wheel drive vehicle. So to suggest that Kealakehe Pazkway Phase II is needed to enhance access to the park is just not plausible. In examining the existing Phase I of Kealakehe Parkway and the plans for Phase II, which hope to be financed by federal funds, the two sections are entirely mismatched. Although I haven't personally measured the width of Phase I, I would venture to say that it is just over one half the width of the proposed Phase ~ II. The current median strip on Phase I is about 4 feet wide with painted yellow lines as dividers. Phase II shows a 28 foot center median. The median that is designed in Phase II of Kealakehe Pazkway is wider than many other roads that people in our county drive on every day. This does not make sense to me. There are many other facts which I think make the project an undesirable g ~ undertaking. I will list a few. As stated in the EIS there aze both endangered and threatened species of wildlife which would be affected by the placement of this road. I don't thin]: that the Hawaiian peoples of this area would take kindly to the 9 removal of their sacred archaeological sites. There aze also one to two burial sites that would be disturbed. Section 3.5.3. also makes note that the existing noise levels slightly exceed the NAC exterior standazds at the Palani Road/ Old 10 Mamalahoa Highway. To put another road in the same azea with more traffic will only worsen the already excessive noise pollution. My suggestions as to how to improve the quality of our transportation needs would be the following. First of all, better regional planning whereby small commercial centers aze available within walking distances of home would be the most essential step. Secondly, there aze numerous unsafe road conditions that 1 ~ currently exist on both state and county roads. Our tax money should go to improving and making these roads safe before further money is spent on new roads. It would take relatively little money to fix the unsafe road condition that 5-47 currently exists where Mamalahoa Highway first becomes Palani Road. There is less than half of a mile that could use some straightening out. Thirdly, in order to better facilitate the goals that aze stated in this EIS, it would be faz better for the mid level arterial road to be built. This would allow more people better access to the existing and planned schools in North Kona. It would provide a road to the planned university. It would alleviate traffic off both the Mamalahoa Highway and Palani Roads. It would provide residents with another way to head north to their jobs at the various hotels, resorts, shopping centers, and golf courses. Those azeas currently employ a lazge number of people. Last, but not least, is the fact that both our federal and state budgets are so out of balance that I do not think it prudent to spend tax dollars that we don't need to. I would probably be in jail if I spent money in the manner in which our govemment does. It is very disheartening to be a hazd working citizen who gives up to 49.6% of their income for state and federal taxation. This is to say nothing of all the other ways in which we aze taxed, such as at the gas pump . We have enough roads to get around easily all over our island. If you're going to spend our 12 hazd earned tax dollars, please do it on more important things such as making our current roads safe, providing lighted intersections where they are needed, providing safe, divided pathways for pedestrians or bicyclists, paved shoulders, guard rails, etc. We could also use more schools with better education, a larger and more modern hospital, and other essential services that are lacking here. So, please do not spend this huge amount of money on something as unessential as Kealakehe Parkway Phase II. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully Yours, Tracy Boynton cc: Mayor Stephen Yamashiro Mr. Abraham Wong Mr. Kazu Hayashida Mr. Ron Tsuzuki Mrs. Malama Solomon Mr. Andrew Levin Mrs. Virginia Isbell Mr. David Tarnas 5-48 Resoonse to Tracy Boynton 1._ The nurnose of and need for the protect is described in SP.ntlOn 1 9 This s .ction dP.Snrlb .c the four rnirpos s of the nroient Fven if the Villages of a't'op is should not he constructed by the year 015. whi .h is the nlannina hori~gn for this nroient there are several other reasons why Kealakehe Parkway should be built Ise . Section 1.7 and other comment letters contain .d in this Sectionl 7 The existina east-west (mauka-makail connections are inadequate for existina and future traffic. volumes (see for example Section 1 which descrih s existina ley .Is of conaestion. the numerous comment letters d . cribina problems nn Hina I ani Street and SPr_.tion 8.3.1.3 which describes the number of accidents that hay . occurred nn Palani Road). With respect to the den51TY of inters lions th .Hawaii Statewide l lnifnrm Desinn Manual for Streets and Highways states that under ideal situations interG ..lions hould he soa ..d no clos .r than 364 meter (1 700 fePtl The Hina ani Street and Old Mamalahoa Hiahwav intersections at Mamalahoa Hiahwav will remain where they are currently located. The Palani Rnad connection to Kealakehe Parkway is the only new intersection to ba created by This nroiPrt and will he located aonroximately 550 meters (1.5001 feet from the Old Mamalahoa Hiahwav intersection. The Palani Road intersection will be well beyond the State's minimum distance criterion The Kealakehe Parkway intersections will he designed to meet Federal and State design guidelines for safe oraration. 3 The traffic analysis was based nn field measurements of traffic. conditions taken in Mav 1909. W .have no reason to believe that that date was in any way atvninal in terms of traffic conditions. 4 Section 3 3 1 3 states that. "Between 1986 and 1990. there were 165 reported arridants nn Palani Road between Old Mamalahoa Hiahwav and Oueen Kaah iman i Hiahwav.": th . ar .a which will he bvoassed by Kealakehe Parkway. Since Kealakeh Parkway will divert through traffic, from Palani Road. the completion of Kealakehe Parkway is highly likely to alleviate both accidents and conaestion nn Palani Road_ ~ K alakeh Par way is being planned to address both existina and future needs. In Sri riitinn Kaalakahp Park~a~av ~.~i!! provide regional benefits. Therefore. although 5-49 the oroi is m ntion .d by the commenter may not hP huilt immediately and may not he imm di^t .Iv ^di^c.Pnt to the .orridor they are all expected fi ocnur by 9015 the planning horizon for chic nroiect For example. the Villages of I a'i'ooua is PxnPCt d to ornvid ov .r 4 000 dw .Ilion units and a .ngmmodate approximately 14 00 ? ool ~~~ithin the next twenty years In addition. the West Hawaii branch of the University of Ha~~~aii ~•~ill also he .onctructed by hori~nn year 9015. or 90 years from no~~~ ~~~hen the roadw~av is expected to he an integral Dart of the network yyMem henefiting the entire region. Section 4 1 f Irther dic Issec futur . development of the area. 0 Although Ke~l^k hP P^rk••~av will not ornvid .direct access to Kalokn-Honokohau "'^tion^I Historic P^rk the P^rla•~ay will increase visitor accessihility to the Park Altho lah K^loko-Hnnokohau National Histori Park is nrP_sently largely unimproved. m^ct r of^n has been developed which includPC f IhIrP a . ess to the Park and ^ the albiect of the Cener^I M^naaemenT Plan/ m~ironmental Impact Statement for ^lokn-Honokoh^u N~tional Historical Park (.lulu 19941. 7 In constructing Ke.~hLoV~o Parlnuav rFio Hnilcing 1-inanl;P, and f~ .VP.IOpmP.nt t~OfDOr^tion (HFI~ 1 PI ted tg 6 gild the roadway in two phases. The first phase. ~~hich is no~~ romnletP provides only a singl lane in each direction and a trunk climhinn I n ThP second dOWnhill IanP driawalkc rllrh and nutter and median ^ p^rt of nl^nned cerond phase of K alakehe Park~a~av within the HFI~O protect KPalakehP Par'-'^' ~xtencion (the Dart covered by this FIST will also ultir ^t ~y bP four I^n c oluc ^ m dian although as with the HFDG portion. it may alto b built in nh^sPC As stated in SP(`tlOn 9 3 9 4. the median width ~s Pct^blich d by c^fety and traffic nonsiderations. A Th U S Fish nd ~^~ildlifP SPnic (Fh~SI has rendered a ngn-iennardv hiolonical opinion k-,^sed on the inform^tion precept d d (ring formal consultations with F ~nin n,.,.....«...~1 m'r nnt'nn maacl IrPC are riPCrrlhPd In ~P.CtIOn 4.11.3. 9 Th SDOT will work wi*~ «ho coon rhA F-la~eiaa Islanri Burial Council. native aroupc the Office of Hai ~aiian Affairs and the Advisory Council on nISYOnC PrPC rv tion (ACHPI to imol mPnt the Memgrandum of AgrPPrnPni (MOAT 5-50 lca~ Appendix Cl. which describes the stipulations and conditions for arr.haeoloaical resources 10 Mitiaation far noise imoa .ts is descrihed in Section 4.5.3. 11 r`nmmPnts nntad_ but most heyond The scoop of this nroiect. Widening Palani Road to make it safer is addressed in Section 1.2.3. and the "mid-level arterial road" is another roadwav improvement. in addition to the completion of Kealakehe Parkway that is contained in current plans for the area. 1 Comments noted bit out of the scone of this EIS. In general. funds dedicated to roadwav construction cannot be renroarammed to non-transnortatipn nurnoses. Almon th .Comm .nt that "we have enough roads to apt around easily all over our island" is not supported by analysis or comments by others in the community. 5-51 ,+,[ED S1. fS A ~ `~i. DIRECTGR'S CF~ICE Ef~~ ~{[k~,$~T}ITES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEPT. OF ~ '~N/ REGIGNIX TRANSPORTAi(GH ~`°A°"` SEp(~ l~~ Hawthorne Street SEP I5 9 39 QM '95 {ll ~ ~9Saneisco, CA 94105-3901 ~ ~ n pCghll„ i >l~ September 12, 1995 ~ ~4. , .,2aNCHN - r~T Abraham Wong, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration P.O. Box 50206 - - 300 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, HI 96850 c`'r near Mr. Wnn9: The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Realakahe Parkway in North Rona, Hawaii County, Hawaii. We provide our comments pursuant to the national Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA. The Project sponsors propose to build a 2.5 mile 4-lane divided urban arterial that would connect the Mamalahoa Highway and the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The DEIS discussed a no action alternative and two build alternatives. The build alternatives consist of two different alignments with signalized intersections improvements. The DEIS did not identify a preferred alternative. We have rated the DEIS as LO, Lack of Objections (See enclosed "Summary of Rating Definitions and Follow-up Action"). We commend the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration for providing a clear and thorough document. The DEIS does a very good job of outlining the alternatives and the impacts associated with them, as well as identifying the mitigation measures to be employed, the permits that will be obtained, and the ,,....r3,na*_..... ~f°orts t`.at arE GrgG~;.g with cthEr agencies. Even though the villages of La'i 'Opua are already planned and approved, the completion of this parkway may induce significant growth outside and around the project area. According to the DEIS, the last decade has seen a population increase of 62$ in North Kona and many of the county plans anticipate substantial population growth in the future. The Hawaii county zoning currently designates the areas around the proposed alignment as unplanned, however the Land UsePattern Allocation Guide designates the area as urban expansion. The k to K plan which is the implementing tool for the County plan for North Kona identifies significant developments are planned for the area, yet the DEIS does not clearly indicate that the plans for the parkway and these developments are concurrent. We recommend that the Final EIS elaborate in greater detail the P.mmd on Rrryded Papr. 5-52 (potential for induced growth in the surSounding areas of North j Kona due to .the improved circulation bYOUght about blt~the KealakeheParkway. Zn keeping with Executive Order 12898;, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minoritya Populations and Low- iacoma Populatioas (EO 12898), the FEIS should describe the measures taken by the State DOT and FHWA to fully analyze the environmental effects of the proposed Federal action on minority communities and low income populations. The intent and requirements of EO 12898 are clearly illustrated in the 2 President's February 11, 1994, Memorandum for the Heads of all Departments and Agencies, attached. We recommend that the State DOT and FHWA work closely with the residents in proximity to the parkway regarding the immediate impacts of the Parkway and with the Native Hawaiian organizations regarding the areas where the freeway is on archaeologically significant lands. FHWA and the State DOT should also ensure that the residents in the immediate neighborhoods have access to all public information relating to the planning and construction of the Freeway. We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments on this Draft EIS. Please send two copies of the Final EIS to this office at the same time it is officially filed with our Washington, DC office. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (415) 744-1584, or have your staff contact David J. Carlson of my staff at (415) 744-1577. Sincerely, David Farre , Office of Federal Activities Attachment: 3 pages MI# OOt877kealpwy.dei cc: Jeffrey Brooks, FHWA - Region IX Kazu Hayashida, State Department of Transportation CC I E - 5-53 R soonae to 1! S Environmental Protection Aaencv Region IX 1 arp .non elation increases are planned for this Dart of North Kona. Government is m^kinn m~nv infr^ctrurture irn~estments to suonort these future noniilatinns levels (a r, ro^dc ce~•~aa . water c mnly hnusinpl and land use plans and ~oninn dPSIOn^tionc have b en rndat d to reflect the nlann .d growth- Under these conditions the impact of Kealak .he Parkway fpr end i .inn aro~~~th is minimal. R^ther romhination of infractru .tarp env stmPnts and land use plans and annrov^Ic is f~rilitatinp r .sident pop elation incr .asps in th .area. ? Comnli^nrP with n ~ironm ntal I istire is des issPd in Section 4 4. 4inre th . ethnic Don it^tion of M~PSt Hawaii is 59_pement white and income levels are D^^^-^~~•~ higher than the island median the analysis for Frn~irpnmental Justice was limited to five residences aced by retired Palani Ranch employees. located beh een the detour ro^d ^nd Ke^lakehe Park~~~av. The oronosed ar_.tion will not ~usP hP^Ith ricks to thPCe rPCidentc mitigation meat Tres will be imolemented to preCPNP the intPOrity of th rommunih and the landowner has identified another property for the one unit that ~•~ill be relocated. Therefore. havinn met the Qro~icionc of the Fxe utiv order on Fnvironm peal I ictire it was determined that the propoc d ^ction will not have a dicpronortionate impart nn minority nrouos or lrn in ome popul^tionc v~ithin the ontext of the inromP levels and racial rmm~ocition of H^~•~^ii Coordination with the native Hawaiian community has ^nd ~•~ill continue thro mh the Hawaii Island Burial Council. the Office of id~ Affairs and the SHP(~_ 5-54 °~p~ N ~ ~ United States Department of the Interio SEF 2 21996 FISH AND WII.DLIFE SERVICE PARSONS BFINCKERNOFF ''4w w , ,a'O PACIFIC ISLANDS ECOREGION HON.~tULU. Hgpl ~q ~i 300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, ROObt 3108 HOX 50088 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96850 PHONE: (808) 541-3441 FAX: (808) 541-3470 In Reply Refer To: MSS/ICE 1 8 1995 Memorandum To: Regional Director - Region I, Portland, Oregon Through: Assistant Regional Director Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Region I, Portland, Oregon Through Pacific Islands Ecoregion Manag N~1A~ Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolul , awaii From: Field Supervisor Ecological Services Pacific Islands Ecoregion Subject: Draft Environmental Impact /Section 4 (f) Statement for the Construction of Kealakehe Pazkway, Mamalahoa Hlghway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, North Kona District, Hawaii County, Hawaii ER # 95/0605 The Service's comments on the referenced Drafr EIS aze attached for your review and signature. For information about the review comments, please contact Ms. Margo Stahl, Branch Chief for Interagency Cooperation, at 808/541-3441. attachment 5-55 J n o FP F~ United States Department of the Interior e. FISH P.ND WII.DLIFE SERVICE ~'ACn a Memorandum To: Field Duector National Pazk Service From: Regional Director Fish and Wildlife Service Subject: Review of Drafr Environmental Impact /Section 4 (f) Statement for the Construction of Kealakehe Parkway, Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, North Kona District, Hawaii Counry, Hawaii The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the July 1995 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Drafr EIS) for the proposed construction of Kealakehe Parkway. Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, North Kona District, Hawaii County, Hawaii. The following comments aze provided for your consideration for inclusion in the Departmental response pursuant to our authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 852), as amended, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.; 48 Stat. 401), as amended, the Endangered Species Act of :973 (15 U.S.C. 1531-li34; 87 Slat. 834), as amended, and other authorities mandating Service concern for environmental values. General Comments The Drafr EIS does not adequately address impacts to federally listed and candidate endaneered and threatened species, including the endangered loulu palm (Pritchardia affinis), the endangered uhiuhi tree (Caesolpinia kavaiensis), the candidate ko'oko'aiau (Bidens micrantha spp. ctenophytlo), the endangered Hawaiian petrel (Pterodromo phoeopygio sandwichensis), the threatened Newell's shearwater (Pujf~nus auricularis), or the candidate band-romped stotm petrel (Oceanodroma Castro cryptoleucura). The Federal Highways 2 5-56 Administration has initiated formal section 7 consultation with the Service in accordance with the Endangered Species .4ct in order to address impacts of the road construction project on these species. Since the consultation is ongoing, we believe that selection of a preferred alternative and issuance of the Final EIS should be deferred until the Service's Biological Opinion has been rendered. The Draft EIS lacks the specific infotmation necessary to comprehensively evaluate impacts to federally listed and candidate species, including detailed conservation measures to minimize impacts. Specific Comments a. p. 3-47. Chapter 3.0. Affected Environment. 3.I1 Endangered and Threatened Species. The Dtafr EIS lacks information on endangered and threatened and candidate seabirds that may transit through the project area during their migrations from the sea to terrestrial nesting ] grounds. We recommend that the Final EIS include information stating thaz the endangered Hawaiian petrel, the threatened Newell's shearwa[er, and the candidate band-romped storm petrel may occur in [he project area. b. p. 4-41. Chapter 4.0. Environmental Consequences. 4.11. Endangered and Threatened Species. 4.11.1. Potential Impacts and Agency Coordination. This section of the Drafr EIS does not adequately describe or address impacts to endangered and threatened and candidate species. The Draft EIS fails to include a discussion on the potential for the roadway lighting to adversely affect native seabirds that may transit through 2 the project area. Seabtrds, particulazly fledglings, aze often amacted to bright lights dcrino flights from their terrestrial nesting sites to the sea. The installation of bright tights along the highway may pose a significant threat to seabirds by causing them to become disoriented and to collide with street lighting, power lines, buildings, or other structures in the area. The Draft EIS acknowledges that endangered and candidate plants may be affected by the project. However, a thorough discussion of the direct, ind'uect, and cumulative impacts of the 3 project on rare plants within the azea is lacking. An analysis of the direct effects of project construction, the indirect effects of project operations, and the cumulative impacts associated with urbanization and increased fue potential during road construction and operation should 6e addressed in the Final EIS. c. p. 4-41. Chapter 4.0. Environmental Consequences. 4.11. Endangered and Threatened Species. 4.11.2. Mitigation Measures. The Drafr EIS fails to identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts to endangered and threatened and candidate species. The Service recommends that measures [o minimize impacts 3 5-57 to seabirds such as requiring shielded lights along [he highway be incorporated into the project. More information on measures to minimize the effects of urban lights on seabirds can be found in the Department of Land and Natural Resources' publication entitled "The Newell's Shearwater Light Attraction Problem, A Guide jor Architects, Planners, and Resort ,Llanogers." We recommend that the guidelines in this publication be followed in designing the proposed highway lighting. In addition, specific measures to minimize impacts to endangered and candidate plants in the project azea should be identified in the Final EIS. A mitigation plan should be included which allows for the evacuation of the net effects of the project on native plants. This mitigation plan 5 should address the endangered and candidate species identified in the Final EIS with respect to habitat protection and reduction of fire hazards. It is also important to point out that the use of native plants in roadway landscaping and xeroscaping is not adequate mitigation unless it results frt self-sustaining viable populations of na*.ive plants. d. p. 2-1. Chapter 2.0. Alternatives Analysis. The Service has tentatively identified Alternative 1 I as the environmentally preferred alternative assuming appropriate mitigation is incorporated into the project to reduce impacts to listed and candidate species. ummarv Comments In summary, the Service finds the Drafr EIS inadequate in its evaluation of impacts to endangered, threatened, and candidate species and lacking in identified mitigation for impacts. The Service is in the process of formal consultation with the Federal Highways Administration. We will complete the consultation in mid-October and render our Biological Opinion no later than December d, 199. The Service disagrees with the statement in the Drafr EIS that "Further progress on these issues [endangered and threatened species] will be made afer selection of the preferred alternative, and will be incorporated i_n the final EIS. Section 7 consultations could continue after the accep[ance of the final EIS." Section 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act prohibits federal asencies from making any "irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would preclude the formulation or implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives" that may be identified in the Service's Biological Opinion. Therefore, we strongly recommend that decisions to select a preferred alternative be withheld until the Service's Biological Opinion is rendered. Tne Service's Pacific Islands field office has enjoyed the working relationship established with the Federal Highways Adminstration. The Service looks forward to resolving the issues identified in this letter through the consultation process. Far technical assistance on matters a 5-58 pertaining to the Endangered Species Act, contact the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850. Thank you for the opportunity to review [he Draft EIS. cc: Mr. Abraham Wong Department of TrazrspoRation Highways Division Planning Branch 600 Kapiolani Boulevazd, Suite 304 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 Governor Ben Cayetano State of Hawaii c/o Office of Environmental Quality Control 220 South King Street, 4th Flaor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Attn: Ronald Tsuzuki Pazsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Pacific Tower, Suite 3000 1001 Bishop Sweet Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Attn: Keith Nakano 5 5-59 Rasnonsa to U.S. Danartment of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pacific Islands Ecoreaion 1 Section 4 11 has been revised to address candidate seahirds that may migrate thro iah the nroiect area. 7 Initi^Ilv light st^nd^rds ~~~ill be erect .d onh~ at pronnsed intersections. ever time th area becom s urbanised lights will be added. Section 4.11.3.3 describes the d Sian of th light standards ~~~hil . Section 4.11.9 describes the expected imp^ct to ce^hirds flvina throaah the oroiect area. n ~rl riraccoc }ha dirp[)t effP.CTR of prOIP.Ot nOn StrLCTIOn. Th P. Sections S 5 and 4 11 - - - - indirect effects of oroiect operations and the cumulative impacts associated with iirb^ni ^tion follo~•~ina roadway construction and operation. 4 Section 4 11 4 4 d scnbPS th linhtina design that will he used_ to mitigate dishirhance to migrating seabirds. 5 SPCYIOns 4 11 3 1 ^nd 4 11 4 9 describe the translocation plan and fire plan intended to protect endangered and candidate species. 6 Comment noted This final FIS has been prepared fnllOwina the issuance of the ~~rS' non jPOp^rdv hioloaic^I opinion I~Ptails describing cons iltation~ may he fo rod in Appendix F3 1 5-60 DIRECTOR'S OFFICE RECEI' ~ DEPT. OF SEP ZI ~ TRANSPORTATION _ _ 1 DS SEP ZI 9 4i AM '95 m r. A.S'S?i 'i4 -mo ~m=a September 18, 1995 m~ = 3 N Z'~T- 7-- O y- T y ^ h 2 Kazu Hayashida, Director ~ State of Hawaii, Dept.of Transportation ~GDi, 869 Punchbowl St. Honolulu, 8I 96813 Dear Mr. Sayashida: I would like this letter to be RECORDED as written testimony in the Dept. of Transportation, State o~~awaii proposed Kealakehe Parkway Road Be aware that I am not against a safe new mauka-makai access from the top of Palani Road down to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. As a Kona resident for twenty "20" years, I believe that such a road would be beneficial for the safety of all because of the projected growth of this area. However, I do have some serious concerns about the proposed project. Mainly its location, safety, cost and impact on rural lifestyles. First would be location, being a major four(4)lane mauka- makai road, I don't un erstand why it should be built on areas where Palani Road starts on a downhill with unsafe turns before turning makai on to Kealakehe Parkway. The fact that the road has a sweeping almost hairpin (180 degree) turn as an on-ramp and off-ramp off of Palani Road doesn't make any sense. That turn by the way sweeps right nezt to my home as close as only 150 feet ] from my back door on a down grade which may be as much as 118. Access on to and off of Kealakehe Parkway should be placed a few hundred feet north where access on to and off of would be from a straight and much more level roadway, Highway 11, and tied into the ezistinq Palani-Old Mamalahoa Junction. Access would be through Palani Ranch and effecting less residents. Also eliminating any hairpin turns because of the proposes traffic signal at the intersection. HONVl4 ~N!NNYId NOIG'n~e =."M401N iF, N! hE 7 52 d3s v v 1!• C,IS HV'di 0 143N1tl5 d~'" SLY 1'i 7.1!3J3N 5-61 My next item of concern is safety. If built as proposed the Kealakehe Parkway will be as close as 150 feet from my home and also very close to five other residences, its design calls for a sweeping 160 degree turn built on a berm. Because of this, noise, dust, and the very real possibility of runaway trucks, puts myself and family in a very unhealthy and unsafe location. At the last EIS Public Hearing, I directed a question to a planner representative from the State that if any runaway truck ramps are 2 incorporated into the roads design and his answer was "NO, but very good point!" My response was that "i have the perfect location! My backyard!" For every large truck coming down that steep grade around a turn towards my home only 150 feet away, I will be thinking ,"Is this the one that the brakes will fail or have a flat that will cause him to come crashing into my yard where my children and their friends are at play?" Please take a minute to think about this dangerous and lethal situation that has happened before on Palani Road and most surely will happen again. What can be done to address this problem. This brings me to the subject of dust and noise. The EIS handout at the last public meeting clear y sT teat "The Kealakehe Parkway Project will have "HIGHLY LOCALIZED AND SEVERE ADVERSE IMPACTS" on those existing rest ence tat wou e imne ate y a ~acent to the berm on which the roadway will be built. Both my children have asthma, some of which is brought on 3 by dust. Soot and dust come hand in hand with roads. Another health factor is stress, not only from noise, dust, but the idea that at any given time the real possibility ezists that a 20, 30, or 40 ton tractor-trailer might come plowing through my house. Every vehicle going down or coming up this road at night will shine their headlights right at my livingroom and kids bedrooms, as they make their way around this large and dangerous turn. My neat item is ro ert value. When mY wife and Z purchased our lot in 1981 we ha certain considerations why we would choose this special lot to build our home and raise our family. 1. It was a flag lot a 400 feet away from the main road. 2. The north side, back of the house was all ranch, which meant no neighbors. 3. The lot is close to town, only 3 miles from Railua. 4 These special qualities made out lot and home very desirable. However, because of speculators within our subdivision, we have been hit with increased real property tares of over 3008 over a period of 7 years. We have a simple 1400 sq. ft. home, planted with coffee and a few fruit trees. Our intention is long term, at least through my life time. Zf the proposed road is built as planned, it not only destroys my chosen way of life, but it will also make my home and lot very undesirable, thus making relocation to another location in Kona very slim. 5-62 At $49 million for 2.5 miles of road, I believe that this project is not very cost efficient. I am not an ezpert on the 5 cost of building roads, but it sure seems like a lot of money for so little road. Possible solutions to my concerns are: 1. Redesign the road to connect at Palani and Old 6 I Mamalahoa Junction. A much safer access, also less immediate effects with existing residents. 2. Uggrade the top section of Hinalani(Kona Heavens Roadway) to better accomodate protected traffic and connect new Parkway once below any homes within Kona Heavens. The only portion of this already built Mauka-Makai Road that is old and not adequate is the top 1/4 mile or so. Seems that it would be more cost wise to upgrade a present road then to have to condemn land and build a new road. 3. The third option is to build Kealakehe Parkway as planned with the option to give those residents that are severly and adversely effected the chance to be bought out right at fair $ market value so that we may realize our chosen lifestyle of a quiet rural home to raise our families as we do now, but stand the chance to lose if the Kealakehe Parkway is carried out. Please respond within the month as promised. Respectfully yours, ed Pa meira 5-63 Response to Alfred Palmeira i Construction of Kealakehe Parkwav will hegin at the intersection of Mamalahoa Hinhwav. Old Mamalahoa Hinhwav and Palani Road and will nnnform to State rural arterial hinhwav standards After nroiect nomnletion_ Mamalahoa Hinh~•~av will smoothly transition into Kealakehe Parkwav headinn soirth. There will be no exit or entrance ramps accessinn Kealakehe Parkwav. Therefore. followinn nrpiect comnletion. there will he no unsafe turns as the motorist stays on essentially the same road whose name changes from Mamalahoa Hiahwav tp Kealakehe Parkwav. To .xtend Kealakehe Parkwav as a continuatipn of Old Mamalahoa Hiahwav across Mamalahoa Hinhwav. would conflict with roadwav master plans for Kealakehe Parkwav_ as well as with the established nroiect coal of Kealakehe Parkwav beinn a direct throunh route. Section 1 2 describes the nroiect's ~urnose and~n ,~i While the most mauka turn of Kealakehe Parkwav is approximately 130 degrees. it is by no means a "hairpin." This turn has a radius of ?75 meters (915 feetl which fulw complies with Stat .and federal hinhwav desinn standards and all annlicahle safety standards. At this turn. the down made would he 9 5 percent. not 11 percent. Many such hinhwav curves exist- and are safe. 2 While details have not vet been determined. Kealakehe Parkwav will he hanked at the turns further enhancing safety. In addition. a guard rail will be installed alone the outside of the curve hevond the shoulder. AlThounh a runaway truck ramp is not presenth~ proposed. were one to be provided. it would have to he nn the m^k^i-ho and side of the road not the mauka-bound side. ~ "Hinhly localized and severe adverse impacts" pertain to visual impacts to those residential parcels imm .diateh~ adjacent to the nronosed roadwav herm (see ~~ction 4 14 11 In spm . .ases. visual impacts may occur. when a residence is lac^ted ^di^cent to a herm Ho~a~ever. linhtina is_not expected to create a visual di~turhance by shininn direct~~~ into homes. Street light luminaries will he desinned to red ice glare and shield light. it SDOT's st^nd^rd practice to incoroorate dust and noise control measures during construction 5-64 4. Kealakehe Parkway will increase traffic safety and enhance access in the area. These imnrovements tend to increase development potential. and the net effect will probahly increase property values in the area. 5. Comment noted. 6. Kealakehe Parkway will begin at the Palani Road and Old Mamalahoa Hiahwav ,lunction and will form a through route with Mamalahoa Hiahwav. 7 l Ipgradina Hina I ant Street dges not conform to the project's goal of nrgviding access tg the Villages of I a'i'ooua and having Kealakehe Parkway form a through route with Mamalahoa Hiahwav. SP.( lOn 1 7 descrihes the nroiect's goals. A R .lo .ation assistance is r .served for those who would he ~vsirally disnlaned by the roadway. Relocating those adjacent to the right-of-way is not an allowahle use of r .location assistan .e. Details of the t Iniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property A .guisition Policies A .t of 1970 are d .s .rib din 9 ..tinn 4.1.4. 5-65 Nlchael Traub,N.D. 75-5759 Ruakini Hwy, Suita 707 icailua Rona, HI 96740 shone/Fax 808-329-7114 ~ N m September 19, 1995 rte, G a Ka2u xayashida, Director N ~ State of Hawaii, Dept. of = Transportaton ~o ° 869 Punchbowl St. Honolulu, HI 96813 _ o t7 z c.n Re: Palmeira family residence, 74-1523 Hao Kuni St., Kailua-Kona Dear Mr. Hayashida: Russell Palmeira is a'S year old boy under my care for the treatment of allergies. He has documented severe 1 allergies to dust. He lives with his parents, Fred and Rose Palmeira, and their home is in close proximity (150 ft.) from the path of the new 4 lane road planned for the Kealakehe area. It is my opinion that the dust from the construction and traffic on this road would cause a serious exacerbation 2 of Russel.l~s allergies. If there is any possibility of re- aligning the road so that it does not pass near the Palmeria's home, Z urge you to consider doing so. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sink, ear/e ly, Michael Traub, PI.D. en s n N y ? z - z{ smx i_. zom - ~n,m 9~ C ~i. 3l , p Y- 2~~ Zti n o ~ ~ m =2 ~ ^2 s 5-66 R.asoonsa to bliehael Traub. N.D. 1 Although dust ran he generated d irina roadwav construction. there are manv ~•~avs to control it as indicated in Sention 4.15.1. 7 ThP ornoosPd alignment of Kaalakaha Parkway was devPlnned after a detailed of mama alt rnatives that halanced roadwav dP.Slgn reauiremPnts against Pm~ironm ntal imna .ts and nr .sent the hest halance all of the factors (see Chanter 7 Ol It is 4D(~T's standard nractic.e to incoroorate dust and noise control maaenrPS during ronstruction Therefore the nrooosed roadwav will not need to be realigned. 5-67 LANIHAU PARTNERS L.P. Control Data Building 2828 Paa St., Suite 3150 Honolulu, HI 96819 (808) 836-2076 Fax (808) 836-7559 September 19, 1995 cro m o= ro - ~c ti .tea. - .