HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 144 Draft 01 1972-1976I
County of Hawaii—State of Hawaii
Resolution No. 144
WHEREAS, the economic feasibility and growth potential
of the Hilo Bay has not reached its greatest developmental
stage for a sound economic development of the County of
Hawaii; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive developmental plan for Hilo Bay
is a necessity for a uniform planned growth and preservation
of the beauty and environment of the Bay; and
WHEREAS, an undertaking of such a magnitude is beyond
the financial capabilities of the County of Hawaii; and
WHEREAS, the Hilo Bay is a navigable waterway within
the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers;
and
WHEREAS, the development of Hilo Bay will have a national
effect through the surge in inter -state commerce,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
COUNTY OF HAWAII that the Hawaii Congressional delegation
to Congress give immediate and serious consideration to
initiate action to authorize and fund a comprehensive Army
Corps of Engineers study of Hilo Bay, taking into consideration
the ecological, recreational and economic needs associated
with the Bay and the development of a rational, integrated
planning of the Bay.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the County
of Hawaii be and is hereby directed to forward a copy of
this resolution to the Honorable John A. Burns, Governor
of the State of Hawaii; to the Honorable Shunichi Kimura,
Mayor of the County of Hawaii; to the Honorable Daniel K. Inouye,
U. S. Senator; to the Honorable Hiram L. Fong, U. S. Senator;
to the Honorable Patsy T. Mink, U. S. Representative; to
the Honorable Spark M. Matsunaga, U. S. Representative; and
to Colonel Leonard Edelstein, Army Corps of Engineers, State
of Hawaii.
Dated at Hilo Hawaii, this' 7th day of
November, 1973. A
. r
A
COUNTY COUNCIL ROLL CALL VOTE
AYES NOES A/E
County of Hawaii Carpenter x
Hilo, Hawaii
De Luz x
I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the vote indicated to Farias x
the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the County of Hawaii .on. Fujii x
x
Hisaoka
November 7, 1973 Kawahara x
----------- -- --------------------------------------------------------• Matayoshi x
ATTEST: Yadao x
Chr. Yamada x
`—'
eference:...............................................................
Tadashi Suzuki Robert M. Yama
COUNTY CLERK CHAIRMAN & PRESI G OFFICER M.B. No . ............................
..y yrt
RESOLUTION NO- -------
---------------------
AFRO
-- ----------------------
A
COUNTY COUNCIL ROLL CALL VOTE
AYES NOES A/E
County of Hawaii Carpenter x
Hilo, Hawaii
De Luz x
I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the vote indicated to Farias x
the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the County of Hawaii .on. Fujii x
x
Hisaoka
November 7, 1973 Kawahara x
----------- -- --------------------------------------------------------• Matayoshi x
ATTEST: Yadao x
Chr. Yamada x
`—'
eference:...............................................................
Tadashi Suzuki Robert M. Yama
COUNTY CLERK CHAIRMAN & PRESI G OFFICER M.B. No . ............................
..y yrt
RESOLUTION NO- -------
---------------------
AFRO
-- ----------------------
N E E D F O R A H I L 0 B A Y S T U D Y
I. ABSTRACT
II. RECOMMENDATION
III. SUMMARY
IV. ECONOMIC ESTIMATES
V. BENEFITS AND LIABILITIES
VI. SOME PROBLEM AREAS
VII. CONCLUSION
TRIAL PLAN "A"
TRIAL PLAN "B"
APPENDIX "C"
HAWAII ISLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
September 1973
Page
2
2
2
3
4
7
16
17
18
19
S . r
NEED FOR A HILO BAY STUDY
HAWAII ISLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
SEPTEMBER 1973
I. ABSTRACT
This report broadly documents the need for a comprehensive U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers study of Hilo Bay.
Ii. RECOMMENDATION
That the Hawaii Congressional Delegation initiate action to authorize and fund
a comprehensive U.S. Army Crops of Engineers study of Hilo Bay that will recom-
mend specific action to enhance navigation, pollution abatement, beach erosion
control, recreation, and overall bay improvement.