~mo Governor, State of Hawaii ~ ~ _ c/o Office of Environmental Quality Control 220 South King Street, 4th Floor - ° ` Honolulu, HI 96813 i~• i ~ ~ o~ _ S= 4 j Gentlemen. Re: Kealakehe Parkway -Draft Environmental Impact Statement We appreciated receiving a copy of subject Draft EIS and wish to make the following comments on behalf of Lanihau Partners L.P. and Palani Ranch Company, Inc. As a general comment, we must first observe that our properties will be substantially impacted by this project. We question, however, the likelihood of this project's actually being constructed in the foreseeable future due to the substantial cost involved and the current and projected State and Federal fiscal resources available for such projects. The downside impacts to the affected property owners of this continuing uncertainty include whether or when the project will go in and, if it does, the variety of impacts it will have on local traffic and land use patterns, noise, and visual impacts. The uncertainty has also frustrated our own planning efforts over the years which do not rely on said highway and, in fact, would be restricted should this project proceed. ?s to specific comments on points raised in the draft EIS, we stand by and reaffirm our earlier comments of record. In addition; Re: Noise Impacts - (pages 3-36, 4-30, 4-35, 4-85, etc.) These will be substantial both during construction (for residences near the corridor) and after construction (for existing and future j residences near the corridor). The EIS should reflect a commitment to specifically mitigate these impacts rather than relying so substantially on the design phase to come up with adequate mitigation. For example: • Where safety barriers are required at the upper end of the highway due to substantial fill and elevated condition, these should be concrete walls rather than guard rails so that they would serve a dual function for both safety and sound mitigation. L\YiYV~IC rmx. EOCD 14 5-68 SOH -Office of Environmental Quality Control September 19, 1995 Page 2 • Construction activity near residences should be limited to weekdays from 6:30AM to 6:30PM (see 4.17.2) Re Visual Impacts (pages 5-72, 4-81, etc.) Again, these will be substantial to residences next to 2 I the corridor (i.e ;embankments of up to 27 feet). The need for mitigation is mentioned, but exactly what degree of mitigation is assured? The EIS should again be more specific and reflect a commitment to specific mitigation steps. For example. • All man-made fill or embankment areas shall be landscaped with a mixture of trees, ground-cover, shrubs and irrigation system in order to; a). minimize erosion of the fill slope, b). beautify the embankment, and c). provide an added measure of noise abatement. Re: Mamalahoa/Old Mamalahoa Intersection (pages 1-7, 3-27,3-28, etc.) The study indicates 3 I both an existing and projected poor (E/F) level of service at this intersection which will only be worsened by the added traffic utilizing this improved highway. Signalization of this intersection should be a part of this project. Re: Detour Road -The northern connection point of the detour road to Mamalahoa Highway 4 would be less costly to construct (and subsequently remove if necessary) if it were moved further to the north. Re: Impacts On Existine Aericultural Uses (pages 5-20, S-21, 4-9, 4-88, etc.) Even though we acknowledge that the expanding urbanization in this area will eventually make continued pasture unfeasible, it is expected to continue as a near-term interim use. In that regard, we must recognize that cattle crossings (4-88/4.17.16) are not going to work once the highway is complete. Instead the EIS should provide for the construction of corrals and loading facilities makai (north and west) of the lower section of the corridor to service those pasture 5 areas which would otherwise be severed and isolated from the balance of the pasture areas so long as pasturage use continues. Containment of cattle during construction is going to be an on-going problem unless the right-of--way is first fenced completely with stock-proof gates where needed for construction access and existing jeep roads. Temporary plastic mesh fencing as is typically used during construction is totally ineffective. As a minimum, even if grazing were to continue for only a few more years, the fencing must be absolutely stockproof (i.e., heavy gauge mesh hog wire with a single strand of barbed wire above and below with comer posts and other key locations being 4" pipe set in concrete). Non- disturbance of existing water distribution systems must also be stressed in the EIS. .,nY~b~co.~,~ aa~o_ i a 5-69 SOH -Office of Environmental Quality Control September 19, 1995 Page 3 Re: Archaeolo¢icaUBurial Mitieation (page 4-73) We question the State's authority to relocate 6 any burials to locations elsewhere in the same ahupua'a but outside the acquired right-of- way. It seems that the EIS should provide that such a relocation site would also be acquired, owned by and be the responsibility of the State. We appreciate this opportunity to express these comments. Sincerely, Lanihau Partners L.P. By Lanihau Management Corporation Its Managing General Partner Ja es reenwell reside JSG:vsc cc: Dept. of'Iransportation Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. U.S. Dept. of Transportation ~y,3`lola\Cmaiw,.Joc\O II 5-70 r>eesoonsB to Laniha~ Partners 1 cPC.tions 4.5.9 and 4.18.9 of this final EIS address noise mitiaation mP.a SnrP.S during and after construction of the completion of KPalakehe Parkway. Section 4.5 rrontains a "masonahle and feasible" analysis of a noise wall at the mauka (A~~ternl termin Is of the nroiect and concludes that provision of a noise wall is aonronriate The material of construction of the noise wall have ngt been d tPrmined but th . safety con .ern of the commenter will be cgnsidered in the dP~ian nhasP In addition under normal circumstances. the daytime restrictions on construction noise suggested by the commenter will he followed. 9 Section 4 15 2 des rihes mitiaation measuces_ tQ lessaa the severity of visual impacts Th snP ific ~ laaestions mad . by the commenter are again noted. but ronfirmation of details is deferred to the desion phase when initial and ^~^tPnance cosh will b . examined in mare detail. including the maintenance ~r•~ts of the s Ingested irrigation system- 4 A dP('I`;Ign to sianali~e an intersection is based gn traffic. volumes or accident "!^rr^nts Traffic signals will he installed as Hart of_thP initial construction if ~Dnrooriate conditions are met_ 4 Comment noted and will be concid red d Irina final desion when more tggoaraohic. inform^tion is ^v^ihhlP There are other fa .tors b sides cost to concid .r such as SnaclnO heri"seen IntPrSP.CtIOn S. 5 SPCtIOnC 4 1 ^nd 4 1 S 6 dPSCrihP in general terms ThP mitiaation meaaires proposed to m^intain aaricult Iral a tivity d Irina and after construction FHWA and SDOT ~"gill contin IP to ~"pork ~"pith the .ommenter to implement a meaningful and ~„nreori^te mitig^tian o~ckaaP so viable agricultural uses continue in the near- tPrm. f The FH\~~A SLOT SHPO ACHP Hai"laii Island Burial C:ounnil and native Hawaiian grnuos ~ ill n aoti~tP the trP^tm .nt of hurials Stirnllations and conditions have been incornor^ted into Memorandum of AorP.Prr1Pr1T Archaeological resources and Section 4(fl mitiaation are de~~^hAd Sections 412 and 4.13_ When relocation of huri~ls is discussed o~"mPrchin of potential relocation sIYPS will be taken into account- 5-71 University of Hawaii at Manoa Enrirnnmental Center A Unit of Water Raaourees Research Center Cnwfirzd 317 - [550 Gmfsus Road - Hmwlulu, Havai'I 9692E Talaphanc- (86aj 856.7361 ~ Faesiuule'. (90eJ 866~J98U September 33, 1995 RF. Ofi64 Governor Brnjamiu C'ayetauu c!o Office of Environmental Quality Control 220 South King Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Grn~ernor Cayetano: Keaiakehe Parkway Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Kona, Hawaii Thr referenced draft Environmrnw] Impact Statement (EIS) considers a proposal by the State of Haaair Department of Transportation and the Fedcrat Highway Admmisuatiun to construct a neu~, four-lane urban arterial in the \orth Kona district of the island of Hawau The prepuxd roadway would extend mauka from the Slate of Hawait Housing Financc and Devclepment Corporation's planned community, the Villages of Ia'i 'Opua, and terminate at Mamalalroa Highway. '[he roadway system within dre Villages of L,i t 'Opus includes an existing portion of the Kealakche Parkway that connects to Queen liaahumanu Highway. The proposed roadway would continue mauka and terntinatr at hlamalahua Highway. Upou completion, the entire Kealakehe Parkway would extend mauka from the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu f fighway and Honukohau Harbor Road to a point near the intersection of Mamalahoa Highway and Old Mamalahua Highway, Our review Has completed with the assistance of George Curtis, UH Hilu; Karl Kim and Peter Plachsbart, lhban and Regional Planning; and Tom Hawley, En~ironmrnlal Ccntrr This dr aft EIS is generally well prepared and cauprehensively addresses the probably effects of the proposed project. There appear to be few significantwvironmental impacts; however, several issues within the dxtnnent arc either covered inadequately ur nut addressed at all. 5-72 Specifically, no comprehensive traffic report appears in this draft EIS. 'Ilris is a major omission for several reasons. Firs; such a report is a central element necessary in 1 order toassess a transportitiun-oriented EIS. Second, emissions and noix calculations are included in the draft EIS, which would indicate that a traffic report was complete. if this is the case, then there is no reason why it should be excluded from the EIS. The public needs such relevant information just as much as preparers of the document do in order to assess project impact,. Third, it appears that some sNdy information comes from 1988 and 1990 population forecasts. Given drat population growth is the first step in assessing "trip 2 generation," it is important to include accurate and up-to-date information. However, our reviewers paint out that th<re was considerably more optimism in 1990 regarding population growth fur this part at Hawaii. Hence, it appears that these figures should probably br adjusted downward. Other areas of the draft EIS merit improvement in the final version. Firs; the maps 3 I included in the document are confusing, in part because the primary existing mauka-makai road (Palisades) has been omitted. Sccoud, the use of road nomenclaNre in the draft EIS makes it difficult to determine just what is planned for the project, what presently exists and I what will exist upon completion of this phase (the first phase is apparently under construction). Third, the draft ElS lacks clear statements regarding plans for the two major 5 I nttersections Thrs is a major problem at the mauka connection, where a new road intersecu near the proposed juncture. Fourth, infornra[ion regarding high school and residential 6 construction in the area should be included in order to provide for a more comprehensive analysis of xcondary and cumulative impacts. Our rcviewu+ also question the need fora 28 foot median 6enveen the two 7 I directions of traffic Such an extensive median will inaease the cost of the project and the ex[ent of its em~rrenmc ntal impact. The ratronale (or a median of this size is missing from the draft EIS and nerd. to be stated explicitly. Similarly, the documcut notes that the Sute Bikeway plan does not mention a brkrway fur this road, yet it seems reasonable to assume g I that bikeway planners did not know of this roadway and therefore could not have addressed the posibdrty of a bikeway for it. Nevertheless, the project itself could be improved if current planners at least considered the future possibility of a bikeway for the highway. Furthermore, enroute access to the roadway should be brought out more clearly in the final 9 E15 as a future possibility We recognize that this omission primarily is due to the absence of planning for the Kailua-Kona area and not the fault of the document venters. Still, it is an issue that should he addrcsscd. Finally, i[ appcau from Fieure SS (page d-4?)that both of the preferred alternatives will die telly affect endangered 1-Dula Palms (Pritchurdia af~nis). Our reviewers take strong rxcept~on to the preparers choice of an ambiguous phrase "...could affect on page ~O 3-51, in reference to this concern, Given that a mitigation plan will have to be developed, regardless of which alterna4ve rs chosen, we note that such a plan should have been iucludrd m the draft EIS for effective puhlrc review. In the event that the mitigation plan is not accrptablo will the proposed route Le :dtrred to insure the survival of the palms? 5-73 Regarding other mitigation requirements for endangered plant species, we note that 11 I botanical surveys upon which the draft EIS was based were found "inadequate" by the U.S. Fish and VUiIdIile Service in their letter of March 4, ]994 due to the insufficient consideration of cumulative effects. How have these inadequacies been addressed? '[hank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, 1 T Harnsoa Enviicnmental Coordinator cc: OFQC DOT, Highways Division Parsons Brinckerho(I Quade and Douglas, Inc. Roger Fujioka Grosge Curtis Peter Flack>hsr E;xrl iCim Tom Hatitey 5-74 Response to University of Hawaii at Manoa. Environrnantal Center 1. The traffic impact reonrt for the nroiect was nreoared in November 1993 and is referenc.Pd in the hihlioaranhy of this final EIS. The traffic impact reonrt is one of several_ironnrtina technical documents which were prepared- all of which are referenced in the hihlioaraphv. None of the technical reports are included as attachments to the FIS hecause of the size of the FIS. All of the supporting technical reports are availahle for nuhlic inspection at SDOT. 7 New nroiectinns_ officially released in December 1996. are reflected in SP.CYIOn 32.4.7 and Table 3-6 3 The road a .cessing Kona Palisades Estates has been named Kaiminani Drive and appears throughout the final FIS 4 Throughout the final FIS. Kealakehe Parkway is described as either "proposed." indication the portion pf the roadwav under analysis or as "completed" or "constr i .ted " indi .atinn the portion of roadwav already constructed by the Hoiisina Finance and Development Corporation IHFDCI. Dis fission of the proposed improvements to the Old Mamalahoa Hinhwav and P^I^ni Road inters .coons may he found in Section 7.37.4. 6 Information nn proposed development in the area is provided in Section 3.1.1. 7 The r anon far them .than width is provided in the second paragraph of_Section 23.2..1.. 8 Bikers may use the 2 4 meter (8 0 feed roadwav shoulders as descrihed in Section 9.3..],3.. 9 Futur ^ccess to the road~a~av. if arni is addressed in Section S 5.4. 10 ISCl1PC rel^tinn to ndangered species. including mitination. have been nenotiated dirPCth~ ~~~ith the 1 4 FVN~S ~a~ithin th .context of a formal Section 7 consultation. Accented mitination is included in Section 4.11.3- as contained in the FWS' non- ieonardv biolonical opinion- 11 SP.P. r .SDOn SP. t0 #1 O. 5-75 IpJNAIN J. GYFIANO I' • L LJ I`J7.7 Il S~° ~'VI ~l I.R. au LIInOII OII[MM .~_--01.C t'u. SiATE OF NAWAlI OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL GUALfTY CONTROL 331 SIVTN KING STREET fpURTN 0.fgR MONOLUW. N1W/II MEt] RltRtll(Ip LMXIR 4.G WI 1\M iM 343 September 22, 1995 Mr. Kazu Hayashida, Director State Department of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Hayashida, Subject: Draft EIS for the Kealakehe Parkway, North Kona, Hawaii Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document. We have the following comments. 1. Kealakehe Parkway would speed up or promote urban development in the vicinity of the project area. Please analyze the extent of urban development with and without this new roadway. Please also determine the significance of these impacts in relationship to the existing county general plan. 2. In the future, developers of projects adjacent to Kealakehe Parkway may request approval to construct an access from Kealakehe Parkway to their project. Please provide a list of all potential developers who may request access from Kealakehe Parkway. 3. We disagree with HFDC~s conclusion (item 5, letter of September 1, 1995) that cumulative impacts do not need to be addressed in this EIS. Section 11-200-17(i), EIS rules clearly indicates that cumulative impacts of highway projects must be discussed in the EIS. 4. Preliminary estimates indicate that approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of earth moving activity would be required for this project. Please specify in more detail measures that will be considered for implementation to minimize erosion and runoff. 5-76 Mr. Xazu Hayashida September 22, 1995 Page 2 If you have any questions, please call Jeyan Thirugnanam at 586-4185. Thank you. S/in~c~}ely, Gill Director c: Mr. Abraham Wong, FHA Mr. Roy Oshiro, HFDC Mr. Xeith Nakano, PBQ&D 5-77 Response to State of Hawaii. Office of Environmental Quality Control 1 lrhan development is expected in nccllr in the nroiect area whether nr not the proposed P^rk••^v is omol .ted Section 4 1 of the final FIS analv~PS the extent to ~~~hich Irh^ni anon will occur ~a~ith the No Ruild and Preferred Alternative scenario. 4ection 4 1 7 ? dPS rihPS the Pff turban expansion will have in relation to the n^~•~~ii C:ounty general Plan I arse population increases are planned for this part of North Kona government is making many infrastructure investments to support th sP flltl~r oooulationc I vPlc n roads ~ .wage. water Sl1DDIV t1011S1r10. schoolsl ^nd land us plans and inning designations have been undated to reflect the of^nned aro~•~ih Under these conditions. the impact of KPalakehe p^-~~~•~^v for inducinn arrn•~th is minimal Rather a combination of infrastructure im~estments ^nd land use plans and approvals is facilitating resident nopulatinn in .reases in the area. 9 SPCtIOp S , 4 includes landowners immediately adjacent to the proposed Kealakehe Parkway. Comm nt noted C Imul^tive imna .ts are addressed in this final FIS, 4 Mor SDP(`Ifl(' g nerally accented rosion control m asures have been added to SPCtion 4 18 ThP d tailed erosion rontrnl elan for this nroiect will bP reviewed and ~2nrovPd by the State Departm nt of Health as Dart of the permit nroc.PSS for this ~,Liect (NPD S permitl. 5-78 September 22, 1995 Certified Mail No. Z 423 808 664 Mahealani Pai, Pai'Ohana Association 'Ai'opio Honokohauiki, N Kona District P.O. Box 3507 Kailua Kona, Hi 96745-3507 Mr. Abraham Wong Federal Highway Administration P O. Box 50206, 300 Ala MoanaBlvd Subject Draft EIS for the Proposed Kealakehe Parkway Project Mr Wong: By this rnissive, I wish to notify the Dept. of Transportation (DOT), Highways Division, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and all relevant agencies of my families lineal affiliation to the ancestral Hawaiian remains interred in and azound our ancestral homelands of Honokohaunui-Honokohauiki-Kealakehe ahupua a. The site of the proposed undertaking will displace our traditional, customary and religious practices. G~~ l Thankyo L~~ Mahealatu Pai, Pai ana Association cc: Governor, State of Hawaii c/o Office of Environmental Quality Control State Historic Preservation Hawai i Island Burial Council Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai i Nei 5-79 R!+Qoonse to Mahaslani Pai. Pai'Ohana Ossociation Comment noted. The Pai 'Ghana Association has heen added to the Droiect mailing list It has received CODIP.S of An Archaeological Inventory Survey and I invited Rohs Irface TPSting of the Proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension. Alternative 10 and 11 and the Addendum Report to Kealakehe Parkway Extension (June 19941 for rovio~u and has been ask .d to identify any sites not included in the reports. or that have imoronerh~ described functions. 5-SO ~ Ut-• ' BENJAMIN J. GYEfANO C ~ ,uY CAI1P.p OOYER xOx ~ COMPiR D,L EM I ~a v ~ ~ C /1 ~ I `I ~ YARY RATNIC4 WATERNOUSE C 1 pE PV ii COMet"p,~EP STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OP ACCOUNTING AND GENERA8dER11017E~6 PS •OJ ~e**E°"DIP>.1643 . 5 P 0 BO%np, HONOLULU, HAWAII plpID 777 xW t1FC. ~It OUALIiY GCN SEP 2 5 1986 Governor State of Hawaii c/o Office of Environmental Quality Control 220 South King Street, 4th Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Gentlemen: Subject: Kealakehe Parkway North Kona, Hawaii Draft EIS Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject docu- ment. We have no comments to offer. If there are any questions, please have your staff contact Mr. Ralph Yukumoto of the Planning Branch at 586-0488. Sincerely, /~7 Sl~~ LEJ~ Y" State Comptroller 5-81 BEHJ/.MIH J. CAYETANO /,~~y., GCVERNCR it^; /D MiJG0. GfHEMLEOWAPO V. 0.1CHA0.GSGH f'!' IJrT J15S 010.ECTCR OF CIVIL OFFENSE l RGY C. PRICE P^CVE 3C91C- _ vICE OIRECCCR OF CViI CEFENSE F.ix dca'. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE 3949 DIAMOND HEAD ROAD HC NOLUL'J HAWA11968t 6-4495 October 24, 1995 TO: Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration P. O. Box 50206 300 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 FROM: Roy C. Price, Sr. Vice Director of Civil Defense SUBJECT: D[LAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)/SECTION 4 STATEMENT; KEALAKEHE PARKWAY State Civil Defense (SCD) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the DEIS/Section a (f) Statement submitted by the U.S. Department of Transpor- tation, Federal Highway Administration, Hawaii Division, on Kealakehe Parkway, Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, North Kona, Hawa:_, Hawaii. While we do not have negative comments specifically directed at this DET_5, we do have a proposal that the State and County should consider in this application. This proposal entails that the transportation engineers design and construct this narkwav for use as a potential emergency evacu- ation route. Additionally, consideration should be given to installing a four-inch conduit, with an adequate number of pull boxes, alongside any planned drainage or utility infrastructure. This conduit would be served for Future State Telecommunications use. Just as parks, schools, fire hydrants, underground/overhead utilities and sidewalks are planned as integral parts of subdivisions and industrial areas, so must mitigation measures, early warning and emergency wazning systems be planned for the safely of communities. No outdoor warning sirens will be required as part of this application. The purchase and installation of these devices and support irf rastructure will be the responsibility of the developers of adjacent properties. 5-82 Mr. Abraham Wong October 24, 1995 Page 2 Our SCD planners aad technicians are available to discuss this further if there is a requirement. Please have your staff call Mr. Mel Nishihara of my staff at 733-4300. bc: Parsons BrinekerhoffQuade b Douglas, Inc. Pacific Tower, Suite 3000 1001 Bishop Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Attn: Keith Nakano 5-83 Response to State of Hawaii. Department of Defense Kealakehe Parkway. when completed. can suo~lement the existing roadwav network as an emernencv evaaiatinn route. Facilities for future early warninn and emernenov warninn systems can he accommodated within the roadwav rinht-of-way. I~Ptails of such facilities will be determined and coordinated_durina the dP.Rlnn phase. 5-84 r e' ~ United 5tr~[C~(DG~artment of the Interior o srA;E iP.~RTMt ' uO•F?P7.dNS,yFF~~,~~T~TI~~H~.Ip.HE SECRETARY ~ 11aY 1 I I le J7 N, D.C. 20240 HIGHWAYS DIVISION ER-95/605 PLANNING BRANCH 0 OCT 2 6 1995 N n Mr. Abraham Y. Wong Division Administrator ao R- Federal Highway Administration op - Kalanianaole Federal 9uilding _ 300 Ala Moans noulevard, Room 3202 z v, Sox 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear Mr. Wong: This is in reenonae to the request for the Department of the Zrcerior's comments on the nraft Environmental/Section a(f) Evaluation for the construction of Xealakehe Parkway, Mamalahoa Highway co Queen Kaahumanu Highway, North Kona District, Hawaii County, Hawaii. avrTTON 4 (`I EVA:,UATTON C,__OC~NTa We concur chat there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the proposed project. We also concur with the proposed measures to minimize harm to historic and archeological resources. We 1 recommend continued cooperation and coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer in order to complete a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which should include measures to avoid or minimize harm to all historic and archeological resources whici. may be impacted by the proposefl project, including the Aaloko-HOnokohau National Historic Park and various trails which reflect major trends in the history of Hawaii. A signed cony of the MOA should be included in the Final Section 4(f) evaluation. ?'SVIRONMFNPAL S'T'ATEMENT COQ'*T`Pa General Co~6ayte The Draft Environmental StaCemen[ (DEI9) does not adequately address impacts to candidate species and species listed ae endangered or threatened under the Endangered 9peciee Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). These species include the endangered loulu palm 2 (Pritcriardia affinis), the endangered uhiuhi tree (Caesalpinia kavaiensis), the candidate ko'oko'alau (Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla), the endangered Hawaiian petrel (Pteiodroma phaeopygia eandwichenais), the threatened Newell's sheazwater (Puffinus auricularis),. or the candidate band-romped storm petrel (OCeanodroma cascro cryptoleucura>. The Federal Highway 5-85 2 Administration has initiated formal Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in accordance with the ESA to address impacts of the road construction project on these species. However, the DEIS lacks the specific information necessary co comprehensively evaluate impacts to federally-listed and candidate species, including detailed conservation measures to minimize impacts- We disagree with the statement in the DEIS that "Further progress on these issues (endangered anfl threatened species) will be made after selection of the Preferred Alternative, and will be incorporated into the Final EIS. Secti en 7 consultations could continue alter the acceptance of the Firidl EIS." Section 7(d; of 3 the Endangered Species Act prohibits Federal agencies from making any "irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would preclude the formulation or implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives" that may be identified in the Biological Opinion. Therefore, selection of a Preferred Alternative should be withheld until the FWS's Biological Opinion is rendered. The FWS's Pacific Islands Field Office has enjoyed the working relationship established with the Federal Highway Administratior_. we anticipate resolving the issues identified in this response through the FWS's consultation process. For technical aesietance on matters pertaining to the endangered Species Act, please contact the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Posc Office Sox 50088, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850. bpscifia Comments sane 3 47 Chaote 3 0 A`f acted Envir nm n~ 3 1~ Endanaere and - at nod 9necies 4 11 1 Potential T:nnaces and Aaencv Coordination. This section of the DEIS does not adequately describe or address impacts to endangered and threatened and candidate species. The DEIS fails to include a discussion on the potential for the roadway lighting to adversely affect native 4 seabirds that may transit through the project area. Seabirds, _ particularly fledglings, are often attracta8 to bright lights during flights from their terrestrial nesting sites to the seal. The installation of bright lights along the highway may pose a significant threat to seabirds by causing them to become dieorlented and to coillde with street lighting, power lines, buildings, or other structures in the area. The DEIS acknowledges that endangered and candidate plants may be affected by the project. However, a thorough discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of Che project on rare plants within the area is laeking. An analyela of the direct 5 effects of the project construction, the indirect effects of project operations, and the cumulative impacts associated with urbanization and increased fire potential during road construction and operation should be addressed in the Final Environmental impact Statement (FEIS1. 6-86 3 p~qg a a~ Chanter 4 0 ^rvi o_xneztal ConaeaL nc~e 4 11 °ndanQered ~rA '*h reatened Species. 4.1 L.2 Mitigation Measures. The DES9 does not identity mitigation measures to reduce impacts to endangered and threatened and candidate species. The proposed project should provide measures to minimize impacts co seabirds, such as requiring 6 shielded lights along the highway to be incorporated ipso the project. More information on measures to minimize the effects of urban lights on seabirds can be found in the nepartment of Land and Natural Resources' publication entitled "'t'he Newet l' Shearwater L3,gh[ A traction Problem A Guide for Arch~re^~= P1 nne~'s and Resort Monster." We recommend that the guidelines in this publication be followed in designing the proposed highway lighting. In addition, specific measures co minimize impacts co endangered and Candidate plants in the project area should be identified in the EELS. A mitigation plan should be inclufled which allows for the evaluation of the net effects of the project on native plants. ~ This mitigation plan should address the endangered and candidate species identified in the FEIS with respect to native plants in roaoway landscaping, and xeriscaping is not adequate mitigation unless it results in self-sueraining viable populations of native plants. etiMMnay COMMENTS The Department of the Interior has no objection co Section 4(f) approval of this project by the Department of Transportation, providing that the mitigation measures to historic and archeological resources are adequately documented in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Sincerely, ~ i Willie R. Taylor Director, Office of Environmental Polley and Compliance cc; Mr. Kazu Hayashida, Director State Department of Transportation Highways Division 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 5-87 Response to U.S. Deoartn+ant of the Interior. Office of the Sacretarv 1 ,omment noted. The sinned MnA is heina included in this document alonn with the final Section 4(f) Evaluation. 7 FHWA and SDOT have conducted formal Section 7 consultations with the U S_ Fish and Wildlife Service (FWSI to address concerns shout threatened and endannered Sp P. .I .S. The flna EIS adP.nuatBlV addrP.SCP.C Th P.SP. fed P.raIIV-IICYP.d and (=andldalP. ~Q~i~. Comment noted. The U.S FWS's biological opinion of non-ieopardv was received on Fehruarv 16 1996. 4 Initially linht standards will be erected only at proposed intersections. (wer limp as the area becomes urbanised. linhts will he added- Section 4.11.3.3 descrihes the d Sian of the light standards. while Section 4.11.2 describes the expected impact to seabirds flvinp thro~igh the oroiect area. 5 Sections S and 4 11 addresses the direct effects of oroiect construction the indir t eff is of oroiect operatipns and the cumulative impacts associated with urbanisation following roadway construction and operation. 6 Section 4 11 3 3 describes the liphtina design that will he used to mitinate disturhance to migrating seahirdc. 7 Se lions 4 11 3 1 and 4 11 3 2 descrihe the translocation plan and fire plan intended to protect endangered and candidate species. 5-88 5.5 LIST OF COMMENTERS The follo~~~inq aaen i s organizations and individuals grovided written comments on th .draft 19. Gcncpe~ er.FUC!ES Denartment of the Armv U S Arm ~ ngineer District. Honolulu Unit d t^t s Den^rtment of Agricultwe N^tur^I Resources Conservation Sen~ice United St^t s Denartment of the Interior Fich and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Fcor;,gion United St^tes Denartment of the Interior Geologj .al `;nrvey Wat .r Resour .G Division l lnit d St^t s Denartment of the Interior. Office of the Secretary United States Environmental Protection Agency. Region IX STATE AGENCIES Denartment of Accounting and men ral Servic c Den^rtment of Budget ^nd Finance Housing, Finance and Development Corporation (no~~~ Housina and Community Develogpient Corporation of Hawaii under the Deo^rtment of onomic. Develooment & Tourisml Deo^rtment of Business Economic Development & TOLrISm Land Use Commission D oarTm nt of D .fens . D~parTment of Fd~tion Deoartm nt of Hawaiian Home Lands Denartment of Health D oartm nt of H iman SPfVI s Office of Environmental Quality Control Office of Hawaiian Affairs University~f H^~~~^ii ^t M^noa Environmental Center ~ ~ * of H^~~~^ii ^t M^no^ W^ter RPSO~rC'P4 Research Center [=Ol!NTY AGENCIES Denartment of Water of S~noly Police Denartment 5-89 rt~~S~ucgeeS L.anihau Partners K .a iho i Kona RP.SOfT Comte Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce Kona Transportation Comganv. Inc. W .~t Hawaii .operate CITIZENS/ORGANIZATIONS George Bennett. Kona Heavens Association Trac Dunlop ,lapel Butler Victor and Pat Crosetti R. Kellv C~reenwell Mahealani Pai. Pai 'Ghana Association Alfred Palmeira Derek and Margie Park Damn Perrv Kona Heavens Association Michael Traub. N. D. 5-90 CHAPTER 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS CHAPTER 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Below is a listing of persons who were primarily responsible for preparing the Fjp3~ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), their titles, and educational backgrounds. DOCUMENT PREPARATION State of Hawaii Department of Transportation Ron Tsuzuki, Highways Division Head Planning Engineer Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. (Environmental Consultant) David Atkin, Environmental Task Leader Ph.D., Biology (Ecology), Princeton University B.S., Biology (Marine), Stanford University Deneitra M. G. Hutchinson, AICP, Deputy Environmental Task Leader M.S., Community and Regional Planning, University of Texas at Austin B.F.A., University of Texas at Austin ,lason Ya awa. AICP. Planner M U R P Urhan and R .aional Plannina. University of Hawaii R A Economics. University of Hawaii TECHNICAL STUDIES Char & Associates (Botanical/Environmental Consultants) Winona Char, Botanist M.S., Botanical Sciences, University of Hawaii B.S., Botanical Sciences, University of Hawaii Cultural Surveys Hawaii (Archaeological Studies) Hallett H. Hammatt, Principal Investigator Ph.D., Archaeology, Washington State University M.A., Prehistoric Archaeology, University of Edinburgh B.A., History, University of Pennsylvania R.M. Towill Corporation (Surveyors) Robert Lee, Registered Land Surveyor B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Hawaii 6-1 REVIEWER U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Honolulu Pat Phung, Transportation Engineer B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Washington 6-2 CHAPTER 7.0 FEIS RECIPIENTS CHAPTER 7.0 FEIS RECIPIENTS FEDERAL AGENCIES Advisory Council on Historic Preservation U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of the Army U.S. Army Engineer District U.S. Department of Interior Office of Environmental Project Review Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Activities Region IX Regional Administrator U.S. LEGISLATORS The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka The Honorable Patsy T. Mink STATE AGENCIES Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism HOLSIn_~ and .ommunity Develonm~ n~ooration of Hawaii (previously Housing Finance and Development Corporation in the Department of Budget and Finance) 7-1 Land Use Commission Office of Planning Department of Defense Office of the Director of Civil Defense Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Department of Land and Natural Resources Hawaii Island Burial Council State Historic Preservation Division Office of Environmental Quality Control Office of Hawaiian Affairs University of Hawaii at Manoa Environmental Center STATE SENATORS The Honorable Andrew Levin The Honorable Malama Solomon STATE REPRESENTATIVES The Honorable Paul Whalen The Honorable David A. Tarnas COUNTY OF HAWAII The Honorable Steve Yamashiro, Mayor, Hilo County Council, County of Hawaii 7-2 Planning Department LIBRARIES Hawaii State Library Hilo Regional Library Kahului Regional Library Kaimuki Regional Library Kaneohe Regional Library Kauai Regional Library Pearl City Regional Library Kailua-Kona Public Library Legislative Reference Bureau University of Hawaii, Hamilton Libraries OTHER INDIVIDUALS/ORGANIZATIONS Lanihau Partners Pai 'Ghana Association Tracy Boynton Alfred Palmeira Michael Truab, N.D. 7-3 CHAPTER 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY CHAPTER 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL REPORTS An Archaeological Inventory Survey and Limited Subsurface Testing of the Proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension, Alternatives 10 and 11 June 1994 Addendum Report to Kealakehe Parkway Extension, Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension Detour Road Alternatives 1 and 2, Nonokohau 1, North Kona, Hawaii June 1994 Archaeological Planning Reconnaissance for the Proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension February 1993 Botanical Survey Kealakehe Parkway Extension Alternatives 6A and 8, Kailua-Kona, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii January 1993 Botanical Survey Kealakehe Parkway Extension, Alternatives 0 and 11, Kailua-Kona, North Kona District, Isla~~d of Hawaii October 1993 Kealakehe Parkway Air Quality Report November 1993 Kealakehe Parkway Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement: Traffic Impact Report November 1993 Kealakehe Parkway Technical Memorandum October 1992 Noise Analysis Report October 1993 Report on the Endangered Loulu Palms (Pritchardia affinis) Found within the Palani Road Corridor April 1995 OTHER DOCUMENTS Abbott, A. T., MacDonald, G. A., Peterson, F. L Volcanoes in the Sea: The Geolopv of Hawaii. 