III. SUMMARY
1:1awaii's few seaports derive unusual importance from their geographical loca-
tion. On a national level, Hawaii's proximity to Asia and the countries around
the Pacific rim gives its seaports an economic and military importance unique
among the states. On a local level, residents of Hawaii, unlike the other 49
States, must depend heavily on their seaports to maintain interstate commerce.
At the same time, the absence of plentiful harbors in Hawaii often requires
t1hat those harbors available serve not only as commercial ports, but also as
areas for recreation and tropical resorts.
Hilo Bay contains the State of Hawaii's second largest, non-military, general
cargo port. It is the largest port within 2000 miles of the Island of Oahu.
From both a local and a national standpoint the long range development plans
for Hilo Bay deserve especially close attention.
In spite of the large number of special purpose studies undertaken over the
past twenty years, Hilo Bay continues to be plagued by shipping problems that
grow worse and by a gross underrealization of its recreational potential.
The question is: Can we accommodate surfing, swimming, fishing, diving; boat-
ing, resorts, peaceful tropical vistas, and still expand Hilo's dock facili-
ties into a modern commercial harbor?
There are good prospects that we can.
But the sad truth is, that without a plan that embraces the entire Bay, we will
-2-
0
Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce
a Need for a Hilo Bay Study
September 1973
favor first one aspect and then another, sacrificing our options until we have
neither a good recreation area nor a good port.
It need not happen.
Using current programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers we have the oppor-
tunity to at last get action underway to solve some of the most frustrating
problems of Hilo Bay. A problem list might start with:
1. Surge at Hilo Docks.
2. Inadequate ship turning basin.
3. Inadequate container storage and trailer marshalling area.
4. Inadequate area for docking space expansion.
5. Scarcity of good locations for a small boat marina.
6.. Eventual need for space for a ferry slip.
7. Public demand to restore and protect the Bayfront Black
Sand Beach.
8. Overcrowded surfing sites in the Hilo area.
9. Need to maintain and augment the Hilo Bay nehu fishery.
10. Deterioration of the inner reef.
11. Effects of land usage on Hilo Bay.
Because the long-range_ capital to solve these problems is not available from
local sources much of the work that must be done will require Federal help.
':lowever, Federal help will not be available unless there is:
I. Sufficient justification for Federal Government involvement
in the problems
2. Conclusive information that the problems are solvable.
a comprehensive study by the Corps of Engineers would provide the answers to
these questions by drawing together the numerous existing studies on Hilo Bay;
by providing for a full-scale study of Hilo Bay currents, surges and other
physical parameters; by analyzing the ecological, recreational and economic
needs associated with Hilo Bay; and by eliciting rational, integrated planning
of the entire Bay area.
IV. ECONOMIC ESTIi4ATES
Funding of any improvements to Hilo Bay must ultimately depend on their econo-
mic worth to the County, the State and the Nation. Of prime importance is the
projected economic growth of the Island of Hawaii itself. Accurate predictions
of economic growth are not easily come by in the best circumstances. On the
island of Hawaii the possibility of error in the projections of even a year ago
is especially strong because of this island's unique position on the globe and
-3-
Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce
n4 Need for a Hilo Bay Study
September 1973
the fast changing importance of its resources.
Island of Hawaii economic forecasts that are based only on the projected trends
of agriculture, tourism, construction and other current economic bases must be
treated with considerable caution because their inherent limited growth pattern
can place unrealistically low limits on long range planning. The steady growth
predicted for the Island of Hawaii on the basis of those projected trends might
be upset by "single -event" economic changes which could result in unexpectedly
rapid economic growth and a demand for rapid expansion of Hilo Harbor facili-
ties. (See Appendix "C").
An expansion that ultimately results in exercising all the options illustrated
in Trial Plan "A", or their equivalent, would probably cost in excess of $40
million. As this Report tries to document, wise selection of options can come
only as a result of a careful, comprehensive study of the economic, physical,
ecological and social problems involved. The cost of the comprehensive study
recormended here is expected to be in excess of $700,000.
V. BENEFITS & LIABILITIES
The pages that follow attempt to draw together many people's visions of what
Hilo Bay can return to and become, and to illustrate the problems and conflicts
those visions present.
Approach
A Hilo Bay Study will be of no value if it does not result in economically
workable solutions to the needs and conflicts of both commerce and recreation..
As a beginning toward that end, possible solutions are postulated here along
with the problems. The benefits of this approach are:
1. The many interwoven problems and conflicts become much
easier to visualize.
2. Testing of ramifications of possible improvements can
be incorporated into the proposed Hilo Bay Study dur-
ing its early stages.
3. A basic set of trial solutions is provided against
which other alternatives may be measured.
Heavy emphasis has been placed on solutions adaptable to incremental develop-
ment. Incremental development not only provides for orderly, measured steps
into the future, but also provides maximum adaptability to future economic
constraints, future social changes, and to unforeseen options.
-4-
Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
d
September 1973
.Trial P la n "A"
In attempting to resolve the conflict between commercial and recreational uses
within Hilo Bay, our research generated a number of possible trial plans, all
of which raised at least two new problems for every one they resolved. The
most favored compromise is shown on the attached map as Trial Plan "A"-. As
mentioned earlier, these plans are introduced merely to illustrate the pro-
blems. Valid plans cannot be assured until the proposed Hilo Bay Study is
completed.
Benefits illustrated by Trial Plan "All:
1. Provision for modifications to Hilo Bay to reduce surge
at the Hilo docks.
2. Provision for a safe and adequate turning basin for
present day ships in Hilo Harbor.
3. Provision for long term expansion of container storage
without encroaching on the Baker's Beach -Reed's Bay park
area and Banyan Drive resort area.
4. Provision for additional container storage and docking
area screened by palms and casuarinas to maintain the
character of Hilo Bay.
5. Provision for incremental development: A first increment
might consist of construction of a Ro/Ro (Ro/Ro Roll On/
Roll Off Cargo Handling) Barge dock and utilization of
two thirds of Radio Bay for container storage while still
maintaining facilities there for small boats. A second
increment might lie as shown within the relocated break-
water. If at some distant date a very large expansion of
Hilo's dock facilities is required, a final increment
could be placed within the ultimate breakwater expansion
(see dashed line).
6. Provision for additional docking space oriented in a
direction that would possibly minimize surge.
7. Provision for marina and Coast Guard facilities that do
not destroy the symmetry of the Hilo Bayfront crescent
or interfere with other facilities and large ships.
8. Provision for restoration of Hilo Bayfront Black Sand
Beach and for protection of that beach.
9. Provision for surfing sites within Hilo Bay-.
10. Provision for augmentation of the Hilo Bay nehu fishery.
11. Provision for bringing clean seawater over the dead and
dying coral within the breakwater to help resuscitate the
inner reef.
Liabilities illustrated by Trial Pian
1. It is expensive.
2. It results in reef destruction. While making plans for
improving the economic and recreational aspects of Hilo
-5-
a a
Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
September 1973
Bay we cannot escape the fact that reef destruction will
occur anywhere land is filled for harbor facilities.
Mitigating that destruction is the possibility of re-
storing dead reef areas within the breakwater by the
forced inflow of clean seawater. The need for further
research on this subject is of course one of the reasons
to implement the Hilo Bay Study.
3. Salt spray could possibly be a problem to dock facilities.
Preliminary investigatioa indizates that with adequate
plunge trough width (200' to 300' the salt spray might
be at about the same level as found at the north end of
Hilo Pier 1. Palms a,d casuarinas planted along the
windward side of the access road could provide a back up
spray filter.
4. It does not provide for tsunami protection.
The need for tsunami protection wus thoroughly researched
and discussed by the community, and concerned governmental
agencies in the 1960'x. The cost and visual obstruction
of a workable tsunami barrier was considered to be exces-
sive by the State government and local residents. As a
substitute, the County implemented the alternative solu-
tion of restricting occupancy within the inundation zone.
s While this solution admittedly provides only partial pro-
tection against tsunamis, there does not appear to be
available any other acceptable alternative. Although
some of the options shown in Trial Plan "All might have a
minor effect on some tsunamis, it appears unlikely that
they would have a major effect on a large tsunami.