1983. 8-1 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Interim Selected Metric Values for Geometric Design An Addendum to a Policv on Geometric Design of Hiahwavs and Streets. 1993. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policv of Geometric Design of Highwav Streets. 1990. Burgett, Berdena, and Paul H. Rosendahl. Addendum Report: Archaeological Inventorv Survev Kealakehe Planned Communitv Project Area Lands of Kealakehe and Keahuolu North Kona District Island of Hawaii (TMK: 7-04-08:17, por. 12). PHRI Report 927-02 1 1 92. Prepared for Housing Finance and Development Corporation. 1992. CALINE 3 A Versatile Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways and Arterial Streets, Report Number FHWA/CAlfL-79/23. County of Hawaii, Department of Planning and R.M. Towill Corporation. Keahole to Kailua Development Plan North Kona Island of Hawaii. April 1991. County of Hawaii and State of Hawaii. The General Plan Hawaii County. November 1989. Cultural Surveys Hawaii. An Archaeological Inventorv Survev of Approximately 82- Acre Subject Parcel in Ahupua'a of Honokohau II. 1992. Cultural Surveys Hawaii. An Archaeological Inventorv Survev of Approximately 803- Acre Subiect Parcel in Ahupua'a of Honokohau I and II North Kona District Island of Hawaii (TMK 7-4-08' por 5 13 34) (DRAFTI. 1993. Donham, Theresa K. Archaeological Inventorv Survev' Kealakehe Planned Communitv Pro'ect Area Lands of Kealakehe and Keahuolu North Kona District Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 652-010890. Federal Aid Highway Program Manual (FHPM), 23 CFR Part 772 "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise". 1982. Guide to CAL3QHC Version 2 0 A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections, EPA-454/R-92-006. Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, Report FHWA-RD-77-108. Kaku Associates, Inc. for the State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation and County of Hawaii, Public Transportation Plan for Hawaii Countv. February 1992. State of Hawaii, Department of Business Economic Development, Population and Economic Projections for the State of Hawaii to 2010 (Series M - K). November 1988. State of Hawaii, Department of Health. "Hawaii Air Quality Data for the Period of January 1985 to December 1987." 8-2 State of Hawaii, Department of Land and National Resources, Commission on Water Resource Management. Hawaii Countv Water Use and Development Plan Review Draft. February 1992. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation and County of Hawaii. Public Transportation Plan for Hawaii Countv. February 1992. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division. Bike Plan Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan. April 1994. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division. Bikeplan Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan. 1977. Slate of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division. Island of Hawaii Long Range Highway Plan. May 1991. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Materials Testing and Research Branch. Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy. October 1996. State of Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Botanical Survey Kealakehe Planned Communitv North Kona. Hawaii. November 1989. State of Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Kealakehe Planned Communitv Kealakehe North Kona Hawaii Final Environmental Impact Statement. September 1990. State of Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. La'i'opua Planned Communitv Kealakehe Master Plan Kealakehe Kailua-Kona Hawaii. September 1990. State of Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Market Assessment for Kealakehe Planned Communitv Kealakehe North Kona Hawaii. July 1990. State of Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Noise Study for the Pr~osed Kealakehe Planned Communitv Project Kona. Hawaii. June 1990. State of Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of Proposed Kealakehe Residential Development North Kona, Hawaii. July 1990. State of Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Survev of tfie Avifauna and F=eral Mammals at Kealakehe Property North Kona Hawaii. August 1989. State of Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, Traffic Impact Assessment Resort for Kealakehe Planned Communitv Kealakehe Hawaii. July 1990. State of Hawaii, Office of Environmental Quality Control. Bulletin. July 31 , 1992. State of Hawaii, Office of the Governor, Office of State Planning. Hawaii State Plans State Function Plans. June 1991. 8-3 State of Hawaii, Office of the Governor, Office of State Planning. State Land Use District Boundary Review. 1992. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209. U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with the University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii. State of Hawaii. Issued December 1973. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Population and Housing Characteristics Hawaii. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Population. Number of Inhabitants, Hawaii 1970, 1980 and 1990. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Characteristics of Housing Units 1980 Census of Housina. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Characteristics of Housing Units General Housing Characteristics - 1980 Census of Housing . U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Pacific Island Listed, Proposed or Candidate Species Under the U S Endangered Species Act. May, 1994. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Volcanic and Seismic Hazards on the Island of Hawaii. 1990. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. General Management Plans/Environmental Impact Statement Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park, Hawaii. July 1994. University of Hawaii. Detailed Land Classification Island of Hawaii. 1965. Users Guide to MOBILE 5A MOBILE Source Emission Factor Model, Publication No. EPA-AA-TEB-93-01, Ann Arbor, Michigan. March 1993. Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. 1990. 8-4 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Hazardous Waste 0 x 0 ? r w ~ ~ V L N O n U C O i u L n US O V G T O N C a ~ V b T O ~ L C C L L T T V L b > O V C } E u G9O1 E me c U O Z O T W W T M M L y L L L rn L H c u ~ s E E J ` L L V V T O V j V N D L V ~ ^ q~ 0 LL C O N C N O D U Y r+ V L j c > A P p ' T Z ~ Y b O L 6 M V N -0N O V bd V 1 LL Y V L y L L O A N L O A M bf O l ^ L q N b yy~ N O f Z ~ A V O V Y ~ N J~ °a° ~ T 0J L 1.J ~N 9L C9 ~ i Ymm yg V= b CVJ LL 4i c i c r V n O' t l L S C O m~_ M 4 ' N O ~ •Z A r r r j a q T F¢ 1~~ Nb6~ C `9 N~ O 0 b io °c i~ o U o W a` m t a c ~ _m ~ C N Q m ~ ~ U ~ ~ O) ~ o id m a E m c m ° ~ E ~ o a E m N U A m N C L N C O d ~ C O a N m m m 1O " m r m c W ~ _ _m p O ~ m in m W N m ~ ~ Q C a .^m. j m 7. L Q N ~ m O. .O ~ VO ~ T r N ~ L c o m v~ m r a A m voi t 4 ~ m c c c 3 m c m m co o m ~ m x > •E m t s ~ m rn m o m m ~ m -oi c o c t m U m a t v t _ t U N «O m 0~_ ' C .m U L T T O Z. N N N O N ~ 3 C m m Y c m Z c >y m~ h m a s v ~ 2 U o Q c = m ~ mi n~ N VI 0 3 O O 'd L t y d L ~ N m LL ~aF N2 O 1- F- Y N N ~ 2!D f~ t if ~b i3 ~ a u Asa _ ~ ~ m A R 6 ~ m Q ~i T u4 q N N C f y = W U) O N N 'p ¢ m {dj OI d J N M q~ d IO N~a O CE. qN N q q q N u E a a Z o q q C a c ~o C a q q q a d N~ C C 1[1 q E vL,c mcwu 'S. q u N ~0 0= W 'A o u p a N m r'd W O 3 C= p r °J d Q q O N O.d an d r C c> 3 ~ c E J L Y ISR x`01 C u'2 o m m •d E u ~ a: ~ A M a N q ~ m a^ b m Q J m O U N q N~~ ~ m V U ~ o~m ti Z i a; ~ C` 3= b N d ~ d W o r m 'O~' O~~g~°5 ' oq?o moo `°ooQN Eo Nw;~ a moot md•{• i0n °2 °g os c d m°q H~ o9a a mQa ~ a« m qo> cdv h«rqr ~ 3 y a j= a q m d Y an d L... d o N c [y Oa._3 Oaq m>>C O Q N> W T C a m_ a m~ O V °u T o' T N V y~ V ~ m p N N d N q C r Z m C q J OI a m d d d q fL C q C O N L 4 O C m- d J > m_ m m m :C O a O {9 C .C s C N a 6 O m U r c q N m VJ q q ~ O C > y N ~ N Q ^ q q L E t~ q O V q G N C O q L~ o N q ~O ~ J N y C C Y 3 J u p a g L m O o j J p T 3 q J S.' O N m V y N N ~ C C a d Y W a u dQ_ mEc ~~m~.~ ~ydoo ~ U m O C N ~ J q m m O> a g C C C J } Q N N D) { O O d m m m J O d U' g m O b m L d 2 q :`3 SCI-i[I$ ? 0; r.•C~ Q T.V. q ~ mU[C2 N~ 1 l72 Y~ m ° ~i~l! W W - ~s L ~ ~y~yyspp o°a e°c Fgy ~ m ~ n u CCCii m .T~ ° ua°M a...x a F+ T u n o n>i S T O ! n u q o L 6 n N q a < ° ry L C ! 3 ° Y a ~ L 1 y q L •Y 2> N V 1~ i y Y n O ~u o~YR pl C° u NJ.mo u'°L ua ° ~u Y W>Nm ~qn~ ~ 2 A ~ r°i M° u O C u T O ~ '7 q V V V 6 x 9 L.l V W 1° > ~ N N y T ~ Y 7 Y Y Y ~ A m y] LO W C V O C° u E \J A U w n o (u a o O qi n i 4 L Y E o N 6< O COn W y u.°+ uy 6n ~ 41 1 Cn d ° a O u y ~ ~O~'~' s k y O V Y Y C~ N .Ci C MJ' I Oq q > N r1 u u V n 4 M rn r.r d ~ v° n ~ c (O 'J_j C O M W~ p C T 9 b= 6 'rt m ! `U^' N G m5y o~i~ °n ° ~°v ou ° °u a CJ ~ 0~ rl > C° q > C u Y v W ..Ci S ° tlx ~ 6 q u N Y C ~ RR n mwY - ~ cC ->T o R ~ u C m.+n y ~Y °J O° °u i V V u° b V n e O< H u~ m~°+ L ~ e M u ~ n 3 o C n C i <'>C > L F D u L y Y<dYx~i O NYL9• YY~an N 3 o d c d L V. V Y? 9C L rV CrY d Y d O d 0 N O Y p Y C V V- L > T O Z C q O V F W r C Y L L • q 6 d q n p' a V O E'r d VLTLL~L cN „ d y p J d d o P L . V n q^ O O O L> r C O d X 0 0 p6' L b L 1- dr q~ d E c ~=,1 kMM 2 6• S~do LM ~t]Y OrO r qVO C dYV •Z 3LC «'E n'C jU'V ULYO L t U O a O V C O d p 3 E Y ~L O V V d ~ r O N N T 7 O 7 'r L 2 O L O V O q O C E J 3 L d ~ V Y ~ S H Z M Y M V Y N O L CO V O Y J l O 2 q O • C N T C N d u G L L m Y q r L S n V 2 y L O r T q O • E q Y V- O L ~ d Y H Y N 4a V R L 9 P J C£ p V O r V p TL r Y q r d V N L q P O YLp rn3~- U> NO L~[Jr-w •L L C nEgC•- E rV q0~ COgra .yW T~ 0 o~cErr~ac Ye; o.+ucnW Lmci! n V ^ O' V~ T~ N O L l 6q OL y C V q •'+Y ~ q V d ~O c d E a L L r P dl~ gCYNYL4MY •m OPdCSO gOQC +'EN 'r£TL NV V< LO SOS O O~ C O 1- N Ol L Y J O L 3 Y L Y L V d t L U O C O d V ~ q~ V S ~ L V q Y Y q O 9 V O ~ d V~ ~ d 1- Y Y d Y q E Y L V v~ T n~D V l T C L C E n C n L N V C Y Y C Y U T q ~ q V P q O C q E L O O w L n g O b a V Y M L N ~ O r 3 V 4 0~ O 9 O C~ V P d C L p V L ~ U d T V N a L L i O C O E g Y£ M L T9 P C Y C ~ Y mL r O N q d 9 C E C Y~% W N Y W 9 r 0 0~ C t O P~ G N U ~ Y E V g N V C ~ L ~ ~ U n O d d V~ L Vr~ J L g O N E- U V 1- E E V O V E n « r C H P n 9 g O N V V E b C 2 V O Q p g C J N L C m L C V H L q M d r q O V N E N ~ y E C q q r c ^ Yq k n N W N N a W O q L c T Y £ C q O N TQ a L Y g O r U r O E N r O Y O£ d M O Y q N L S r N q •L V N L E d m V O E Q r n 2 O M q 3 d d j V .Q-•Y m q~ V d C Y O N r L q Y „ L 9 OL M~ M J O C d N 7 V V L O n J E w V V Y 3 C u T Y 3 L L Y V V O V 6 N C O TY Y Y g L 6' C V q W w£ rdM Y3 YVrV YYO '+T•- d3 39C q L O q N L n d N d L L r' O U q L N N V 6 r C Y d V C a p T M L O~ ' N q q O N% V L n~ q p L O C q y N O O d V 6 O O J m L O m r q q pr- C Y U Y^ L d V > q O V 6' Y Y O V m C r N C r y O U~ C g d p p L C L N V L V• O 9 6' u1 £ V ~ T q N_ TN M r 3 V" L N e L q N~ ~Q O E L L W L O om do A TYCO qY Y€~ y r Y Tod LgYUU o ~ =oY O~ r Y V N ~ O O d~ N L Y L L L • d r g l W Y Y C 9 T V q T L O d d y C d O d N Q Y O C Y 2 V~ O r L L B r V OLLL iV L\ O 7r O tY _E¢rE Y V T • N EY 6Y qV « Nr900L Yam a ~TLq OT dG4 r •w WWn L N 3 O 4 d q V O F N r L N O 4 L g N Y O W L w N O 2 N r' O L L W 3 O~ O~ g Y~ q 9 q O N O V N d r q TY q O Y N• u L O O 9 O O d N N Y O V N O J N q~> J On S O N L d Y V T N ~ C O N r L q q T q d O • V K T • P V N O` d V Y O n d o • C V O y U q r W l q N L W O d~ 0 0` q C l d T V C q O> r W V S L SS6 Y-yUF 3 Vr Lr Ce- 9V •+S 6L06'gJ QpVkS > V V C^~ 9 9 _ a C-Y 6 = G ~ C 9 N C' ~ O • Y O L N Y q d . T T mo cqY c ~ a v L NJ 1 2 • c r w N d N C ~ c C' r tPV d r ~p~ r n r0 _ s T ~ o m€ a r c ~ % Y L q N O p L O V C q p V q V Y O C Z N q O V H S C d E CO q d C L L q VI V C q v Y L O L L r 2 ~ 3 C 3 S L O Y L O V Y C Y O O V O E YC~ ~v C N p q O C •T « q u d y L 3 C C V 4 2 q V q O O j q O • C N V O O q d V r _ O L d q L V r L N V Y J n O Y N •V-' V Y O O ~ q 3 C = m L V L; Y. W Y T q V W • q V q L 9 V^ \ =LLG_^ LE C LW. LmL u M r N WN o po • ".hi+l~ LLO Z o a u u .aya O a O Q V 3 c q C q V « L C~ N TNN LY t0l N ~_~YVC u0 6' N 6 q J W I: E' V V 4 r H L> ~ u C u{ T i Q Q ~ t q ~ V Tq•' ^ V O O 2 C E O q V Y m C O Y N L d O £ 'm ~Y3L3 qV- Y q q ~Y ~ NC F 4 O Y O q G M L 3 t i C r O N d L O O 6 N L r S O C G M O V N y L\ O corv LICE of c°c c% c v YL C ~y O L d i d ~ q 6' ~ d W C L V V S C L q U C O q Y C L O 9 T d O O ~ q Y ~ V L Y L y C C O L O N 0 N E V r L q q M C O ~ N p m a _V L £ O y C O C o L q O N m r Y ~ O•~ V 3 V O S L d o C > b V d O L C d 7 m Y q CV 1'6Ym2 ENO d d3 O E O C ~ P ~ E q C O O p a Y N q C N ~ C LO ~ 6 mp O v O E O o W O O V d~ > d T~ 0~.~[ Cw CO Sq~ y YM L V C g y C O C L V N T d V O q q L M q G O C L O C L V 6r r r q V C O q2 O d > >S C > V Y~ Vr V Lm 40 ~J PL 3 L >ON YmL Li a ~cw morn ~ .L.o d Lus Luu N C V L ~ L L O L L p L q L V O LYCq~J £ N VY VqW•• C SC H 1-q !-k ~Cb N 0 3 6 ~ q O wE L ! N O t T Lr d' L TPN ! V N g 3 O O q L d V V O 9 W ~ d N m • •V~• Y q _6 266E-NS O F S 3N O 3 O QS~ APPENDIX B Endangered and Threatened Species Appendix B.1 -Correspondence and Coordination Appendix 6.2 -Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species Appendix B.1 -Correspondence and Coordination e& a $ ~R~~g ro ~.a= db m 3 e_n4 m`- ~ 3 ~ y ~y~~d acv^ b.-u ui° m aai ov _ t d~D.2 ~~d v £ E b m aa°i n m Cs d d d C O O O CE .~aa~ m 4 4 m C d d a N ~O C ~ H d V O ro b Q a `y d y C a C A c y N L a m v b y m n u w m Q mcO1 n 3a'd c w a ~ E d 9 ° y x - 1lWJLd h$p d~~+ a C ~ ~ Q ~ ~ N C lp ^ W = ~..,cE inE u U w dro`moo ~dwr ? ;o U camm~> Eb m s~ w 2 n w d o p y g 2 -c a d ~T ca.d¢ O d - a N D S O ro L U LL J L O u m ? L mb'uy nc mU O a p A W ~ Y A O d C N~~ ~i q 0 w N ro ¢ d W Q S O U NYI m >`d d Q Y Y ~ V Y? OTy diU NL'pV J ? ~L m y '0 3 w T Z ~ 3 w E 3 m'°o O Om F m o Zvw Y? nfnd4Y vrnpn LL a?Up ZZ o~¢ Q 2 o T~ o~ ~ d O m a rn c ro LL Y u y v ¢ O °~i b~ b_ W~ O C L J a C C d Y W G y a° U Y O LOIJ p_13 ~ YF U U°UdC LuLN U d~ TY~ NJ p aa Q V N Z d d f ? u ~ O~ C LL~~ m <J< W O y d N a W 'n N L O m U~ y b m Y ~I ~ S~a`o iou 3 y~ ? m^'o~+w d rogc _N ~ ~ 4+ omo ti VIII I9I~IIIIII°~ E ~Zc ~:.m= ~ op!?pN Noo"- ap ~mc o e a d vro-ro ~ ppp nm a o 1 I n O 0? N O.~ ro d~ N V d Y b ;0 u¢ C> U V i a W d W` O d N d d g C d C Q a C U C ~IIIry~1 N =Ii0?2O.= ¢ ? d UYQ~ d. roL tq d' OW U W I~ IIiIIIIIIIIIII O W ;x 4~ s ~ ~s$~3 T N >d p N c a b C N? u N a° b L '~c ~s ~u~ b s° mo ~°cyi0 nyn ~ m L t p O d O O a V t a d q O d U d~ n b H am .cZdc a`oc ~ Aga "di0 ° ~ ~ z c v c 0 p d J L~~ a U _7 N H "3 d Qt Q '^'m UQb °i' e,YPd ~°ia C D N L b y~3 a C d Q O M ~3 N C ro~ W= °~q~ ~nE v u Z o N a L= °~~uN ;v w EoU m ym d uj `c C1 w ro a i t ~O a o g d y w y a~ e U W_ LL Oi.t p d c b 1n C d C O V d~ J t ? '-c c m d n c aU O a W dad D p Np ? q0 w ~3 nd ro a~= .o dro Vl Z y c N d m p W d ~ Y C° O w a C' 4 a W m 7. `6 N Q ~O Y m Y? O C 6 a O u J ? ~ L u 3w d~O E mo ~ Om r- ai dv, u'~ 3 b; $ d2 N °i m n Q Q i m j s o~ 6ri d OS \ LL O m N ? m a~ 44 LL O ~ y j~ w w y a p n Y O1 U o R ~i Z Z ro a c d CO m N Y c a c m-:_ ww ~ay~ d dt m U y ro >.y ~ e 3d`d YF- ~ dd~mN So y uiZ ?da f,t -od N Q L L d ni0~m u~= w wA2 n° >mdL TN Em mY a= ~III~I II °4 a a W a m~ Y~- E 5Yg ~ a o ny ~O ro ~ ¢SO ~ -°c III~ a `m t d ui d yp_ O agc d c cmc o c 111I''1I1I1I N YJgF-2 ¢ O O. 6 p.. roL UlC O W u W E IIIIIIIIII~IIII O Y ex ~ ~Y s m- ~ a~~ 3 rve2„,4~ ~N3 W.O'3 QV bb _uY _>a qN Y;8~~,~ ~ dd Wr A v v w v ~ m ~ s o d v n.z a v moq .cgq c oL o W uadi 0ic ao v i c y ~ M~ y v > 40 3 m' a~ ; ~ ~ ~ 'C n ~ ~ w` Z`~ x? t u t m p 3 ~ c y ~N n t'm € E N m d ~3 F' d~ N N LL w= q c cu _ Qq 2 m=om v ~n V ~o ~j t°• Y~E~ ~u z s~ y v a „ q_ o m w L e v o c u E o N m` N W J N W n T p a C U L U vl ~ N L N ~ W U ? C`q T d VI N~ n O N p ro p ¢ t E '^v a m 'o w o `o u~° a m o o m y c C7 N`v ~ w= w ~o ¢ ~O W Q A N N A Y~ y v N~ ? `O L O T Y j m Q Z O d N U m L N N N ? ? v O Z= o E YD a ~ v•N- .Z mY a v~_`~ O m0 Fpp- ~2 q ¢ ¢Z vyryN v.e vW m O d?O we °~y d ICJ Q Q C JL_Y TCL N O N C dmN NY t~l O tl 0 v W W V y q¢ O Y~ a C L 0 W W „ d 0O ~ m O dC' y 41 Of = Z d O p N U U N W S N p O U ~ r~ C_ d = JNV 3.d YF O 8 d~mC Pia y2 vn ~'Y mY O C L J N O)~m' v Q \ =aO ~ v °LL°mJ$m gugo _v°'`nm cy~v v»3 'om ~8rn `m Q dov.Y wS U a' Cqm o~ '>t o Ty N omo ro rh ! IIp ~IP Oi L C N E C¢~ O J Y~ .S C N V ~ Q j d Y .Z`Z N t O 'm W ~I I ° E T"-moy.c a.2 ~ E~m.- co,pu yo dp E~ ~IIIIIIIIIIIIII~~ a °bn='wm,n~ `m Eadm Ed`ma dag u¢ ~ S: IIII w m o d .9 `p 6 r lL d v O m° N o L d v o d = Q d C u c IIII'' m ompOwy~p2 ¢ ? a u_ n _ Oa a u3 in o. pw u w ~Illplll~llll!!~ ; W e$ 6 ry fi ~E~~ R ~_g E oa c m¢'c u °i €~a~~~ v m a c~ mr 3 ~m~x~~ _ca yN?ao d ~ N^ J N= a J N d H ~ ° { 4 w„ a v U rn c a ddaN ~L p.pW O ~C CaN '3~NyN 6 am` a^~co U c v 3 ~ d 5~^°O~ d Z v u U v p rn m Z J L_ ~'y O ~ T Ol q N L_ N ? p O1 N" C O N C LL n Z~ •N W N J N ~ n_ dmEm m rv°i'mt ''d"c Eavu ~ a O a d d ~ d N = m m•O 'v v m m w= Z o N U m d d L N A C q `m W_ L V ry T OI U ~U a E y U 5. O a d = 6 0 OI ? ~ > v vi c J c d Z o ] c v E ? c Q,vd m~ ao a~ p `w u v w v n `c `m c c O Q m ¢ ~ E 3 y m v L o c o v 'o ~ w oas EEUCV a .a ' d N U N C N C c N d d w ~ ¢ ~ N Z L d d l0 d °r t N ry A O Z o m Y O d m d c S; 2 n~ rv rn LL a? ~ m a-¢ Q Q N O Y y d M p~ ~ N Q d~ a n p o v o a Tn L L U J ¢ ~ ~ y n g (7 c a'd9 WW U „N OdUy`pt N~ Y ~ = N_4 W m N C r- O = Z C N _O p L V L'C C C t ' ~ ENJ 3 r ww d 6t0 Nsdudi QN ~i2 d ~Y~C 6. L w- w y r o u d b ° o O m m m o `p ~ m 0 Q Q u n a `0 = c N S] S U N ? (7 N t ` i m=~=Wm' JQ U¢1 N d U NdO~(W da Tm ~ C ONO d i~ ry n ui~q~ °Ox 3 w m d aaq ox_ _ E 'N ul ~ W z m III~II~II~II~o E g m= c w d y~ _ m _ p v A-d.4 SS v yo °'o o :t Ilh n cq_a._ €=0 °y E~aa'u d.Y pIIIII i0 " c " :2 °1 ¢°3oo=0a= ¢ ow u c I!I~IpI w o ad u" n ~ °u m° ~ o a ui a C IIIFIIIIII w or` aN a H E ?.ti W G C d O T? G? w 0 M H q U? d A a ~O .ti A w3a0y EGL V G A N H O q A i d a Ugti ?HNHW dNN ~O•+• w G • a D A M q M G> A N q P N A % T d a 3 N A G d H E L L a d L L d Y •H G M g H M 0 G H W d? C H 0 A U HO.OU Ha00X O~ti A CLa awd L? gdMw O?O.N N ,\y Z, a 03 C~OAA UT LyN ? a O WU G A-+3dd HaG yUaaa O ~ U Td N.Oi HX G'HOX N4L OSaiUOM T GHa? A O}(G'OCN~ ??dy T 4 4 M G U •y a d D G N d d H y a O a a q? L N E O T G N n> d Z N N N L X G G O.'O d N M U??? d y C 3 H H N ?'O •N O H a 'O G U q U O A .giNWL HN EY GYM Uy O U.giw M N ~ O .+w? O OM W a q Uadwa b ~1 U61 a.Na WdN3.~Ng0.? UM Ay ?TAM L ~+'O NN AMb .1 q O Ca •H dV 'O a'UA N 0 TY a A a U C G g N M A N a a N •A C H U a.ti U q a L 1 N T D N b N M q C g U 0 to G L y •O d G 3 d C G U O. Oda O H O L A •y A H q d G UX O.d •y W~•~ G O 'OLb .i % 0.q M N a a G U U M H> d M q A d d O N b L> 4 a d N N q L H H A a F "i H W T L'O } O C 'dON3A E4aid A NA1 anlN d a 3 A G g P G N G b » TV M d w X O q G a H G O T q .ti a q a L M M ~•1 ? A H a 0 U ti 0 ? 9 H 3 a U U YdAU w1Gt?iNPWH GTMNG M n O M a U a 1 A G G H P H d O'O M ~ m A N a? d q d d a C d> L H ti o ~ M~00 ~r~ONay H>O ?H? a X H DYW d fuNAaY W'a0A A 4N1.y3 M w v A a 3 arv d ~n W 9 O A a o N q U ~ F4O - 4 p S 3Y' Etl 5 yC y~ ~ ?d rv 'O q 'O u~ yj~3 Lq $ x W a dMN aN(L NAy N1 ? 6~~~~~~~~~~q~~9 ~'q~ 4U?a04 GH? m~o..U. °'aw ~NNgO. as O.ti •L ••~O. NA OG C E•+ A 'OA 'O v1 N a a y ~ U U q U N drl? ti 3? a N w ~ ~n H T N a X g P n a •..'O 4 q a U 0.~•~ Aq D,~~n AUG gaNU LLG G 3•+d0 AXL Odle .QOM UM d??a NO NY~M U U U 3 m g n? d .N ? d H a O a L G"~ ¢a M d A H A>a q?TNq HO. N H>a G•+q A.~NXHG A UH vaA~.. a•.+ L aa~.+ 9 ~ wQ W A~+G a'.G +MM dOCq ~•~A LHWa Na 'OL ~"ii U ? O -A d dq N NNrI a X •O 'O? A H O a o m z~ Q OOC aw -LL M N N A GTd T~•1 WAYN ~ f0 .ti E d?? O W a a a~ ? g a? W A A W 3 A a 1 m~ O O3 OL O HW> U>UOC gG3L SON ONO W -U d 'OMM N Ha O'OG NI .>'A F d U ii W G T ? d O N L 'O .i ?'O N a W N X a.ti .i a p 00 Q qNA ?GW?'O Y q'OgCa 3NWa G ~ LL? Ch Ni n d nl G A C C ti C q? W g a L H k .ti m M> ti d X? A q N ? M H A N •y H? a N L G 4 N C a aQ m d+~M AN GN M 03aN'D 7Ad?HAM ? O O Y y- U • A d- G y d .ti U A O 4 ..Gi O ~ ~ F LAM dm? N 'O J.1 ~n'D AM ?ZN 3 ? -a< ~ aCA aAN.1dG d N .y'UG GON q? A? q } n H] G n a H A N a L d A A nl a d d q G N U N y p 3 aA O'Oa NA•y N ON -[LU N?aPLH O dati ~C~ LL 2 4 H H?S Lti CHO• d V~•~CN .,OOHy AN ~•~A~n-Ha ~OS1~ A O 04w ~OOULC V TW ON? CA3-AiGC~ AUMWG W 2 O H T O HL61 ?O 'O a •?MO aa? ~•~~•~N ~ d6O F~ - y O d N d M M A > N U L A U L g a L a M N U Q~~ U a m OC~O M L9? H aF .ti?LL•O?M aLd F p O y m ?OG .+TO? A d a.-JN d 3 ?F C~.IU NaL? a N O c '^~A Ha H P A N H •OC a 9 a GMdC N r a ~ d N ro> w a g M q a A L M N O W O L X g a 2 N N G N d 4 M ? O .i L A y W O N U a~ L w 'i G d M N a- nl M ? q q? r'1 N O G C d W? E C m O? ? H N a E U G N A d g d d? N n H A F awA ~0 P•%•G a UZE 9 ACI ~C•y>HN~•~ Odtw 2 dw N m NW? EEdEE OA G AY d G '•~O O GM q~•~L CWX d 0 w OHW~M HAHO HMM}N.qi-i G O dN AGO?daF ?UL TE O d 0]M G7?U aCUdMb ? A3Md0 d O•tit UMyGO ~ U C A 3 d M M M P N> O'N L d~ d A d E N G a M a N H H V Y A G O C A d N A G G N O N d L G ? L A [L d? d N M N O.L M a O C a YHW O U •MW q~; 4AR H>q N FNN~• •ti NMNT'a 4VIW a 0 Mm H~ - NL ON d CN?Ar4 N LdX~ ? d G g ti a F. F Jf O •-1 N N n a 5 4 0 H w N W H O O G q A H d ~0.~Q1T O XZY #~0F Q[~ Y C N D1 d J N c O C d C d Of m a L F y b0 S 6~~~ ;ha mom~,Gy mb~ < 9'„...`am 3q.Y 8~ Wmrn.E°1 .d~~o~. Z-~ y-a d v u s wa.~yQ 'c r-' a ~ b ; oq - ~ c a`o gy c a iD C O L O o d 0 0 u ~ mQ_, r6U yOp w~ a-~ j a m y \m O d m C C d y b d ~y33wf NS)~ L ds=~ E d m .~-m E~ m m o 5 a c mmony~ t~"' `m ~ n Y V ~ m d ~ [di c Q w Od ^ q n d n~ rn c c @= ~iS ab .P g m ~•_-?dn '~7n d 3 u _N 2 ~ n N W N d V y=¢ y ,Q m N O O ~ m N 2 Yml u "'~O NY TO d x n gd V LLI O m m pJ 'r y O U N N S~ vOi U " c- m d- t E d o ] m e d a ~ ON y~ y~ ~ c m` b y C7 2-¢ N ¢ Q i.~t at a,o ~voU ~ y.~m w o d o t- o x s ~ ¢ mLZ nC O~ bONgj m'!'n U V O m d C L_ ~ m ~ Z G m d rymC b ~ W ¢ 3 dy ~ ~ O ~ ~ Tc W ~ Y O m a Y - G Z c °u a y u m w y~ d u ~ O o f vc 3w y mm'"v m d bo$o ~ m ~O dog ¢Y Z WY x ~ vy c ~ n w n O W 2 Z o Q Q i~ y L a Y~ m d ~ S U N N c- ~ a 0 o s ~ 6 4~ u m b v ¢ `d s a m G o v u c b . o c d s w c yq m Y E m ac ~ W w ~ d d m m 3 a y d~ d N U m= 2~~ t c a m rn sm~3 Yr- H ~AOU.c4c ~~wx aZ 4 dn. NCO o'A mn e N A m S u~ 'w C ~ V C~ J m [7 m m a rn N X O II y0 W= ~ dNdw yid ~ N TN ~C 1]mTJ X ~~III Iltl~r f ~ xm Xt- ~ ~m tv.2 c~y3 ~'Ca~ 2~Z t o0o d ~~IIII lo; a 3m`ad ~ ~cm~t~ d-°oa °'O~ mo ¢ o ~ c III ° SOm u;m $dw°`N mvi 'yO ona $ 3`4. 1111111„1 O adY ¢ o a¢@nainw ~~nc rna ow $ w W IIIIII~IIIII o ~°c 0 L m°$ d ~RBr$^„ ~ ' g Yy8i$ ~N m ~ E m y T ry T O = y_ m~ m mm o ~E tO ~-m> C N ,U ~ m L ~ N L •y.1 w• 5• an d > O C N 3 m u0; ,~'~i gt V T w as O 6000 WS a N O O Q L ND T Ja o.a d y.. Z,ov J U~ m a m O C N N m L L- ~O m U mU O U N U N C N N C tL ~ CI i .o ~ n c L-..c a' ° N U O x O n ~ ~ m .m m m m c o N Z m E ti m m ~ c c t o a t rri 3m- ~ Q 5 U L d n L N O C C m~ a'- - Q ~ m O NL naa UN H~C X ~ a N O N D N U N_ C h ~ O S U N ~ m L N ~ C n C a fA y 3 s p m m 0 0> W N N O C~ y d N° m L ~~iiC ^ d ~ a O N ~ C L T>!~ N Q m~~om E~ can auiu~m p 0 N a a X d N N 22 Q ~ F- O c~ ouowo ~ E S~iN ~ twi_ X00 m0 c ~ m m ma ~ naiv ~wj'° J ¢ `1` LLNmsa ao ~ mn`odmct~a y ° J mmy w CY °c °a uNio ry o w 5 3 o c w m t E S O v E m px 2N2 1] NL.. T~ O~ 0~ n A C C N N U L ~ Z ~y N 0. ~ 'C Q~ N o~ riE ~ °NC_wmm mo a-~mN J¢ T r~9m O -z O a U N m> U O O C a m ~L C ~ O+~ U1 L c H 7~ O` _m0~06~DL O'.~` OOOO m ~m OIJ >L= ~ 4 I9 N y ~ UI a (O~J U 10 C t0 N Z C N a m O O N O Q~ ~ C ¢O O O m Y N a l~1 m m m ~ Q m 0 J N N Q; O C u O N N N C Q C Oj O O O~ F~~a ~ a a a a °u 'o vLi - a Jo• in a Y o w v w` \ ~ `o i'L~ Fi~~ rc ;I~ °m ~i1L~ 4 W N 1~ N ~ T O a m L L N O C it (0 U U 0 0? n v m o m 3 0 O Ol y a > n y° (O N F L C N O " a a E N 10 L N ~ d U R n E; a m ¢ 'c a~ a _ m c aim vi 'od Q m m N N ~ n m O .O p Q O N a O .0 N c° R O c a d .U c d c .E x N m 3 o N_' c~ c ~ m y L U C N ~ Q (0 a C N C N O N U O m> ~ ~ N D m. oE.mc ai nmc " aNi ¢E Ov m ~ m m m O1 O v O > N° O N .U a'N dam OIC n~ U C NQ =N ~ N ; j N n m N r J m ~ t n o ° d m E m mmU rnad 10 aNi`A ~..d ¢occo m m~• c~ `mL~E ^~dm al=~~L m N ma,yu L a N- E apt 1OJ m Nm o V N WNLN N f0 mmCN OIN?/ L¢N~a ~ZaN "ohm Eom 'oJ cLN o~~ ~>~d~ .~w c m 9c ~ pNac~>ami_~a7 ym nmm d y N m a n N O ry (7 J N C °e N J U [7 J~ c0 A m~ W N m c m f0 O` m 'p~ U t0 ~ "j O C m m o>°m LLa da a°id yEm =~~°e'cm vaU Z. ~'~co~ L> 10 O L~ N m l] O N O E U 'L = J m (O N O .T QI a t0 va yNN01 OCN COmmmr`N"L J~U-10C ~ N ~p N C C O ~ ~ moms mami E m Op-oa °'fi- mc--o~o~0i p-°- nm ~Ln~mj NL O~ T CNd mmNm~ER ....T dOW ~2 E >.._m3~ xF-Sw ~ 5o=N mU'o'.o-m d'°°-nn~a- . c 0 t0 p m N J J w Q~ p p- J ~ viwa ada mU EU ;W U m c m v c „e ill III °o~d 'N m `ma o ~ II~IIIIIIIIIII~`o ~~Sr= ¢ o amm°' ~~i of a vi cc r;m S~ ~~Ilillllll~~lllllll o'~ N ~ o O t u° C ~ T U y a A ~ cA .u. -En3o3uc~c~,u-O??~.iOi°> cu nm~ 0 3 o' n v p ° o v y y n- 1O a 'C ro c c °c ~ A w 9 vvi L L N vYi d V A ~O m y a N U C L - p~ U 0 0 0 0 9 'O O .'AO A ~ r~~ w r0 9 9 t ~ V O N E" ~ d.°O O E C d° 'O O O O C C C C C n ~ C ~ C A 0 0 0 m O' O G~ O~ w s~ ~ N' O LL 1 c~ a 0. 0 0 0 V u z a e ax a ~y„ o y'~ u~ u u u~ .;e s = L O' A m E y v p E N :O"y Y U w O y' ~ H C C 3 O L ~n O° n N y ° L m A A 3 L 6 .Y.. G U N O 'o ~ ~'i - C 3 .Af. O U y T C L O U U N O O.'w u O 6 N C A''A E U C N Y_ ypU A_.. 'p ~ O g y U 0 0'i? U E a$ n C p N A .~'p Y~ r-C. O 6 .T. y~ A A t V 9 O ,C E m aw ~ z ~ A a °0s 9= u "o s u o o~ = c u E~ m u n A u a_ 0 3 ~ 3 u c a, c o oe=mAO .cu.a °'9mEeono'c u~~"~° ~'m °c A~°c a o c o 'y E Y w °u ~ 3 s o c c u on N '-n V j 6 V O Y 6 u m A U C p U O ~ U~ A a a O u U v i° m t n -T, m u o y A 5 q e 3 N~ N E ~ e A ~ - c o ,v c c_ c E A .o u n o o ° v° u c m" i s v _ `n m 'v ~ o 'v 3 0 ~ a 0. a n .YN. 3 ~ .-YO ur ~ 'u ~ c ~ ~ _ _ m u ~Oa-~A~.y° AaL~>y°V NC ~L•=~d AY.C=~ _L u~- t 3 u y e 3:: u = y oa A c- J ; q U G Y,. 1Y0 ti L N UU O O` er U y .p ` N y .3 > A i O°G COL40E Oa'007V4^6Ow R'3 C9 y>Ny ~ .°°3 .v. :.y a v ~ v a 3 ~ y ~ n ~ ~ ° n _ 3 s u 1°° a ''°°q~~ c . a a ~a 2 a= v a ~ Y a`a4 n=°- u 3~ ~ ~ ~ a c eq c UIa ?~PJ TJ~ F o .~1 ...E = u F v L o y A ,o u y c~ v A c i s ~ ci v ti F u l a ..C~C 2 0 u ~C u A o` c c~ A °c' K t m L l-~ L O G O 6 A i U~ 0~ 0 6 N Y L A ° u p. C t c a U m 9L9 a o = oc_ ~ ov' _ - p, F ~ ~ v u :a 3 ~ oJ' ~e v°, o ~ N1 N N U y' y U N i0 b~ - A J c. o: a rn s c d 'o c 3 Y a, w. o f = s z~ ~ Q v a v u A v c ~ ~o ya° a c a ~ u ° c ~ `0 E u u T o c E u ti - v c u n o o ~ ate'' u E d c W iO n " t u c= c°~ v O r~ !!p$ ~ E A v ovp c n o 'E v° y_ E u G vWi E a ~ O C N u E A d cTl 6 O C J V F N C .pp~ d' $ ; oq is v o W ro E w u °u ~ " ~ m E°. s v a H J~ K5 ~ O-i0 N N V C N O A w? N A C~ w ry° O O t ° > d ~ ~~a o 'O 9 Tt U O ~'U .E L `O- ~ is ~ O = Q ~a ~ a u co-E E'er y, l°. 3 us op. ,y c.E y 6 N y N ~ =C.>O A JOay T=~=OY... O'° UU a y~ u o w ~ o v^ E c a c 'o e~¢ E N N A v v en C7 c - o _ 'E a ^ a o P.yC'~ m c v°. 3 oa j dx cLe-0 S w ys a- u c ~ c° .ce n ~ o n n~ L y ro u x a^ a y '3 .o ~ 'm x u = 3 ~ GE~m~x ~ TL~~ O.O QYUd iL Ory SAY n Q o o3G o ~ s A E y A v m4. o~ s y~°v 3`~ F y 9 E vi ~ ° c n yo c u c y y 3 u C> i v A $ ~ W 0.Fvl~ Q •-•ki ~ °V N nU7 O'J .~i aL.. aA. r%1J" s t RODERT CREENWEIL- ~ a £T- PAUNI RANCH CO. 5~, , ALTERNATIVES I Wowahiwnn PI. \ ~y NInO \ i~~~ / ' i ...c~ ORCHARD-A1ARINE I(aloko Pt. ~ ~ ~ ' YS .COHP~p11DN ~ / .USA ~ ~ ''ice r 1 ~ PACIFIC OCEAN USA ~ pnA SoimenE " y/ I{FOC R II ~ TS. I lonokohau Day - I ~ DF IIAWA ~ ~ O,y PROPOSED LAVE pF HAWAII ~ 1~ ~ I ~ hq` INTERCHANGE IAAPROVEMENTS 'b K i Y~ ~ ' ?p?13~. I<eahuolu Pl. SCPIRf.L PPRSON9 BRiNCNEPIIOff, NO~EIAOER 199]. N PROJECT VICINITY LANDOWNERS 1=1GURE Fd~ 2 IfEAIAI<EI IE PARKWAY Eli SCPIC IN FfEI _ _ N ° F JL C ~ O 0 0 O y dw o~;c a 3^' a.oU o w o 9 U ~ n ~ ,cv ~ c H W 'J C M° N O O p7 y ° U N T d On a c _ E c .iO. r h ~ d ~ h O ~A~A:jS E'~c ~~e N C~ 1) U w w T d 7 .N. ~ o a C s ~ 1 C N u C T. yt t C ° ~ 9 .V .C ~ t N Cd!J y9) d O m ° O ~ °O. a 'oW h 3 .5 o ~ ~ a > F' in m a rn ~ m wO L ~ U t p G T O .r°C d A T v O O L w m m L V p O E; c E Te9~~E O~L 4° Q•C /N~ 4 E 001? U N N Q F4 w ~ 0 'O y 0~ ~ O D0:" o 3A.5 r =>03 a ya,Oy ~a~~ ~qQx, P°. [.per P~ T~ ~ l~ h L W 'C ~J' y v, O Fi r4 O F' ~ ~ c °o oo c o U W v, w 3 ° ego m ° TT Y? R mPC PHH ` G q U C L NCO L R O W a A d 6 ? .N b C G N W O ?W 6 R _ H ]~N C HaL RO NR O ylUO ~WL R W N N .N W O E D• V£ R M ti A U a U A R H L TDI YH a N ~.I ywUq A N G A R N W P A 6p ~N L V?,O! O Ha o A o o ~ o A° ] m ? O yq ..Hi O O R m L T?rIH y -NAN ?~n? ~ R C R H O A L'O R •N O VI H U LA O yL .?i .'>j 2p O U N UL A d O.U! R Gbl 3 CSrv R N R LL R Cti NL.i O~ •.i .i U ^a sL GR NU UML ?LS:Na W R 'OA ~..1 V N .RI N U'3 N lTiY M~lj O NN 'O A7 X R U ~+,y A O ~y U ] W Y m m Y m'O O rv d 'O Z G.N U A rl .N .N .N L L L? Lyl 'N R ,N'U M 4 TR?m 6> A Pfi O Aq C N G > N 39 R O A AO UI HN G{{GG W GL R VI d3Y m NN ~N m W A m TAR U 6 AU CL [LXU T O.H G m O N •m H R 'GNR N O ?[L ~YL O Q?ON R wU]IU Aram d4 Aljm NG? ? O? Y H C R R d G .N H Y .N O N N .N R R U b H .•1 R A N ~N W y N"! ~~O AR L OVw R H'OW YMOI ~N HXG 10 .'I NN ~N O N O> ? ~ Y U a R U Rrl'N O A OUHY A O A RW U•L'O .iY '"IROL HRR H.N L LRU 6>I'N3 G GA3 XW W 33 L"!O RRG Rm ]R~N OLNRL ~N O~Na ~NRCR A~N -OCR U OOR DU HA H.N NRY WRRO.U v1 WW HSAS HHMHAS ]w L5 'N R R N .-I G "I A X R O O G Y 10 A W O m O? L Y P. > ? N 0 7 Y T ] H .i U L R P N S O R C W G] .G.R~ ~ Gd U a K 7.R W G °F'> 7mA] NOONH]Xi~LM] U y H R W q ? U A C R O~ x O U N ? D R ?G rl 0 0 0 3 4 .N S N 4 •'1 mY pOp d? O. OR 600 R ~ .N C01 G Y O H O +i A.lO 'O ..miy yV N >'w OYUH GRABe b~P gRg {{~.~NOO NASgOgOO 11~!~dtiO a..iU a Nd ~R W MA O H?Ia H~N u y'Nm'S. EW AFU1S £OONT e R ..i M T W Y N ? U C O.O W C L N y N m 'N W Y O~N H a A U RTGYC-R Vb ~+INTOHTP] OV R Y w A O RIR R? R L a F agg U R 'J ti G O R N L A rI.CY.IL OY NR WCIlN NT RYT ]O Y Y 'O H A rf N N ~N b O P G gg'N b O L T r1AYln RN R RW a P l! Hrl TN L Y 3 7 AWL RN R~NHN W O L ? ~ G R O U W Y L o y L m R„ V N V N R 3 S C N A O <o RX UVIW UN Y. u~L ]A]R G O w L A aR' NRY H,! > OYrI w N ¢ L .o S b R O U R T.N ~N N A A y N R 6 m R a q N R t •O N N O• ~ T'WI A A '.1 yOj R .Uj W H Wk O"6 .y Y aA0] UHOG .-IR R R ? N ' R W !l L'y A C Y 6 'O O~ C L R ] H L N ~ H N Y N R O Y f d A C Y U O R p R L y Y V 6 U Y ~ R G R~~N O.NO H _TN O? _ ~N ? H W y~ O N R N O R W U T'N H N] 7 O. U Y O R R O O V G Y] R H a W W O R W U O R A N N Y O L y~ {{5~J u0i YYRUdL ~ AAN ~?Y?9T>L A3~ U Y R CG ~µNy1 H I- ~ R y H p~ N A U A... R ] N N O U H? IRa O A n ~ R U i-i 3 9 N> v1EYN 6.N .O OO!^ R ~H? R'O O A N C V S k p C O y R b a Y L .N N U a y ~ R R H N Y „ O Iro1 ~ d~ Y O C L R R R O N R.~ N a t` N N W V? M C N R ~ 0 n Y U ~ o~ y c Y.~ .N Yin G G U~ N] U H O O.y S y'O R C ~Yi'^OI T Y y .,Rj A Q ~y s O H Y; 3~ 6L~ [L ~O W ?Y U C~3 R .N ~~.i A N ~L G IpY N N O R N NH ? ~ ~ N N N O L W L~ L ti y W N R P N G' R O R O N L R F T UI NR G O RTtiRRV R.Ui Y y ~ UR~.>iN 'O N~.UICO >'Ly ? AD N to O M'N a y O L !Li j Y [L O L? O N A> O U W W V y' Y H 6 y Y 3 R W A N Y ul ? A N d P H R A R O p O R ~ XR 'O m N w^T L O YL.N 4IR RYY tGL LY O N W 6 m --Y O d n a O H O P > L N m C C ? N Y N O O U N N V_.miYT 'N Y..Ui ~rR.rm EOIC HAN P?RNHR~y PP ~>C ~Y Yw ri R 4'NR3o3 X Y> OGAM .C R[LR GUa NN RO [L p, 6A w 66LrvA O .Ridy ~?pgwA O. N qV RO"I?GyCi'RO ~O rny~ N yL ~R R .~TIY POOL O _ p' p rt HA 'Z N U a N L U m ti L W A R O O O N? Y A~ R O R Tp N N O U L O R I` H H T U U a Y C U L Y p R ro V b RT N U O RH Orl M L R.N mm PRT ? RN U '1? qR Y? R R V U a .N O M IA ~ 'E F U N G X A M P d .C TAN N T^I R 3 R'd A a, 6 ..,cH•-~NUa L-N oNq RuaoR H] a a a -N ~ R O H > R R Y G L A R C R N Y M C R Y O ~N N ` > N O O G A H Y b R ~N P 'O N R'U C R d R G O N U ' C R' o R R%C tG~ryR H~N GO PRO] R PO mL RC ~ w H07W WS O NW ]In1661fi R [L AW U 6MaUaU 'U .N ~ N rv t s~ ~~i rx ~ ~pg ¦d~ ~ r y ~ s u `s$ a ~ ~ $a 8~=~ ~ .1 of y~~ ° a~Y{e i f gG € s- It ~ p y~ 00 ~ ~ ~YFyyf E~°.b j$axay pp~ u o e a •g1 i°: a Y: ° W 5 =B S~ cgsg 3~!'~i~ $i 2 ~ „~3 ~S a~gE? y~3 8i~t;7 E u ° ~~P''~ d6B6~jiP ~~Y^¢ 5g~y~L F~ $ Q L ~~~g 35ai~ ~ciS o~;'b o g$ S i 2 3 3 i£ S ° ° m f ~ v X 2 ( s ~ a -tea 8 5.S 4_~~F 2ge~ gq~ES ~ e ~ggE ~ 2 m fl2 S 't is;~ @sE~F E° a~ Y 'J 'oi~~ o fii y~ ~ $Eb 9 0 3~E Y a • s~ ~f f B g ~~=z = Sg~~F ~ ~yy^~ y t y s •`yPCsgy u gg~5i 4'~ Sa=~~a~ ~ f_ 3 c' szo„: u ~ Cy C _ q u t " i ~ O o d 3 0°- c m m o~ o a c N~ E o c z ie m x w 3 x °o m - x °o ° u o o 'm E d ° u - - - d ° < ° - E Y E rn - > E__ d$ H c `u N ° > m E o a d cc x _ -~d d E ~ - cad o ~ a ~ A o E v m x m ~ E~ ; d E ~ o m~ O J Q c s G_ m U ~ > m q rn 'o C .u- d d v~d 3 ~>O `uwd; OLL me 0,0 Y_ ¢ ° aE x ' , m z 9° c g o u q d d x u a - v ° ° o m ° E> Y m r ° a m c E - °m a ac a A 14 d o o m O t x g E d m: v E P m a= a y d_ E r a a m d = p_ 3°~~ G a' m m 3 c v 3 3 c` E a E o d c n.c - ° V c a 3 - o E °d v o rv o a d o a 3 - E c °u m- c E v x m v~ j E = V c q - q n E° A E u~ _ - ` a o a x - ~ - - _ ~ o - d ° a _ $ E w u+ a_ v o° A E o ~ c E E `o N ~ E n° N `m - _ _ o °o _ m.n~ ~ 04 2 i _ c m~ xrn c _ a?- a - 'o ; o o - r d E q E o d _ n o c d - - - _ ~ o m E d o v o A > o - v m_ ` ' d n - ° 5 ~ w ~ - ~ a . o m o d 3 E E my m -o E LL Q V m a q i o m s° v E z idn _ u_ _ d d ~ ~ n r n, o r° a N c a o c ~ ~ < _ ° ° ° d a ° - c o ° u c o c v c A ci m c m; a N' m 3~ d- -vo c d O L m~ N ° 7 L r ~ m C 0~> > F N L O O an d c o g o n° u ~ a~ P_' `o E v °v E d x _ O d V d[ m_ c O c ~ V L O J> x 3 0 4 0 d~ d d 6L. G O°~ x L 0> C q x u O? V a _ x° N n u O V d~ 0 0 N 0 i N _i d ^a>x-^ d o cod p cVy o,o; E u c oc C ~ E o c m E y° m> _ ~ d_ v m o e A~ E m d g u w ~ E o d `c q Q E' ? t o m v a n o~ v v = W E~'3 SEOaxadud Evod rn:!S..d d- O W= E Y° o o? u~ m a m ~ ~o c v o 0 0° S° E q ~ m `o E ~ 6~¢~ a Y i n-~ cry d m o Y 4 N a v c E°c~ c 00. dmo.a "nx ° '^vm w w e~ 3 e o o Q c r q o Od ' r u D~ a F~ x o u °S ~ _ a m c > m~^ ~Emtp~mo N _ ° a ~.E c° m °`n a o ~ 3 , C` _ n 3 d a °d d 'e a _ o' „ o~ c o ° u o v i a.-xr = ~ u of yi rnd° c-'' _.°_E i 01 Ei a'E Y o`, c t ~ r F t> n c a m~n~ oc °"m ~ o V2 v ~ ~ ~ ~ Y?~ w; O a m 9~ E `m m $ o y~ a d E E v° m- w c o V; ° a E rv c c o E i n= E ° a ti v u m _ E - d-° QJ In L~ p O p 3 N`° O? _ O a` d x - N D. O C r x > u°i v n c o u i m E c~ 2'u a` E > 'c° p g c v ~ o $ ~ D n ~i >LLa s- ~ h Yv d d E n n - °o m 3 Y ° i n Z via o o E E % q o m Y o m a m_ a ° ~ r~ °x' d d L m` v ~ o 3 m a $ m q E °d ~ k c° m n a o.u E c c a a 3 v d E E c~ c 3 c o;° E~ p~ c d o a D o E xn n d d a t anwn ~ ma rnu°+~i 3 i~'ir ~~f ~ ma y ~~o'~ mivNnr v "c c -O'dxa q o rv ~ ur ~ _ > c = d c c°- m o c' d . '3 " o. a Q N ~ m Q 0 J u_ ° ,a, 3 E N v C O d j Y 6 a C C L C J 0 6 ~ e~ O C N d C d? y s O N d b.0 0 3 ~ J O J a u t d y U a tv _ f o LL ~ i a ~ ~ A i m v a w .dk x v i r p 3 i d_ o v O S U A °b ~ d o - o u m - c~ d d v ° d d _ c..m gA °m >3m ~ °c "``oc vac m u tu°'=3 `u ° m°_L m_-c n..° ._..o a amm r c c ; V°~ n m " a- 3~> 3 m ~ A'E 2 N q ~ S c~ m E° c v m ~ 3 v o c m ~ d E 5 rn d of h o L v L I N a 3> 3 o y i z o E o$ o m rn N c° ° u ~ ° m~ >v ~ a m ~ U A ° ~ m_ d m« E q m ' L~ q E °c ` m -c ~ o ~ m m u~ m~ b o y°> u` r E ~ g m i~ E 'o ~ n d o v m- m ti 3 aT ° LL° c" 9 r > v o e a N m m~ a° o m g g v o m~ N m~ ~j n m a E o > o m c - ° ° E c _m > ~ ; ^ g E v ° m d ~ o U N °v °u ~ ° ~ U `c E ° °u ° E ~ ~ _ m E'o n o ° = d N n ~ - v m A = - ' ° EE o 0 2 ° " . o m ~ v'c - ~ r - E v ° _ > 0 3 0 _ - ~ N - A o o° d° ° f- o d c o E°~~ g q m o h E L o ~ c e n? m ~ a - ° u v ° ~ °u ~ p1 v n o , a ~ > ° - _ m o d E m o d ; _ = E o ° ~3 d a m q c m e in ^ m_ n a° m c o~ v p ti . ~ .V v ~ c o W-; o m p~ e c d m o_ m 9 a 5 N d d ~°-e _ o m m 9 0- ~ N 'o d d> m q u c - m Y q 3' c _ o m _c ~ o~ °m ~ c ry 'h U m o m N p m °o° d° o u E~~ o d O- m m O° L O° > o m 4 d` .m. d W m C m y U 9] O° O N° [ b O_ C o E~ 9;> a' °n o c; c m y~° o 0 o m ~ Q g r a v v u o ~ i _ 5 m° i° °c m o m° u c a n c q ~n E o > V g r v~; N u > O V ° Y O w U [ C m N d rv q .n Y>° O- m W~ 0 q Q N L n c ° L d- L U O d q~[ d y O u ~ ui ° x] m m _ T = L u V - m C O V O N m > g V`" LL A O d N ; O V C m j p n C E m 3 ui O O d 6 J u O 1`n m OI - y m~ rn ~ N yT ~ U p E q u N m 3 m c° n h rv i o n ~'N o U ¢ rn ~ `m C m c c N k o m 3 m e a e° a A G ° 'n a`- d m° c m m n m. c< d c~ E L o a f m m m° o g q Nox d-Nm u`^ o ~ 3 °"o' ~ ao=E m mnoNa> oN E' c_'c c c_ 3_„ `m ° o a g - b 3 ~ 3 v 3 o a- S p y C N u;° n N x m C m° N m n C U m - E yi ` m ` q O n m~ m N C°~ d o - m m m m ~ C y C N 0 U d - C ~ d L A 0~° i O m O== q? q-- N D O b N O m- L p~0 ~ E t m m O' 0_ E- din -'°~no nt'ga N~ _ u° u N d u E° u P! 3 c~ a ° 'i o v - m m°~ i E° n o o - a m u M1 E n m t 4 9~ m m m i A a 0 Y~ ~ o ~ o° a c° m E» c' , F= a-°~ N ~ ~ m > - Y ~ - - E ~ O p v - o 3° O n q° = Oal u j x 0~ (V O T° q m d °O_ ~ ~ m > E` - o d n ,d`o s 9° m- _ 3 9 o g m - v o w C~ L p j O m> ? q~ V ~ ~n ~ C~ ei j« q N n a 9 Q Y° ° E- n O C` d O>> C V y Z K m m O 9 E V o'- ~`o E g o m° E~` - m~ y E o - r° m ¢ v_ d t y _ d c ~ i A 3 m e m f a m u Eo ~ o a 9 q ~'o ° o~ " m ~ m E o °'Ea = V- Lz°°'E NO doAV3u'"- 3~,Amy 3E v o rE m~~' me _q_Pm _Vm9 A;y yQ O?'~ucV A p d o E- ° oy E° qml ..2° ° ~'qy m~ m df ~D E v n~ q~ - o a` 3 E c m w o w LL o A Y m m 'cO m LL ~ ~ ~@ y u' m m A n m q ~ r° m u - E o n c_°°$ o i' dE ~ v `m E _ > u V o°~° 4 o O? E O Y1 N O On r N L ° o o_ rn°`_ o o m a m i E i u d ' v° m 3 A _ NQ c o ~ ~ o o °'m t~ z o = S p av_~n c v ~ x m 3 t i m - E ~ ~ - _ o`m ~EaE cn 9 nE urv°om -t p°`o-'-Boy°- -c - i n -m cd o i Q q o q° 2 O d- o-~ O1 d d c£ iJ 6 c g E 3 d _ 3 o n~ LL c rn o o; o m o«_- - o o u - N N o S S N ~.N O c_ y t° ut o° O- i Y U rv S° d ° ° 'o_ ° v m - 3 ° ~ m G ° v a` ~ ~ E ° E ~ ~ ~ ~ m ° « d Y ~ . a_ a c E~° a> 'o E E Y L m> m m 4° ° y 9 Od v m m m» q m_ d- c 3 o d = d ° ~ m 3° E v N d m d `u c a„ n p c 9 - o_ ~ a 3~ .5 ? v° o i` m q_ a q_~ LL' g 9 °c Y u 'a o~ L a d o - o o ,°e d z° m m° in . a~ N _ o N u o m `o N = o g q m o 0 0 0~ E ~ e m° a_ `m_ c°_ E L $ c q~ j m s 3 o d o t c' i a a o V E v q L ~ ? o N m r- _ { q o o ;.3 o s c V u a o m Q.m u E N o> m?> Q m ° E Y; c = E n° m m y° i~ A a q v° A~ W~v m r° ° ~ u o o v o- 3° E; 3 c n C q p¢ m o°° w p u E 5 o a$¢ 5 C u ~ °o a E° n 3° o m a c u m in°- 3 `m r o~~ m~ m m d' u= E c_ ~.n_ n° 'c ° O_ m LL V r . _ m ' ELL c N u a E o.~ ~ $ rn ~ c ? - m ~ d o am ` m 3 °c o o A _ m - - i~ ° c f A w+ u° 3 LL o v i o~__°-°- c. v m o c i mu v E~ i ~ n _ - n - _ E w v o ~ o °i °m m u w ~ o _ m i d aoo nv -u d zc $m ~ q1O ~d m m 0-uw ac c w v p1ax H- ° im m'" m ~ ~ opO o ° v ° ° ~ A°m e$v`"" ° m E u~ c d- m > m O p o c c m d£ E Ld ~ L P¢ w _ ~ p O _ y n w O~ O d N P G- N r N L ~ E d 0 ~ U ~ b d~ C p F Y N N O ~ O` U w_ u m _ ~ d ~ q C p p J L N a m? V A O P _ LL O O C° d 0 m~ L b O N N d N ~ O O N 6 .L. L d LL w C~ ti O1 m 0 in M O a f d O~ N V O N ¢ U L L L p~ Q p y ~ c E _ E ~ 3.° ° A E '~w moves E 3 a c-°c ° _ q u c Q m `mO o> a N c c L q a u 3 c Lu c a m ?o y _ p Y n o V E v o° 9 0 0: i E q - ~ 3 a: a °c v E ~ - _ q ~ o o m v o ~ > _ c~ ~ c `m ° a v~ c L 0 g > q g o c L _c v g m v m m u p E 5 a i °a wn rv 3 f m - o.c E _ o.y o E. 3 o a° v v o o ,w w° °1 E- U _ o c° m E g, 0 0 m n 5 ~ ~ ° a °'w d , p o E 3 - ° a w~ 3 d E o E$ t q m c m o° c N c ° m 4 L Ain m c m rv`° owaq ° 3a E o cy ° 3c5 W w b i P q O a 6 O V y w n o u d O U LL y~ E- ran L L u N O C O ° C 6 E a u 0 > L O D O p° 'n F v' E L y L b q W N ~n d q LL; y O A _ E O = O n « F ~ w L _ ~ _ O U ~ > _ _ L d OL. ? y Y ° ° pp 0° Y C d w~~ C L j? ~ d C E i t C " c ° a- c n °c t~ a 3=> o- a_° o z P> c V E ~ d v a; o c au o m° o~ E c u~ E L E c o E c° `°O d d° v a w ° v m E d m$ ~ d o E m: E o u~ o .d. ° o u d d G m m o; v _`c o' E 6'>~E o o° c o P q u v v a m or o n n° `o t m v q p N d m V y w d~ 0 y 6 U d y,d O E y d m ; n L V g d N V g U U N L 6 Y ¢ d _ L O p w- _ ^ L F V upi DC .E ` 3 N A ` uwi ~ Y V d O O o E w N 1 m q ~ d yQ°' O a w V U w N~ VI q `p O O~ U A m - m oce ° c G N° v E `d > u ~ - L m c E d op° _ vi too i=ce f E _co> E o d_ h o n r 3i E r A 2 t-U xd? f- E'er °L 0 re e .n .o ~°nx9 `o o v~o °v co °'u - N m e Sc`° `o_ v c o c° ~ m c w° r o c a °m o~= q m o d o 5 m m o m E °o 0 m A o A wm a o H v m c 5 5' a 5-_ rn E u o ° n E E 3 2 c y o o q> ~ m° ~ ° w ~ v c a - c F u+ a N c? d q 2 c° U 3 v_ , r °,c c° o m m fl o c ~ - o m d ~ L Q o - ~'o E p° d a o` m F m V o c ° v_ o 0 o i- - _ ° m_ E ° o m a m = _ W o o E~ w w~ E 3 v° w o' o_° u o w? m° o L x m m o d m N E u o m= - m 3 _ A ~ n° ~ rc v m E`-v p 5> c y o w- _ n~ c n 'd ? v _ ¢ o w rn w L 9 p d L g m? n d~ 5 d co a o~ g o-- a° cm N ~ A vi E o a D c `m V N - i o n ~ 3 v ? c m a N o 3 _ - d m ~ w m - c q d E u r n v m o c~ v v ` b i wd r c~+ 'o ~ - L~ r c n d o_ rn m>$ A `o v c° ti° a o ~ - m 3 d a u-- w a o o rv in m ~ u m a m q ° m q>° 2_E m u c 3 w co_ _ c o ¢ = E L m° 5 =am ~ ~m 3 mm LLL O'.,o o;; mac-.. ~ ~ v ° o v m~ - y d ~ a v;_ o~? S a o d a m c `_w q v° U' B _ m _ P m ~ y F ° T°? N ° b q ~ x p O y O w h~ U _ N _ m LL a_ o m o~ o d n m °m ~ ^ i-~ E p g g an d n a' N o n> u c E - d a d v ? u 1°. c o m o° _ o v _ A c~? o v A g d m m=~ a_a m £ o ~ c c o a s 3 _ m~ LL d m v>~ N> m m c x q a 'm^ > v'm m ~ 5 c ~ ~ _ b _E o~0 9'~ C w c d _ m O1 d Z o' j a E - m_ ° E _ _ d co g L¢ o E c_ ~ E m a~ ,°e > c w a - °a o m° n o c a o o c c; o °v' 6 c= '0 0 3 A o o= rv o o c o o v n c n v> u rn n~~ 3 A o y E > y m q w p 3 d a_ 'c y d d c N c' u m H E o d y q S%= c o o i vo a q o 5 y i E- Y o a _ o"$ v m v v d m 3"' m H° 3 u °1 o c ~ i d - m 9 v = c~ v o E N ~ _ ~ ° a Q« F v F~ n~ A m 'v m~ a E E u c i c E v - iL-6 rL 3LL °_'3 `_`-¢°EA r33¢x ~ ~ m i- 0°3 ti5LL ..53 °n> Zwu° - rv T C m O O ~ O H H E j m ~o v ~ ~ ~ o h r r r y r » m m u LL o~ - .y c ~ c c ~ r c z c y ut v E v m - ~ m° m m w v ~ d O a N F 9 T N T U~ U d U U R v$ _ e 'o a o 0 0 E- E N E E ~ i a „ _ t t r r r z c o c_ c c ~ n n m¢ ° ° P. E P 0 0` a ~ o` ev ° o p ¢ 4 LL d 4 R 4 m~ m° m° m rv N ~ 3~ - 0 6 a r a n n d a o o f o° a° m m - °1 o x a n °u °u ' u° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` o ° c° °u c° `o ~ w v o v n v n ° v x° ~ + ° E - E d m o m - ~ _ m a 3 m u° o ~ o °c o c° 0 0 00`0 0 °c ~ `v o ' ~ _ ~ - C ~ ~ ~ r - v- c i E i c i c x ~ x `c i o E c a E ~ E x x a v 3 v m E m E m E m E m E m E ~ E~ E a E a m x y ° a ` m _ x mm wm wo' woi - wm - - - m = W m ~ m ~ ~ .-rv rvai not am .vim n'a° e ` ~ ~ A - - ~ o O1o 0 0 0 'x~ m q o m° o ~ ~ ~ ~ f °i ~ m~ _ o o _ o ~ Q u" m ~ m V om m a° E= A a A E v E d E° q° E° q° ° r ~ Q n o v m m m ~ m m 9 A m m A m m ° m 0 n m q a> - o~ a 9 0~ 0 9 0~ o~ 0 1- o o o~ v v E o ~m aF - ~ u`o a`o a`p n`^o is do u`Q dQ a`Q a`Q ^ a' x _ v° m vo vo 0 0 0 0 0 0 o vo `o' xv _m° Sam Wo m°- q°- A°_ qd Pn and qn uau om Vy cif ~ vm 'vm vm um dm dm ti ` ti q m ~ 0 3 E - i w Z w x w x w x w x w x L x c x r S t ° m o m ~ - c ~ v _ ¢ = m = v: = m = ¢ = m ° o o o um'i p o m m Yo a ao E~ m 3¢ 3¢ 3 Q 3< 3 a 3 a ? v 3 u 3 u 3 a 3 d q P m` a u o" u' t i o` i s i s i s i n i n i s i `o i i i `o i m i ~ 3 o A °a 3 0 _ ~ o m v i`n E 6 ° m n > ~ v 1 o °a~m _ c o _ = o n '3 `o `o ~ -a °u~i ¢ NN r O - u - t. ~ u m E y N° . - U u O ~ ° u O V b ? Oi ~ ° V - 9 0 > VI ~ m 1L W Y a L E C 1~ n C Ot ~ E O p n C A E v ° ° - v ~ rn - ~m~E x °u 3 0 ~ F o0 =m o~ q E ~ o v o _ o._ _ v~ o ~ a A _ i d _ o - _ E~ u n o `o f o a_ ~ o o m o E y _ °v °0 3 m ~ rnm` 9~ca _ o = o„ a p v ` $ - ` E a ¢ f u' N LL ~ a o N F V E r u LL V o v>, .dcD c H 7. r v ~ u E o k u v E ~ ~ 'o' s o''pu L V T C O C N N V ~ ~ Y Q `V1 v ~ ' V y 9 $ a ~ Vti v W N r AA n t» S A O ~ rJ 'J G t R O T A° O p m L ~0m T V~~ C v N lZ Y y m uy u O ..O-. L C H 3 O C UO T r3 6 .y 4. O' N N~ 0 C V U N N O L W j y j~ ~ ~O mM C v p C N 3~ t i V 6 u N Vi W lal y 6 O ^ 9 P rV r = V_ EO ~ C p C 'O P E C[ O 6 V ro a ~ a~. c ~ » ,n ° u e s m o m ~ ~ - v O .gyp n o° o Q a o o h F ~ a v v E d o S ~3 e n o_ S S Ec' ~ ~ ~ ~ x c c ~ E o° a Vu' v v 3~ E z°.v ~ °y 'o v" ~ r ~'o o v v~ o < a C o 'O j ov~ o o ~v .f,CO a r„ 7=a~~ c -~°3 0 6 n C ~"S ~L S~ F' O 9 u ~A, O L n i - E a W u A v .`°.rn E ~ J N y LLl .n ~ ~y o, " E u N _ ppg0 pp <n V 9 L EO m ~ V 9 O ~ °x ~ .E W C L .D 9 9 9 9 [!J W V oS ~ O ~ a H ~ O~ V~ V~ L y 9N v O ~ ` ~ ~ ~ v O 1 O9 00 OY 00 00 y y V v e,~,~S~Sggb. N W ~ _ ' n n^ ~o a s c'o a > mm ay_k E 9 v E ~ rn tli~ W wwi aU _ c ~ ~ z o v'' `o r; ~ c H c' ~ v' pc `x E v ~ E E'O ~ 3 w .w NO~~s_ uz °.v dza a a ~ Q QOm Kp7m C L v Z ~ L y m J V W 'o i! C C L ~ ' w N o..~ c _ LL n e zo ~ 'C _ r s- b ~ ~ v o 0 o j vc °c 3, - ~ c b s ° d _ _ n C ~ o N€ E .h n n ~ 1 ~ rn d° ^ W 5 0 ~E n `o r o E o, a A " ~ n~ 9 v° ~ a y b -g E 9 4 a o e o o ~ Y ~C 3 0 } a m p a~ c b a rte, ti o.z o u t a c m ° y 5 ~ °0 x c ° 'd S y v a ` o V N ~c`Y.° v ~ Cu ~j E 5 ~'c. o,_S o i-- N~. vx'u- tea, V 2~~a2mc~ o ~ ~S 4 Y. ~ r~ 08 ~u~~3 o~s~~ u ~QO~~ ~~g~ ~~~,~.8 ~g ~ xRR~9, . C O O a 'A 6 O ~ F I4 W ~ Q a o ~ ai~ b 6 ~a ~ ti ~ O 0. p NI u p y ~ O f] ~~g~+a~ s.~a a X47 eC( v° a~ G~ P ~ ~~j m~ DY ~ A ~ ~.[ur 4[. T Q so~ ~ ~ o ~x Lamy` &w~ ~ ~ V y q ~ ~ mp ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W W ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A 0 M V~ O i~ q~ U p 8 ~aW~§ > ~ oar.. aqi ~ ~.ttd ~ ~ o 'y~9 ~ ~ tl ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ g A Pz~~48 ~ .~.sba 93 ° ~ o Ea o ~ a "~~~8 N m O 'd .p yp 99 y 0@9 6th ~~s'. ~ : ~ c ~ u6 p 3 b ~ o P. .O p'~'S O.T, PA. .p ,O'g ~ y ~k~O~b V ? k~~~; ~ y 3.5 ~.5~ti. ~bc~ A. m 3 a~ U ,per 'a ~ o o r~~ p ~cy7 0 0 0 4 y° ~ n& 5 ~1-'.`~R.'C gx.' .O~-~ U~ 9 ~ ~4 V Z.~, .'7 C.T. ~'O U~ W T ~ W.9 Appendix B.2 -Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species a q~d° ac -"°v 3=ob Aa~9 m oa w4F 5 ~ m d u ~ ° c g 3 N~ - o o q o m c- 3 H °c 8Rpap ~"d ~ qPm qn ~ ~ m m '^U y ~ <°14c umm n `-gym yN°p GNyO NCNL BONA m,L4 UVJa Oy0 ~a i0 pEdm O° m 4 3 d L_ 0 y~ ~ d h E E e€ ~ m S ~ 2~~ 3 w 4 " d m E c ~ c~° ° m d g a v'`--' Z m h i m O~ 2.C _ '2 ~ d L a y c~ q a y~ g a`- @ rv n c E `o p u o i m a oa =d ~ om~ da~~ Cd.o o'm no qoP rnmm ~aNo nN _ea°'3 m~tl 2r a_" >-aa SN"" r°"-~ mmso nA Zvi 1°-yL~ rvY -~abE LmY~m ~@_. maiOO o`u3 d$rvt mao °m'i¢° N pCE bY1~pL °1UVOG_ OWN Jp ;N cOmU O 9Ne O y u F T 4 N C 1x O o N c ~n N ~ b- N E a E d `m ~ g c c q ~°o ° < q m N E h = c - c c~ N¢ 'ow rn° Y v Ca m m 4171 49 m 31- qm 31- ~ ° y _ c_ m a° ' » ~ a $ ~ ° a m vy n' m c E ~ b E H ~ n - $ _ 2 'o q° °QON~ a9~ggW ~ufi° of mo p~nv Oop-~ om a~~~ 9 o Yo9 42zV~ b3~2 3.mm n~q? = c_ yoyn pocm h rn E v t 4~ g o v~~ h ~ a u m i d= 3 3 o s c 3 b d g v y av d ? m ~y C y U T t d p qC S'1 ;~d M1NN° NYGE C~pON N i`-QO C d~aQ `oti wg$rtb mE_mc N° ,2Hnp EJSd o`c'w mu d4 oo b O Gp C q. ~ J t N C V O N ?j d p ~ j° O H Pte. N n m ` d b V Nb C Y 2 c q Z V~ d F C~° C_ ~n a N d T° ~ N x t p g y N Q O N n ° L m N O 6 8 J j 1 ~ O V °O ro A d b p 01U d cY ~u$ °u ~ yg Vi `2 C 2p X09 N inmmN m ° d v` m` > i 8J ~ o E~= N ~'m 4 _cm o a o m m~ v k u-- j_ b ° c - E ~ P y° m ~ ~_n ~ ~ oN < r ryy c o 'c~-° c m 'c m d o d o N ~ `cO = - No H u W L T Q L~ ~ N ~ m V L d C m y O m N m m D E @~'a a$~ma `-ZLd~ ~"e3 $d$° 'mmEd gD`~ t'a oad S~ ~ vA - ppS~ ~ c b c i n- 5 a m g o a g o ~ d_ g~ _ w- m- a w c o q o w z,i u Z N 6 '^E v° Em ° oNu_Q =`o gmcLd °-'c q03 bin~2 Elm ndCCwn N ry V m E F Z A T 3. A°d OR C N. V V p A- d O C d C P 0 V D d~] N w rn A° o w; m~ y, ~ E a E ''n p ~ Q_-°_ a S i c L m~~ m ~ Q O M fY U _ r N LL° Q e N Q V_ y~ 4 d m~ 6 Q~ L j r N~ u j _ anq mo'c_2 2•° o, m=o F E ~ - _ - _6_ 3m=a c°m_"rv obss Ex'.°~~ °~do bmbi z ~a~ o ~E~ u' u = ~ w m 3 = v - a q m - b c v o_ m o n v G _ m t w „m - w ~ m c' n '-°_rv°a _m $=d~ N a3~q V - m O d O _ a ~ n d C m V~ d y L w p b x LL m m ~ o S p o O a o? ` E d = r J g vi c c E ~ b E S m a A? 3~ n N d D a¢ E A o y ~ m g T b ~ E m Q; a° E m a n `u _ n d m : n' ~ m$ o < N N ~ c 3 o c E g m n -'o m n~ v m S o t Q•V a u w o ~ NEFp1m ~ `o a~'-c° So~a°o' ~ u ~ « m o aya'. a o~ ~ x m ~~y~~N s,'AA's ~Eo as~~g ~~p m d y O d EO Q q A d g a N ~ O~ m Og4 3~ Ln a m _ _ ~1' - d L - d d ddE" 4P°~ `mo`b= I m ° r y~i° v~~v" ~sabs ~ NC - ~ ? ~ a rv_N~c {yoW OgN Ddo ~gEoy q ~ C Q ~ ~ -O n C N J `a_- a R M g C b d N O 0 0 m me i 8 F d°_3°rn 2g'@~i~_'w °d - - n rv 3t _ - ~3 ? g m waN°~ omGSw`m cmo dZO=S Za i q $ bN 5`o°ti' A~~ ai m c ~ a ~mo~a`o oqa ~po @$q EE ~ o y~y" °m c y¢ y y° c o n u~° b n ~ n aS rn i a A ouu a y _n` q~ q d c' E co_ = 4 v E' V C r r ~ d pq G Q 4 m N j O° V ry a V - ~T O 3y - L _ ~ N a 4 O C O a~ d N d F' 4 Q~ o G -uri qW V g b e 0 N N j Q C t p N ¢ c F s ym o ~ a ~ ~c<m ~v_ ~r~o r~cY igvno LL u o m u°. v u t~ v~ N? i d rv d an d °u O ooH - 1 V ` an ~ x T C-j v "Op0 =TY~ gcmi o m ^ ° m-4m m°-' E~ n ~Ec-A~ c " v I. ~ ~ n V ~ Y L ~ _0 P A C° A ~ O J B ] C w :m j w ~ ^ ~ =oE~ °p~ `-u°& _mE _ ~q_ r u a - ° 3 u m° ^ pCC1 ° m~ m i° of rm o c_ 1 2 - ~m 0'0 9(]O? OL;N3 a. V1P r O OEmNm gjGC mOY2= „ m°s°E Vi=a ai ' t""°m ~v o' p` °yv""^ s>"~ Etd_° -D=LO _ s m ~ £r-~ r3t N °aEmo°"° C M ° ~ c m c n o¢ m r e° _ 3 ° _ 'JG ~ - m ° ~=`m ~$~A 2~caE m~aO Eo. c q ?.N _ _ m Vow _ -r y a LL OV ~ N F v ~ ~3wA mpNw rv~'v ° my _g ~ i~ a.oP N.moF'n °oxo (w~q= n ,.m,W ° n° c N c~w$ _o°o~q m~69 v'~s `o °n _ I d C 9 s °5 iid n J °d: ~ ~r n~ q L' o - T ~ R C ° t vi w - a °n a a Q n N o~~ ~O P m ~S ~ o ~ E o ~~5.' g33c, o' ~m°y -nW~~a ~~O t °c °m m na^,a 'o mM- ` r ° ~O m~`m 9~r xVi~ m Nm ~c ; 8 m g °J~Y 0r^r 5pp-p ?uo~E c$-OOws m O ~ ~ ~ ° L - O O 0 2 2 y 4 6 = i q a- p^^= C ;t s_~P O m ; c m 5 y n ^g E° 3 E~° m$° i u ~ - C'o q mza^ co.C_ rv o,o apm c~'' pnp»q - 'c T p1 ° a ~ F p A a 0 C T O m L^ Q C 6 ~ 7 m N m _ L ~ a E a F t o~ m o m ~ a o° E; m n m_ _ Q _ u° U ~ ~ s r fcE~ c"om of om _°a~° n° mm mm v°i . ~ r ° o °°o wnrv n a$ 'y ~~vi°iaN '°Nm c a° o -d~ J °N_d w oo o ~N tvNN~N~NN y~ °N1p~~dn ry ° ~ a' ~ T ~ tai T t d ° > V F ~ ~ a > n `wiw~Nmmm~~a 2,.~~22~wi2m: a-° E E m° rv m ~w~~~inaaa ~F.¢C & 6 ww min inmm~i-~~`w aon a a a i v`i n _ a^ 0 a co o co u @ ° a E E r EEm 3Y~ c ~n ° ~i i^3355c co cc 2 ~ oigm ^w ~o ~ m m ] d m c $ c'd is 2i~ o n"' - U~4i ^ ^ E o 0 0~ m z° z ~ i ? I w w w P V ° O m C N N - i o L u c c ^ o ^ o f w wg ~ ~ w w w ~ w ui in n ° v o g. mcR ° O~ m ~ ~ ~ m = E r ° o ~ °~a aryry m ^p~ ~*o ~ °c d ~ n~ m 3'm m m E Eyy ^m a ~ ~ ° E c ~ x~~ m~~~pp~ g c x ~p ~~c ~58 c o ~ u 3 ~ ~ m a UUIIE2Q~4RCN°P -~000O~I° ~ `a `n a` ° 'Yi y : ~ 3 w ~3 ~ ~ 9 ~ m : tea? _ o m» _»~.;g ag"°_.;go` m mfg"" : o Y~ J~ ~ E~ a E f `lm m`2E m J q m o m o 0 0~ m ~ m h o c c ' E s r c' o a mq 3'-p°oq nR -p°q!`~ ~ e `~u _ri `~99o0 ° $rvE ZiY YYYY3 YOZyYS3YE~~ Y Y ~YY `13~i ~Y YY f6Y O ~ Oq O O •Ot0'i N N CIN A 00 :ngo oo ooom o° moo„ - :d "1°o ' _ ~OOn _ - _ - - a - o - a o I c m •r V2m°i>? >?~°2~~ ?m ° o °c?2mnE>>> a aF>>° ~ NN~NNNN NImNNw U'F NU'nVl dnl/1 (AN>Z6NNIn ~ NN EEo .4mw _ EE vivo mam m.€s~m~ gm ,mmm opt - c'"~ c o a - E _ _ ~ - E o 'On E _ m _q " E m g - iY <o qo ~p 3~d~.~ c m u = ° Y9 n q s - u ~w .c D a m E`a °m~4Koc t'e Bqo ~ ` iuav 2 ~ - °mE m om mc'i qo wnnum '"_.g °E av~ m'm ~m~c' _ m eta in ~ N F R m m G q C N N C y O~ p b N O N O C p p R m R O n f m V D - vu` uuuti oouoo w`c~ 'te`a aa`y~> ? ooh - - _mbmmm a= _m omvo m °a - = m - ~ _$i~~ p_=°~crmm cMrn ¢a~ E m~x~_ '=~~cocc~t q3 '"pag -a' aE '3 mem a Y~- Ya0002_O `s3 O r bqY _ __a c. t 4m>>; ~ n o z LL i m v - 3 3 ~ 3 g n t o"m m con _mE~O~_ pAO- 4Ay ZOSfO~ZSYYYYxYE00YY E o _ - e 3 r m 0 .R - Z c m O y v E_ ~ _ 3t~_gqA = O W mR oo NA _ Yr"~C? NSO ii - Lm` n6~ OO~nt~t~'1 4 a m 3 y m n E c ;~°„qwn oLL 3c~o ° - ti I _ aoEnma~ Ao°V_- -°m°~ ~ aria ? o° m ~@no nn~° E _ ygycaaE m ~°n0~ _ ins `w m" i=vti v`i0iz xzyya ~ d q m g E o 0 o S q'n E3m~2-3 3m` ~a~~ E"xn A~s°u m"&o9 'Cam = pzz°~~ A'mz z° iz°z z'~ - mo'3 --=„fix `m Z.a 'E$o _ _ `mcaY OO A°m° `om. rv.°~_ ='a3a- E ~c `mo E~nm° w ww~ w- ~ o _ 4 ~^mm -mYN~m o~'T .~Da wi o Ew w w o »dy°Eo to mVm3 o_°a m_ m m~ $ ~ v~8 wwy ~3 -ctim~imn - _ n _ "c m m m'o~e~ emw o c 3E Y c m ~m-9! riI E _ u N io o a. c~ ~ _ m 3 3_q C U C q - ~ O N n E~ w~ 4~ m c o~ ~ i u_ da. ~~m V=N 9 L m nq e ~ O ` OCRC Q I m O i a ~ b U Z Y IL F m N m 2 q~ E C O V O C y~ O U ^ a m a ~ ` ~ V G m V m.w - c E o 2 m - _F z °_o $ m c E~ c_ c c c c c a¢m_ odUZr°m 3m~~n Omm n oU U U W,^RR~ '~'~h'~ APPENDIX C Historic and Archaeological Resources . Appendix C.1 -Correspondence and Coordination . Appendix C.2 -Description of Section 4(f) Resources . Appendix C.3 -Fully Executed Memorandum of Agreement Appendix C.1 - Correspondence and Coordination L a ~ 0 3 a o^ O YY11 U tqa' ° O V L ° O ° O 'C m s N L° VI „ 'S V !9 V~ F Y W fml = 'S Y ° :T V JO .C S ° tl 'S ~ C 'q4 ~ V . ] F Y C U ~ ` O V c} ii~~ C y 3 V 1p V E imL FLw 5 O ~J ~ uU T V 'S ~M y ms~~ w qyya 0~.p n tl Oa !f~~ u ""Y 9 9~y .R ° 3 ~ Ny' ~ VGYr3 .J .O~ Y'4 5 C L bb '7 O gg a O ~ y ~J ~ ~O O C °~^atl~b5c'a.~ a,.E ~G.5~ aEi+o 3530 ~wS ~o S'g v° 5 O ~ O 7~ Ll~ m. bN 53-$ LS y u x m b ~ o ~ u ° m~ e s $ 4 tl~ °O m 'Ae$a o. Fng ee "if$~C a'gr ~a~,a ~!h a~'p c$ a ..,o> 2 m~^ q .a e~rv ~ e o G b 3 v 2 ° 'rr~ 3 ° ~ ~ $ $ E '~E d a 5 b a° °c ~ u ~ kp ~ o` ^ o 's .5 o~se~~~~ 'y `o >.~~o 'g ~mm5 0€~~ -f79~n^93 °Y 37 ~r u ~ ~ pbp 3'30 0 $o o e'~w° ~ zp B~a.5 i 9~.°pOe vun G.w5 ~e ea G.o$oEj us~d~~Ey~yr Cf$T~a° a ~~¢~ji~ 86°° h.~9.~ .a°9.5 .5~~~$ am ~~~QV V4~S`Ci ~ ~°.p ~PM°u ~~4p~~ `~Vwm G~ a 3. t R 3 m'A~ g ~ ~3~~y~~^ ~b~Sijn"~,*5 e,c 7 ~y 7t5 abo ° ~ S~ia' `o yo eu «GCTp'~ L' ,iC'g hg ° ° y C E i' Pi N 3~ E$54y ^4 ~ n 3.g ~,^°Gy u >o~ 9 F ~`2w $ : S~~y'S3 n2o2 T C~~ 3 e< ~°r: oao u FO L~~ 2 v X a. ~ w Cy a g m~ a o e L geVC O~ C .E Ed y m Z a~~~ O V CCCr ~ 'Gi a u O p V~ a w t R V) p Yvo`o $yco+ CCCFU ~5v°~a oa m ~ 3E ~ b ryu°1 `1~3 -o v 0 0° Y Y 9 f m m 4~ G O Y ~ ~ ~ V F y W °-b'~'~OO25x'~u $ o ?_b a$p7 mY E~3'a'a<~.r.-mac a b~ a~~ 09.2 u r C II o~ g e M y+ ~ ~~o .r. a s o R y~ r L u ~ E e4 ~ c ~ ' m e a g u w ° s° a $ °e u ~ ~ ° v u a' pp p e m ~ m~ y E F b. ~~o 5g'x3o~OcY~o` ~ rah 3~.5 av9 ~a ~00'S ~a a g?`ua3 tlu~~y, 'C $ `o Sy.6. ,nb _ 3m oe Z' um~~ n G 2~ o~ yo ET°o ~ E° °ya ~0~5o dw tls oo Vc°ei e't`c7 C 3 35W ~ jj~~4Gt ° ~ ~ ° v s Y rl m Y Y VY tl ~ ~ O C O C W L u V 'T C'^ E u 9.3 °m r$m~3o° o ar p'aC 'a 3 b C w q c a 3 ~ m ° ~ v^ z u u 4a i`- coo=$mG a~'~$nb m .-:5:~~n ri«.~ a -3~~ a°23`d^i-5 8 g m ~ ¢ey s ~ s ~ Y F~` m U r ~ o o 'd ~ 9' $ a ytyy£ ~ as ~<~~S ~~g i"a$'•to>suo 53 ~ ~ yy~~ O ~UG1 w ~4 $7 gg ~ n 5 .c ~S ~ ~~3`C~ pp ce aq $,~3 '2$r au~r o?oE 9 r.l > '~~o ~~~~s='a .9~raa Sa g_ag~m ~'R'5'°s~~rs~ 3~ X77. ~oS.'2 mu8 oE~ W j V m 0.S 6Q s 6e s5ma~ S~ ~ be Z'~ ~rJC'1°b s' 9.q€O°d ~ Q ~ V CS N ,fimae ~ y°~E~E ~~5 Cq 5' - ~ 7a~~5 C•`m7 3iT'~2 t°~ S s3~y `J g °C« o 3 Z FEW ~oa~~~ 3y5o~a,aG mE ° A OG~m ~ ~ 5 mb q y~ a ~ 2 ~•-9€ 5~ S ~S W Z ~ m ~ e~ w o ~ C ~ a ~ ~ A¢ ~w °u ~ C ~ ~ tl N o Q Q s r ~p q e m K^ A! Z 7 o w yxo y~~u~ ~ma a.~~uN° m € M i ° ye Z C~a67,u a{li' ~ `6 ga 3o u ~ uc p L~9 f4 C° o^s°~w°O3 X31 rt~o bccb ~~3+a p9 a s5+ ~'~~a• EV~F°NCCi~YLtl~ N r O~ ~ ~ ~~Y e.S u~C .So; a zaz: r 'O~ ~ Ala V o om'aa •~E ~.4 u 5 C ~°Hmd qq ~q {q r 5 v°i .ac a F S~ Q ~ w° b o T ° v $ q r o g~ ~ °4h a.~a 4y 9?~'.5 bS 5 nNv 9~ a~ ~z a q~ ~ ~z g~~Y~~SS~ ~ y ~a 4 ~ ~4 ~Sik dz > d ~ 9~ ~ 8~L~ °a ~ ~ ~ d~~ e $ 4 ~ s e sae ~ ~ .S gpz~ yr 8~~ .`9 ~ 9 ~i. W k ~ ~ a o Z m ° @ ° ~ s ~ ~ i .9 ~ ~ " i L '~y ~ p g ~~:y 4 .y ~ •0~ W ~ ~a3 ~ L $~.e 5 c. 7 ~ ~u r m 3 a g .S 8 3 a~ 33 ~ m~> S ~ r~0 a8~ ayllas ~9 T OT' eq E 3 S'2 :3 ~ g ~ ~ ~ u ~C ~ $Z$ ~ ~ ~`.a~ s u .g ~ a' x = } ,X $6~x~Sx ~ ~ <o' ~~E Z23<~'~ e <e >~jic 9 ~ z ~g €g 05 V V p~jppT A T y T X O^ ~ ~ y .0 ~ GG .G6~ ~ ~ d V ~ w ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ .~C. ~ e y o .5 ~ 6<~ ~a ~ YJ C a 3 a S Y U 3ei a a y'83;~ ~~'sm9~3O~ 5 . pab.~ 5 3. Y 'a~a c s ~p92'".5 p~j Si°c v'r~E~ ~=u °c 'a 3 S rT' o.e ~.a 5 e7 g`WOn~y°ooo:a o II o `J C o c'~v ~3 ~%~g~ a 3~.r~o~~€~ o ya ~ `d3 m 's Y.Y9 n ~o .o s G a c V' e w~~ .5 l u o v r 'a 3 t 3 5 ~ a 3 °r ._:,a3 ~ u~ 5 e 3 3 ~ 3 `o Cdr ~a gSir.~f Y~ co ~u~S ~ S~ a~ e$ ~.''S ~ or~3 a Yv' e7 Y 2 0 .ao3~ mY Y,~ ° c ~S r. o° P7~ .r 3.~C~3 o'gc .4 s _ ° a °.~p 2°'Sa ~YB~ `a`°z g~ ~E .S °O°o i4~uj ~'Y a ° ~'r^'du .ri.~~aC ~ u5 ~ .~j e yyyS w q L X{~~ p upp T O~~ O O E > 9 y4E ~ L~ ~ Dy rl ~ O W O ~ ~~Op57 ~~gp6 yYYiS~md VYD~~1SQi34F ~ t1a Y„> ~'ee 5ww ~`oc2~$ a3Ed ~o5~~ c y 5 E~ °c ~ ° c s °'z C 5 5 ° S e~ E q `o o Yi ° d ° O° ~ 4 a a p4 Nm~ O O m C C L~ o BEY W ~ n < Y q'J Y ° ~ G °Y~ q' ~ ~ q pppp }C~~ ° Y $~i d ~ Y ~ V ~D •ay> QL ~d 40 Y Y C.mG q9 .O 'Z G.~ r C A~ TO (~~jW Si Y ~ Y ~ ~ y ~ ~ MM C ~ r O. Y s C Y ~ Y' C' `C . a~ n5° gr BS .o 3sS'~ ~ ;~„3,°ro'~.a 9:2a So 'o _o V r .1 O --~~T W U O e r tm~ Y ~.i U Y'~ e C r Y G O C a m O r .Yp r y C Y~ V a T~ m y 0 T ~ m Z O YJ! C JL O 9 O~t rq ~o o~~ 3 0 ~ion3m~ s'S ct~~ E u~~ ~.m e C a O $m "o. ° E n~C r445x ~s H : w.~'^ s u r'a a 'ate H D:n 9 'g ~ .s ~ $ ~ e J y ~ ~ . ~ O ~ ~ ~ E ~ Si ~ 8' ~ hq ~ ~ R g ~ ~ ~ b a r @~S ~ g~~ ~ ~;I a~~ ~.g ,gypp ~ ~ ~ ~I SSggff yy V set a\:.so~ .25 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~i~~~ ~ ~ z~- ~ ~ a. Y s r 3 ~ s '$9D g ~z . g ~ 9~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ ~~y a~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~5 sg p a e E o ~,'d- `o a ~g$a~~i 'gg a Asa. ~5~~~~o a 5 ii ~SS4 4~ T - - C C a) a) J T Ca C O C a) C a) O) la 12 Ili ti I a H .� 11 g Dr"F3 $�. s iv I s hllIiJfl . giiVhui1 i : lati JiflhIflit 's3 � 6aga b it IL ii d L o ?HN ]N . G C O ro C ro d fi v o ? Y O N M N?HJ? N q W ; d C'O d ON> U J '.~-N O ?•N 'h 4 3 g q C J Y ; A O C A udzH E C N d O N d N T H H>.N W -dd C N d > A 'U q H Y LN Jo roaam? J ? o N d C? AN d CMA yc O.Ji .ro, g A A J A n.duu> d b G ro 9 q d J N ? d '.1 >.Od CA X fi H q q • O.Y 'O N O W d 'Y A >v H O L' N N wL?co. Z H O C d d d U'•+ Y V M U g N d d q ?Cfirod A A q'N U E 0 A C m G O' d a Q y d AOL W d ~ .-1 ? W c d w m o d ?N O.O "+roC E d .p' HNNUL b1 H p q d H? EW aaEgro S U q' N Wr i m d C C d N3 P , 1' N ? N O' N J J N U O q A ^ L LL L ..t ~ N d N U •N q H d ? N ~ qq O „L N UG O. EdSN q`-' ~l ~ W L ~ U? A d O? ti L N? g d C d V 'ti w U H T? Y C q'N G d C 'O d H W O '•i O p A? N p L H Y N O ® ~ J C Y g W d O' W E U A d d d ? O g d O M> ~ d d d N O m C H C m N q N O. J q H >~N'n V ~N Y? O O. q N N ?CU'tiCq dL'ti 'NH C'O 'O dMCHY ~ {SiS~ U •H gX.?>rENq L N Ap'3'•"Od H ~ hH O. Ct1C E U ~U ON CO dq? H 4 E c ro J 4' d H N q O. N N Y - H Z N Y O N Y4 dVl>?d YY dTd ~W CL d tt S N 'O 3 O L C C T O C X N d d O d? O a r[ qd uO'W? gOSLY E4L O'gddC ~ Y ? U O N as Cq qL ? IT ?'O q0 gR1W CH?? v q _ m 2 d U b O. Y E A C U ro O. O E C d p O. A N p~ W L W O E d d E'ti d L 'ti A O ? _H q H O. A ] O W `l C N Y H; L Y M H C Y H d 'n C -a N (O Y N ~N 1 Z O U Y J N O] d d d L'•~ O U A >.Y Wa0 N ~JN? N 'O '•~d'tiO X NY ~NN y roA ODH ?'OAdEC UL?A ~ NO 3 Y rl H > U C? d 1+ O 'd C? U q N'N O. ~ a q C.N Tl L H V H 4 C d O C E O'er d J A U M d G' E q; C O'O Z4H d'nUd w? HOW C 'O C]'30'H p -N p. ~G Z O E O C VI d U O N O O. N O d'O q C IJ -VI LO~LO J ONCU?C OUN ~C C -A W>'W A .+Hd 00' U ro O C g 3 ; ? dU~•~ H q W H s a a d'N x Y „'•~'ti J E'O N N> N ~ d a dH 3W O'pA >••i H?O4L dp q C?O. NaG „3 GN NC 'O JUUOX 3'H dL >.qU W GW as x>iW O.q m J W N31 M d H O UO Ua6 HHN 9J L LNLY ]'ti >~q d'nd •O ZO.Z dAY?HOH d ?q..+0 HmHAJX O; HY •Y :J O d W C W J H d d A'•~ C W U E H A H N A C O C O W H C d A O O" A g C H U > d N A G d C. y~ UYF dHH; N dO J'•+N dL df.d A q Wq ITG HO >.C dHUmw~.a lY'O dWO>. Y W' ? a Y. I• C d J d? p > q 'N O L Y q'tl ~SH aH 4'qd dxUq;~-' ro duUA LOO?d 3C p ,'L q M a O A C O L Y H p d d Y Y L A X A Cd LL aaW TN Nw ~J? UOL 6Y - YYT14 O W d J W y H A'•i O d E N d W? N ~N d C q C A C O O H O m X H ro d E E V d~n d N G O? L C d a o C ]G ~ C'.~ O C y 0 A N d U Y O 0• ' ~N .H O? U q 4 U N Y? d q d? ,p, •ry ~N N O.'0 C q p'n C 9 L N U N N t d N J U N d H g N H N G H ~'O N X] W dOgNLOd qL'•~d J Fd(L?]UgP' L h H O. Y d? ~-~'n 'N Y J H d A ? N A N C N H p m OHO 6 H O M P E d d d U] A O~ H w O? g H p w d d'N O ? H C J C O d C O ~ w vai a [LO Ua> O. m O H3L? 4 d? O''.+U `f qt L G xAwAUOU oeAw f < i PuHU PT. ~ SZ' wANANWAA PT. H~N,~ NgMC£ 5T. ALTQiNAnVE 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ KAIAKO PI'. t ALTQtNAT1VE 11 ~ pYn 5T, t.~ a ~y ~ / ~ HAO KUN ~ SL HONOKOHW BAY ~ ~~'~°~llY NOID PT. HFOC ROADNAY SP1•.HQIT PACsric o OCEAN ' ~a e KEAHUOLU PT. KAILUAI-KONA T H KEALAKEHE PARKWAY , poo ® EXTENSION ~ u~xnnn~s to AHO it i i 8 ~~°3y ~ wrv u C c t~ eJ i m N C d G ..qi q~ O ¢ Mz Q `5 ~ 2 rv ? 1~II A N N. 3 ~ U C G N .~..i J q L 7 q ? W g ti Y 3 N £ O C % v TN dNNN Lq NCgO J C E C E? Y O ~'O v E U O O U •OX O~Ca O m G M O N G I C N m G q O~N y~n qq -+Ye Y C~•~> 0 7 CYi? P U O Y G N H G ti C g m N N d x U W n d N q q N a Y •E n~?.y q YX d O i Z a q'OY .~.i Ti p~ON O £ gaQO JwW C 3'•C~m3 i .i YL O O> q W L l~ti ~ m C v U 9 g 3 E G P A P N Y G m D Epmwq m O~ 2 Cqi~•~ <Z .N LtiY 03L>. N O Y Y O U YN N~-~ Ndgq q 4-JCS E 'J3 JMWW =Sy ~r E ~ ?R1oNE o o NE ~ LLf 3 rv L > U C~N F: w>. >~N CW _ OLLF } ~ W L UI O?~•~ O W 3 w..+ U, i.rl> aZW S ~ N~nU WYwL c o Fd ~ 'O M P d N ti? N~ J N O N b~5 N Fdt E.~ ? 39 4YY 6 h O m q W U L? L N IT L N E q t v 3 PqA Y AC YM~NL 0 r X N 3 CIY N q W qFY y. ~n H XT?Q dN NN GY d O~ q H li N q J C G H C C ti q q d C ..i N ~y Y X q q ^ .N q p Y U v PL d d d U~ d .i W N L N N ~N m N N A 1+ [V~ X ~q U> q N O`L 4YN>.q fi a V, q >.U 1 N 3 q 3 X C W O C ti Y D 'O T £ q Y p g N L q N q X U q -N b' Y tiN O E Y q apy Z q >.C CJ.+ YO C \ C T pW .N ~ W Hq.N3 HEC OU ~ q O N £ Q O N ~N q ? X q N q E q n ~O Y W f. q F q.+C Q cX ~ q0 AN C^N 3 - L N L ~G O U 4 q~ O T O q m CM~•~ X Eb.N9c d T UN hH u g Y] ti q £ U 'N ry g W •a N 3 N U H P~ 7 N ~ O O .y N 3 F J N d q N O F n 0 N N 4t WG9rO q NO gUTOC qUJ NN~.+aC W OU O W 0• ~O N ~ M d 2 q TI ~A q L N b q O Y fO U N • J O ~ q A d 0 Y J 4 Y> A N C q ~ G r X M U N q~ in q d J N W? Y q 0 N N O N ~ .i ~ N ..i C i` EO UrX o m 4do qm>? dUW dY Er N -'C~ W I xAwuou oeAw sunxw RDac PUHU PT. ~ . WAWAHIWAA PL wHq HIKIM~ ST. ALTQ2NADVE 10 ~ ~ ~ ` - K11LOK0 Pf. F ALTFRNATIYE 11 ~ MWI 5T. Q S l0 ~ HAO KUNI s 5T. y HONDKOHAU BAY ~n1.~~1iy ~ X07 ~ON~p9 p,0~ad _ i~ 'ss HFDC 't ROADWAY SFLNEN7 PACIFIC ~~f ~ o OCEAN ' ~a~ v NEAHUDLU PT. KARUA-KONA N KEALAKEHE PARKWAY , „o, xoo ® EXTENSION~w L7' utFxNnn~s 1D Axo n Q go #EG adoq~ W rv u a §D ~ 1 1 O• 'O q 'O q C O F~ ~ ~tyY'a S~ 3 0. L q E q .•'1 C q~ C i 1E ° ~ _ rv ?N wa~Ul 3 ~UCF H •N .i .ti ] q L ] a ? W a N? 3 q £ O C m% a L CNN a g c a M T?daam Lq HG O 9 qEa YC m.ti ~E LOE O E U •pY ~CeO N C H O a G I G a m C q OM?'~ qq ti?v Y G~N > O ] G? I Y P U O? C a H C •y C g m N C gY.gWXd O~ti q 10q d U ~-I q .1 4 v .~I ? ECOVNa ?Y. d01 a 'M ~.1 W L q O N Z F. ~+•OK 4~? -UI ~.Gi NGmti p q a O] w a G 3'N 13 F N O O> T a L H N q C q ~ q 3 q NA O`O P f Cm C a U'O C-L H '-IN? C -a 9p o Eoawaa o~ xGq'n 3o ~!„my ~ Cti?03L O ? l__ • SS ? O U ? q 4 ~n H d a a Q2Inp~ q 4, ]G E ]3 'JNaa ~ _ r E ? O O a E O O H E 11 LL~ 3 rv H > U C E H a C W O C a O ?.n O N 3 W'„ N OLL ~ W a'~UN?WL C O rl WOF 4 H O F? a 'O -IL QZ $q 'O Hb~d ln.n? 3b 4??? 2 ] CdLE•~ j q ~ O t O q ? a N ? N~~ Y p O N T a U?? L a m L a E q R h e 3 b~qA ? AC ?H'tiL r X N 3 a? N q a a L? u m M XT?R dN PN C? O m N HH•+q ] C CH CG•+a Pr a q? d O O ~N q a M N? a d G'N H M ? )G q N A a C a U a P? a s a U I~ .ti O G ~Na H~~T N aA ~ H X a ti q a PG H? T T a E v H g A U q V U 3 Y F N] C N L] 'O m £ q'•'1 N q q a A aXUq P Y•-IP 'J EY ~ q a .H m N q T rl N a~] T O U T [1 q O .H p>m ~ E a H q~N3 H E C ^U q O N £ N O q a X q a q E q IU ? W a C gUeG W nx..1 aUH N~~ FO .'1 3 ~ _~O a W C O q C% aG k •O'ti V G a N U] H h H H E g O I N ? a q a "I N 3 N U H •-1 N] a O ] a.H ttlq £ U tiN3L ]N d q a]CnO H ? N l0 J ] a a O g U O C q U] N rl v L a O U O d q .N H ~ HdS q'O .~q L'•'IH q0?m U a •30~-1 N A d0 ?JH H>A dCa.~l-. G %H U N N ~ q a ] H w Y Y g O a'n a O a •y a'n G w £SWX o In 4d0NVI>Y dVW dS Erg- v1 -d'lo W \11 ~ l o}ly$ F U O _T in CO ~ p p~ U r U 'U' O U N O °S O 6 O A 7 V~~~"~~ ='J O u 6` E 6 J O `o~r`u, y.~3u~~~'~Z~2~E~ '~oE U u m pp c y C Y~ O ~ C T' CCD L C U N U u S ~~33 V _ ~ 9 c ~ j V o~ a V 3~ c~ a t i E ~ r O R_ W O~ L~ m'vi ~ Y. E~ ;'n V {ry UZ 'v d c o L' ~ v o E 's M ~ itl c u m C~ o c a ~ cu v E ~ a~ ~ n m u t u °.3 c m~ E o ~ m~ 3~ ~ a p. ~u' a < mo.~ me m c 3 ac n ipa v 9 N m~ .E a u w E~ 3 u c c `o ~ p g b v o. ~ a o v~ o E v g W°. rn 3~~ o a v v° ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~ e r p A 3°N a vV U aC p t oo A 6 'y" a E A ~ ~ v U 6 C V~ L. U q Nt.. y N E$~ 'Z U~ N rYii L O N Y N rOn U C ID `O y A T C C A O. C O V] ~p O {~j$ CL1 U D U r O O A m A t L a O 7 C V L C C G` a p'O "yy V E O Y 9 K C F D E 3 O'C. JO C~ 'E O OU q i r-n o yt. U A? _iJ .pi A F ..L° m a.n ~ m - Ni t ~ E c N Z = O O E.G u E a o c t o ~a 3 0• c~~ u o v ~ L v U N1 V q~ ~j U ~ v ~ a c am: p v ~ o u F l° A C _ c E t v T u ~c c ~ v v u 3. p 3 F~C -y c c_ ~ v g A- c > - c 3 a A v c L E c$~ y ~,r V° o. G V u '3' _ 3 a p c < S ,C f.l 6 9 O T O 0? D O U C U V~ p, 3 '3 .OAO v O T U Y-+ S w U 3 R V m A~ > Z R C U F b V b x U U U ,T. - 9 V U 9 U Da uQ O~v aNSU3,° ~T 9F-,E av of 3LL. E~~ _ > vi ~ u 1 ~ 9r 6 y~j ¦ O pYi ~p y~~~5~ ~ NP 9 h{ T y 5 i s yi gg§] U o v o ~ g e~ ,e 3 'fr°,. ~3 ~ J ~ ~~Cp ~qq3 Z O E > ~ v 3 3 0 ~ E .cA. 'o R c ri g ~ ~S 3 30 a v E-_~`°Y S i s u mN °_°.CV. A c v cG.t A 9 ' ~ r O ~a ~ t3 9 ~J9 v~'6^ ~"EOm OU CA~rU,vaa'~~ Y a 'C ~ L U E O N y r .n O G~ N N J~ V U~ A N O O ` O d a>~ F U S~ y ¢ OC i O v L C ~'i U o r O A F> N a~ u ,Uri N 6 ~ U S T C¢ C~ Or N a u a~ p T 3 O'n C0 N K L O 6' VI L' Z~ .O V~ F V~ O c F 4T O? S C~ a V R p a ~ _ L~ I C o~Fn ~ Y V1~4-FI >`a a~OV L'.~~tr~it AL Oinr ~ 3 <~6 n'. c O in ~OO TZy rU $$c3o~~Z~O F x r p u a U N d~ C A ~ C Am G u ¢ °~~'i' p. ~ ~ V Vy c¢ c p 3ab~ Zrn 3 ~o_¢.. E w~~:i~ cm ~ g>-Y °¢ata .u 'a>-:~a ~POV_=2 o'`mn i g ~j5 a a E o o ¢ta ~ i 'Eo x ~ i' HL i v y ^_.`_°a N O i„C O ~ ON O O F U N A u ro N c F S m y C O U A C~ n ~ N R T. A~~ C~ E ''O' A ~n U O D CO m t/ V C- 9 ° ~ A'E ° i Y E S ~ < N o~m ~ c o - ~ v ~ ° R U d N u~ t o o n~ °m a ~o m v ml m ° D _ !E ~ o A U N p T V U Y ~ v p~ ~0 p O O m T m E~~ d U Ue 0 is Q .~J y C G S 9 U Y' O N u O O_ p 2 ~ O f _ L D R. V L O. m :C Y ` O P ry O ~ L .n ~ 'U' N U V_ L Dt. ws ~ Y G A '3 C C C P m ~ jy U O ~ N q A ~ >i VT m _ in _E `1 C ~ °or- ~ 2 U o $t ~ 1¢ ~ ~ S_ u v c¢ A 3 t F' 3 3 _ ~ m~ ~ 'v m .ru. ~ F- - o (n u c o > _ r L p a u ~ „`o v °"r c~ m ~ o, u A R H U v> m 3 0° N° ¢ a E P o m R m a s Y C N m N J T N C O C N C W m b a L F 4 ~q~}~jN !'p~y 4A35}~ T ;'"3~gpuyyS id N0 ~9 N O L 1; `~~£Z~ L q N ~N jC5 ~ u j n ~G tK IL ~N bt.YOSO N Q ~ 3 C= N C ~y4~ r @ o N 3 ~ 4' qm~ ~i ~ .~~~v Z = ~ t m a E~ in j Cu° pgo ~ 5 L yy O N; N 9 J ~ Eg .p m ` a m H~ S !E ~ v •B `-cL' U "3 c c V p u~ £ 2 a 2~ ~~~QZ '~~yE u ~r v ~ a od m ~ o a W v m a v 9 m m~ m a u v~ d d~ q ~ an d _aI I`o ~u¢ ~.~o.a0 m WO 2LL ? € m 5 E Q a'~ ~ c 0 0 LL U= .y N w e °oo mcc.2u a vN.` E ~ C OIL Y - O U c Ol C O U O O W~ s Y L N O 0 m o O~ c 4 ; U ~.2' ~~o ~waui `~oU of n~. ~~'u N O 0? 8 g¢~ c o~? c b~ g = e m 0 .4 5 t m m° Z m m d~ N v ~ N W ~ v 'n N m~ p o o E m N b a 5 v c n ~ Y m~ N W.y: (Wp W CY Zn j aC V N U N N N 01 H O C O 0 Q~ S ~ Z C 7~ v~~ N `m o ¢ Q S v rn a~ [J v id ~'O t C v O m ~ e ~R4 y ti c~L2`q vi ~dorc'3 =m ~m ~ ~NI~II'''I O) O N N N L J 2 ~ OI N O d ~ C y N~ N ~ O ~4 d N m ? """''I~1~1'IIIIIoS rd a I I~ 5 ~ o m d 9 0 .p L 'o m 0 _ _ 2 J L~ y~ 0 Z "N d'c L E O 9 U~ ~ OI N N W Y ~'r„ T2. O TN CQ C O N G Oy°u IIIII~~~~~~ I a - w 6 O w u r b° u o c ~ H o o c m~G E c4 O CT 2255 p W V Vl . q v L O O` U V 4_ L ~ ~ d u ~q{ CQ O 9C u ~ ~ p~ ~ R~ 9 ~ N ~ I C t~ p ~ CU A yC > O ~ \J\)~ ` L U ~ T ~l v L 3 z n. m u E = H ~ f` o .1 L~ r1° Y E u° > w 5 aVc V ¦ g n e v + MMM ,OR ~ °r~ c O 3 3 y ~ E Q3 ¦ S OC G u eu~ r u TE ie i ] 2 Qy T. 7_ o V J p Y ~ u d p L p ~p o ~E ~ 8 Y k yy (E~ yK~ U U o a o "d u~~ u t QQc a o E 3 3 S ~ ~ (S` 3 C ~ s S ` U _ 3 N b -v. N y N 6 T S i ~ C p = o ° c t ` a ~ ro N>> ~ p N ~ O tTi N Cp v~ Q L m (__j U j ? ryC a G W G N ~n 3 C Q G L U 00. a C R 04'.~ O. V$ N R G C V u V A O A R. p c'3c._ W 'o ~ S c a n~ v c-v'. e a j i c f~ ~ ° .u. d ~ c ~ w.E r d F x a, c L Y 3 s m ~9 v w? E i o 9 v Q F ~je-gg $ .3 R ; o ` u uu.m ~ = - t - g °p E ~ d E h ?i < ~CS 2€` 8 R L R ~ 3 N d A OO V 9 9'~ LC ~ R a 4 j Q 2 y ~ r^ O s p~p~ T. U ~ 9 D C O~ O L _ _ LL~ ~+L N ~ .U.. R P O a L C U J C ti C N d L j a r w i Y~~ ~ ~N 7 aY e'"oE a _ ~s ~o ~ o cL Gyy u - o Q S~ n y L ?4 C P t_ ` p ~ O- ~ L W _ N o i~~ C]3 3Y~ o~E ~3~ A~$n~T~~p Eo~ry,i ~ K R a~ r, o~ 7 ~ °3 ~ c N C N~ y en b u u 9 f ` R L L 'O N V a L O 3 .T-' t ~ E~ C7 ~ 9 e E ,cc 2 ? v c I E r 'rt 1 h~~ E v Lo O C 6. ~ G 9 ~ T O O~ lL uF 9~ O~ 'f S i G u O L y4 ' v ~ h c U .G. S 8~ O~ V .X E n s E~_ ~ v 5 c r N V J d R b c ~ R v~~ n° S r 5~ u~~ F. ~Y O= U C F 4 C 9 $ 6 A G G A V. A 9 S C~ G> > f. W v E~ °~Y c E E L o u m m c ~ K Gag 2 O v=i F O u. 2 ~n. $ 5 ° E~ rt .E o- X n 7 pE 9 r ~ nrcelar."uFgl S r Ilr,at t~ N ~ >`C Al! i r • `d, Z ro.0 I ly' yC 'O V ~ .2 ~ 9 d c ~ 21 1 Iyl~.°+ 0 5 .S N ~ m V E~ N m C O r• IT H d M C N q'c d L Z m d . UN c N u y ~ ° ; '~h E II~I•; ~ 9 v = mw ~ v c a 9 ~ IiFll " lAl CII f t- ~m o o °nN Y~ o ro ~ ~ u rro ` T h p tp O P. c ~ ~ m W q c m t d o O. n o n w~ 'F .n o _ > Q O J C C N `I L-, d N U d N d_ m m L N W ? b S GU ~L Z 3 ~ a m ~ v L v c ° o d `m =Q rna ~`c av tv ~ d~ 5 ~ N G ~ u o N C W W o o L N o } O~ ' m a j a L 7 u C w y q~ u N M pdY 2~ 6 j0 U N G b > ] L~ m g pj J = y-Y ~ u g y g m e w o y m c y G w Y o~ `gNT~NNi Y Cl Y p_ c O m N W t'• ~ 6~ U d m 3 .]-I m m F q Q J ~ d N N ~ N~ a3 d b 9CC d •]i 3 CYy Z 0 .H T s 0 ~ 3 O O L S Q Y ~ C ~ N ~ ..Ci C ~ Z[ Y~ d L N o G 000 'C N Q ~ oQp` 5q N m `p• t ~ u V H p~ N h ~ ~ yqym d Q 9~ Y C u m O OID r N i d y S M I. ~ UOm~ W S ~ N L O O m O~ ~ c m I L ~ C a4 YQ m me L L m ro~ y° o~ N E'n w wp m m F E E o ~ ~ c o f E y N o _ Y Dm c°. Inc m~ Eo ~ ~ 'i ~ o o ~ o o: L m •C J O O 0~ ~ C Z T N T C 'V O 01 n c o c m U ~ N ~ W ~ E c S C N m T 3 > C > C yl V > > M 9 e0 p o~ 5~ m?I ro cE t... t_ d c ya m 9 m J ] N J m d W J ~N . N J Cl O d O ~y °qA TJ TE O•Q LO TL M Td YL b p °Z ~~c ~ n aG z > Om z t Ow w ~ ~ n ~ o m w N ~N '-'v a6 S V `3 YY` N 3 ; ~ of cglvl Y ~ ~ ~$p ,o.lA r. fdP`.~~~lii Hl y 7y b~ ~ ~ n N 4~'~ rl .I:.. 3~ i ty~~~ M N C rl dC? ro f• y}'*~~ jy yy~j~y'p~ oW - Go ro n Emro ~CC U[1 ~H J~I 1 x . Y[ ui ~8! ~M~e~~ N. ~~-I 9 u 4 N m c ?IIIL'. 'Iry R 8 k t° p F 3 .I n ? m? m d o O ? m] U rl. a a°u o ~S 3G3 q"I LNLN 9 d N4E gnlAF:ni q(11 .I q ? L ? E ? U rg oo tl 3 d 4 N>. ? o G G 3 i z K q 9 u o L 4? G d u o y IO d d G? O~•+ro U O .I N'n N U N.ti T U •w NOdTd 4N NG w W qq Up.ro'1~ N ] ~NN4 q N O O N L q N G G U N q m ? O K ~'y Y ~N O N ~N L N 4 ¢ O U 9> N Uti WAN .i > 4 ] J F 04dro ?9 ]9 4 m q 4 ti g d N 4 L? O P m O 9 Q m ? O Z C t E • G N d rl N O O d A o[ o~ '1 C m PY ? C q N~ti q~C~ti > N a]~~ a O C C. O N M A C U O? N N 4 0 9 0 U 4 O C q C ? ro L + 2°~` q Y? q N ~ W G d ro O F O N L m G d f 4 ? N q M q ] H 3 N U m ? S m N LL 4 4> m Y 'ti9 O ro w ? E qo q J O a (~s_ A O ?4 w? UdU d2 NOd~n 9EE dti 3 ~ 2 y M j E w d N d % C 9 L q L N m 4 O ~ O q .J m m N ~N N .y W ] ? m V m U C d O S a U 'N G „ d O> > ? C N q? d O I w€i d L G N ~ 4 ••1 U O V 3'ti ro d d T ? d L.N y p s ? U 0 4 E O. q q 4 P d? L E 4 N 9 N N m 4 MF 9 OI ~O.m ~Nro ??04 m'-i Cn H' K•e~i N 4 U qJt q ~>Z 4w ] N NL> O N N, .y W ~ O W '.i S 4 .N ? d 9 q d D .N ? ? .'-I ? L /~~~/r f w >O ~4 q 4H ~M9 drill U••+ ? ?N U r !f ~~l/~. F ? O H p ] O N d 9 d 9 C L N Q y' C K N tl d 4? w m E'ti O .N 7 O' q I~"/I~f„p/ ¢ S N d m'N Y .C 9 4 d ~ E d O w UI 3 N P N E /,,1 O5 P TE m5 ?Y C GT? EL O~ti 3 W 4 J~~ O O N? C. Jf NI >~2? C O? ? d ] NG d ~ O p ?34 Sm Y9q mm-Nm U G Gw40• C .l ' Jr Z F P P. Z N E q F M tl ]'-I M q> 9 U S q v R FS? p~/1 UK ~N Nw O? ~?q0 OG UY N4 L O F 3 O P O C ] d d N .ti O 0. E 4 O 9 U q? C ~-i O? N? 9 4S q m.. P. 1C W S G ~ti d? U U d U 9 0. V1 N G q X ~ E 1] d? ti d d 4 q N ? d 'n O tt ? L c m E m L d tl E „ q L G w q Q [S[C S F W W H'-~E m 4 FN4~~ EF? ~+S W U 4~ S T n N D O a ' _rn ry D N m O~ O V ~ T U 111 ~ Q1 O O N 01 - V C u ~ o v o- o~ V N d LL N N O N E 1n ~ C ` V ~N f L 1U N N ~ O ~ ~ v W j ~ O ~n L y? Q C u ~ m n m s m m n m m ~'n E o o E O L D N" A Y ~ ~ O v Q C 2 L ¢ O N W N O d O N W 2 V E ~ W N z ~ p1 v V p N J N ~ N 3 °6Eo°' 3 ° mvs mm n N ¢ n °a ~ 1n 1=i 5 mw a'o ° o m wnmI:m c~ ~ Z i_o !1° c D~° 3 G o¢ m a w w m o v v 1" ° t T U m d N ~ N W L Y N D c_ ~ E J D O C T W E s L _ s O N E N a m-~ m ~ 0 0 m m_ o ~ Q w a m P a1 o E o ~ 3 c i° w~ ~ m p j C p~ m D C j = Y O 0> Z d - j O O V C UI ~ D O D¢ j W V N N D L v°i O N W T O N c s~ 2 N C O N E W W W L N j 1 IU C m I D ~ N D L D T O~ ~ Q V C Q nl Z O OiC D m~ j] 00 U N N D N N C m~ p m O E d N ¢ p1 C O D C O v y 3DC ¢"V pm° ~ ~ aa` o my m Q ~ Q ¢ LL (n (n m- v a m o `l~ ° v o E~ N L ~ v J s m w ' m> c v - o r J i ~ e~ IIII~~ my>aNZ sv c'~ as WIINIIIIIIIII r~ ~~~D no F~ ~ o ~ ° 2. .c L. 9nNNIIIhNN~~~ v o T- ; 1L v - m mm° a, m1p `m _ o " n wY °'m'z m ?n~i~rn o f ~y t_ 1 m a- o m v .,1 m s a v `m ~ o c e n v m (Lj ' s° w w° b o` - ~ m D ~ w ° L z O ~ w m m m ¢ c D °-`m o S u m - `o > w ~ m m v E a c m ¢ ai o~ c v fi; to m t w o s o o a`~ ¢i`n o ay ad m 3 °1vv ~dN vi m ¢ v Err V w ~ m a u¢ >,o ° m a ~'O~o1~' - ~vo a `o ~oouma `o m° ~ w o > `m ~ `w x ~ w ° ° D ~ m m m w m °w ' ~ ~ m S 'c w o E 5 o D m o r a v m O ti c E$ t ~ w °1 ~ n. u c m~ v ~ v- _ _ i. u t ~ ta.Et mNC °m o°iaa v mD d m C m D V N W 6 UJ U m j E V ~ o m- m 3 v m ~ d Y o ~ L m o o c h T K Q - ° a d o = o E v o c w u`. E D a Z~ o o~ n a° v z ~ v m om m `o o c 3 E ~ m E v a c d_ o E c_ oy rn °o °i p'A°'r; ai m°v 5¢ o'`mo°F c y Y W D T ry ~ > .c L tau tmi c S V u! p v L m ~ m 3 '05L ¢ ~EmO m-_ v c ul c 1C a- O V1 2 N j _v N 3 Ol ~ O S Y O a L, L O O V U N m C N U m n p~21 1n a Q c v"i ~ n o 9 >c m m d o N m ~ m o o m c~ ac, ~ ~ - m ° ro° _ d w c m `a1 a~ m h o m w w t m T ~ m I x Y m m - O p,~ _m < O O U c- A O i f , i m V y_ c m y g a v U a W v n o D c ~ a1 _ m-~ o n c c v III III o: ~ rim j Iii c'o m°-'E~m .'mw~ ~a a u': ~INIIIIIIIII~~` a n o 3 5 w C- 1n ¢ x ppp u- ~ n `i ¢ z 1n NIIIIIIIII~IIIIII i S a x ° •a' a $d a~ o w a 9 a 8e a N 5 v E ~ °o ° •a ~ .E $ ~ ~o ~o a S z ~ A ~ 'a ~qg° ~ a s Sf i"3 ~ ~ o a.9 ° x.~ m ° vC ' \l Pt 9 .fed y O O N ~ p ~ ~ W Ga a~C 3 ~ a oc~ a R i s a 1 0 y~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ V t w n~ 3 y y Y q p y n a C u e6 f S~~Y ~4~~d9 1 v ii § 2Z c E yq. r'~~S ~ ~~c w 5 'y ~3 67 5~~ggi ~6 ((pp77 ° u.,,~N w r ° u - o s a ~.9 9 g a 9°~ ~ i a BqN aEq~B~ I ~ a-a l`~ _~a F 8 w^._ °CO °~~C~~ ~cgo 'O! ~ O S~ 5 ~ 'r y ~ N w0 O a T~~'O p 'S ~ ~Q f w ~ y~iZ q a ° ° h ° N O~~Z aO ~rv O W F.qN L7 q~ aYnO ° ~ a pp o $ a ~n'- ; ~ K m E* w o w a '0 3 m° .9 ~a a r$ .9 ~ q °oQ °w: g~ g '`A ' 2'g~g ~ ° 8~aa m a; ou~d s c OU $o~ ~S'~.d ~.~0 ~'~a ~E Q _ ~~Ia yq °°q s°~.~.g.~~ gg x,29 ' a~ Y m t O J 4y~ Y Cm O q a L_N F m v u 4 O G U O k N E U u C O a v W 4'O k'O a s q H ~ v~N ~ aq ua gCtU aC .~du Y ~ m q F'•~ m V1 O - C q p q a N..~ a W q r u'M w -I E > 4 N W Y u q C O W E ~ q ~ O am p~.iC O WqN AE d u a N Y m N 9 q O N W U .T. U m 'O „ a q m k..+~ q u q'.~ C M m4 CC UuuO •yq aaL q ~ 3 4 CO ON q Lm LkU qq 4 _ ON up -.I C N C a0 G uwu Wn ~ k q >qF0 ~n-Na EaJ mrv O L u . 