5. Detailed studies will undoubtedly reveal many other dis-
advantages to any plan that attempts to correct the prob-
lems and conflicts in Hilo Bay. Unless we shut down the
port, and all move away from Hilo, we will have to live
with some compromise between the advantages and disad-
vantages. Helping to determine the nature of that com-
promise is the purpose of a Hilo Bay Study.
Trial Plan "B"
Trial Plan 'B" is shown because it has many of the benefits of Trial Plan "A"
yet costs less and is more adaptable to incremental development.
However it also illustrates the problem of decentralization of container fa-
cilities and the need, even in a lower cost solution, to move part of the
breakwater to avoid wave action and ship turning problems. More importantly,
Trial Plan "B" illustrates the major disadvantage of any mid -bay, low cost
solution to docking and container storage: esthetics.
Although wharves and large ships hold a fascination for many of us, the Trial
Plan "B" facility would so change the character of Hilo Bay that despite its
10
0 Q
Island Chamber of Commerce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
Sep _ember 1973
.economic advantages, it would probably be esthetically unacceptable to the ma-
jority of the people in Hilo and the State.
VI. SOME PROBLEM AREAS
In brief:
1. SURGE
2. TURNING BASIN
3. CONTAINER STORAGE
4. DOCKING SPACE
5. SMALL BOAT MARINA
6. FERRY SLIP
7. BLACK SAND BEACH
8. SURFING SHOALS
9. NEHU FISHERY
10. REEF RESUSCITATION
11. LAND EFFECTS
1. SURGE
Problem: Water level surges at the Hilo Docks cause economic loss in three
ways:
1)
Cost of direct damage to ships and docks by surge action.
2)
Cost of delays in unloading ships and in waiting for other
ships to unload.
These delays incur costs to shipping frims by keeping men
and ships idle and incur costs to local companies by con-
tributing to their need to maintain larger inventories.
3)
Cost of transhipment of cargo from Honolulu that otherwise
might be economically delivered directly to Hilo.
Ascertaining this cost may be very difficult due to the
complex interrelationship of surge, turning basin, and con-
tainer storage problems (described below) with the effect
of Island of Hawaii economic activity on ship routing and
scheduling. In any event, as the level of economic activity
on the Island of Hawaii increases, so also will the propor-
tion of transhipment expense attributable to surge (and to
turning basin and container storage problems).
Of course all these costs are eventually passed on to Hawaii's general public
because of their heavy dependence on ship -borne freight.
Despite many limited studies into the causes and possible remedies of the Hilo
-7-
as
'-?awa ii Island Chamber of Commerce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
September 1973
a
surge problem, information is still insufficient to make plans for correc-
r ve action.
-..:�ssible Solution: The solution to the surge problem that creates the fewest
���ditional problems will come only after a careful total study has been made
of Hilo Bay hydraulics. We must know the operation of the driving mechanism
behind the surge before we can formulate plans to alleviate it.
Since some studies indicate that surge may be caused by ocean waves, one of
the methods that will be open to investigation during a Hilo Bay Study is the
physical modification of Hilo Bay at critical wave focusing points. To show
how a possible surge solution of this nature could also be integrated into the
recreational needs of Hilo Bay, two alterations to possible wave focusing
points are treated in Trial Plan "A".
One alteration, a surge barrier at the tip of the breakwater, is shown as it
might be designed to block both diffraction of northerly storm waves around
the breakwater tip and the subsequent refraction around the reef below the
tip. While performing as a surge barrier it could also serve as a tree -
planted island park for boaters.
The second illustrative alteration is shown as it might be made to the parabolic -
shaped cove to the south of the Wainaku Sugar Mill. If this cove were shown to
be focusing wave energy toward the Hilo Docks and thereby causing surge, it might
be modified as shown to disperse that energy and at the same time provide an ad-
dtional surf site in the Hilo area. Artificial shoals designed to make waves
break in a manner suitable for surfing are currently undergoing model tests at
the University of Hawaii Look Laboratory.
,;gain, it must be emphasized that these are only illustrative "solutions" to
the surge problem. An intensive study of Hilo Bay hydraulics must be made be-
fore pursuing any physical modifications to the bay. Recent engineering devel-
opments of in situ measurement techniques offer some promise of obtaining such
o model study at lower cost then in the past by using Hilo Bay itself as a full
kale model for preliminary evaluations.
2. TURNING BASIN
Problem: Hilo Harbor is designed for safe handling of much smaller ships than
many of those currently entering. Lack of adequate depth and width in the
turning basin at Kuhio Bay prevents many of the present-day ships, and almost
all of the cargo ships now under construction, from entering or leaving Hilo
Harbor at night. This restriction means that often ships must be uneconomically
scheduled in order to arrive or leave Hilo Harbor after daybreak. The addition-
al operating costs are added onto Hawaii's freight rates.
to
Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
September 1973
In addition to inadequate width, the depth limitations of the turning basin
(skip load limit is 32.5 feet) prevents some ships from calling here unless
partially unloaded elsewhere. It also prevents Matson's bulk sugar carrier
`rom receiving a full load at Hilo, forcing it to move to other Hawaiian ports
to get a full load before departing to the mainland.
Turning basin inadequacies are especially regrettable in Hilo Harbor because
in other respects the entrance to Hilo Bay is the fastest, easiest and safest
of any general cargo harbor in the State.
Possible Solution: Deepening and widening the turning basin by dredging ap•.
pears to be a reasonable solution. By careful planning, other projects in
this report, such as the bayfront beach, surge barrier, marina, and container
yard, can possibly utilize the dredge spoil for their implementation. The
character and quantity of dredged material would of course determine possible
uses.
As with all modifications to the bay, careful examination and weighing of the
impact on marine organisms would be necessary prior to construction. It is
possible that by early construction of a plunge trough (discussed later), or
by similar means, clean seawater could be admitted to the eastern end of the
bay during dredging operations, thereby flushing the bay and minimizing the
deposition of dredge sediments on reef organisms.
Deepening Hilo Harbor by only 5 to 10 feet below the present depth might be
sufficient to handle a majority of the vessels calling at American ports.
The exceptions would be the very deep vessels such as super -tankers which
would not ever be expected to use Hilo Harbor.
A possible boundary line for an adequate turning basin is shown on Trial Plan
"A".
3. CONTAINER STORAGE
Problem: For several years containerized cargo coming to Hilo has been grow-
ing at an annual rate of 8`/ to 10% and presently exceeds the storage space re-
quired for efficient handling. Storage problems are aggravated by the extra
storage space required for the trailers brought in by the Ro/Ro barges (Ro/Ro=
Roll On/Roll Off Cargo Handling). Pressures for new storage space have re-
sulted in suggestions to expand container storage into the Baker Beach area.
Such action would deprive the community of recreational facilities and bring
the commercial dock area into closer conflict with the Reed's Bay and Banyan
Drive recreational and resort areas.
Wa
Q
L?awaii Island Chamber of Commerce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
September 1973
Possible Solution: Trial Plan "A" shows a possible means of solving the con-
tainer storage problem that does not encroach on Reed's Bay. It provides for
first stage, incremental expansion through utilization of two thirds of Radio
Bay with little or no decrease in utilization by smaller boats. It also al-
lows for expansion into a large future storage area that is easily screened
b; palms and casuarinas and is away from recreation and resort areas.
4< DOCKING SPACE
Problem: For the present, the advents of Kawaihae harbor and the fast turn-
around container ship have kept the dock space demand in Hilo from exceeding
the capacity. Increased ship traffic, accompanying the growth of the Hawaii
County economy and population, will inevitably require more docking space.
Under present planning, that expansion will take place in the Baker's Beach
swimming area to the west of the present docks. Once the commitment to move
to the west is made, further expansion could eventually result in the need to
fill in part of Reed's Bay recreation area for docking and container storage.
Possible Solution: Trial Plan "A" might fulfill future docking needs in the
following ways:
1. Two additional large ship docking spaces would be
provided to take care of long range expansion.
2. These docking spaces could be oriented in an east -
west direction for possible minimization of the
effects of surge.