0 ~ O Y~ LC CaOL dZ~ Nq r r i}~ N • ? u q qu u aG 4 G-~a Cm ~ ~ - ~ i ~o E C L--+u Oqk O d F 1(J f> T a q '•i q 'p C u 4 N u~ ~ 41 CtJ ~ m C CE qqq N O N q C1]u [a % U C W 2~. N q ] N S~4 q H C W M EE~ m C E q ~ 11 ~ w7 00 C 4] g J S 0 O a a M C p w m _ NE OS - CO 3 -NOU a-.rE u S my X O qwa a~q m O rv F ~ O J q b'~ L N L J q 4 9 q u. u b • Fo n o aau; .N m Z IQK o E •-I Luq q>,> qa L,n y O Vo q L C u~.~Z a > u O' krv R+ W ..1 n O N O 3 L N g C a a 4 fl 4 O ~Z Uun a- uOm u-.~mq Cd of J~ d M q'•+ n u u U W ; k q q q k q N C a k O ~ IWf 6] m u N a a O ? C d a a J L O 4 yb a4 WwL uuk a 4 LOU Ooh ~ O U aW m .NM N NJq a.-Iq uU O~u+ m Cw- W q 0 J~tiUF Aq W Co~ G C W C O u k U N L C q k t u N O a g ~ • O k a- q O~ ~ u L O N U'.~ 4 u] G•I C L m b q W IQ~S ~o WaM~n 3 hu tUw U.+ a a.+N 940 l' U 3C.~ W L.I O a Y u q q U u 4.ti q O ~ J J.ti ~n q~ O G P -UN; N ka ; a U U ]IAL 4 q •y qC q q O'n mC wW b rv O] ONN d u 3 .N d S w 0 .N O a q O E N 0 t'O U W .r w q q40 M 3 a a qqn WGa p L y • r NmL - ]W ~ -u uLU LC q% Jai C N q b J 4 O Aq dCUC OC a OC tl9 q ~ Z W' N m'N .r f T >..~I > r. v ti H O Y u C m] q q b 4 k >m> C O q X; d C a J 'O u u~ L'.N a .-I L Y d~ q G b~ N M o C O N H L U W C yk' W> W J N C m u K i-ai ~ O,~ q 0 4 YJ W .1 S 4 F W Z N Gi U F' u n 4 O k] 'H O S a 'J o ~Tr p. W u W W 1qu Futl [d I Y N _ ~ am rn z~a v ~ ~ r C d L n YJE 3Qp f w° ~ ~ rn ~v E °n N O O N U Q ~ ~ L N j~ ~ N L n ~ C N d E ~ C J O > U Q N ~ O C C ry O N ~ a m 1O ~ _ v v n t u ~ d N - v y o Q a v y m a o o ~ m m v °i 9 rn o v Oo 3 ~ x w n v ro ti v i0 = n v O m c ~ U m J x S U o_ ~ o Q¢ _ Z V ? J m m ~ r E LL o 3 Q ~ m v m O o~ o N 'O ~ ~ V ~ ~ U ~ y v T~ m¢~ ' _ ~ T m J - L N~ N D¢ 2 ~Y II~ ~ ~I $$q O q O V O n c W19~~~ryry119III~I 2 ~ x - <n a a ~ ~ S ~~III~IIIIII I ~ g ~ N •n ~a~ _ Ai d~~ d D ~BFLL ~ O Qi N N ~ ~ ~ O_ U W D N C- J N N W - O OiU Z N C D C ! '?'m ~ `m `w i°ipO noJO _ moJ~dv i0 m`°` ~~j4 m= o D a u m o o d° Q v~ 0 v°i D L m n J V C In O~ J O O I L m D N O C Z J m N Q n ~i xm m? p1O ~onmc~ o?~oNO Dm~o O N V N_ O CW L` L~ N O C _N p v O ~ ? N C N C Qt C O C N ~ C 'v o> o n o v o 5 rn - - m C 3 O L V V T N U O~ m O1 p O ; L ~ U J= N U N U N N _N U U Z C ~ ~ U D E 3 m a` a V.m b o m r v x o o v w a c t _ Z m c- o y ? m n t v rn 3 p m= 0 g, m 3 'A H vQ v U5 L 5 m vQ va J a d c m0 ° N ~ E o m o' o m~ i s c` o o~ m ~ o n w o Q~ >i V C x N N N U C N n O n L C W N n A v 'm L `c Q v v ~ 3 a 5 0 < v' o o v~ c o f o v c ~ m m m n o ro o v 0 m 2 c v L m Y m~ L E o N fn _J N~ n Z_ o L c w L C D N N E N 3 D U N L n ~ O U b d G O O D O Q IO ~ N L N C; U N _N N E - O U P O E Ol Q N N O S N ~ O L C) C N O ~ L Z N N ~ ~ N U N J C N D ~ ¢ D Z U N L - O d J W O N C n O O V C ~ D C V C C ~ O - °'E O1 =emu xo ~+m LH ~mm3~ E°'o° m o v Z v mm m - o o E 3 2 v- ti~ N t~ r 5 3 L o~ L o J~ u v d m c `v N T m A m N D p ~ aJ = ~ D m N N vOi C O m~ N W O d O m 3 a~_ Q E x m m c- m U j o a 3 2-¢ w LL o o m v o o o o LL `o v m c D o m c t S D w E cvi m _o` L v~ c (v a E c U a) ~ O y Y N s o c J N L A L ry n n v a 4 4 w c m w~ m" °i ai m n m o°~ S r _j a ~ io y``mm Z _oF E.o ...o ..~mUma'o ;nEc m m Y 2 Z 3 B v `c ? ~ c v m v o m~ o m_ v n m - m o v N ~ o z L v E= N J D E 2- t° ~ v~ v c v E ~ 'c Z _3 v m w m n m `o E v E m `m L¢ w o E cJ> ~ m °1 Bm m m° v N Z- o ry Y~ d` d` L o D E o n v o N c N m= Z o ~ m V O m U p j~ V N O T 41 ] U Q H w c E `c .J c5~ o'C ..c `mc ¢ omv u E croo'° o~m'~~n ~>o m°v`~°mm .._._L° rw dQ ; o ~ Q~IIIIIII ~ Y~m'v m m uJO `aa EJUVVVi °i ~mxw'~mo -"ccm' ~ III n p a cm v u 3 p x 5 m c rn v rn J m N J J ec Ill~r °i J m J v v o omorn my o-m ova coow _ III ~ ~ ~n ~ x a x cn ~ ~-£~n > > u-=-~ r ma ~ >v nZ iL UUr u`e ~Ilglllll 111111 ~ a o'W ~ C E u u cN 'C L v u. G v"n 3 y o, w `u p N .c av ~ r u~ c u .y 'c 'u, a y ~ m s y c v"< o u r m u m `u, ; Z v v g v t u U A A ° o c~ m a m~ c 3 n E c V p AC'S uF m?vA V°av avt=W E'OE 'oE u " c A ° o'- 5.1 y Q5 v v ~ 2 c:c ,`e n a 'a fa `m ~ o o r E y mac.. n ~ v- c Q w `v -',2 3°~ c" A c iO E c mac of ~.o~~.`a v'B,~z F.E ~cr~E=ov cn~ L' 4 6 v. C .n •z U q N V 9 ° ?wi ~ y 'm.'~ f " u a N~'= ? m m a n o n._ v.v v c'G °o 'm ~ `c. S o w c 3 E E o ~ E o v r u o'~ n 3 o v` ~ o& c c o o t 2 c° o~ ` c v v °c o~ V 'c m o o m 5 G 'n ~ E$ 2 ~ .o ~ A cc $ c ~ c,c` °o n E. ~._-u_._`c ~ v .-°i,_ c ° ~ c~ v v o u c R ~.Er 7 `ovE a4 ~ s v,t z °1 ° L . 3 m u~ v - V y' ~ ~H c m~ L ~ m~ j "Cp tRi -`0 D 9 G - L .L.. v~ E'c o v i c~=°~ 0 1° t m ~ v ~ v E~ a ~ 3 E `c . v im ~ ~ '~O c ~ c `o L u ~ c Y n~~~'v t i° ° u c- ~ - r s- f' ~n-" y a c A c s ~ va o.4 a L. ~ ~ ~ ° E ~ c a ~5 : ~ s ~.i 3 d v ~ ~ A°c ~'E - L c v m ~ o o ~a o v m E, Z E y o 3 - m n 5 9 c_ E s o u ~ ~ o ~ ~ - ~ ~ V ~ a ~a m~~'' ~ A o s s v ~ c c c c.c v.a ~o-~ ~ v H° c E c~"c ? v 3 c~ a `~c ` _ c o - ~ c u ~ ~ ~ _ c~ G v v o c E w .a. 'u .c-. 'c" = 5 t ° - _ c a Z C~ c c v m m u~ ~ u, p m v ~ '6 3 0_ ~ L L v~ m E °1 my L4AV V.~'c v.v E'sz ammo ~'Zo SC.Z w ~ y v n r v v z~ z v~ a _ 3° n< v u-_ f c° a c v L u p m` ~ E L v v„ c G v G' u 5 m c m H_ `c _ v o. - y C L i V V v N v ~in L L 6 U G ii C E C n c c T c ac v- ui L i s s q cry. v o u, 1 S c~ F- p i v 3 _ itl m ~ G r 2 E ~ s ~ n, o ~ o ~ L~ - m `o E E.c c 3 E _~.o A E Y o u E r L v v p' v Y c E o c A v ~ . c r s c m E E E c v c°~~ N° u L m F f ; L E A v ~ v ~ u c~'° _ v o o c o~ c 'E ui m ? 6 v E / L. N. v~ A N 6:L t L L L v: ~ F V N i .Ci E V 5 4 V N E Q `L N L t°i ~i $a g = 9 pro= t ~a E 5' S 6 5' o C > G~~ y G~ m C R J N ~ A ~ ~ S~ &E Si~t~"~i~ ° P mT°-' A 'm.L = v.'O F `.ts ~ =_bL w 3 u~ c ~ -p m s c t A v R~ a ~`o _ a ~o 0..4 ~SC3 C7 V S m G m a c p L _ n m t - O S g A v °u v m v t cc c `p s i R ~I G y R nt G C 3 -Ji S ~ y v p u- L- V L V' u u a. S V v m ~ L N ~ 1 c t~ J n' a c i ~ m E s ~ a _ c n' L c s v E ~o c ~ v_ ro cc coc AS EL V~L A~~c 9F o~~ _iH a u c_ 0 3 e m u .o ~ o a. S i~~: -°s vm_ r_ •(cu'c• -vV~EL'va 2~c, O Z Y Y~ ~ - O m V y~~- a0i _ m C F~ j ~ n U f t'om' `o `o O S ~ 0 9 c v.' C G c`" v v_ n o° ~ c L~ C ' c A E q c a ~ w O Y m~ N, F C~ d~ O 9 N a a A m R zv _ L-` m .E iOCCm'c~s -E vm v9 m i ' `o c `vim ' - ?.Y `c ° _F.Nt ~.E sv v c b' m 3 a 1'~~in3 c qoc `ccuc-cr a,~c v~_ cE c H.D ~ C ~ c i~ E L c j u a i = G 5 F L Q v 4. _ G ~ v C 1' L 69 `y O O _ 'O G L p - _ Y _ _ - C m o v a V N v 4 v C] S O. - S G l L q H A W O L G u - ~ m L L m Ci 5 m m J _C O C O P W O N L N V T 9 4 ~n 3 ~ ? ~ M " ~ E u u~ eo o s a r~ S 3 u-°c ~.c p p t `o u` u Op c ^ ~ ~ i 2 u ~ u C a ep g ~ y vi a2T ~ 'g .EoE~ 5 J~s ~ C C c ~ u e u c ~ "d ~ 0 G ) yL $ E ~ ~ o m. u._ TE?`3~ 786 C ~ ~ XC _ C O ~ O V~ L~ O V C v ~ v° M 2 c u d V Q'V v e ~ ~ u o o' ~ b' m t d 2 m` e t V L 'O .5 S LG~ ~ O u ~ O ~ 'C VA ~ O c° ~ ~ 3> E .a o m r '2 G A C L °1 q O V 'R E a c.u ~ ~ ~~o ~ E C3 N~~ 600 6 C ~m~ T V • 6 .p F. g' v.s o a -u m a S c ? 4 ° p o F v N E C 4 y Q O ~ O 2 W c - .m Exo 5 G $ a. y Tt.. '$.O ~ d 6 6 j 4 y i' m O Y T ~ V r a$ ~ O" L 9 1, ~ Z j a m o `Yu 9 ~pp b 3 E$ r~ o ~ 'Z' ~ v ~ ~ d 6 N ~ U t t r~i~ a C N 6 V Appendix C.2 -Description of Section 4(f) Resources DESCRIPTION OF STATE SITE 50-10.28.18185 For descriptive purposes the lava tube will be described from its eastern (mauka) sink (Sink 1) to its western (makai) sink (Sink 5). Chamber designations A and B are given to the main habitation areas adjacent to Sink 1. Sink 1 provides access into Chambers A and B, extending to the east and west respectively. Chambers A and B are the main habitation areas of the lava tube, as is evidenced by formally constructed subfeatures and an abundance of cultural material. A subsidiary tube, Lateral tube 1, extending off the north side of the main tube is also accessed through Sink 1. The horizontal extent of the sink is approximately 12 m. (40 ft.) E/W by 6.7 m. (22.0 ft.) N/S. The entrance area into Chamber B appears to have been purposely constricted by the construction of two terraces, subfeatures 1 and 2, which create a formal entrance. The two terraces form a roughly 2.0 m. (6.6 ft.) passageway into Chamber A. Subfeature 1 terrace occurs along the north side of Chamber A's entrance. It is roughly triangular in shape and measures 1.8 m. (5.9 ft.) N/S by 1.70 m. (5.6 ft.) ENV. The majority of the terrace is constructed under the overhang edge of the sink. The west side of the terrace consists of boulders that are stacked to extend to the ceiling. TYie east side is constructed of boulders two courses high. The north side abuts the north wall of the lava tube. The surface of this terrace is roughly pared with cobbles. A large hook was observed on the surface of Subfeature 1. Subfeature 2 terrace occurs along the south side of Chamber A's entrance. The terrace is rectangular in shape and measures 1.0 m. (3.3 ft.) N/S by 6.0 m. (19.8 ft.) ENV. The majority of the terrace is constructed outside of Chamber A within the uncovered sink area. The terrace stands six courses high and is faced on the north side. It runs along the southern wall of the lava tube. The western end of the terrace, in conjunction with Subfeature 1, defines the southern side of the passage way into Chamber A. A wall segment begins against the east side of Subfeature 2 and 1.0 m. (3.3 ft.) north of the south wall of Chamber A. The wall segment extends to the east for approximately 3.3 m. (10.8 ft.) where is joins Subfeature 3. The wall segment is one to two courses high. The area from the wall to the southern wall of Chamber A is elevated 0.43 m. (1.41 ft.) above the level of the cave floor and is paved. The paving consists of medium sized cobbles. Subfeature 3 is a north/south-oriented wall, measuring 3.8 m. (12.5 ft.) long, and an associated paved area. The wall is located 3.8 m. (12.5 ft.) east of Chamber A's entrance. It is constructed across the width of the chamber from the north wall to the end of [he wall extending from the east side of Subfeature 2. The area enclosed by these two walls to the west is completely paved with small cobbles and pebbles. Subfeature 4 is a second paved area located due-east of Subfeature 3. This pavement extends east for 2.6 m. (8.5 ft.). On the southern edge a rock alignment extends the same distance from the southeast corner of Subfeature 3. No cultural material was observed beyond the structural complex of Chamber A. The eastern portion of the tube continues beyond the northern boundary of the project and its floor becomes exceedingly rough and its ceiling heights low. Chamber B, accessed through the west side of Sink 1, contains three prominent structures designated Subfeatures 5 through 7. The chamber is well lit due to its location between both Sinks 1 and 2. The chamber measures an average 5.0 m. (16.5 ft.) wide with a maximum ceiling height of 2.0 m. (6.6 ft.). Entrance 2 is located 10 m. (33 ft.) west of Chamber B's entrance; it is a small opening in the tube ceiling which measures 1.0 m. (3.3 ft.) in diameter. Two test units were excavated within Chamber B, within and immediately northwest of Subfeature 5. Subfeature 5 is a cobble and small boulder terrace located in the eastern portion of Chamber B, within the light zone of Entrance 1. It is raised along its west side and constructed adjacent to the south wall of the lava tube and flush to the tube floor along its east and north sides. It measures 2.0 m. (6.6 ft.) N/S by 3.0 m. (9.9 ft.) ENV. A basalt hammerstone was collected from the cave floor to the northwest of the terrace. Subfeature 6 is a terrace located 5.0 m. (16.5 ft.) west of Subfeature 6 and immediately east and beneath Entrance 2. The terrace has aone-course boulder perimeter and pebble and cobble surface pavement. It is constructed flush to the tube floor on its north side and is raised along its east, south and west sides. A ledge occurs along the north wall of the tube immediately north of the terrace. Beneath the ledge, somewhat continuous of the terrace's paved surface, the tube floor is paved with pebbles and cobbles. This paving measures 12.0 m. (39.6 ft.) ENV by 2.0 to 3.0 m. (6.6 to 9.9 ft) N/S. Artifacts collected from the paving include twelve gourd fragments, an urchin spine file and a basalt anchor stone. One of the gourd fragments contains two adjacent drilled holes. Two green and brown historic bottles were observed. Subfeature 7 is terrace defined by a cobble and boulder facing which is constructed beneath or adjacent to the dripline edge of the west and north side of Entrance 1's sink area, The terrace extends beneath a ledge formed along the northern side of the sink. It measures total length of roughly 10 m. (33 ft.). The northern side of the terrace runs adjacent to the opening to Lateral tube 1. Lateral tube 1 extend in a C-shaped configuration from Entrance 1 to just west of Entrance 2, where it rejoins the main tube. It measures approximately 30 m. (99 ft.) in length with an average width of 4.0 m. (13.2 ft.). Subfeature 8 is located within Lateral tube 1's opening from Sink 1. It is a terrace constructed of a raised, cobble facing along its north side and a paved surface. Its east and west sides are constructed against the tube's walls and its south side lies against the raised face of Subfeature 7. It measure 2.0 m. (6.6 ft ) in diameter. Approximately 18 m. (59 ft.) northwest from Lateral tube 1's opening at Sink 1, is a small semi-circular alignment of cobbles abutting the north wall of the lateral tube. These type of alignments were observed in other lava tubes in the vicinity and are interpreted as foundations for water collection. Midden, including kukui and urchin shells, was observed throughout the later tube with the greater concentrations present within the light zones adjacent to Sink 1 and 2. The main tube of Site -18185 continues approximately 25.0 m. (82.5 ft.) west of Sink 1 and 14.0 m. (46.2 ft.) west of Sink 2 where Sink 3 is encountered. Sink 3 measures 12.0 m. (39.6 ft.) ENV by 4.0 m. (13.2 ft.) N/S. Subfeature 9 is located immediately east of Sink 3's eastern edge. It is constructed of cobble facing along its east side and roughly filled with cobbles and boulders on its surface. It appears to serve as a retaining wall to the stone rubble in the sink floor (Entrance 3). The facing extends 2.0 m. (6.6 ft.) from the south wall of the lava tube to a large boulder slab. Along the northern wall of the main tube, immediately west of Sink 3, is a panel of petroglyphs. The petroglyphs are pecked into a smooth vertical surface of the pahoehoe over an area measuring 2.0 m. (6.7 ft.) long by 0.3 m. (0.98 ft.) wide. A total of six petroglyphs were observed including human, animals and geometric shapes. Two human figures were represented. One appears to be carrying ahook-shaped item in each hand with a dot inside the hook. Both human figures have stylized, bowed legs and arms. Two animals are represented including abushy-tailed dog and a possible bird. The geometric forms include a circle and square; other less distinguishable pecked depression are present. Subfeature 1 O, a boulder terrace, is located approximately 6 m. (13 ft.) southwest of the petroglyphs and 3.0 m. (9.9 ft.) west of the western edge of Sink 3. It consists of an alignment of cobbles that are arranged in a rough circle; the south wall of the lava tube completes the enclosure. Soil was observed in the center and to the west of the alignment. Directly above the southwest corner of the alignment is a smooth pahoehoe overhang where two, pecked bowl-shaped depressions occur. The main tube continues approximately 25.0 m. (82.5 ft.) west of Sink 4, at which point it emanates into three smaller tubes: two of these tubes merge immediately at Entrance 4, but are constricted by ceiling collapse; the third tube extends north for 5.0 m. (16.5 ft.) and east for roughly 10 m. (33 ft. One crab claw was observed in the third tube. Easier access into the remaining western portion of the lava tube is achieved from the ground surface, through Sink 4. Sink 4 measures roughly 1 .0 m. (3.3 ft.) in diameter. The main tube continues approximately 70 m. (231 ft.) southwest of Sink 4 until further access becomes blocked at Sink 5. Six burials (Burials 1 through 6) were identified between Sinks 4 and 5. Approximately 25.0 m. (82.5 ft.) southwest of Sink 4, the main tube splits into two smaller tubes. These smaller tubes run in a parallel direction (southeast and northwest of each other) for roughly 30 m. (99 ft.) until rejoining. Each of the tubes are similar in size averaging 5.0 m. (16.5 ft.) wide and roughly 1.0 m. (3.3 ft.) high. Burial 1 is located 35.0 m. (115.5 ft.) southwest of Sink 4, within the tube situated in the southeast. The burial consists of a single cranium fragment exposed beneath a constructed wall; a terrace (Subfeature 11) is adjacent to the wall. The wall extends across the width of the tube and rises from the tube floor to its ceiling; restricted access occurs through a small collapsed opening at the center of the wall. Two cowrie shell fragments were observed 3.0 m. (9.9 ft.) southwest of the wall. Subfeature 12 terrace occurs immediately northeast of the Burial 1 wall. It measures 3.0 m. (9.9 ft.) NE/SW by 5.0 m. (16.5 ft.) and is well faced along its northeast side with two courses of cobbles. Its uneven surface contains a slight depression. Burial 2 is located on anaturally-formed shelf in the northwest wall of the southeast tube, approximately 5.0 m. (16.5 ft.) southwest of Burial 1. The burial consists of a cranium and various long bone fragments. Burial 3 is located 9.0 m. (29.5 ft.) southwest of Burial 2, where the two diverting tubes rejoin. The burial is situated directly on the rough lava floor and consists of long bones and other unidentified bone fragments. Burial 4 is located 2.0 m. (6.6 ft.) west of Burial 2. This burial is poorly preserved and identified only by the presence of bone dust. Burial 5 is located at 5.0 m. (16.5 ft.) north of Burials 3 and 4, against the northwest wall of the northwest lava tube. The burial consists of poorly preserved long bones and one pelvis bone. Burial 6 is located approximately 20 m. (66 ft.) southwest of Burials 3 through 5, against the southeast wall of the main tube. The burial is situated on a small shelf of the tube wall and is surrounded by a single alignment of cobbles. The burial consists of cranial fragments and various long bones. The main tube continues approximately 35.0 m. (115.5 ft.) southeast of Burial 6 to Sink 5. Access into the lava tube from Sink 5 is very restrictive due to collapse and a narrow opening. No cultural material was identified in the southwestern end of the lava tube, beyond Burial 6. DESCRIPTION OF STATE SITE 50.10-28-18749 The entrance to the tube is horizontal and measures 2.5 m. (8.2 ft.) NE/SW by 0.5 m. (1.6 ft.) NW/SE. The floor of the tube is 1.2 m. (3.3 ft.) below the entrance. The tube extends east and west from the entrance. The east portion, which is easily accessible, contains two formal terraces and a human burial. The west portion, which is very difficult to access, contains no modification and only a sparse amount of midden and charcoal. The east portion of the tube measures 27.0 m. (92.2 ft.) ENV by 5.0 to 9.7 m. (16.4 to 31.8 ft.) N/S. Ceiling heights range from 0.8 [0 1.5 m. (2.6 to 4.9 ft.). Modifications consist of two terraces, one below the tube entrance and one near the east end of the tube. The terrace at the entrance measures 4.0 m. (13.1 ft.) N/S by 3.5 m. (11.5 ft.) E/W with a maximum faced height along the south side of 0.5 m. (1.7 ft. The terrace is constructed against the northwest slope beneath the tube entrance. This terrace consists of a large and medium boulder facing with a cobble and pebble pavement. The terrace at the end of the tube measures 3.0 m. (9.8 ft.) N/S by 3.0 m. (9.8 ft.) E/W with a maximum height of 0.7 m. (2.3 ft.) along the west side. This terrace abuts slopes along the south and east edges of the tube. It is constructed of a medium and large boulder perimeter with a level cobble pavement. Though the scattered bone fragments are in two separate locations, this is considered a single burial based on the distribution of bone types. The present bone distribution may be the result of scavenging. Remains located 10.0 m. (32.8 ft.) northeast of the tube entrance in an area measuring 1.Om. (3.3 ft.) N/S by 3.5 m. (11.5 ft.) E/W include the following: • at the eastern end of the bone scatter: proximal end right femur; • in the east central section: great toe left, talus left, navicular left, and numerous phalange and metatarsal fragments; • in the central portion: numerous fragments of os coxae, fibula, and unidentifiable fragments; • in the west portion: numerous unidentifiable fragments and one os coxae fragment. Remains located 1.5 m. (4.9 ft.) northeast of the tube entrance in an area measuring 1.0 m. (3.3 ft.) N/S by 1.5 m. (4.9 ft.) E/W include carpal bones, middle and distal phalanges, and skull fragments. The portion of the lava tube extending west from the tube entrance narrows significantly to 0.4 m. (1.3 ft.) wide and 0.3 m. (1.0 ft.) wide. This portion revealed no modification. A few flecks of charcoal and midden including kukui and sea urchin were encountered throughout. DESCRIPTION OF STATE SITE 50.10.28-18750 Feature A is a lava tube that is situated in the northeastern portion of the site complex. The tube entrance opens east (mauka} from a small sink. The sink area measures 2.8 m. (9.2 ft.) N/S by 3.0 m. (9.8 ft.) EM/. The entrance is located along the southern portion of the sink and measures 2.0 m. (6.6 ft.) ENV with a maximum height of 1.7 m. (5.6 ft.). The tube extends to the west of the entrance with an overall length of approximately 11.5 m. (37.7 ft.). Ceiling heights within the tube range from 0.5 m. (1.6 ft.) to 1.7 m. (5.6 ft.). Between the entrance and approximately 6.0 m. (19.7 ft.) to the west, the tube has a average width of 2.5 m. (8.2 ft.). The floor of the tube within this region is fairly level soil with cobbles and pebbles scattered on the surface. Between 6.0 m. (19.7 ft.) and the end of the tube the floor of the tube is covered with ceiling collapse. The floor steeply slopes toward the ceiling. The rear portion of the tube has a average width of 6.0 m. (19.7 ft.). Large quantities of cultural material including marine shell midden, kukui, bone fragments, fish scales, volcanic glass, opihi, coral, metal fragments, and charcoal were observed within the level soil area in the front portion of the tube. A 0.5 m2 (.15 feet) test unit was placed in Feature A. Feature B is a modified sink located directly to the west (approximately 6.5 m. (21.3 ft.)) from the entrance of Feature A. The modification consists of the in-filling of a sink and this forms a roughly level boulder pavement. The modification measures 8.0 m. (26.2 ft.) ENV by 6.0 m. (19.7 ft.) N/S. There is asemi-circular depression in the eastern portion of the modification that is approximately 0.3 m. (1.0 ft.) in depth and 2.0 m. (6.6 ft.) in diameter. The sink is apparently the western portion of Feature A that has collapsed. The semi- circular depression may have at one time connected with the western extent of Feature A. No midden or artifacts were observed in association with Feature B. The feature is in fair condition and is deemed to have fair to good excavation potential. Feature B is categorized as an agricultural feature. Feature C is a lava tube that is located directly to the west of Features A and B. It is located approximately 15 m. (49 ft.) from the western extent of Feature B. Access to the tube was obtained by removing approximately four or five large pahoehoe boulders. The tube extends both to the east and the west of the entrance. The western extent of the tube was explored. No cultural material was observed in this portion of the tube and it was effectively inaccessible. To the east of the entrance the tube extends for 24.0 m. (78.7 ft.) at which point it becomes inaccessible. The tube width averages 3.0 m. (9.9 ft.) and ceiling heights range from 1.4 m. to 0.4 m. (4.6 ft. to 1.3 ft.). The floor of the tube is barren and the only cultural materials observed was a kukui nut fragment, a cowrie fragment (Cypraea sp.), and a sea urchin fragment. At the eastern end of the tube, deteriorated human remains were observed. Portions of the burial that were identifiable include a portion of the right mandible, three metatarsal, five foot phalanges (the majority being proximal), the right calcaneus, both talus, four metacarpal, fragments of the os coxae, eight rib fragments, four vertebral fragments, one sacral vertebrae fragment, and numerous unidentifiable fragments. The burial was apparently missing all of the long bones and all of the skull except for the portion of the right mandible. The lava tube is designated as a burial feature. No artifacts were observed in association with the feature. Feature D comprises two small platforms situated in the center of the complex approximately 2.0 m. (6.6 ft.) from the northern platform to the southwest corner of feature B. Both platforms measure approximately 1.6 m. (5.1 ft.) in diameter and they are approximately 1.0 m (3.3 ft.) apart along a north south access. The southern platform is constructed of stacked medium to small boulders. It is well faced on all sides with a maximum height of 0.6 m (2.0 ft.) and the surface is paved with cobbles. The northern platform is constructed similarly to the southern platform but is only faced along the north and west sides with a maximum height of 0.5 m. (1.6 ft.). The surface of the platform is boulder paved. A 1.0 m. by 1.0 m. (3.3 ft. to 3.3 ft.) test unit was excavated in the southern platform. Feature E consists of two wall segments that abut a pahoehoe outcrop bluff located along the western portion of the site complex. The southern wall measures approximately 11. m. (36 ft.) N/S with a maximum width of 0.5 m. (1.6 ft.). The wall is constructed of piled medium to small pahoehoe boulders and cobbles. No facing was apparent along the length of the wall. The northern wall measures 16.0 m. (52.5 ft.) SW to NE with a average width of 0.6 m. (2.0 ft.). The wall is constructed of stacked and piled pahoehoe boulders. Large portions of the wall have been tumbled and wall heights range from 0.4 m. to 1.0 m. (1.3 ft. to 3.3 ft. Both walls are in poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed in association with this feature. Feature F consists of four small platforms situated in the eastern portion of the complex. The platforms range in size from 4.0 m. by 1.5 m. (13.1 ft. to 4.9 ft.) to 1.5 m. square (4.9 ft.). The platforms range in height from 0.6 m. to 0.8 m. (2.0 ft. to 2.6 ft.). The platforms are constructed of stacked pahoehoe boulders and all of the platforms are faced along some portion of there extent. All of the platforms are paved with cobbles. No artifacts or midden were observed in association with the site and the platforms are in good condition. Feature F is designated as a agricultural feature due to the results of testing in Feature D, Feature G comprises several clearing mounds located throughout the site complex. The mounds range in size from 1.5 m. to 3.0 m. (4.9 ft. to 9.8 ft.) in diameter with heights ranging from 0.2 m. to 1.0 m. (0.7 ft. to 3.3 ft.). The mounds are constructed of stacked and piled pahoehoe boulders. The mounds are functionally interpreted as agricultural. No artifacts or midden were observed in association with the feature. Feature H is a terrace located in the southern central portion of the site complex. It measures 3.6 m. (11.8 ft.) N/S by 1.7 m. (5.6 ft.) E/W. The terrace is constructed of stacked boulders and cobbles with the surface being roughly paved with boulders. The terrace abuts a portion of outcrop along the western side and has a maximum height of 0.8 m. (2.6 ft.) along the eastern side. The terrace is functionally designated agricultural, No artifacts or midden were observed in association with the feature. The feature is in fair condition. Appendix C.3 -Fully Executed Memorandum of Agreement MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Among the ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION and HAWAII STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER Regarding the Kealakehe Parkway Project North Kona, Hawaii, Hawaii WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the proposed Kealakehe Parkway from Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway in North Kona, Hawaii will have an effect on fifty-four (54) historic properties included in or eligible for listing on the National Register (NR) of Historic Places, and has consulted with the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and WHEREAS, the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) participated in the consultation and have been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA ,the SHPO, HDOT, and OHA agree that the undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties. STIPULATIONS FHWA will ensure that the following measures are implemented. 1. FHWA will ensure the development of an archaeological data recovery plan that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation (48 CFR 44734-37) and takes into account the Council's publication, Treatment of Archaeological Prooerties (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1980) and the SHPO's minimal standards for archaeological data recovery. Forty (40) sites will be subjected to data recovery work. The data recovery plan shall specify, but not be limited to: • sites to be data recovered (see Attachment 1); • the research questions to be addressed through the data recovery, with an explanation of their relevance and importance; • the methods to be used, with an explanation of their relevance to the research questions; • contents of the archaeological data recovery report; • the report review procedures; • a report completion date; • proposed distribution of the results; and 1 proposed methods by which native Hawaiian groups will be notified when the work is beginning and provided a summary of the report findings. FHWA will review the data recovery plan and submit it to the SHPO for 30 days review. Unless the SHPO objects withih 30 days after receipt of the data recovery plan, the FHWA shall ensure that the plan is implemented as proposed. If SHPO objects, the plan shall be revised and resubmitted to SHPO for another 30 day review period. 2. FHWA will ensure that all archaeological materials and records are curated by an institution acceptable to the SHPO and OHA in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. 3. FHWA will ensure the development of an interpretive preservation plan for four traits (State Sites 50-10-27-00002; -27/28-13006; -27-13194; and -28-18099). The interpretive preservation plan will generally entail the following: signage which identifies the trail; access points, if possible; stabilization of trail sections; and minor reconstruction of portions of the trial from edge of roadway to right of way. Because the two ahupua'a kerbstone trails (-13006 and -18099) are known to extend well beyond the road corridors where sections of these trails are in better structural condition, it is proposed that the trails sections crossed by the Parkway not be preserved. Since these trails are culturally significant to native Hawaiians, native Hawaiian groups and individuals, descendants or tenants within the ahupua'a, who have requested participation, will be involved in the preparation of the plan. Documentation will be kept and supplied to the SHPO indicating groups who were involved and any recommendations they may have had. The plan shall be submitted to the SHPO and OHA for approval. 4. State Site 50-10-28-18185, with burials, is to be preserved. FHWA will ensure the development of a Burial Treatment Plan for State Site 50-10-28-18185. After completion of a draft plan, FHWA will submit the plan to the SHPO, which will review the plan and forward it to the Hawaii Island Burial Council for its review. The Hawaii Island Burial Council will notify the FHWA when it is prepared to meet and discuss the details of the plan. Following consultations with the Hawaii Island Burial Council and native Hawaiian groups, including but not limited to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawaii Nei, and any familial or lineal affiliation with ancestral Hawaiian remains interred in the burial site, FHWA will finalize the burial treatment plan. 5. Should a party to this agreement object within 30 days to any plans provided for review or actions proposed pursuant to this agreement, the FHWA shall consult with the objecting party to resolve the objection. If the FHWA determines that the objection cannot be resolved, the FHWA shall forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the Council. Within 30 days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council will either: 2 Provide the FHWA with recommendations, which the FHWA will take into account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute; or Notify the FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b), and proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a request will be taken into account by the FHWA in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(c)(2) with reference to the subject of the dispute. Any recommendations or comments provided by the Council will be understood to pertain to the subject of the dispute; however, the FHWA's responsibility to carry out all actions under this agreement which are not subject to dispute will remain unchanged. 6. Any party to this MOA may request that it may be amended, where upon the parties will consult in accordance with 36 CFR 800 to consider such amendment. Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by the FHWA and the Hawaii SHPO, its subsequent acceptance by the Council, and implementation of its terms, evidence that the FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Kealakehe Parkway Project and its effects on historic properties, and that the FHWA has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties. 3 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION G ~Rv+/ ~ Date: 9 ~rA am Wonq, Division Administra or HAWAII STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER FE3 E 1997 ~y: ~ ~ - Date: Michael D. Wilson, State Histonc P se anon Officer COnCUf STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: R Date: Kazu H ya ashida. Director of Transportation OFFICE F HAW IIAN AFF~~ By: Date: ~ L,/~~ (Name and i e of singer) ACCEPTED for the Advisory Counc~on Historic Preservation i~~ , By: ~CC~~'.~'-~C-LC, Date: ti i3 Rr-=ash, executive Director 4 ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDED FOR DATA RECOVERY State Probable Site k Site Type Function Age 50-10-28-18178 Site complex Hab.(R); Agriculture PH Platform Hab. (R) C shaped enclosure Lava blister Hab. (R) Rectangular enclosure Agriculture C shaped enclosure Lava blister Hab. (R) 50-10-28-18182 Site complex Hab.