3. Additional space for future Ro/Ro Ship Docking could
be provided. Note that it may be possible to place
the special ramps for Ro/Ro Ships inconspicuously be-
tween the casuarinas and palms screening the container
yard.
4. First increment development for Ro/Ro Barge Docking
is provided at the junction of Piers 1 and 2.
5. Room is available to provide additional docking space
for long range expansion. (See dashed line showing
breakwater extension).
6. Docking space is located away from small boat traffic.
7. Docking space is located away from parks and resorts.
8. Docking space is as close as possible to existing con-
tainer handling facilities and those anticipated for
the near future.
5. SMALL BOAT MARINA
Problem: Mooring facilities for small boats in the Hilo area are presently
Sto
Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
September 1973
:inadequate and are expected to become more crowded in the future. Proposals to
ulace a marina in the. Reed's Bay area have been rejected due to the conflict
with development of resorts and parks to the west and interference with large
:;nip manuverings to the east. Proposals have been made suggesting that a mari-
na be located near the mouth of the Wailoa River. Depending on the exact siting,
that location would destroy either the unequalled view from the Liliuokalani
Park area or destroy the present small black sand beach near the mouth of the
,-.iioa River. In either case it would destroy the symmetry of the crescent bay
.Front. It has also been suggested that by moving Highway 19 away from the bay.
and dredging out some of the present park area a carina could be built inland
f;1-om the beach. Adoption of this location for a marina might make it difficult
to later provide sufficient expansion area to prevent ultimate encroachment on
the Hilo Bay crescent.
Possible Solution: Place Small Boat Marina as shown on Trial Plan "A". This
location is away from ship manuvering space, does not encroach on other uses;
and provides additional security for small boat owners. Esthetics are a mat-
ter of individual choice. However, many Hilo residents and visitors may find
small boat masts nestling among palm trees on an island across the bay esthe-
tically pleasing.
A possible disadvantage to boat owners would be the driving distance for those
who take their boats to sea during a tsunami alert. However it appears that
the shorter distance by water to the tip of the breakwater should more than
compensate for the extra driving time.
6. FERRY SLIP
Problem: Ferry service to Hilo within the next 10 years is a distinct possibi-
lity. A special slip and clear approach would be highly desirable. Adequate
parking is a necessity.
The present Pier 3 area has been suggested as a site for a Ferry slip but would
then conflict with the present oil tanker docking. Addition of a tanker finger
pier would only move the tankers further west into the recreational -resort area.
Possible Solution: Place Ferry Slip at an alternative site to the North, such
as shown on Trial Plan "A".
7. BLACK SAND BEACH
Problem: The rugged east coast of the Island of Hawaii has the distinction of
-11-
,Tawaii Island Chamber of Commerce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
September 1973
having the largest population on the island and the smallest amount of sand
beaches. It wasn't always so. Old photographs show, and many residents re-
member, a black sand beach stretching along the south shore of Hilo Bay from
the Wailuku River to the Wailoa River. Less then a third of it remains. Area
that used to be beach is now covered, partially by fill, but to a great extent
by water.
It is not known to what extent the large tsunamis of 1946, and 1960 redistribu-
ted the beach sand nor to what extent the breakwater has inhibited the former
- ocesses of beach nourishment. Unfortunately the present process appears to
be self perpetuating: loss of the beach has meant deeper inshore water and
larger waves impinging on the bayfront highway which in turn has resulted in
.ncreased quantities of stone protection encroaching into.the former beach
area. Because of its proximity to downtown Hilo, realignment of the present
highway to increase beach area would be extremely expensive.
Possible Solution: If investigation shows the potential 'dredge spoil from the
a .:uhio Bay turning basin to be of suitable quality and quantity, and to be with-
in economical pumping distance of the beach area, it might be used to form the
following: (See Trial Plan "A")
1. An automobile parking area seaward of the existing highway.
2. A picnic area with tables and trees seaward of the parking
area.
3. A beach underlayment seaward of the picnic area.
Over the underlayment of dredge spoil might be placed a two or three foot layer
of black sand. It may be possible to economically obtain this sand, without
ecological damage, from deposits within the bay. The Submarine Sand Recovery
System currently under development at the University of Hawaii Look Laboratory
ma.y be uniquely adaptable to this work.