(P) PH Terrace Hab. (P) Terrace Hab. (P) Terrace Hab. (P) Wall segment Hab. (P) 50-10-28-18209 Stepping-stone trail Transportation 50-10-28-18220 Site complex Hab. (P); Ag.; Water; PH Special; Rit. Terrace Habitation (P) Rectangular enclosure Habitation (P) Circular enclosure Possible well Terrace Habitation (P) Petroglyphs Special L shaped enclosure Agriculture Alignment Poss. shrine 50-10-28-18221 Site complex Agriculture PH Square enclosure Agriculture Platform Agriculture Circular enclosure Agriculture Rectangular Agriculture 50-10-28-18228 Site complex Agriculture; Special PH Modified outcrop Agriculture Platform Agriculture work surface Platform Agriculture work surface Circular enclosure Agriculture Petroglyphs Special Petroglyph Special 50-10-28-18241 Irregular-shaped enclosure Agriculture PH/H 50-10-28-18242 Modified outcrop Hab. (T) PH/H 50-10-28-18243 Kerbstone trail Transportation PH/H? 50-10-28-18244 Lava blister Hab. (T) PH 5 ATTACHMENTI MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDED FOR DATA RECOVERY (continued) State Probable Site # Site Type Function Age 50-10-28-18363 Site complex Homestead-Hab. (P); H Transportation Terrace Homestead-Hab. (P) Wall Homestead-Hab. (P) Possible cart road Transportation 50-10-28-18383 Site complex Homestead -Hab. (P) H Rectangular enclosure Homestead -Hab. (P) Rectangular enclosure Homestead -Hab. (P) Rectangular enclosure Homestead -Hab. (P) Rectangular enclosure Homestead -Hab. (P) 50-10-28-18384 Rectangular enclosure Hab. PH 50-10-28-18391 Platform Agriculture H? 50-10-28-18393 Site complex Hab. (P); Ag. PH Platform Hab. (P) Terrace A9 Rectangular enclosure Ag. Ag. Wall Segment Ag. Mound A9 Terrace A9 Enclosure Ag. 50-10-28-18396 Rectangular enclosure Hab. (P) H 50-10-28-18397 Walled Field Complex Ag.; Animal Containment PH/H 50-10-28-18725 Site complex Ag.; Animal Containment PH/H Circular enclosure Ag.; Animal Containment? Rectangular enclosure Agriculture Rectangular enclosure Agriculture Wall Agriculture Rectangular enclosure Agriculture Rectangular enclosure Agriculture Irregular-shaped enclosure Poss. Animal Containment Mounds Agriculture-Work surface Terrace Agriculture Irregular-shaped enclosure Agriculture Wall Agriculture 6 ATTACHMENTI MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDED FOR DATA RECOVERY (continued) State Probable Site # Site Type Function Age 50-10-28-18725 Wall Agriculture Terrace Agriculture 50-10-28-18726 Cart road Transportation H 50-10-28-18727 Site complex Hab. (P); Special; PH Agriculture Triangular shaped enclosure Agriculture Irregular shaped enclosure Hab. (P) Modified outcrop Agriculture Rectangular enclosure Hab. (P) Mound Agriculture Modified outcrop Agriculture Irregular shaped enclosure Agriculture Terrace Agriculture Modified outcrop Agriculture Terrace Hab. (P) Terrace Agriculture PH C shaped enclosure Hab. (P) C shaped enclosure Agriculture Platform Hab. (P) Irregular shaped enclosure Hab. (P) Square enclosure Hab. (P) C shaped enclosure Agriculture Papamu Special Irregular shaped enclosure Agriculture Wall Agriculture Terrace Hab. (P) Mound Agrculture Mound Agriculture Petroglyph Special Petroglyphs Special Petrogiyph Special 50-10-28-18728 Site complex Homestead-Hab. (P) H Circular domed enclosure Charcoal oven Terrace Hab. (P) Platform Hab. (P) Mound Agriculture Modified outcrop Hab. (P) 7 ATTACHMENTI MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDED FOR DATA RECOVERY (continued) State Probable Site # Site Type Function Age 50-10-28-18729 Site complex Hab. (R); Ag.; Special; PHM Water Terrace Agriculture Lava Tube Hab. (R) Wall Agriculture Terrace Agriculture Mounds Agriculture Lava Tube Hab. (R); water source Terrace Agriculture Terrace Agriculture Petroglyph Special Wall Agriculture Walls Agriculture 50-10-28-18730 Site complex Hab. (R); Ag.; Animal pH/H Pen; Marker Wall Site boundary Terraces Agriculture Mound Agriculture Irregular-shaped enclosures Agriculture Faced depressions Agriculture Mound Agriculture Ahu Marker Oval enclosures Agriculture Irregular-shaped enclosures Agriculture Terrace Agriculture PH/H Wall Agriculture Pavement Agriculture work surface L-shaped enclosure Poss. animal Terrace Agriculture Wall Agriculture Terrace Agriculture Mound Agriculture Wall Agriculture Pavement Hab. (R) 50-10-28-18733 Kerbstone trail Transportation PH/H 50-10-28-18734 Terrace Hab. (P) PH 50-10-28-18735 Lava Tube Hab. (R); Water source PH 50-10-28-18736 Site complex Hab. (P); Agriculture PH/H? 8 ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDED FOR DATA RECOVERY (continued) State Probable Site k Site Type Function Aga 50-10-28-18736 Mound Agriculture Mounds Agriculture Platform Agriculture Rectangular enclosure Hab. (P) Mound Agriculture Mound Agriculture Mound Agriculture 50-10-28-18737 Site complex Agriculture PHM? Wall Agriculture Mound Agriculture C shaped enclosure Agriculture Mound Agriculture Platform Agriculture Wall segments Agriculture Mound Agriculture Terrace Agriculture Mound Agriculture Modified outcrop Agriculture Mound Agriculture Mounds Agriculture Mound Agriculture Terrace Hab. (R); Agriculture 50-10-28-18738 Site complex Hab. (T); Agriculture PH 50-10-28-18739 Modified outcrop Hab. (T) PH Alignment Agriculture WaII segment Agriculture Mound Agriculture 50-10-28-18740 Site complex Hab. (P) PH Platform Hab. (P) Wall segments Hab. (P) Terrace Hab. (P) PH Wall Hab. (P) 50-10-28-18741 Platform Hab. (P) PH 50-10-28-18742 Terrace Agriculture PH 50-10-28-18743 Papamu Speaai PH 50-10-28-18744 L shaped Enclosure Hab. (R) PH 50-10-28-18745 Site complex Agriculture PH Terrace Agriculture 9 ATTACHMENTI MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDED FOR DATA RECOVERY (continued) State Probable Site # Site Type Function Age 50-10-28-18745 Terrace Agriculture Wall Segment Agriculture Wall Segment Agriculture 50-10-28-18757 Site complex Agriculture PH Wall Segment Site boundary Wall Segment Agriculture Wall Segment Agriculture Wall Segment Agriculture Terrace Agriculture Mounds Agriculture 50-10-28-19627 Platform Hab. PH 50-10-28-19628 Platform Hab. (P) PH 50-10-28-19630 Enclosure Hab. (P) PH Sources Cultural Surveys Hawaii, An Archeological Inventory Survey and Limitetl Subsurface Testing of the Proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension, Alternatives 10 and 11, and Addendum Report to Keatakehe Parkway, June 1994. Notes: SIGNIFICANCE DESIGNATION A -Ste reflects malor trends or events m the history of the state or the nation B -Sue is associated wrth the eves of persons significant in our past C -Site is an excellent example of a site type D -Site may be likely to yield information on prehistory or history FUNCTION PROBABLE AGE Hab. - HabRation PH - Prehistonc (P) -Permanent H -Histonc (R) -Recurrent PH/H - Prehistonc &Histonc (T) -Temporary ~ -Not conclusive Ag. - Agnculture Ri[ - Potual 10 APPENDIX D Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form AD-1006) C q W Q O ~ ap f 0 E~a E~ - -dam E s s a ~ d C7 ~ & ~ "s\ a :o - ~ ~ ~aa6\a~ l48 m a> Q e Yw= i? e p ~ h a s _ S x ~ V a ~ ` q ~ O 0 w,~l E 1~UI{ 14 ~ c E _ EpT `v 4° ~ g > ~ ° u t~ 041 i E tl;UN ~ a" o 4~ `o v k r E E O.awu° o e n? v o J z ~ o n° .N7 2 0° c ~ r m° Q u o E v E Q z n E ~'~s aL EO_~N„o_acY >9 yo`?~<a'_..u E~_o~°H O'wn°e LL o m° a- 4 a u° u e a E F ° a`p u~ ~ a c n y' E E E~_ w N u E- m u ^u 4 ~3 u mm- d E d. u @mojn 'cLL E v= y ^ _ X. c q a ~ a o F- r c o f v' O" e n p.~ i~-~~ d z D c~ v M LL E Y E u C 3 w~ u i u ~ v u u O v u ~ c li F A O = u= w a~ a`^^ ~ _ $ °F~ a ¢ ¢ a ° ¢ ¢ E= au ~ . o _ a E o._ v~, a ~ a"E < o r ~ fl F d ~ 6 04 = ~ > rr°-a C>~ > i aa" b oo inu aowu° F ~ _ .y ~ i 6 z rc o°c E~z,~j ¢ d m ti ¢ d m uo ¢ ¢Z - alo o ~ o _ oa. . a o f - r a a ~ y m C 5 C Ayu Q t s > ~c O mc~Lm C a o p V yUa oja sac'-~ •C d C O U ~ j YN'U NNQ n a d ¢ mEm~ d A ~ y d y LL Ywd y`-C dv 9 m c m o~ Q Upm Q. O ~LL»CQ>C N t , G O Z y a N O C } O L Na N d N ~ ~¢E~~ ? w ~ Y j N'a~c~E ga?O ¢ ¢ Z oaon u (n,~Om U' Q p uA ca'm ~ smn. ~ Y 2~? m~~U m.`^ oma c ¢ w?z vimE oyo E>..Sm ~ ~ Y Q g CO N U vCi y~ O Z Q Z W ~ w m u~0a Z uaat E aw>'= LL ? IL YLLLL d d^~~ O ?¢?Y C ~ ~yf7 C oa~,y Uc~Ltc i F~ of 1I~tIII•UUIII~' ~w`' tqi ~~~aQ~ r wilull11 (gF O s ¢ ui rxaO-a> oa 'e e° QI IIIIIII~ 2 r w?¢ r-wE~ww u E. II F ~m~~lmm o s APPENDIX E Coastal Zone Management Act C_?T ~ ; OFFICE OF STATE PLANNII~~ i Pri ass r ~'r, ,i r.• 1 //l/ Office of the Governor !f~I InI I^~ ' 3[xwnix Tnr[rnHa cmemor J,~ S1Rf EETOA00 E33.' J'JO SOUTH NOTELOSTREET. ATN FLOOR 111310 11 '~^p' II ~ ~ tS ~J ~I ~ ; ~ I F WuuYrq OM4bn 3/)~JW r; ~..y; TELEPHONE: /ISq S/)•JM3, 311.1300 ' ' ~ ^ _ r- O + Ref. No. Z-0040 MAR - 4 1996 , IJ ~ T amx February 20, 19 G PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF z _ ~ ?v~ HONOIUIU HAWAII n- S X ~ y!.' CJp .Z. rn S2 rs ~ y MEMORANDUM ~ TO: The Honorable Kazu Hayashida, Director Department of Transportation ~ E FROM: Gregory G.Y. Pai, Ph.D~ti.r~~<~~ z Director ~ ° 7 ~n SUBJECT: Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZLM) Program Federal Consistency for the Kealakehe Parkway, North Kona, Hawaii Your proposal to construct the Kealakehe Pazkway with funds from the Federal Highway Administration has been reviewed for consistency with Hawaii s CZM Program. We concur with your CZ.M assessment and finding [hat the activtty is consistent based on the following conditions. L Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under section 7 of the U.S. Endangered Species Ac[ has been initiated to ensure that endangered plant species aze adequately protected. A mitigation plan for protecting raze, threatened, or endangered plan[ species, approved by both the Departm^n[ of Land and Natural Resources -Division of Forestry and Wildlife and the FWS, shall be submitted to the Hawaii CZM Program. 2. According to the Draft EIS (pp. 4-68 & 4-80), mitigation measures for archaeological resources will be incorporated into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA will establish procedures for assuring that azchaeological monitoring will be conducted and that agreed mitigation measures, such as [he Burial Plan, aze implemented. The approved MOA shall be submitted to the Hawaii CZM Program. CZM consistency approval is not an endorsement of the project nor does it convey approval with any other regulations administered by any State or County agencies. Thank you for your cooperation in complying with Hawaii s CZM Program. If you have any questions, please call our CZM office at 587-2878. m. s^ r~ c. cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office } Department of Land & Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Divisions - - Department of Land & Natural Resources, Division of Forestry & Wildlifes r Planning Department, County of Hawaii 4+A 7 7~ _ Sy O_ Sd Q) The following are the objectives and policies of the seven resource areas of the CZM Act. RECREATION RESOURCES Objective: Provide coastal recreational opportunities accessible to the public. Policies 1) Improve coordination and funding of coastal recreation planning and management. 2) Provide adequate, accessible, and diverse recreational opportunities in the coastal zone management area by: a) Protecting coastal resources uniquely suited for recreational activities that cannot be provided in other areas; b) Requiring replacement of coastal resources having significant recreational value, including but not limited to surfing sites and sandy beaches, when such resources will be unavoidably damaged by development; or requiring reasonable monetary compensation to the State for recreation when replacement is not feasible or desirable; c) Providing and managing adequate public access, consistent with conservation of natural resources, to and along shorelines with recreational value; d) Providing an adequate supply of shoreline parks and other recreational facilities suitable for public recreation; e) Encouraging expanded public recreational use of County, State and federally owned or controlled shoreline lands and waters having recreational value; czm.tloc f) Adopting water quality standards and regulating point and non-point sources of pollution to protect and where feasible, restore the recreational value of coastal waters; g) Developing new shoreline recreational opportunities, where appropriate, such as artificial reefs for surfing and fishing; and h) Encouraging reasonable dedication of shoreline areas with recreational value for public use as part of discretionary approvals or permits by the land use commission, board of land and natural resources, County planning commissions; and crediting such dedication against the requirements of Section 46-6. HISTORIC RESOURCES Obiective: Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore those natural and man-made historic and pre-historic resources in the coastal zone management area that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture. Policies 1) Identify and analyze significant archaeological resources; 2) Maximize information retention through preservation of remains and artifacts or salvage operations; and 3) Support State goals for protection, restoration, interpretation, and display of historic resources. SCENIC AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES Objective. Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal scenic and open space resources. Policies 1) Identify valued scenic resources in the coastal zone management area; czm.doc 2) Insure that new developments are compatible with their visual environment by designing and locating such developments to minimize the alteration of natural landforms and existing public views to and along the shoreline; 3) Preserve, maintain and, where desirable, improve and restore shoreline open space and scenic resources; and 4) Encourage those developments which are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas. COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS Objective: Protect valuable coastal ecosystems from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems. Policies 1) Improve the technical basis for natural resource management; 2) Preserve valuable coastal ecosystems of significant biological or economic importance; 3) Minimize disruption or degradation of coastal water ecosystems by effective regulation of stream diversions, channelization, and similar land user uses, recognizing competing water needs; and 4) Promote water quantity and quality planning and management practices which reflect the tolerance of fresh water and marine ecosystems and prohibit land and water uses which violate State water quality standards. ECONOMIC USES Objective: Provide public or private facilities and improvements important to the State's economy in suitable locations. czm.doc Policies 1) Concentrate in appropriate areas the location of coastal dependent development necessary to the State's economy; 2) Insure that coastal dependent development such as harbors and ports, visitor industry facilities, and energy generating facilities are located, designed, and constructed to minimize adverse social, visual, and environmental impacts in the coastal zone management area; and 3) Direct the location and expansion of coastal dependent developments to areas presently designated and used for such development and permit reasonable long-term growth at such areas, and permit coastal dependent development outside of presently designated areas when: a) Utilization of presently designated locations is not feasible; b) adverse environmental effects are minimized; and c) Important to the State's economy. COASTAL HAZARDS Objective: Reduce hazard to life and property from tsunami, storm waves, stream flooding, erosion, and subsidence. Policies 1) Develop and communicate adequate information on storm wave, tsunami, flood erosion, and subsidence hazard; 2) Control development in areas subject to storm wave, tsunami, flood, erosion, and subsidence hazard; 3) Ensure that developments comply with requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program; and czm doc 4) Prevent coastal flooding from inland projects. MANAGING DEVELOPMENT Objective: Improve the development review process, communication, and public participation in the management of coastal resources and hazards. Policies 1) Effectively utilize and implement existing law to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future coastal zone development; 2) Facilitate timely processing of application for development permits and resolve overlapping or conflicting permit requirements; and 3) Communicate the potential short- and long-term impacts of proposed significant coastal developments early in their life cycle and in terms understandable to the general public to facilitate public participation in the planning and review process. czm.doc APPENDIX F Army Corps of Engineers Correspondence p [~6~O~.~C~ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, HONOLULU ~ O FT. SHAFTER, HAWAII96858-540 J PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF REPLY TO HONOLULU HAWAII ATTENTION OF Regulatory Branch 27 June 1995 Ms. Jan Reichelderfer Parsons Brinckerhoff Pacific Tower, Suite 3000 1000 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Dear Ms. Reichelderfer: This is to inform you that we have reviewed the information you faxed to this office on June 22,1995 regarding the proposed Kealakehe Parkway project between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway, North Kona, Hawaii. The faxed information indicates that the project area does not include any surface water bodies or special aquatic sites, including wetlands. Based on this information, we have determined that the project will not impact waters of the United States and therefore, a Department of Army permit is not required. File Number NP95-088 has been assigned to this project. Please refer to this number in any future correspondence. If you have further questions regarding this matter, feel tree to me at 438-9258 extension 15. Sincerely, ` Kathleen A. Dadey Environ.~nental Engineer APPENDIX G Public Participation . Appendix G.1 -Notices Appendix G.2 -Public Hearing . Appendix G.3 -Letter to Draft EIS Commentors Appendix G.1 - Notices 13674 Federal Register /Vol. 58, No. 47 /Friday, March 12, 1993 /Notices cost of money equal to or lees then that Mnual Burden: 45,000 DEPARTMt.NT OF TRANSPORTATION available from the sale of Commerdel Title: Liquidation Activates ' Paper or other bank borrowings. Form No.: N/A Irederal Nlghway AdminlgMlort For the Cotnmiuioa, try the Divisina of F uen Oa Occasion F~tvlronmenhl Impoo! Statemartt; Investment Management. pursuant to ~'4 ~ North Kona, ~ delegated authority. Description of Respondents: Auctioneer Margaret ff. McFarland. Contractor aGENCr: Federal Highway - - - DeputySecretary. MnualResponses: 2,800 - Administration (FHWA), DOT. IFR Doc. 93-5716 Filed J-11-93; 9:45-aml Mnual Burden: 28,000 aCT10N: Notice of intent. salsa soon asto•atat - pp ypb~ - - sOwenpr: Ths FHWA is issuing this _ Chief, AdminishetiwlnJormatioeltmrtch. notice to advise the public that an SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Dx 9x~es7 mad 3-11-9x; e:45 aml environmental impact statement (lifS) rnos am-n~ will be prepared for a proposed highway- Reportktg and Raeordkeeping project is North Knns, Hewau. . RegWremants Under OMB Ravkrw Fop WrtiNEA ae*ottralwat cottrACi: t.ltieago DletAet Advisory Cotatell; William R Lake. Division AoENCr: Small Hominess Administration. Ptdslk Meatlttg Administrator. Federal Highway ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements Adminisnetioe, Office Address: 300 Ala submitted Far review. The U.S. Smell Business Moans Boulevard, rm. 13202, Honolulu. Administration Chicago District Heweii 96813; Mailing Addru: P.O. suwalwr: Under the provisions of the Adviwry Cotmdl will hold s public Hox 50206, Honolulu, Hawaii 98850. Paperwork Reduction Ad (44 U.S.G meeting from SO s.m. to 1 p.m: on Telephone: (808) 541-2700. chapter 35), agencies are required to Thurday, Apri122, 1993 et the U.S. $UFV~EMENTApr tNFORYATION: lye submit proposed reporting end Small Hwia Administration, 500 ~ FHWA. in cooperation with the Hawaii recordkeeping requirments to OMH for West Madison Street, suite 1250, Department of Transportation, review and approval, and to publish a Chicago, Blinois, to discuss such Highways Division will prper as notice in the Federal Register notifying matters ss may be presented by environmental impact statement on a the public that the agency has made member, staff of the U.S. Small proposal to construct a new, four-lane such a submission. Hominess Adminianetion, or others divided roadway approximately 2.4 ONES: Comments should be submitted present. miles long, connecting Mamalahoa within 30 days of this publication in the Por further information. write or all Mr. Highway and Queen ICaahumanu Federal Register. If you intend to - john L Smith, Obtrict Director, U.S: Small Highway. This roadway, rfetred to as comment but cannot prepare comments Busineu Administrtlon, 500 west Medlsan ICealakehe Pazkwey, is generally aligned promptly, please advise the OMB Street. (3iago. Bllnois 60861-2511, (312) ~ an east-west [mauka-makai) direction Reviewer and the Agency Cleeranra asx-4aoa. and is intended to provide s major Office befor the deadline. Dated: Marsh 8.199x. access road to both Queen Kaahumanu COWES: Request for cleazmee (S.F. 83), DoeoW7 A• ~v Highway and MamaLhoa Highway/ supporting statement, and other ActlngAssistantAdmitistrator,Ojficeof Paleni Road from the La'i Opw Planned documents submitted to OMB far ~ AdvisoryCoundls. - Communit . - review may be obtained from the - IFR Dx 9x-x889 Filed x-11-9x: e:45 sml Improved access to the corridor is Agency Clearance Officer. Submit sa.uto coos ants-ass necessary to provide for the existing and comments to the Agency Clearance projected traffic demand. Since the 2010 Officer and Ure OMB Reviewer. projections of traffic volumes along the Fop FUtRNFA WFORMATION t~NTACT. Houston Dlatrlet Advisory ~~1: major roadways in the area exceed Agency Clearance ~cer. Cleo Publk 1AsWng existing a achy even without the La'i Verbillia, Small Hominess Opw development, then fa need to Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW.. The U.S. Small Business reduce projected tutor croagestion on 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20418, Administtatton Houston District the existing roadwnya The project will Telephone: (202) 205-ti629. - Advisory Coundl will hold s public ~ provide as improved, safe and OMB Reviewer: l;ar7• Waxman, Office of meeting et 9 e.m. on Wadneadsy Marsh efficient highway for traffic which now Information and Regulatory Affairs, 31,1993 at Texas Commerce Hank-Del mom( ome Palani Road. Alternatives Office of Management and Budget. - O+o• 7505 Fannin. 3rdFloor, suite 333, under considertion include (1) taking New Executive Office Building, Houston, Texas, to discuss such matter no action; end (2) constructing s four W eshia on, DC 20503. as may be presented by member, staff lane, limited access highway on n new of the U.S. Stuall Bominess location, into rted into erect studied Tide: Len er Field Visit Report Administration, or other resent. ~ Form No.: SBA Form 1183 P with the vnrioui build slteroetives wij~ Frequency: On Occasion For (unbar information, write or all Mr. be design variations of grade and Deuription of Respondents: Small Milton WiLron, h•, Dbtriet Director. US. nlignmeat. Bominesses Small Busmen-Adminisaetlon.9301 Letter desQibing the proposed srtion Annua/Responses: 14,720 SW~`Yedt ~B°`v°Y's"'te 550' Hotut°°' and soliciting comments have been sent Texas r~o74-1591, (71x) 77a-as0o. to a ro rrte Federl, State sad local Annual Burden: 14,720 PP P Tide: Loan Servidng Field Visit Report Dated: Marro 8,1993. _ agencies, and to private orgeairations Form No.: SBA Form 712 Deruthy A. OvareL - and citizens who have prviowly . Frequency: Qn Occasion Acting AssistaneAdministrator, woe of expressed or are known to have interest Description of Respondents: Small Advisory Councils. in this proposed project. A public Businesses - IFR Dx 93-5668 Filed x-11-93: 9:45 eml information end scoping meeting was Annua! Responses: 45.000 - saLra eooe sms-star held August 27, 1992 at [Qng Federal Beyster !Vol. 58, Na. 47 /Friday, Much 12, 1993 /Notices 23675 Kemehamehs Hotel in IC~a, Havrtif. In Beak Examiner, (202) e74~5171), or guidelines. Unlike the laveroge capita! addition, a public Leering will be held Ronald Shimabukuro, Sanim Attmaey, roquirements, the risk•baaed capital after publiotion of the d»R HL4. Public Banking Operetioas end Asseu guidelines impose apitel requtnmenu notice will ba given of the time end Div[sion, (202) 874480, O®o of the based on the credit risk profiles of the place of the hearing. The draft EIS will Comptroller of the Curroncy. ZSO E assets held by as institution and be available for public acrd sgsacy Street, SW., Washington, DC 21121& provide a means to meuure oH-balance review end comment prior m the public suswti;utettrAnr ggrpgyATp~ Section sheet risks. Ia addition, the risk-hued hearing. A second public scopirrg 121 of FDICiA, Public law 1oz-242, ios capital guideline »viaed the definition meeting is not proowed stet. 2238 (December 19,1491), requieea of espital by repladng primary end To ensu» that ttLSss full range of issue e~ federal banking agency to report secondary apitsl with Tier 1 end Tier rotated to thin proposed sctfon aA annually to the Committee ~ Banking, 2 capital. Once fully phased in et the addressed and ell dgaifiuat iuuer Housing, and Urban Affsiro of tLs end of 1992, the rink-based cspitel identified, cammants anted sug>Reetions Senate and the Committee on Honking, guidelines will require baaldng sad ero invited from ell la P~~ Finance end Urban Aflabe of the House thnft institutions to maintain total Comments or questions cwomlag thts of Repreaantalive oa any diffeeeaeas capital of et laser a percent of dsk- proposed action sad EIS should be between the capital standards used by weighted assets. TLe risk•bwd capital directed to the FHWA et the above the OCC and the capital standards used guidelines implement the Accord on add»ss. by the other finandal [nstitutia~as lntemstlonal Convergence of Gpitel (Galog of Federal Ilomestle Assistanp supervisory agendas. The test of that Measurement end Gpital Standards of Program Number 20.2ae, Highway Plenaing report is provided u follows: July 1988, u roported by the Committee sad Conenuctioa. TM regulstiom - - Differeacs in G sal ~ an Banking Reguktioa end Supervisory implementing euanva Ordae 12372 P~ ~~g Practice (Basle Aaord). - ' ragardiag inrsegvvenmmhl mndunn® on Slaodarda Among the Federal Banking After the promulgetiaa of the tiak- Fedarel programs sad activities appy b this sad Thrift Ageadp based capital guidelines, the agendas Pte') Report to the Committee on Ban/dng, also revised the leverage apital William A Iaka, regal»ments by similarly ropledng the Housing, and Urban Affairs rhs. DivraioeAdarinirtratar, Hawaii ~ United Stores Senate and to s definitions o[ primary end secondary lFR I)oa 9}SBea Piled ]-11-93: e:45 amt CommiHee on 9anlring, Finonoe, and cepitsl with the risk-based npifsl aaisra coon M+o•as-r Urban Affairs of the United States deRaitions of Tier 1 end Tier 2 capital. House of Representotlves The levarege apital roquiremanta work This annual re ort details the ~ conjuadion with therisk-based DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY differences In then ital capital guideline end impose minimum p roquirem capital requirements regerdleu of the OMee of the ComptrolNr of ttN of the OCC, the Federal Reserve Hoard risk weights of the assets held by the Cumnry ~ (FRBI. the Federal Deposit Insurance institution. Na >a3~1 Corporation (FDIC) end the Offiw of Although the agenda have adopted Thrift Supervision (OTS). common )average capital uLemeats Report to Ute Canpnas Raq~riB Urn Repreeentetive o[ each of the agenda and risk-based capital guide ' e, there Differarteaa M acrd meet regululy to discuss apitel iswes remain some technical differences in Startderds ~or~ Fadard u pert of sn ongoing alfort to promote language and interpretation of the and Thrill A masistent interprotatiw end capital standards among the egeacie. epplicatioa of capital regal»menL end These minor differences e» detailed AceuCr: Office of the Comptroller of the to develop uniform spiral atsaderda. below. Currency, Treasury. This report is divided into two ACitON: Report to the Committee on sections. The first section diacusrs the t. Ieveroge Capital Requirements Benkiag, Housing, end Urban Affairs of differenrea in the capital standards: the Aside from the risk-based capital the United States Beasts sad to the second section discuasu ohs diltereaces guidelines, the banking agencies sad the Committee on Banking, Pinence and in aaounting standards. Ol'S impose en additional leverage Urban Affairo otthe United States- capital requiromant. Underths leveeaga A. Diffareaeu in Capital Standards ~ ital ulromeats of the House of Reprosantetivea regarding' Amo ~ Federal Fiaaadai P differeacec in capital sad saotmting Iastih~ition mcin egenciea the most highly-reted stmdards among the tederel banking ~e~7 ~ must maintain a minimum leverege and thrift egeades. • ~ - ~ • Prior to the promulgation of the rick- capital ratio of 3 percent of Tter 1 'based npitel guideline, the federal capital to tarsi assets; ell otLerbankm are stwtesar: The Office of the Comptroller banking egendea imposed a leverage required to maintain capital of en of the Currency (OCC) has prepsred this capital standard based on the retie of edditione11o0 to 200 basis pofnu _ report as required by the Fsdarel primary end secondary capital to total As required by the Financial Deposit Insurance Corporetion - assets. Primary capital wu defined Institution Reform, Recovery sad improvement Act o[ 1991 (FDIf3A). : prindpelly a ant she»holders' Enforcement Act (FIRREA), the OTS Las FDICIA requires the OCC to provide a equity, genera 11 oan loo reservsa, sad established s 3 pertant coro capital rnuo report to Congrou on any differences in certain mandatory convertible and a 1.5 percent tangible spite! capital standards among the federel securitie. Cenerelly, banks wa» leverage requirement for tLrtR finendal regulatory agendas. This. required to maintain a level of primary institutions. The OTS, hovrover, is notice is intended to aatiafy the FDICiA capital of et least 5.5 percent of total currently in the process of fiaaliang e requiroment that the report be published assets and a level of total capital new leverage rule that will gensrelly in the Federal Register. ~ ~ z . (primary plus secondary capital) of at conform with Ne rules of tLe banking con Fl1ttrltot wtrorouTtort CONTACT: least 6 percent of total assets. agencies. The differences tLet will exist Robert Hemming, National Baak In 1989 the banking agendas end OTS after the promulgation of the final OTS Examiner, Office of the'Chief National adopted the risk•based rapitsl leverage requirement will pertain to the - Hawaii Notices SEI?EFffiEA H, 1995 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 c/o Office of Environmental Quality Convol Contact: Sidney M Fuke (969-1522) 220 South King Sveet, Suite 400 Public Challenge Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Deadline: October 9, 1995 Cooperating Status: Negative Declaration issued, project maybe Agency: U.S.D.A. Natural Resources implemented. Conservation Service The National Asvonomical Observatory of Japan is P. O. Box 50004 proposing an asvonomy base facility for the Subaru Observa- Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 tory in Hawaii on leazed land owned by the State of Hawaii, Contact: Kenneth Kaneshiro (541-2601) assigned to the Unversity of Hawaii at Hilo. Public Comment Deadline: October 9, 1995 Subaru Observatory is presently being constructed atop Status: Fim Notice, pending public comment Mattna Kea on Hawaii Island. The support and reseazch staff The project will make major improvements to the would be bazed at this proposed facility. existing 26-mile long Lower Hamakua Ditch system by replacing, renovating and rehabilitating intakes, flumes, The facility would be built on a vacant 3.8 acre portion tunnels and open ditches. These improvements will allow the of a 202.736 acre parcel located within the Unversiry's continued delivery of agricultural water to support the research and technology park. The subject parcel is located on transformation of former sugar lands into diversified agricul- the makai side of Komohana Svee[ and mauka of the Univer- lure farms, and to provide emplo}~ment opportuniues for sity, Waiakea, South Hilo. The parcel is designated for former Hamakua Sugar Plantation workers. University use on the Hawaii County General Plan Land use Pattern Allocation Guide Map. The project will take into consideration the return of excess waters to the sveams for enhancement of Waipio Preliminary plans reflect atwo-story facility, consisting Valley's environment and will return the Hiilawe Falls to its of 36,800 sgttare feet, 92 parking stalls, and landsgping original state. improvements. Construction would occur in two phases, with estimated cost at $10 to $12 million. This project will be implemented under authority of Public Law 83-566 and will be a federally assisted project No adverse environmental, social, and economic through the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation impacts are anticipated with the construction of the proposed Services. asvonomy base facility. Draft Environmental Impact Environmental Impact Statement Statements Preparation Notices (4) Kealakehe Parkway From Mamalahoa (3) Hamakua Lower Ditch R'atershed Highway To Queen Kaahumanu Highway Project 1Vew Four-Lane Urban Arterial District: Hamakua District: North Kona TMK: 4-3 to 4-8, 3rd Division Tom; 7~-2:8; 7-4-6:12; 7-1-8:47, 5, 60, 13, 17 Applicant: Department of Agriculture Applicant: Department of Transportation, H)ghwa}'s P. O. Box 22159 Division Honolulu, Hawaii 96823-2159 planning Branch Contact: Paul Matsuo (9T-`173) 600 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 304 Accepting Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 Authority: Governor, State of Hawaii ~ ~ ~ ~ Hawaii Notices SEPTEMBER S, 1995 Contact: Ronald Tsuzuki (587-1830) • at-grade improvements to the intersection of Queen Accepting Kaahumanu Highway and Kealakehe Pazkway; and Authority: Governor, State of Hawau • a constmction detour road at the eastern (mauka) do Office of Environmental Quality Coovol terminus of Kealakehe Parkway. The detour road would 220 South King Sveet, Suite 400 maintain traffic flow during the consuvction of the eastern Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (mauka) terminus of the project After completion of the Consultant: Pazsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas project, portions of the detour road would remain to provide Inc, access to a small number of existing residential units. 1001 Bishop Sveet, Suite 3000 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 The draft EIS identifies and assesses the envvoiimeatal Contact: Keith Nakano (566-2217) and social impacts that could result from the completion of Public Comment Kealakehe Pazkway. To ensure that the full range of issues Deadline: Extended to September 22, 1995 related to this proposed action azc addressed and all signifi- Status: Fourtlt Notice, pending public comment cant issues are identified, comments and suggestions are The Highways Division of the State of Hawaii Depart- invited from all interested parties. SDOT and FHWA will went of Transportation (SDOT) and the Federal Highway consider these comments prior to selecting the preferzed Administration (FTIWA) are proposing the construction of a alternative, which will be presented in the final EIS. new, four-lane urban arterial in the North Kona District of Hawaii County, Hawaii. The proposed roadway would extend east (rnauka) from the State of Hawaii Housing Finance and National Environmental Policy Development Corporation's (f~DC) planned community, the Pillages of I.a'i `Opus, and terminate at Mamalahoa High- ACt (NEPA) way The roadway rystem within the Pillages of Ia'i `Opus includes an existing portion of Kealakehe Parkway that connects to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The proposed roadway would continue east (mauka) and terminate at Mamalahoa Highway. Upon completion, the entire Alii Highway Project - (Re-evaluation Kealakehe Pazkway would extend east (mauka) from the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Honokohau of Project) Harbor Road to a point near the intersection of bfamalahoa Highway and Old Mamalahoa Highway. District: I~TOrth Kona TMK: 7-5-19, 20 (por); 7~-13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, The newly conswaed Kealakehe Parkway would 19 and 25 (por); 7-7-t, OS (por); 7-8-10 satisfy four types of needs: (Por) Applicant: County of Hawaii, Department of Public • system linkage; Works • existing transportation demand and capacity; 25 Aupuni SVeet, Room 202 • safety; and Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3252 • economic development Contact-. Robert Yanabu (961-8,27) Cooperating The proposed project would consist of four elements: Agency: Department of Transportation & U.S. • a four-lane urban arterial that would extend Department of Transportation Federal between Mamalahoa Highway and the portion of Kealakehe Highways Administration (FI-IWA) Parkway within the Villages of Ia'i `Opus. Based upon a 300 Ala Moans Boulevard screening process in which 14 build alternatives were Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 considered, two alternative alignments, each approximately Contact Pat Phung (541-2700) 4.0 kilometers (2.5 miles) in lene~[tt, are addressed in detail in Consultant: RM. Towill Corporation the draft EIS; 420 Waiakamilo Road, Suite 411 • improvements to [he existing and future intersec- Honolulu, Hawaii 96817941 [ions of Palani Road, Old Mamalahoa Highway, Mamalahoa Contact: Colette Sakoda (842-1133) Highway and Kealakehe Parkway; 39956 Federal Register /Vol. 60, No. 150 /Friday, August 4, 1995 /Notices at 991 North Capitol Street, N.E., MT, Due: September O5, 1995, EIS No. 950392, Draft EIS. FHW. I+]C. Washington, D.C. 20926. Contact: Becky Smith (406) 862-2508. Sunset Beach Bridge No. 198 0? Lin+rood A. w'atson, Jr., EIS No. 950334, Drafi EIS, FHW, OK, Secondary Road NC-]172 Acting Secretanc Canadian River Bridge Crossing Replacement, Over the Atlantic Construction, MT-37 east of Tuttle Intracoastal \M1'aterway, Funding. COE IFR Doc. 95-19176 Piled a-3-95: 8:45 amt northward to MT-152 in or near Section 30 and 409 Permit, Bnms+vick BILLING CODE 6r1T-01~ Mustan Fundin COE Section 409 g. g. County, NC, Due: September 25, t 995, and EPA NPDES Permits Issuance, Contact: Nicholas L. Graf (919) 856- Canadian and Counties. MT, Due: 4396. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION September 18, 1995, Contact: James EIS No. 950343, Draft EIS, AFS, AK, AGENCY Erickson (405) 995011. Ei ht Fathom Timber Sales, EIS No. 950335, Drafi EIS, AFS, AK, Lab g (ER-FRL-47251 Bay Project Area Timber Harvest, Implementation, COE Section 4D4 Implementation, COE Section 404. Permit and EPA NPDES, Tongass Environmental Impact Statements; EPA NPDES and Coast Guard Bridge National Forests, Hoonah and Sitka Notice of Availability permits Issuance, Thome Bay Ranger Ranger District, Chatham Area; AK, District, Ketchikan Administrative Due: September 19. 1995. Contact: Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Area. Ton ass National Forest, Prince Michael \Veber (907) 747~i671. Activities, General Information ('202) of Wales Igland, AK. Due: September EIS No. 950344, Drafr EIS. FH1\', CO, 260-5076 OR (202) 260-5075. 18, 1995, Contact: Dave Arrasmith CO-82 Highway Transportation Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed July 24. 1995 (907) 225-3101. Project, Improvements to "Entrance to Through July 28, 1995 Pursuant to 40 EIS No. 950336, Final EIS, COE, IL, Aspen", Funding and COE Section CFR 1506.9. Sugar Creek Municipal Water Supply 404 Permit, City of Aspen, Pitkin Reservoir Construction, COE Section County, CO, Due: September 18, 1995. EIS No. 950328. Draft EIS, FH14', HI, 404 Perlrrit Issuance, City of Marion, Contact: Ron Spero] (303) 969~i737 Kealakehe Parkway Completion. Williamson and Johnson Counties. IL, ex.368 Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Due: September O5, 1995, Contact c, Honokohau Harbor Road Intersection Te Siemsen (502) 582-5550. EIS No. 950345, Revised Draft EI: , UAF. to near the Mamalahoa Hi hw'av and ~ ME, Loring Air Force Base (AFB) g EIS No. 950337, Final EIS, AFS, CA, Disposal and Reuse, Implementation, Old Mamalahoa Highway Mendocino National Forest Land and Intersection, North Korna District, Resource Management Plan, Updated and Additional Information, Hawaii Count}', HI, Due: September Im lementation, Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Aroostook Counh', ME, Due: 18, 1995, Contact: Abraham Won p September 18, 1995, Contact: Nancy g Mendocino. Tehama end Trinity Speake (210) 536-5630. (808) 541-2700. Counties, CA, Due: September 05, EIS No. 950329. Final EIS, AFS. MT, 1995, Contact: Daniel K. Chisholm EIS No. 950346, Draft EIS, U.4F, tJY, \Vagner-Atlanta Vegetation Treatment (g16) 934-3316. Griffis Air Force Base (AFB) Disposal Project, Implementation. Helena EIS No. 950338, Drafr EIS, TVA, TN, and Reuse, Implementation, Oneida National Forest, Townsend Ranger KY, MS, AL, GA, NC, VA, Counh•, NY, Due: September 2`i, 1995. District, Meagher County, MT, Due: programmatic EIS-Energy Vision Contact: Jonathan D. Farthing (Z10) September 05, 1995, Contact: George 2020, Integrated Resource Plan, 536-3787. Weldon (406) 266-3925. Implementation of Long-Term Plan EIS No. 95034:, Fina] EIS, F.A-A.:VJ, EIS No. 950330, Fina] EIS, BLM, WI'• and Shori-Term Action, TN. AL, KY, Expanded East Coast Plan, Changes in Greater \Vamsutter Area II Natural Gas GA, MS, NC and VA, Due: October 15, Aircraft Flight Patterns over the State Development Project, Approvals and 1995. Contact: Lynn Maxwell (615) of New Jersey, Implementation, NJ, Permits Issuance, Carbon and 751-2539. Due: September 11, 1995, Contact: Sweetwater Counties, WY, Due: EIS No. 950339, Drak EIS, AFS. MT, William Marx (202) 267-9155. September O5, 1995, Contact: John Skyline Ridge Project Area Timber EIS No. 950348, FINAL EIS. NF'S, WA, Spehaz (307) 324-4891. Salvage and Associated Activities, Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration, EIS No. 950331, Draft EIS, AFS. MT, Plan of Approval and Implementation. Olympic National Checkerboazd land Exchange, Plan of Implementation, Kootenai National park, Clallam County. \VA. Due: Approval and Implementation, Forest, Three Rivers Ranger District, Kootenai, Lolo and Flathead National Lincoln County, MT, Due: September September O5, 1995, Contact: Eirian Forest, Lincoln, Flathead and Sanders 18, 1995, Contact: Steve Prieve (906) 1Vinter (206) 452-0321. Counties, MT, Due: September 18. 295693. Amended Notices 1995, Contact: Ted Andersen (406) ' EIS No. 950340, Draft EIS, AFS, 1V A, - 293~211. First Creek Basin Restoration Project. EIS No. 950250, Final EIS, FH\V, PA, 1- EIS No. 950332, Final EIS, EPA, CA. Implementation, Wenatchee National 81 Interchange Project, Construction, Humboldt Bap Open Ocean Dredged Forest, Chelan Ranger District, Chelan Funding Chambersburg, Franklin Material Disposal Site (ODMDs) County, WA. Due: September 18. County, PA, Due: July 17, 199°i, Designation, Samoa Peninsula. 1995, ContacC AI Murphy (509) 682- Contact: Manuel Marks (717) 782- Humboldi County. CA, Due: 2576. 3461. Published FRS-16-95 September O5, 1995, Contact: Allan EIS No. 95034 ],Draft EIS. SF1V, CA, Correction to Title. Ota (415) 744-1980. Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Dated: august t, ts9s. EIS No. 950333, Final EIS, AFS, MT, Rig Authorization for Incidental Take and B Katherine Biggs, Mountain Ski and Summer Resort Implementation o(a Long-Term Expansion Project, Special-Use- Habitat Consen•ation Plan, Western Assoeiote Dtrecror.,\'EYA Complmnce Permit, Flathead National Forest, Riverside County, CA, Due: Division. D se o Federal Aunabes. Tally Lake and Glacier View Ranger September 18, 1995, Contact: Jeff IFR Doc. ss-t9vt Filed s-3-ss. 8:as amt Uistricls, Whitefish, Flathead Count c, Newman 1619) 431-9940. wuwc cone uscoao-u Appendix G.2 -Public Hearing IC1L~i1~2I'I'!`LRlV1`~at~~~rT'Ev~'`sa PL/iASE PRINT p NAME ORCAN/ZATION ADDRESS P!/GNE M I ~SArI ,~J"/`I h(~- A S~. ~1L0 ld9 `~JJ-OG~D 2 ,j7LYL/N6 cfbW -DOT 50 MN'kJPt~ 5f. /-8 y'67zo 733--16~ z e/}ru~/MoNS CUtstt+w,.:t <~a v c e 'zc 7s-sszz s ~ ~NNC~I Kvw »s .r. ~Fkx~a1• ~ 735 k l~'~4S 3as- 75-3 fi b Cati>lmun WLSt tu,lau.To Q~c ~ ilrLn 9b ~ -'J3ll 7 A ~ sk~r[elR+l ~gr -(szs ao .K ~vo z " (/ou P 1 lan`F.{~ - ~Zr?:.. 7e(j (,251 K~w+~vA V6-I4'3 ~-"U48 v ,/c7~ /S~~rJ/s. 7Y-e~/C//r.._.-.~.G~i(a.~ mr./(' -~Y6~ff I(( ,s/nM jk~~~ PO fSe 2r3~ 467vf ~y1 (-"-S y4 11 /"~'~~k ~Un I-~¢a-wi ~3-f`((1 IG+1kKU J'G,E ~Y~ SZS -1.9S 12 ~ ~wt4 ~ faK j-..c li !pL I/ ~f a-/ za.~! IleRPL~ 3a5=715/3 14 C7FO2CrE Nuns n 3 ~ 2 ~ Sr zS %YS3 IS Ifi ~~~LG^-u•n 4!(t_iL('S It<nfi l'A-~u-~~~~r ~MMr i~-S 3'i ~,o-lun(:-! .(.f Oc~ 3:Jry -r7 A~ 17 Afr~..,~ ~ n~o.YSA. qo~, 3zz-rpzmo zn q NAME ORGANlT.ATION ADDRE.S'.S PHONE b' a ss ~ ?3 < 325-5'Y6 42 c.. . aR ~ s...~ /[k+r.K-^' t6{.w.. 7J-~4'ao KAMiNA IC. 31~ -T'«~ 4i ~ - 4a ~o r..qw -fw8 or~.e~ ~l. k-lam ?}*~-rCi° as ~S/IAiZO~ - nD ~17a ~1TvE~/ 3-5%>a ~ non," k~ ?a 7 4fi ~A1,ftc,~ RAND t,P+~i~~ 28ZPPPA51 ~i15D L.46a1 A'3b-z,r7c^ 47 ..Io.N.~s ~Z e\ orJ et~Jc/5 sSd ~7 -I't--~ 1:~~C.Aie~ 3~~'7/ 3 4x = 2c.,., Y N*r F s Si? 3 f .3 i S-- S% o 4r "e~~c fs>.,o~ - O,~ax ~3~/'" ~ 967 - 326- l ~i~/o ~F (-il4f 511 51 52 Si 54 55 Sfi 57 SK Sv fill ~ , i~l ® c G N O ` L N ~ 9 u Na ~ ~ j~ ~ O ,t c py v u y a 3 c ffi u v 3 ~ ~~E~.io oW,~ 9 s ~ bL y Y s v 3 - ` ~ e C o e ~ ~ o E,. _ ? ~ E E'w c n ~A o ~ ~ _ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ .r ~'S m' u i 0 4 ° 'c ' y 5 ~ ~ rs 'es ~ ' .$3 w o ~ S u 5 3 ii. y 'ni z t 5 o S o o v c o a w v u Ga m 1 i~ ~ ~ u~ E ~ y m `c. V~ o ~ 3 S ~ o i F Y. I og YS ~ Z v a= ~ c ~ C °o.$ u „Z u q o nt yU Y. q o f 5 n 0. ' ~ u 0 ~ 3 a~ ~ e.. 5 F u~i ¢a °~f u d c u ~ c ~ o ' a+ w ' ~ a `o a~ o.Et 3 uX o` z ~ }1 ~ x.2 c ~ `d.. o e ~C O c C -o ° 3 a ~ c r~". "q!~ ~1 n' _ n ee c o t«c11 GG "J~ )S N T E vE n ~ C vY ~~^nd ~ 9 e ~ w 'JE u° [O q n ~ 3 i' `o L' ul-- c ~~3 a~ Y °F' LLa ~ h'2 v h u E m= J a'~ c o ~ ,1gl~ p 0 's E n o 0 0 "m ~ n° v C u a O _ u a o o nvi Y2.t_"' u Et ° v Y Y ~ m.~"d o u~o'S E E s _ _ v `o o ~ v ro tC N J o o E ~ a ~ y c a r a j 3~ o~ `o ° u o o~ 4'yd c c a u ~ ~ T 5 ~n o o o yy v n~ ECC'~~ - E N N~ O G~ 4 U 9 ~ 4~ 6 eJ C O a V L C~ 2 9 v E G^ i Y Y ~ ~ ~V S? a v U 0 E e? ~ E m u '7 ~ ~ a 3 ~ o f a m a v c~ w ~ uYtY 3 ~ ° Z ~ y a V `0.5505 `tea ~.E d7: ~C 4 u rp~~ ¢ r. C r ~ .e c ,N 3 _ ~ ~ ''`"~A ~ ~ `tiN ~ ~ m c ~ C C 1 ~ d O C n` ~ ~ ~ ~ O 'Z M n c~'c C ~yI rN 3 0 0 v'~ ~ ^I ~ ~ C °p o `e O ~ ~ H ~ ~ a ~W h~ ~ r ~ q O~O-`U C Q Q N ~ i E 80080 N Y j~p O O 6 Ll N V K Vi N W ~ C O m O C C a = ~ E = ` U w ~ o - ~ E = a ~ _ U i > ° .q O c ° o N A !n O j d; C T O a s 9 V_1 C O G $ C 9 W [U S' {"j 5 .a q C= 9 O L V ~ ~ W W m V _ ~ a • ~ _ v 3 E c v S o pv y~ O M1 ~ D C L~ Ov.C 5 n. E O'GtlG'~'P 9 .y C o. c o N N ~ y .L]N:J N . n C yy N ~I tE ~ N u WI 5 O m O P A N'G S' .C O ~Q v~G~ u c o' ny ~ o E o 5 9`0 o v c o E 2 v a v° .5 ° E r m a H o°c 6 Q a' v i m d'o o n o c E ~v9i~2 C v' ~3 q C 6 u t° 5° n v ~ J ~ Q' T 6 ~ C y O' yO Q N p 9 y "d q 'CJ A T Q. d O NT N N O ~ € ~ d€ a N.c•- r yO U 2 6 9 ~y O ~ Cy O r~ IY ~ 'J O'u d.E SJ W rte". = 5 ~ 5 ~ ~ n° ~ ° c o ° 3 o q o ~ ~ 5 ° $ a G,'~ 3 o a N ° v o.n5 s~v = v .j~~ = E 6 u ::qn"2 A o5 ~~vE? a°'~ ' Y ~ 2Aa c v o ~ ~ ~G o'~tiu~ ' Sii OZ nook 8'`S 3 o E v o~c ~o v °1. ~i°u 5~C o °v `c v E $o.. " 9.. ~ v o v Evn n°~ - S `a+.d ~ _n5 S x ~ vu_ ~ ~ `o° vE 5y vi<~ Ev3 A °c c. o. E 6~ 'cr S 5 c o -S' °c `a y~ S ~ n v W `~~~E3 coati ~ Y = 9 ~c.~3 ~ ~ oo a a4s 04]E _vj 0~1- -i eo~gc2 '°'3~ ~ 5 ~ _ 55° n_ 3S a bS,=~'d&~~E o > d C a._ nc V E ~ ~ o~ o E v= .c .3 'y " o a ti t ~ v +'a ~ 5 v E o 's ~ ~ A a° `-"E ~ n u u u 3~ 5 V ~d' c v s E c E A S ~ a E ~ o~ - a=' a E G " 5 ~ A c 'a ~ a ? v .2 ~~5~°i uo°o s u ya E.°. 3 of ov c ~na 3,o Pvn=~ c cC ~a~~'a p n.L US s v Sg O°~ Aco S cy ~ o.Evq-''n c_V`o a~co c ~ oa ~ c,~L 'c o y v n o''Cd ~ $uo. ~-^n'~G_ S v3 `ua3E E36> n °pv v2 a'aO~L o 3 n va M 3°J°q v~°~m° n '2~ ~aF ..t° °v Y = °6~~0 v' s` a3~ ° s 3 rE~ Eat ° ~ 3 v Ea° iC c ~ of a ° m$ m 3 vc ~ c~p E ~a oU~ ~ fit. E S ~ o v G c on ~ ~ j - _ n n ~ 3 . ~ S c _ F' 3,~. c~~o aco D,c o 5'~i n5 ~~5 Y 2 c qtJ O. cyrA^_ =5 ~5u o Y>v a~ E gSn ~ EIS oc a is y> 3 Y`~O ~oS° vo o`~ asA3S€ r o Eo E ~ ~o c. ~5 a.p 5¢` ' s ova5a o$H_c 'o 0 oJ= °A ~v Y s E 2 .n° oG~o vg Ar u~ 72vo co3v3 ~3 vmD ou u a ~a cE 3NO o~q~~ 0 3~> 103d'.ia. °ov x`c vT ~a c Ea 'aa °c~ 'co E v O~ 3 m 1°'c x.?OS cgo?o" x SEa_°E EE ~r~ Yn 'U ~ o ~ ~ UcS" A= ate. o E.- ~ a ~ a S= 3~ a a' o o ,5° _ c W 3 E _v _ E c LL A° _ v ~ vi ~ o A E =vs o °'v~ `o ~°c~'n u oa°S.Y S n 2 5 a ~ y'I--° v o,~-, os o.- A v5 oav ~n~5 c _ ~Eoo° v~ on. E+` € SSA 90~2~ t5 Ya'c ~2Y~o v a~~~ <",SS`Oc ~3 ova ` ' OAK ogmu ~ cc ~'.c" A~= ~o ~ U°-° c c .7 E ''x° N'~' P S $J2 3 c a 5 c" 5~ 2 c E v ~ b 5 ° c N c b° Y I-? ^Q ° A o c o.~ `°3 ~,~,'i L ~ c't ~ E ~ .5 `off F v'TU ~ y L o ° s nc .5S c ~ E ~ n , i' c € 9 o m v y u o v n_ ~:t 5 c E c~ s U E `c5= c s a o ?.o E 4 E - E w ~a~ v o °~U aaipO~' S . n°1.~~.. _e.a ~ _ c.aA ORIGINAL 1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2 HIGHWAYS DIVISION 3 STATE OF HAWAII 4 In the Matter of the ) Public Hearing Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 5 Kealakehe Parkway Draft ) August 31, 1995 6 Environmental Impact Statement) 7 8 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 9 Taken on behalf of the State of Hawaii, Department of Transporation, Highways Division, at Kealakehe Intermediate 10 School, 74-5062 Onipaa Street, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 96740; commencing at 7:15 p.m., on Thursday, August 31, 1995, 11 Pursuant to Notice. 12 TAKEN BEFORE: ANDREA VASCONCELLOS, RPR, CSR 356 13 Notary Public, State of Hawaii 308 Kamehameha Avenue, Suite 210 lq Hilo, Hawaii 96720 i5 i6 APPEARANCES: ~ 17 Ronald Tsuzuki, State of Hawaii, Department of 1 Transporation 1B Stanley Tamura, State of Hawaii, Department of 1g Transporation 20 Sterling Chow, State of Hawaii, Department of Transporation 21 Keith Nakano, Supervising Civil Engineer, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas 22 David Atkin, Ph.D., Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas 23 Sason Yazawa, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas 24 25 HILO REPORTES (808J 935-5119 2 1 I N D E X 2 SPEAKERS: PAGE 3 Stanley Tamura 3 4 Keith Nakano 6 5 David Atkin 13 6 Paul Simons 20 7 Marni Herkes 22 8 Kelly Gzeenwell 22 9 George Bennett 24 '_0 Janet Butler 27 11 Qt:estion-&-Answer Session 30 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2U 21 22 23 24 25 HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 3 1 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii; Thursday, August 31, 1995; 7:15 p.m. 2 --oDO-- 3 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 4 MR. TAMURA: Good evening. Get seated and we can 5 get started. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. It's 6 certainly a pleasure to see all of you here tonight. It is 7 now a quarter after 7:00. And I hereby declare this public e hearing to be officially open. 9 My name is Stanley Tamura. I'm the Acting 10 Highways Division District Engineer here or, the Big Island. 11 And at this time I'd like to introduce some of our 12 officials and guests here tonight. We have here with us 13 Ilene Norton, who's with the Govenor's Transportation 14 Safety Commission. Ilene is there (indicating). From our 15 Department of Transportation we have Ron Tsuzaki from our 16 Honolulu office and Sterling Chow from our Hilo office. 1 17 From the consultants Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & 18 Douglas, we have Keith Nakano, who is the project manager; 19 David Atkin, who I understand handles the EIS studies; and 20 Jason Yazawa over there. 21 I'd like to introduce the members of the panel 22 here tonight. Ron Tsuzuki is head of our Highways Planning 23 Office, Planning Branch in Honolulu. I already also on 24 the board is Mr. Keith Nakano and David Atkin from Parsons, 25 Brikckerhoff, Quade & Douglas who are the consultants for HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 4 1 the project. 2 The purpose of tonight's public hearing is to 3 discuss the location, design and environmental impacts from 4 the proposed Kealakehe Parkway project. The public hearing 5 is being held for several reasons. First this is a means 6 of informing }•ou of the State Department of 7 Transportation's plans being developed through the Highways B Division. Our intent is that you should be informed and 9 determine, on a factual basis, how you as the general 10 public, property owners, motorists and other interested I1 citizens wit= be affected either beneficially or adversely I2 by this proposed project. I3 Secondly this project hearing is held in order 14 that we may obtain facts not previously brought to our 15 attention with connection with the location and design of 16 the proposed project. Notice of tonight's public hearing ' 17 was published in the Honolulu Advertiser and the West 18 Hawaii Today. 19 I'll now cover the agenda for tonight's meeting. 20 First Mr. Keith Nakano will make a presentation for the 21 Department of Transportation. Then we will have a short 22 recess. When we resume, we'll rece~-~e your testimonies. 23 Following that we will have a question-and-answer period. 24 I would like to cover now very briefly some of the 25 important guidelines for tonight's hearing. HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 5 1 First of all the purpose for us being here 2 tonight, we're not here to debate the proposed 3 improvements, but to solicit factual testimony from you. 4 Nor is this hearing intended to be popular referendum, that 5 is the solution to be selected will not be decided by the 6 majority of those present or represented at this hearing. i 7 we do want to extend to you every opportunity to 8 voice your concerns and to present any new facts that the 9 Department may not be aware of or have not been properly 10 considered. 11 Secondly we want to emphasize the importance of 12 your testimony. All proceedings of the hearing are being 13 recorded. It.'s important that all questions and 14 testimonies are clearly stated into the microphone. 15 Testimony should be factual, brief, unemotional and free of 16 any political references. Extraneous material of any 17 nature whatsoever is not ro erl art of the p p y p proceedings, 18 and all speakers must confine their statement to the 19 subject under discussion. As moderator, it will be my duty 20 to interrupt if I should feel the testimony is wondering 21 afield from the purpose of tonighC's hearing. 22 Thirdly all those wishing to testify are asked to 23 fill out a speaker information card available at Che 24 information desk. In order to give everyone wishing to 25 testify an opportunity to speak, speakers will be limited HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 6 1 to five minutes the first time around. After all speakers 2 have been heard, persons wishing for additional time may 3 have five more minutes. 4 Some of you are here to learn more about the 5 project and may not be ready to submit statements tonight. 6 The State Department of Transportation will continue to 7 accept written statements through September 22, 1995. 8 Following the public hearing, the Highways Division staff 9 will evaluate your testimonies and information presented 10 tonight together with factual data we already have. it I'd like to mention that all information 12 developed in support of the location and design of the 13 proposed project, including the public hearing transcript 14 and written statements received, will be available upon 15 request for public inspection and copying. 16 we'll now get into the details of the proposed 17 project. And I'd like to call upon xeith Nakano to do his 18 presentation. 19 MR. NAKANO: Thank you, Stanley. Good evening 2D ladies and gentlemen. Before I begin tonight's 21 presentation, I would like to ask everyone attending 22 tonight's public hearing, and most of you have already, 23 please sign in at the registration at the front table. 24 There is a handout for tonight's meeting also available at 25 the front table. We also have a few copies of the Federal HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 1 Relocation Assistance Program for your information. During 2 the recess, we welcome you to come forward for a closer 3 look at boards we have on the side. a I'd like to begin by summarizing the project to 5 date, and follow with a brief description of the needs for 6 the project, the alternatives considered and the selection I 7 criteria applied to these alternatives. e The Kealakehe Parkway extension project started 9 in the spring of 1992. Shortly thereafter in August of the 10 same year, a public meeting was held. At that meeting nine 11 build alternatives were exhibited. Since then we have met 12 with landowners, public officials and community 13 organizations. Additional alternatives were then developed 14 from the input received at those meetings. 15 All of the alternatives were then screened to 16 select two alignments for archeological and biological l 17 surveys. Two additional alternatives were developed in J 18 response from findings from these surveys. And these final 19 two alternatives were subjected to further survey, study, 20 detailed analysis and full examination in the draft EIS. 21 The project is now in a stage of the draft Environmental 22 Impact Statement has been published and comments to the 23 draft EIS are being received. 24 (Slides being shown). 25 The project is located in the North Kona District HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 8 1 of West Hawaii just north of Kailua-Kona. Some of the 2 major roadways in area are Queen K. Highway, Mamalahoa 3 Highway, Old Mamalahoa Highway, Palani Road and Hina Lani 4 Street. Next slide shows the project studied alignments. 5 The lower portion of the roadway, Kealakehe Parkway, is 6 currently under construction as part of the Housing, 7 Finance and Development Corporation's Villages of Lai Opua 8 project. 9 This is Mamalahoa Highway, Old Mamalahoa Highway 10 Queen K. Highway down here (indicating). Hina Lani Street 11 in this photo is still under construction. The Kealakehe 12 Elementary and Intermediate School complex. The Kealakehe 13 landfill and the Police Station (indicating). 14 Next slide. The Kealakehe Parkway extension 15 project was initiated to sa[isfy four needs. The first of 16 these is the need for linkage of the highway system. ~I 17 Kealakehe Parkway will provide a connection between Queen 18 K. Highway, Mamalahoa Highway and Saddle Road, and will 19 eliminate the discontinuity in the state route system. 20 The state route, Mamalahoa Highway, currently terminates at 21 a south end and becomes Palani Road, which is a county 22 facility. The Island of Hawaii long-range highway plan 23 also identified the need of system linkage in order to 24 improve cir<:u lation between Hilo and Kona via the Saddle 25 Road and Mamalahoa Highway. HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 9 1 Next slide. This is based on existing traffic 2 demand and capacity. Next slide. Heavy traffic congestion 3 is experienced on several North Kona roadways shown in this 4 slide. The existing roadways experience heavy peak-hour 5 traffic with a percentage of trucks contributing to the 6 traffic mix. Next slide. Traffic projections for the 7 no-build alternative in the year 2015 show even more 8 congestion occurring. Improvements to the level of service 9 on the Queen K. Highway assumes the highway will be widened 10 to four lanes. 11 Note, however, that a comparison of the roadway 12 volumes all show a significant increase particularly on 13 Palani Road. It should be noted that opportunities to 14 widen Palani Road are limited, whereas Kealakehe Parkway 15 has beer. identified by state and county plans as means to 15 alleviate traffic congestion and improve regional 17 circulation. 18 Safety is the third need identified for this 19 project. Numerous accidents have been reported on Palani 20 Road between Palani junction and Queen K. Highway. The 21 Kealakehe Parkway provides a much safer alignment than 22 Palani Road. The need to support the economic development 23 of *_he region and to support the the North Kona region 24 has experienced a significant increase in population and 25 that increase is expected to continue. HILO REPORTES (BOB) 935-5119 10 1 Various plans identified the North Kona area for 2 urban expansion. Among them are the Hawaii State Plan, 3 Functional Plans, and Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide 4 seen here. The west Hawaii Regional Plan also acknowledges 5 growth in the Kealakehe area in support of the existing 6 community. The county's Keahole to Kailua Plan also 7 identifies the area for growth. Ongoing development in the 8 area include Housing, Finance and Development Corporation's 9 Villages of Lai Opua project with 4,100 residential units 10 and high school; Queen Liliokalani Trust lands with 11 development underway and Che proposed expansion of the 12 industrial area; and University lands selected as the i3 proposed site for the West Hawaii campus. 14 Tt:e Kealakehe extension project is a £our-lane 15 rural arterial extending from Mama lahoa Highway to the 16 portion of the Kealakehe Parkway presently under J 17 construction. The roadway is situated with the basic 120- ' 18 foot right-of-way, two lanes in each direction. It will be 19 divided by a median and will have paved shoulders. The 20 total length of the parkway extension is two and a half 21 miles. 22 The Kealakehe Parkway extension project will 23 require a construction detour road at its mauka terminus. 24 The project will also require intersection construction or 25 modification at Old Mamalahoa Highway and Palani Road as HILO REPORTES (800) 935-5119 11 1 well as intersection improvements at Queen K. Highway. 2 Construction cost is estimated between 29 and 34 million 3 dollars. 4 Four categories of alternatives were considered 5 for evaluation. First of these categories is the no-build 6 alternative. The no-build alternative does not include any ' 7 construction exce t for existin p g projects located outside B of the Kealakehe Parkway extension project corridor. This 9 will mean comple[ion of the Kealakehe Parkway only within 10 the Villiages of Lai Opua and widening Queen K. Highway to 11 four lanes. 12 Traffic system management or TSM is the second 13 category of alternatives. TSM includes transit or 14 para-transit systems as well as selected traffic control 15 measures such as ride-sharing programs. However, the 16 applicability of TSM to rural conditions is unclear. And 17 it does not eliminate the discontinuity in the state route J 18 system nor provides a link between the Villages of Lai Opua 19 and Mamalahoa Highway and Palani Road. Therefore, it does 20 net conform to the state and county plan. 21 The third category consists of improvements to 22 [he existing corridor, which includes widening Palani Road 23 or converts Y.ina Lani Street to a state facility. Widening 24 Palani Road would require conversion to a state facility, 25 and must be widened to four lanes. Right-of-way HILO REPORTES (BOB) 935-5119 12 1 acquisitions would be required including 71 residences and 2 a church. 3 Widening Palani Road would link Mamalahoa Highway 4 and Queen K. Highway, but does not provide access to the 5 Villages of Lai Opua and Kealakehe High School from 6 Mamalahoa Highway. Conversion o£ Hina Lani Street to state 7 facility would eliminate the state route discontinuity, but 8 would not constitute a through route and therefore creates 9 a difficult maneuver at the Mamalahoa Highway intersection, 10 particularly for trucks. It also will not provide access 11 to the Villages of Lai Opua from Mamalahoa Highway. 12 The final category of evaluation is the build 13 alternative for the extension of Kealakehe Parkway. 14 Fourteen alignments were studied. Five were initially 15 developed by others five additionally developed by i6 others. Five additionally developed by the Department of l 17 Transportation. And four were proposed by the J 18 landowners. All of these categories, except the no build, 19 must pass these criteria. 20 The alternative must provide for the continuity 21 of the state route system. Alternatives must be consistent 22 with state and county regional plans. It must be capable 23 c: 90-mile-per-hour design speeds, and have a maximum grade 24 of not more than 11 percent. The selection is also based 25 on the number of residences directly impacted as well as HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 13 1 the number of religious, recreational, or educational 2 facilities affected. And finally, it must minimize the 3 impact to biological and archeological resources. As a 4 result of this screening analysis, alternatives 10 and 11 5 were selected for detail study as the build alternatives in 6 the draft EIS. They were then compared with the no-build 7 alternative t:o assess relative impacts. 8 David Atkin will now continue with the major 9 components of the draft EIS, and the next steps in the 10 environmental process. 11 MR. ATKIN: Thank you, Keith. My part of the 12 presentation will summarize some of the main conclusions of 13 the draft EIS. I will discuss which alternative alignments 14 the Department of Transportation is leaning towards based 15 on current information, and provide a full overview of the 16 next steps in the project. 17 The availability of the draft EIS was noticed on 18 July 23rd in a bulletin of the Office of Environmental 19 4uality Control and on August 4th in the Federal Register. 20 The document has been distributed to government agencies, 21 interest groups, political leaders and public libraries. 22 These notices initiate a public comment period which ends 23 on September 22nd. During this period comments from 24 interested groups, agencies and individuals are welcome and 25 should be sent to the Director of the State Department of HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 14 1 Transportation. The address is provided in the handout 2 that is available at the sign-in table. 3 And the next slide, please. We show the various 4 impact categories that were addressed in the draft 5 Environmental Impact Statement. The project has a wide 6 range of positive and adverse impacts as shown on the 7 slide. The project's impacts will be both positive and 8 negative. 9 The positive impacts relate primarily to improved to transportation service and mobility and accessibility in 11 the region, but also includes some others such as creation 12 of new makai views for usezs of the roadway. 13 However, I~11 now summarize the five main adverse 14 impacts that are discussed in the draft EIS. These being 15 the residential relocation; the increase in noise levels; 16 possible impacts on endangered species; possible impacts on ~ 17 archeological resources including burials; and visual i 18 impacts. 19 Nex[ slide, please. In term of relocations, one 20 resident would be relocated with either alternative 10 or 21 11. In this area here (indicating). This relocation would 22 be handled in accordance with Federal requirements 23 administered by the Department of Transportation, Right- 24 of-Way Branch. A brochure providing an overview of the 25 provisions of the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 15 1 Real Property Acquisition Act is available at the sign-in 2 table. 3 In terms of noise, based on modeling the future 4 noise levels using a federally approved model, the noise 5 impacts of both alternatives are quite similar. In the 6 year 2015 future noises levels could be one to nine 7 decibels greater than at present depending on the location 8 in relation t.o the road. These increases generally do not 9 exceed federal guidelines except at one location, which is 10 this area in here (indicating). Where noise mitigation may 11 be necessary when traffic volumes reach levels projected 12 for the year 2015, noise mitigation would not necessary 13 based on traffic volumes projected initially. 14 In terms of endangered species, several rounds of 15 fieldwork were accomplished so we can fully understand the 16 impacts of the project on threatened and endangered l 17 species. These investigations indicated that the project J 18 could potentially involve three rare plant species as shown 19 on this slide. 20 Next slide, please. Two of these rare species 21 are located within alignment 10 here and here 22 (indicating). And a third species is located near the 23 alignment here (indicating). However, one species of 24 concern is located within alternative 11 up here 25 (indicating). The second species of concern that's located HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 16 1 near alternative 11 here and here (indicating) is not 2 officially designated as threatened or endangered. 3 In terms of archeological resources, field 4 investigations were conducted so that we would also fully 5 understand the impacts of the alternative alignments on 6 archeological resources. 7 Next slide, please. These are the types of 8 archeological resources that were encountered. Each 9 archeological site was placed into one of four categories; 10 no further work, data recovery, preservation, or date li recovery and preservation. An archeological inventory 12 survey report describes each archeological site in detail 13 and has been submitted to and accepted by the Department of 14 Land and Natural Resources. 15 Alternative 10 and the detour would affect 69 16 sites of which eight are classified for preservation. l 17 Alternative 11 and the detour area would affect 51 sites of 18 which seven have been classified for preservation. 19 In terms of visual impacts, since the parkway 20 would be built on a berm in some areas, some people 21 adjacent to the alignment would see a roadway berm instead 22 of their present view. This would only affect those close 23 Co the alignment, however. We would mitigate this visual 24 impact through a landscaping program. 25 Some have also expressed a concern about roadway HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 17 1 lighting. Lights may be provide at the intersections of 2 the Kealakehe Parkway and Palani Road and Kealakehe Parkway 3 and Queen K. Highway. Although there is roadway lighting 4 along the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation's 5 part of the roadway, it is not presently proposed that 6 lights be placed along the rest of the length of the 7 road. A positive visual impact is the parkway will create B new vistas makai for motorists using the road. 9 Now, I'm going to talk about the alternative 10 alignment presently under consideration. Can I have the 11 next slide, please? Based on information presently 12 available the Department of Transportation is leaning 13 towards the selection of alternative 11 for two main 14 reasons. 15 The first is that alternative 11 minimizes 16 impacts on archeological resources generally and ~ 17 particularly archeological resources classified for 1 18 preservation. The second reason is that alternative 11 19 minimizes impacts on endangered species as shown in the 20 previous slide. In additional alternative 11 has a lower 21 cost than alternative 10. This preference is only 22 tentative at this point and your input on the preferred 23 alternative is welcome. 29 After the close of the comment period, the 25 Department of Tzansporation and Federal Highways HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 18 1 Administration will make a final determination of the 2 preferred alternative considering any new information 3 provided during the comment period. And that determination 4 will be recorded in the final EIS. 5 In terms of the next steps on the project, the 6 planning phase is not yet complete. Major events still to 7 be accomplished include the close of the comment period on e September 22nd, the publication of the final EIS, which 9 will state the preferred alternative, which at this point 10 appears to be alternative 11. We will also address all the 11 comments that were received on the draft EIS. After the 12 distribution of the final EIS, a Record of Decision 13 document will be issued by the Federal Highways 14 Administration, and also the Governor will formally accept 15 the final EIS. These acceptances will include commitments 16 to implement mitigation measures. 17 Even after the acceptance of the final EIS, 18 details of the mitigation measures and procedures [o i9 address the project's impacts on archeological resources 20 and endangered species would still need to be resolved. 21 This will include continuing coordination with the Fish and 22 Wildlife Service and the Department of Land and Natural 23 Resources. And since burials are involved, coordination 24 will also occur with the Burial Council. 25 The design phase will then follow the planning HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 19 1 phase, which would in turn be followed by construction with 2 the Kealakehe Parkway expected to open for service by 1999. 3 The project schedule is provided in the handout which is 4 available at the sign-in table. 5 To stay involved, send your comments on the draft 6 EIS to the Director of the State Department of 7 Transporation. Comments supporting the project are as e welcome as comments addressing the projects adverse 9 impacts. 10 Now, I'm going to turn this back to our 11 moderator. 12 MR. TAMURA: Thank you Mr. Nakano and Mr. Atkin. 13 We will now have a 15-minute recess after which we'll be 14 ready to receive your testimony. If you have not already 15 done so and you want to testify, please pick up a testimony 16 card at the information desk and have it filed out and 17 returned to the attendant. i8 Okay, we'll break for a recess 19 (Break taken.) 20 MR. TAMITRA: Let's get started again. Will the 21 meeting please come to order? We will now be receiving 22 your testimony. When you do come up, please step up to the 23 mike, speak directly into the mike and give your name and 24 organization that you may represent. 25 The first person we will be calling up is Carl HILO REPORTES (BOB) 935-5119 zo 1 Simons. 2 MR. SIMONS: My name is Carl Simons. I'm 3 representing West Hawaii Concrete. q VOICE: Why don't you turn your back to them with 5 the mike to us? 6 MR. SIMONS: All right. 7 My name is Carl Simons. I represent West Hawaii 8 Concrete. We're a supplier of concrete and aggregates in 9 west Hawaii. We support this proposed construction of 1o Kealakehe Parkway. We regularly use all of the available 11 routes from Mamalahoa Highway through Palani Road. And 12 prior to the conclusior. of this project, trucks like we 13 have will continue to have to use either Hina Lani, Palani 14 on Palisades. All of roads have serious drawbacks that 15 have been the subject of comments for years. 16 As the EIS notes, there are numerous accidents 17 along Palani, Hina Lani and Palisades and they were built 18 not to accommodate truck traffic. Palisades is currently 19 Hosted with a tonnage limit. And residents of Kona Heavens 20 have asked for a tonnage limit. Palani Road is narrow and 21 rural as you've noted and there are lots of existing homes 22 near the roadway. 23 Truck traffic is a major problem for residents , 24 and truckers alike on the existing roads which haven't been 25 designed for such traffic. Very often someone gets stuck HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 21 1 behind a slow-moving truck going up Palani and gets 2 frustrated. In frustration, this person may pass in a 3 no-passing lane, trying to get around the slow-moving 4 truck. Truckers don't want to be in the way, but we don't 5 have any other road. By the way, when a fully loaded truck 6 goes up Palani Road, pulling over to stop to let traffic by 7 is pretty unsafe and usually delays traffic even more. And 8 on Palani Road when a truck tries to get back on the 9 highway, it's usually pulling out at a blind spot, which is 10 dangerous and then it never gets going as fast as it was 11 going when it pulled over because it can never regain road 12 speed. 13 One of the things I was going to comment on is 14 that I notice the road is designed as a four-lane highway. 