I L
Z this approach proves feasible, Hilo's Black Sand Beach would be restored to
a condition approximating that of the times before the latest tsunamis, before
the highway, before the railroad, and before the breakwater, when old photo-
graphs show over a mile of black sand beach on Hilo Bay.
To keep the muddy storm waters of the Wailuku River away .from the beach area a
short groin may prove feasible as shown at the north end of the beach. By re-
directing of muddy water to the north and thence possibly out of the bay it 11kiy
be possible to also provide further protection to the corals and marine life in
the East Bay.
Partial protection of the beach from storm waves could be provided by the 4ai-
luku Surfing Shoals discussed next.
-12-
0 a
Hsvraii Island Chamber of Commerce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
September 1973
3. SURFING
Problem:
1. There is a demand for an increased number of surf sites on
windward Hawaii, and for year round surfing within Hilo Bay.
2. There may be a need for protection of a restored Hilo Bay
Black Sand Beach from erosion by storm waves.
3. There may be a need to dissipate wave energy at other areas
along the western shore of Hilo Bay.
4. There would be a need to protect the restored Black Sand
Beach and as many surf sites as possible from the muddy
Wailuku River storm waters.
5. There is a need to alleviate the effect of future tsunamis
on downtown Hilo.
Possible Solution: Trial Plan "A" illustrates how the artificial surfing shoals
now under development at the University of Hawaii Look Laboratory on Oahu might
be used to help solve the problems above. Depending on the results of this re-
search, shoal size might be approximately 100 by 200 ,yards with the shallowest
part about 4 to 6 feet deep. Note that through proper location of the shoals a
surf board recovery area might be provided away from the beach.
It is anticipated that artificial surfing shoals would not only help protect the
beaches and shoreline, but when properly placed, would be compatible with swim-
ming and other beach activities. During periods of low surf, the shoals could
also be used for fishing and diving. Possible beneficial effects of the shoals
on dissipating the energy of future tsunamis would probably be minor but should
be investigated.
Note that access to the proposed Wainaku surfing shoals could be provided via
the excellent small beach just north of the Waina ku Sugar Mill. (The mill will
cease grinding in July 1974.)
96 NEHU FISHERY
Problem: The Hilo Based aku (skipjack tuna) fishing industry spends over a
third of its available man hours in catching nehu (Stolephorus purpureus) for
bait fish. A ready supply of low cost bait fish would increase the amount of
time fishermen spend at sea, greatly aiding the local fishing industry. Hilc
Bay is the primary source of nehu for Hilo -based aku boats. Although the re-
lationship of nehu populations to water turbidity is complicated, it is possi-
ble that the nehu population would increase if turbidity in Hilo Bay was re-
duced.
-13-
73awaii Island Chamber of Corrmer.ce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
'?Lotember 1973
Possible Solution: An experimental nehu pond is shown on the east side of the
surge barrier on Trial Plan "A". Many other sites are possible. The pond re-
r,�!:;asents a research facility for either raising or for trapping nehu, or for
ii,ath. In any case, a successful facility will require careful study of cur-
:::eats, temperatures, salinity, plankton growth and other biological parameters
before final site selection.
,SN an without an experimental pond, the heavily oxygenated, clean seawater pumped
i , by a plunge trough or similar device might have a beneficial effect on nehu
Oroduction by lowering the turbidity and increasing the salinity and oxygen.
1C� REEF RESUSCITATION
Problem: Corals and associated marine life are, for the most part, dead or ab-
sent on the section of Blonde Reef within the breakwater. Their decline presu-
mably is due to an increase in sediment deposits and a decrease in salinity
caused by the change in water patterns created by the construction of the Hilo
Bay breakwater many decades ago. The restoration of this reef could benefit
skin divers as well as recreational and commercial fishermen.