15 And I know those things get done in phases. And I would 16 certainly ask that if it does get done in phases, that j 17 truck passing lanes get designed into it. 18 I also understand that the road is going to cost 19 a lot. I have a hard time understanding 45 million dollars 20 for two and a half miles, but whatever it costs, it's not 21 going to get cheaper. And if we don't build it, we'll have 22 tc use the roads that we consider unsafe. Thank you. 23 MR. TAMURA: When we first started, I failed to 24 recognize Marni Herkes, from the Kona Kohala Chamber of 25 Commerce. She's our next person to testify. HI LO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 zz 1 MS. HERKES: It's the Kona Kohala Chamber of 2 Commerce. I'm Marni Herkes testifying for the Kona Kohala 3 Chamber of Commerce, who fully supports the proposed 4 extension of the Kealakehe Parkway to Mamalahoa Highway. 5 The east-west lane including the two roadways 6 have been included in the Big Island highway plans for over 7 ten years. We fully agree that this extension will satisfy 8 the system linkage needs, existing transportation 9 development capacity needs, safety needs, and economic 10 development needs. Along with these considerations, we ask 11 that the DOT Highways and the Federal Highways 12 Administration look carefully at the kinds of truck traffic 13 and economic dependency of business and consumer community 14 upon this traffic. We need a safe convenient truck route 15 from Mamalahoa to Queen K. This would mean this would have 16 to be a fouz-lane highway and graded for truck 17 transportation. And unlike Carl, I don't think we want to 18 just put the truck passing lanes. I think we'd like to 19 start with a four-lane highway just once. Thank you. 20 MR. TAMURA: Thank you, Marni. Next we'll have 21 Kelly Greenwell. 22 MR. GREENWELL: I think everyone here has heard 23 me make this testimony before so I'll be brief as I 24 possibly can. I still have some concerns over the 25 severeness of the curve. I'm not sure that it can't be HILO REPORTES (BGB) 935-5119 23 1 done in a way that will relax that curve some. I know that 2 an awful lot of study has been put into this. I don't want 3 to spend a lot of time. I would ask that you try to give 9 more thought to what I consider to be somewhat of a hairpin 5 curve. The traffic is traveling for the five or six miles 6 in almost a straight line and come into [hat kind of curve. ' 7 As you now when I first got started on this horse e some six years ago, there were 27 fatalities recorded. And 9 i would hate like hell to spend 45 million dollars and have 10 more fatalities and that sort of thing. 11 I was somewhat concerned about the width of the 12 road earlier, but I think Carl has a very good point when 13 you have trucks, this road is going to be used and used. I 14 would envision this will be used and four lanes is probably 15 the most appropriate. 16 For esthetic reasons I would like to see a medial 17 strip. And for safety reasons I'd like to see a medial 18 strip. I realize a median strip is probably what's making 15 the road cost so much because of the grades and whatnot. 20 But if we can afford it, it would be nice to have. 21 I kind of want to go on record today as being in 22 favor of this project in almost any way, shape or form it 23 can go because I think it's critical for the future of Kona 24 to move along with this project. And I don't want to be 25 someone who stands in the way. I might suggest that you HILO REPORTES (80B) 935-5119 24 1 remove the Loulu palms. I have a hard time with the kinds 2 of costs incurred trying to comply with federal regulations 3 and guidelines in trying to save endanger species when 4 they're truly not endanger species. And the Loulu palm is 5 not an endangered species as far as I'm concerned. We have 6 probably 250 of them in pots in our nursery right now. 7 It's hard enough to get people to buy them. e I don't want to be strung up either by the 9 Hawaiians, but there are lots of things that are considered l0 arti_`acts and archeological sites in the area. They are ll all over Kona. And I think it's degrading to the Hawaiian 12 people to say that represents their level of culture when 13 it's simply where someone has put some piles of rock when 14 they planted some potatoes, taro, and bananas in this area. 15 But for God's sakes, let's not spend a couple of million I6 dollars saving a pile of rock. So thank you very much. ~ 17 MR. TAMURA: Our next testimony will be from J 18 Mr. George Bennett. 19 MR. BENNETT: Good evening. I'm George Bennett. 20 I'm the President of the Community Association in Kona 2~ Heavens. And I thank you all for this opportunity. I want 22 to thank you that we got this far on the road. It's 23 something that's de'_initely over needed and the time has 24 gone by where it should have been built. 25 I look at Kona as a community of 30,000 and HILO REPORTES (BOB) 935-5119 2s 1 growing, and think back a few years ago when Hilo was that 2 size. I think they had quiet a few more roads in Hilo. It 3 must have been a lot cheaper to build them in that flat 4 area. So it's definitely overdue. 5 I look at this meeting tonight sort of like sweet 6 and sour sauce. In that the sweet part is we've come this 7 far and the road is coming to reality. And then the sour 8 part is the cost of it. 9 It's unfortunate that we don't have a way to come 10 up with a more cost efficient way of doing it. Even at 11 30,000 30 million dollars for the road and 18 months, 12 that basically 24 feet of road to day, which is the size of 13 three of these tables. This table is eight-feet long so 14 [hat's 24 feet. And that would be 60 thousand dollars or 15 30 million for the whole project, so that equates to a foot 16 of road for $2,750. I think they rebuilt the Sana Monica 17 freeway in a lot less time and a lot less money. And one J 18 cf the ways they did it, is they put in an incentive for 19 the builders; that he would get a bonus if he got done 20 quick. So we might [ry something like that. 21 I support the road from the point of view that 22 the more roads I think we have in Kona, the more diluted 23 the traffic will be, very obviously, and the less traffic 29 noise for everywhere. The stick-your-head-in-the-sand 25 ostrich approach that, no, I don't want a road near my HILO REPORTES (BOB) 935-5119 26 1 house, has a certain disadvantage that means that we 2 talked about earlier tonight. 3 My house is right here (indicating). It was nice 4 and quite before they finished Hina Lani. But I'd rather 5 trade that little piece of peace and quite for the 6 convenience and safety of having another arterial road. And S have to clean my screens more often but, hey, you 8 know, there's other places like the tundra where I don't 9 have to worry about that, but I don't want to live there. 10 The other thing is if you do need any street 11 lights for this project, we have a few extra ones on Hina 12 Lani we'll be glad to take over. The only other thing 13 that's also good about the sour part of the sweet and sour 14 is in reading the K-to-K plan, overall plan that was 15 produced I'm not sure who produced it. They mention 16 greenbelts and jogging paths and bike trails. I wonder if 17 you can trade the median in for one of those somehow? I'd 1B like some response, maybe in the question-and-answer 19 period, how dial it come about that those things were not 20 include in the planning, even though someone else had 21 included them in their plans and thought it was a good 22 idea? Because if you've been in some places on the 23 mainland where they have bike trails and jogging trails, 24 it's definite iy a wonderful addition; helps in congestion 25 and confusion; and ways to get other places. Thank you. HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 z~ 1 MR. TAMURA: Our final scheduled testimony will 2 be from Ms. Janet Butler. 3 MS. BUTLER: Thank you very much for coming here. 9 Thank you for the wonderful progress thus far in this badly 5 needed road. I'm stzong to favor the building of this road 6 for a number of reasons. I have some miscellaneous things 7 to add because some of the others have covered most of what 8 I had to say. 9 Hina Lani has an 18.8 percent grade. We've seen to trucks jack-knife. We've seen trucks lose their brakes. 11 Some poor soul wrote a letter to the editor in the 12 newspaper telling us of what a terrifying experience that 13 if you've got a big tractor-trailer that loses its momentum 14 and it's rolling backwards and the brakes aren't adequate 15 to stop it, where do you go to get out of the way? She 16 thought she was going to get squashed like a bug. 17 we have people hauling boats behind pickup trucks 1B that have jack-knifed and ended up in our neighbor's wall. 19 I think one of the more interesting things is we no longer 20 see children walking vp and down Hina Lani SCreet. I 21 suspect that parents don't allow them to walk up to the 22 school bus at the top of the hill nor do they allow them to 23 walk down the hill in the afternoon because it's too 24 dangerous. 25 Hina Lani Street has this kind of terrain HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 za 1 (indicating). And pulling out of the side street onto Hina 2 Lani and someone is coming mauka, they cannot see you. 3 Coming out of Manaheli Street, I've come very close to 4 getting rear-ended and hit from the side more times than I 5 would like to tell you about. If you live on the street 6 below that's coming down, they get down to that dip and 7 they come over the top, they can't see the person pulling B out. 9 I've made it something of a hobby of mine to 10 clocl: people. And I've chased people on Hina Lani Street li and I've clocked them on average of 55 miles an hour. Hut 12 I did get one guy that was doing almost 70, and he was only 13 half way up ttie hill. But they come roaring through there 14 to take a run at that hill so they can make it. It's 15 really a very dangerous place. We do not have adequate 16 pclice to come and patrol. They come up as often as they 17 can. But we simply don't have the adequate police force to J 16 handle the traffic control. So it would be a great boon in 19 that respect to get the heavy vehicles off that road. 2D Another point is that the upper portion of Hina 21 Lani is over 20 years old. I think probably around 25. It 22 was a very well-built road. It held up beautifully until 23 about the last two years. The road was not ever intended 24 I don't think they ever anticipated the heavy vehicles 25 that would be covering that road in recent times. And in HILO REPORTES (608) 935-5119 29 1 the two years, approximately, that that road has been open, 2 there's side areas of the road that are very slick. 3 There's other areas that are pot-marked. And it's obvious 4 that the road is rapidly breaking down. In my estimate 5 that in probably two or three years there's going to have 6 to be a major resurfacing or rebuilding of that road, and 7 it's not going to be cheap to do that. 8 I saw on CNN a couple of weeks ago a thing called 9 factoid. And I was most interested to see that a fully 10 loaded tractor-trailer, one run over a road has as great an 11 impact on that road as 10,000 automobiles. This may 12 explain why our roads breakdown so rapidly because they're 13 not constructed to handle this kind of impact. 14 I would hope that this lateral road, this 15 Kealakehe Farkway would be built to handle today's traffic, 16 today's heavy equipment and get the load off of Palani ~ 17 Road. Some of our policemen here have told me it is the 18 most dangerous road in the state. We've killed an awful 19 lot of people on Palani Road. We've wrecked an awful lot 20 of cars. I mean totaled them. Not to mention those that 21 spend their life down here at the local repair shop. The 22 rate of speed at which people travel Palani Road is also a 23 problem. People are in an awful big hurry to go someplace. 24 I don't know quite where they're going, but that seems to 25 be part of the story. HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 30 1 I think probably that's the bulk of what I have 2 to say. I certainly hope that the road will be built. I 3 hope it will be built soon. We really need it 4 desperately. Thank you. 5 MR. TAMURA: Thank you. 6 We're now at the question-and-answer session. If 7 you do have a question, please raise your hand, step up to 8 the mike, state your name and the organization that you 9 represent. 10 Do we have any questions? 11 VOICE: Can we ask questions from the flocr? 12 MR. TAMURA: Yeah, I guess so. 13 QUESTION-and-ANSWER SESSION 14 MR. MYHRE: What`s the breakdown on the Federal 15 money? I lived on Oahu at one time and they're always 16 talking about H-3 or whatever it was, all of a sudden the 17 federal money is going to run out and they decide to do 18 something. What effect does that have here? 19 MR. TSUZUKI: I'm not sure if I understand your 20 question but 21 MR. MYHRE: Well, say if there's 30 million to 22 make it, what if 27 of it or 25 of it comes from the 23 federal government and the rest from the state or the 24 county, whoever it is. 25 MR. TSUZUKI: Yes. As far as the construction of HILO REPORTES (BOB) 935-5119 31 1 the project approximately 80 percent of the cost comes from 2 the federal government, Federal Highway Funds. Twenty 3 percent comes from state. You're referring to that? 4 MR. MYHRE: Yes. 5 MR. TSUZUKI: And your question is? 6 VOICE: What was the breakdown you gave? 80/20? 7 MR. TSUZUKI: Yeah. I heard something else as 8 far as what you wanted to 9 MR. MYHR£: Is time running out for~the 80 10 percent fos~ us or does that appear to be good for another 11 five or ten years, six months? 12 MR. TSUZUKI: Well, the federal government 13 Congress really decides how much money is really going to 19 be appropriated every year. So that can change over the 15 number o£ years. That's not a steady thing. 16 MR. MYHRE: That's not a major problem, then? 17 MR. TSU7.UKI: Well, it is. 18 MR. MYHRE: Next year it might be 60? 19 MR. TSUZUKI: If the federal government decides 20 or Congress decides to cut back and they are, you know, 21 trying to cut back as far as federal dollars in all areas, 22 not only highways, all over. So it is a concern. 23 MR. MYHRE: So we should take advantage of it 24 now, then? 25 MR. TSUZUKI: Yes. HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 32 1 MR. MYHRE: Thank you. 2 MR. TAMURA: Yes? 3 MR. GREENWELL: Do you consider the project 4 schedule shown in the EIS as reasonably a fast track? 5 MR. NAKANO: I think I would characterize that as 6 more typical. It was not intended to be a fast track. It 7 would be an average project. 8 MR. GREENWELL: My question is somewhat similar 9 to yours: Is there a ceiling maybe BO percent if we look 10 at the overall cost as being a very high cost for a 11 roadway? There's some danger here that the feds can come 12 up and say the overall cost is too high, therefore we are 13 not going to participate. Do you have that option, and 14 will they say you're only entitled to so much per mile or 15 some other rule that might be in there? 16 MR. NAKANO: The concern is the cost per mile. The 17 federal government is not going to tell us "no." As long 18 as the federal government agrees that these estimates are 19 reasonable, they don't have any 20 MR. GREENWELL: They don't have some hard and 21 fast rule? 22 MR. TSUZUKI: No. There's no rule that says that 23 that highway has to cost so many million per mile or 24 anything like that. 25 MR. GREENWELL: Or cannot exceed so much? HILO REPORTES (BOB) 935-5119 33 1 MR. TSUZUKI: They would have to agree with the 2 cost estimates. And a cost estimate is just that, just a 3 cost estimate. Actual construction will be based on bids 4 received from contractors. 5 MR. GREENWELL: When will you be ready to put 6 this out to bid? 7 MR. TSUZUKI: If you look at your handout, I 8 think it mentions whatever it mentions. 9 MR. TAMURA: '97. 10 MR. TSUZUKI: The handout mentions mid 1997 to it start construction. 12 MR. GREENWELL: I'm old enough so I can use the 13 excuse I didn't bring my glasses. 14 VOICE: Is there any reason that this project 15 couldn't be moved forward? '97 well, I was going to say ' 16 a year a half away. What is delaying the why is this 17 project so far down the road? i8 MR. TSUZUKI: I don't want to fight over who ' 19 wants Co answer that. 20 Keith, you know, mentioned a process we have to 21 go through. This is a fedezal aid project. We have to go 22 through this EIS process. That's a requirement we have to 23 do it if we intend to use federal funds. 2g VOICE: This has not been an issue then that the 25 EIS has not begun? HILO REPORTES (8081 935-5119 34 1 MR. TSUZUKI: No. The draft EZS is available 2 right now for public comment. That's the purpose of this 3 meeting, to really show you what the results what the 4 draft Environmental Impact Statement, what those results 5 are and receive public comment. There was that September 6 22nd deadline for comments that we are setting for receipt 7 of public comments on the draft EIS. 8 After we do that, after we receive all of these 9 comments, we're going to go through all of them, evaluate 10 all of them, and try and address all of these comments and 11 come up, as David Atkin mentioned earlier in his 12 presentation, by the end of this year, we're going to 13 complete the EIS and come out with a final version of that 14 document. 15 VOICE: Approximately a four-month process after 16 the public hearing is held? 17 MR. TAMURA: Approximately, yes. Then, you know, 18 I guess, continuing on it's the federal government. Once 19 they accept this document of the final Environmental Impact 20 Statement and issue what is called a Record of Decision, 21 which means they either accept one of these alignments as 22 the final alignment for the highway, then they'll authorize 23 the state to proceed with the design of the project. The 24 design is the preparation of the actual construction 25 drawings. And that's the time, you know, that would occur HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 35 1 between the end of the year and the actual start of 2 construction. Design has to occur first. 3 VOICE: Thank you. 4 MS. HERKES: One comment and one question. The 5 comment is we hope that you would get that out to bid as 6 soon as possible to put our construction industry back to 7 work. And I have an engineering question. We've heard 8 several people tonight [alk about the road being engineered 9 for heavy truck traffic. Is it going to be engineered for 10 heavy truck traffic? Is it going to be built that wav? 11 MR. NAKANO: Yes. The paved constructed design 12 is based on the volume and t}Pe of traffic expected. 13 Various facilities will be designed for whatever type o£ 14 traffic is anticipated. In this case, I would more than 15 likely say the trucks are a heavy percentage of that volume 16 so, no doubt, it would be built a little more substantially 17 than other roads. 18 MS. HERKES: Well, what you've heard and what 19 you're telling me is the three mauka-makai roads, none of 20 which are appropriate for truck traffic for various 21 reasons. We need at least one that is appropriate for 22 heav}~ truck traffic. I'd hate to think that this is going 23 by the high school or through the housing development. But 24 if this is the only one that we have to get that truck down 25 there, it's a vital link for our community. So we need to HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 36 1 stress this fact that it needs to be designed for heavy 2 truck traffic. 3 MR. NAKANO: (Nods head up and down). 4 VOICE: I would like to address my question to 5 the gentlemen who did the EIS. I want to know what 6 criteria was used to determine visual impacts and sound? 7 And as far as the easement right-of-way, I notice that on 8 the blue line on the map here, the easement is a lot closer 9 right in that area, which just happens to be where my lot 10 is, about 150 feet from my back door. 11 MR. ATKIN: If I understand your question 12 correctly, you're asking me first about the visual, then 13 about the noise, then about the width of the blue zone 14 there that we're showing those lines on that drawing. 15 The EIS is a disclosure document. We're simply 16 in terms o£ the visual, we are simply reporting our 17 conclusions about what we think the visual impacts would 18 be. And where the roadway is elevated above the existing 19 grade by virtue of being on a berm, we're simply just 20 disclosing what we feel would block the views of some 21 people. So there's no criteria. we're simply making a 22 conclusion as to what we think the visual impact would be. 23 In terms of the noise, we're basically guided by 24 something called the National Abatement Criteria. Those 25 are numerically established by the Federal Highways. HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 37 1 They're used as guidelines as to when one needs to deploy 2 sound barriers or other mitigation. So our noise 3 predicting model tells us about the change in noise 4 levels. And in future noise levels where we see certain 5 values as established by the National Abatement Criteria, 6 it would suggest we need to do noise mitigation for highway 7 noise. So that's the criteria that we use on the noise 8 side. 9 In terms of the width of the blue line, I think 10 there is an intent to try to keep this within certain 11 property lines. i2 MR. NAKANO: Yes. 13 MR. ATKIN: That explains why the blue line is 14 where it is on the plans. 15 MR. GREENWELL: Somewhat of a related question 16 but with respect I'm speaking of the five homes within 17 the detour road. Earlier in the presentation, I think 18 there's been an acknowledgement there will be noise impacts 19 and perhaps justification for noise mitigation somewhere 20 down the road. And there seems to be an acknowledgement 21 that there's justification for landscaping or some other 22 mitigation for visual impacts. 23 I'm sorry, I don't recall where it came out. I 24 thought I understood from the presentation this evening 25 that acceptance of the EIS constitutes a commitment to HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 38 1 follow-through with those mitigation measures. Did I hear 2 that tight? Or what can you say to a homeowner who says 3 the problem has been identified, but how do I know that 4 when that time comes, whether it's initially or down the 5 road, that those steps will be taken? Would you comment a 6 little further? 7 MR. ATKIN: I'd say it's important to get 8 comments like that on the record. I really encourage you 9 to restate those concerns and follow that as part of this 10 proceeding as the deadline is September 22nd. So by going 11 on record formally with those kinds of concerns, that helps 12 bring everyone`s attention draws their attention to a 13 particular issue that we feel needs mitigation. 14 A Record of Decision issued by the Federal 15 Highways Administration basically is a declaration they 16 accept this document as an objective disclosure document, 17 _ that all the maj oz impacts, both positive and negative, 18 have been accurately disclosed. It doesn't say that there 19 won't be any adverse impacts, but there's a statement of 20 national policy to try to minimize to the maximum degree 21 adverse impacts. And so there are guidelines as to when 22 that occurs and to what degree that occurred and so forth. 23 But certainly it's the Federal Highways intention to 24 minimize adverse impacts. So I may not have fully answered 25 your question but I'd prefer to get those comments as part HILO REPORTES (BOB) 935-5119 39 1 of the official record. 2 MR. GREENWELL: Another question, if I may, with 3 respect to the detour road. There is a right-of-way 4 there is a budget item for right-of-way acquisition with 5 respect to the detour road. Does that contemplate fee 6 acquisition or is it lease-hold-type acquisition for a term 7 only? Could you clarify if it's been determined at this 8 point what it will be? 9 MR. NAKANO: Certainly. The detour road is meant 10 to be a temporary road and as such right-of-way acquisition 11 fees shown there are for lease-hold or they're an interim 12 condemnation for the period of construction. 13 MR. BENNETT: George Bennett here for the Kona 14 Heavens Community Association. Two questions. One, were 15 the planners aware of the K-to-K Plan that suggested 16 Kealakehe Parkway be one of the roads with the green zones 1 17 and the bike paths on it? And number two, we're going to 18 build a, what, half-a-mile detour road and then wipe it off 19 the face cf the Earth when we need more roads? Is that the 20 plan? 21 MR. NAKANO: Sorry, I kind of missed your first 22 question. 23 MR. BENNETT: Were the planners aware of the 24 K-to-K Plan or the Kailua to Keahole General Plan that 25 designated Kealakehe Parkway as well as Hina Lani as one of HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 40 1 the main connecting roads that would have a greenbelt 2 beside it and jogging paths and bike trails? And if they 3 were, why did they chose to ignore it? 4 MR. NAKANO: I'll try to answer that. What you 5 see here in a typical section is the representation of the 6 of roadway section. In a rural condition it is anticipated 7 that with sufficient population and expansion, that the 8 road will be urbanized and then you will have things such 9 as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, that type of improvement. ' 10 What you see now does no[ include those types of 11 improvements. 12 I thank that was part of the plan. It may be as 13 part of a late part of the project. The county the 14 K-to-K Plan, by the way, is a county plan. And while it's 15 r,ot it's not that we ignored it. We did look at it and 16 took it into consideration. 17 Your second question was on? 18 MR. BENNETT: The temporary road that while 19 we're in a dearth of habitable zoads, we're going to spend 20 money to build one and then eliminate it after a few years? 21 MR. NAKANO: The detour road that you see there 22 is necessary for the period of construction. After that 23 period, this part of the roadway will have the means to 24 service the homes in this area. The road crosses the 25 boundary of two landowners. At this point, the landowner HILO REPORTES (BOB) 935-5119 6LL5-SE6 (808) S3SHOd8x OZIH ~auow ;0 1oi e ax?i punos 7,usaop sseiiop uo?ii?w ]y6?a 5Z spun; a7e1s ay] s? 6ucxsE w,I ]Eyn ssanb I 5Z I1oaCosd s?y7 01 „ou„ des asn]Eisz6ai ay] ueo puE do s?y1 EZ proy o7 buco6 ]ey] sI 'souzanoO ay1 0] 6u?psoooe ']?o?;ap ZZ zEiiop-uo?ii?w-006 Pa7seoaso; a ;o aLpp?w ay] u? ]yb?s IZ saseq 1sEOaso; uo?7ons]suoo L66T znox ~30IOA OZ 'peon ay7 ;o uo?1~as s?y] 6uoie sa?]?icoE; aioho?q iewso; 6L zo; iieo ]ou op sueid ax?q ]uaoaz azow ay7 7ng '~Empeoz 9I ay7 3o ap?s y]oq uo sapinoys ap?m ]oo;-]q6?a ay7 asn LI r pinoo saio~o?q ley] ]no 7u?od ~idwcs aM '~emxsed ayaKeieag 9T 6uoie sa?7?i?oe; axzq so; iieo ]ou op sueid ]uaoaz azow 5I ley] puy •ueid sa]seW aio~o?g ap?m-a]E]s ay7 ~q papassadns vI sen ueid x-o7-X ay1 'sac]?i?oe; aK?q ;o sws al uI EL '7ey7 a~ci bu?y7~ue so uEid ay] 3o ZT 7sed due 'sa?]?i?oe; uo?]eb?zz? pue 6u?dEOSpuei 7noge die] LT 01 ]y6?uo] azay ~i?sew?zd az,aM 'uEid bucdEOSpuei e ]nogE OL bu?xu?y] pia]?uc;ap as,aM 's7iaquaas6 uoTluaw nod uayM 6 's7iaquaazb pue '7saz ay] iie puE s~Ena~cq puE sail?i?oe3 8 uecs7sapad ;o swzal u? 7? 7noge paxie] an,aM 'ueid L x-o]-x ay7 ;o aseme ~iu?e]sao as,aM ~NIxS~ 'xW 9 •saouapzsas ay] ao?nzas o1 ucewaz 5 07 aney Lich ~enpeoz ay] ;0 lsed s?yy 'azay] ys?M 5 ]ou saop zauMOpuEi ay] ~izEinoilzed '7no awoo ii?n pue E ~zesodwa7 aq TicM s?yy 'u?ewas o1 ~Empeoz ]ey] zo sno]ap Z ]ey7 so3 ssaubu?ii?M scy pa]EOCpu? ]ou seq ap?s s?y] uo T T4 42 1 when you're talking 40. Still we're talking a 400-million- 2 dollar deficit. 3 MR. TSUZUKI: The answer to your question is that 4 definitely the legislature could decided not to fund the 5 construction of this project. At this point, the funds 6 have not been appropriated by the legislature for the 7 construction because we haven't reached that stage yet. e The legislature could decide in the future not to fund the 9 state portion and that would definitely hold up the 10 project. 11 VOICE: I believe the gentleman just testified 12 that bicycles could use the eight-foot shoulders on both 13 sides of the road. I think an eight-foot shoulder on both i4 sides of the road you only build half as you've done in 15 the lower portion. And you're only going to have a bike 16 a shoulder on one side available for bikes causing bikes to 17 come, in that case, downhill against traffic, which is not 18 completely unsafe. See what I'm saying? You have one lane 19 up there and you're only going to have a shoulder on one 20 side. 21 MR. NAKANO: In planning this project, we 22 anticipated the roadway would be built with four lanes with 23 safe shouldezs on each side, as you see it here 24 (indicating). If you consider what they've done with the 25 lowez roadway, putting in three lanes. But it is more cost HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 43 1 effective to put in the fourth lane while you're doing it 2 and it would cost a lot more to go back in later to add 3 that extra lane. 4 VOICE: You don't anticipate having to have one 5 side built with one shoulder? 6 MR. NARANO: Not at this time. 7 MR. TAMURA: Yes? B MR. GREENWELL: Your point is well taken if you 9 are going to be building that detour. I'm not the sole 10 owner of that property there. As far as I'm concerned I'm 11 half-owner. I would be very interested in the concept of 12 leaving that road intact. I think it makes a lot of sense i3 to come down Old Mamalahoa and go up Palani without going 14 onto the highway. And I think that's a very valuable 15 point. 16 My other earlier question: Have we addressed how 17 we're going to make the transition from a four-lane highway 18 to Mamalahoa Highway, which is two-lane? 19 MR. NAKANO: That really is a more detailed 20 design question. Those types of issues get taken care of 21 in the design process. we have looked at various scenarios 22 dropping into either Palani Road or Old Mamalahoa Highway. 23 These are just options. 24 MR. GREENWELL: That may be involved in saving 25 the detour. That may be part of the design solution. HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 44 1 MR. NAKANO: Could be. 2 MR. GREENWELL: That's a very important point. 3 It's quite a bit of road. It looks like it's a short space 4 but that's a lot of road there. 5 VOICE: Has there been any consideration of 6 runaway truck ramps? Because we're looking at, as you ' 7 stated some places have an 11-percent grade. You have got 8 a grade coming downhill and that hairpin and you've got a 9 semi- tractor and they're running away, is there any 10 consideration for runaway truck ramps? 11 MR. NAECANO: Not at this time. Good point. The 12 grades are not as high as 11 percent. we anticipate making 13 the maximum grades to be somewhere around nine-and-a-half 19 percent. Still you're right. At this point, we haven't 15 looked at an escape route. That's something that could be 16 looked at as far as of the design process. 17 MR. GREENWELL: I have a perfect place for one. 18 One of the earlier instructors mentioned in the 19 EIS is the Old Mamalahoa Highway and Mamalahoa Highway, 20 which I believe in both presentations they showed level of 21 service F during peak hours. What could you say with 22 respect to the scope of this project affecting or as 23 part of this project, are there any contemplated changes or 24 improvements at that junction that would be within the 25 design envelope of this project? It's already a problem. HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 45 1 And is there work being done in the area to either adjust 2 it as part of this project or has that yet to be 3 determined? 4 MR. NAI(ANO: It's yet to be determined. It's 5 certainly a design issue that could be addressed if the 6 volumes warrant it, and it certainly looks like it may. 7 Traffic signals could be put in as part of the completion e of this project, and that would be a means of alleviating 9 that congestion at that intersection. we are anticipating 10 putting in left-turn bays to accommodate that traffic. 11 MR. GREENWELL: For both left-turn improvements 12 for Old Mamalahoa Highway onto Mamalahoa Highway as well 13 Mamalahoa Highway to Old Mamalahoa Highway, both those left 14 turns? 15 MR. NAICANO: That's correct. 1 16 MR. BENNETT: So Palani Road is a Coun[y road? I 17 MR. TAMURA: Yes. J 18 Anymore questions? (NO response). If not, we'd 19 like to thank you for your patience here tonight and for 20 your participation in this hearing. It's now 8:40 p.m. and 21 I'd like to declare this public hearing to be adjourned. 22 Thank you. 23 (The Public Hearing was conclude3 at 8:40 p.m.) 24 --000-- 25 HILO REPORTES (808) 935-5119 46 1 STATE OF HAWAII J SS. 2 COL7NTY OF HAWAII ) 3 I, ANDREA VASCONCELLOS, RPR, CSR 356, Notary Public in 4 and for the State of Hawaii, do hereby certify: 5 That on August 31, 1995 at 7:15 p.m. personally 6 appeared before me the representatives and speakers whose 7 testimony is contained herein; 8 That the foregoing was taken down by me in machine 9 shorthand and thereafter reduced to print under my 10 direction and control; 11 That the foregoing pages represent, to the best of my 12 ability, a true and correct transcript of the proceedings 13 had in the foregoing matter; 14 I further certify that I am not an attorney for any of 15 the parties hereto nor in any way interested in the outcome 16 of the cause named in the caption. 17 DATED:r/~/9-95 J 18 19 20 21 ANDREA H. VASCONCELLOS RPR, CSR 356 22 NOTARY FUBLIC, STATE OF HAWAII MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 4/23/98 23 24 25 HILO REPORTES (BOB) 935-5119 Appendix G.3 -Letter to Draft EIS Commentors r 0 a rv a a x ° ro 0 o ~s u a ° ~ o o s~ ~o ~ 0~6 G'' z u a uF,a m c Orn ~ Q o a x'u0 E:_ m oP O G 'O C r P I+J U 4 U _ W d) 9 Vl P i O O. C Ri yw E~ ~ '~'b a c 5~3 Y~° u ~3 0 0~ - U V m ° m ~ `~i Eo o ~i m 'n W W° W 5 L G E o~ x O~~ N~~ d o o m ~,a S v $ u u u~~~ S `o E~ r ° o ~'a o Y m u ? ~A " o° m~o 1 E ~ e, A M o a rn G i° O u ° o^ o n gi O o ~ in $.lQ Or,T 'F.00~u°. .~N7Zo.. ~C '~.QTeT FTDa.T S° 1 Q 0. m _ V ~O 'SD° T. ~ E v~v o-~ w ~ P in ~ ~ ° c -'h=¢ E c bl 0.D.. O ~ G W E m>-°~ m '^'c ~ aF ° c _m c ~ FF E 'n 20 u E Y x v co .`d u cD °a"v T .n v' ° yy O _ O N i O - y A g.9 m v ~ o a ° >.er ~ F- V O q p 9 Q Q N O Y 4°. L K S P N N u O Sw„ ~ ° ~ t F C d ~ O o _ O ~ O` L ~ 1 y u 7 c` v~ ° v ~ 6~ A v 9 .rd O O C~ O O 9 ~ ~ O - J d d ~ 0..C .G-. F V O Q C L h u A o x S V C D D T'~ C N ~i 6 u o u 3 E u n ~ o r F. a e ~ `o a E w D> 2~ ° o 5 w y pines n G o.d v. - O 2 N U ~ W 6 ll T i X D uc] ~ a J C~ JI , ~ S `o c - ? v 2 ~ o N n J m rn ^ ~ c y s c U ~ Q Q 'V o ° v ~ a FF rm D' ~ m- r o ~ 2 0 ° c ~ v W o ~ c o .o ~ ° ~ ~n 1 r .a o m u °o ~ o A 3~ .'fi w m N ° ~ ~ .r a u° u. _ _ L c _ L.~6 E L~'~'~ `N~ .ZOO F4 NNEP UFFnGGP NA0 Y_ U¢ cFF y U W w~ 'w u~ m c ~ C ~ n U~ _p p p u-m A. N y~ s~ 0 2 ° ~ ~ ~ n y~ x u'~ c N ~ Fx- ° v a'x Uu~mz ~ < ° ~ r ,o4_~Xa°.5_ ,Y 3N~°'~ $So uYo ~a L~E ° 5~ x ' u W c~ L" C O ° ,t N Y _ m F o° o C Q V= ~ v o ~r'd i -a y p o m w w u Q o Q^_ ~ N~ r o o l7 d o ~ O° e.O7a~~ ~~'w a.°n2 ~°Y ~~Y '~'.c~w ri x° S.O i~i~ Sa'`.~ r~ c 0 E 0 U c a ~ o L ~ P O 4 (J 9 V V 0. O n o " a q`° a ro Q c$ To C .2 N i L y V a `O ~ uv"5=°= ~w~a~o E o ~ ~ o ~ `o ~ K~ n °1 a o 5° ° m a 5:0o x $0003 INDEX INDEX A Accidents S-7, 1-7, 3-25, 4-21 Agriculture 5-17, S-22, 3-4, 4-1, Appendix D Air Quality ....................................................................S-10, S-17, S-20, 3-29, 4-22, 4-91 Alternatives S-8, 2-1, 2-16, 2-20 B Bicycle ..............................................................................................................3 26, 4-21 C Coastal Zone 3-9, 4-8, Appendix E Construction Im; ~cts S-10, S-20, 4-91 Coordination LE :rs ................................................................Appendices B.1, C.1, E, F Cost 2-20 Cumulative and Secondary Impacts .................................................................S-19, 4-2 D Drainage 3-29 E Economic Activity S-17, S-22, 3-15, 4-10 Endangered and Threatened Species ............................._..S-10, S-18, S-21, S-23, 3-44 4-3, 4-45, Appendix B Ener 4-91 9Y F Farmlands .................................._.............................................S-10, S-17, S-22, 3-4, 4-1 Fauna S-18, 3-43, 3-44, 4-44 Flora S-18, 3-42, 4-44 Floodplain 3-40 1.1 ~z/iz/g~ G Geology S-18, S-22, 3-4, 3-36, 4-38 Groundwater S-18, 3-40, 4-43 H Hazardous Waste 3-36, 4-42, 4-95, Appendix A Hawaii County Plans and Controls S-24, 3-11, 4-8 Hawaii State Plans and Controls S-24, 3-8, 4-4 Historic and Archaeological Resources S-18, S-21,S-23, 3-47 4-50, 4-98, Appendix C L Land Use S-17, S-22, S-23, 3-1, 4-1 N Noise S-10, S-17, S-20, S-22, 3-32, 4-31, 4-93 P Parks and Recreation Areas S-19, 3-52, 4-89 Permits and Approvals S-24, 4-98 Population S-7, 1-7, 3-15, 4-11 R Relocation S-17, S-22, 4-2 S Schedule 2-20 Section 4(f) 4-74, Appendix C Social Activity S-17, S-22, 3-15, 4-10 Solid Waste 4-42, 4-95 T Traffic and Transportation S-17, S-20, S-22, 3-22, 4-15, 4-94 1-2 12/12/97 V Visual and Aesthetics S-19, S-23, 3-53, 4-89 Volcanology and Earthquakes S-18, S-23, 3-37, 4-42 W Water Quality S-18, S-21, 3-40, 4-43 Wetlands Impacts .............................................................................................3-40, 4-43 ~ _3 i zii 297