Possible Solution: It appears that by introducing quantities of clean §ea -
water, high in dissolved oxygen, at the eastern side of the bay it may be pos-
sible to arrest the accumulation of sediments from the Wailuku River and dilute
the damaging fresh water flowing from underground springs, thereby providing
the Hilo Bay corals and associated marine life with an environment closer to
that which existed before construction of the present breakwater. Clean sea-
water topping the breakwater now appears to flow with a westerly set along the
inside of the breakwater maintaining coral growth within its narrow flow pat-
tern. This flow pattern closely coincides with the area that would be left
open in a plunge trough as shown on Trial Plan "A".
In addition to introducing clean seawater to Hilo Bay, it may be desirable to
p::ovide subsurface conduits from the Radio Bay springs to direct the fresh
water back to its old destination in the open ocean.
Recent studies (Grigg, 1972) along the Hamakua Coast of the Island of Hawaii
;ave shown an almost immediate return of coral colonies after sediment sour-
-es (such as sugar mills) are shut off. Coral within Hilo Bay might also re-
turn with comparable speed.
'Z -he plunge trough shown in Trial Plan "A" might not only dissipate the energy
of waves coming over the breakwater (in a manner similar to the plunge pool
energy dissipators placed below dams) but could possibly redirect the clean
>ea.wa.ter to the East Bay, perhaps through the use of three sets of automatic
N eyrpic type control gates. Again, hydraulic model studies would be required
-14-
0 01
Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
September 1973
before implementation.
Pumping during low wave conditions at first appears to be an insoluble task.
However, several methods might be available:
1. Placement of a barrier of low permeability within or
on the inside face of the breakwater to allow the
crests of small waves to pass through the breakwater
but not return. This method might be susceptable to
wave "blowouts" due to hydraulic pressure.
2. Place water conduits with high density plastic linings
(to help prevent marine growth) within the breakwater
at sea level and sloped downward toward the plunge
trough to allow the crests of small waves to enter but
no water to return during the wave.troughs. During high
waves this method might permit too much water to enter
the plunge trough.
3. Place water conduits within the breakwater below sea
level and sloped upward toward the plunge trough with
flapper valves on the plunge trough end to prevent
return of water from the plunge trough. With suita-
ble sizing and entrance port locations this method
might minimize the excess water problem during high
seas.
in addition to providing a wave energy dissipator and a flow of clean sea
water to Hilo Bay, the plunge trough might be of some experimental value for
new installations elsewhere in the world. Because the plunge trough concept
would possibly permit a lower outer breakwater and smaller stone on the in-
ner side of the plunge trough, it might have some competitive advantages with
Tri -bars or other concrete units in areas (such as Hilo) where large stone
(above 10 tons) is very expensive but small stone (say 3 tons) is available
at relatively low cost..
The incremental construction possible at Hilo Bay might permit in situ testing
of a prototype by means of easy alterations to the openings in the inner side
of the plunge trough during the first ten years or so of service.
11. LAND EFFECTS
Problems: Hilo Bay is affected in many ways by the surrounding land: by
rivers, streams, springs, cesspools, fertilizer use, street runoff, and
land use. The largest natural influence,on Hilo Bay deriving from the land
appears to be the Wailuku River, which contributes large quantities of sedi-
ment and fresh water. Increasing urbanization may shift the major degree of
influence into other areas.
54115
C 0
?!awaii Island Chamber of Commerce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
September 1973
:While many studies have already been made of the land problems surrounding Hilo
may, there has been no comprehensive study to draw together the other studies,
to fill in the gaps, and to relate them to each other and to the unstudied pro•-
blems of the bay which they surround. The result is a lack of knowledge of the
long range effects of many of our actions on Hilo Bay and the possibility that
we are unknowingly severing ourselves from valuable options.
Possible Solution: The proposed Hilo Bay Study is perhaps the best vehicle
available to consider the interrelated solutions to the land problems affecting
Hilo Bay, to fill in the gaps between the existing studies, and to provide that
baseline information which lawmakers and administrators must have to arrive at
sound decisions.
VII. CONCLUSION
The purpose of this report is to document the need for a comprehensive U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers study of Hilo Bay and to illustrate the many complex
interrelated problems and interests that lie therein. The Trial Plans and
options described here are put forth to help illustrate the problems and con-
flicts in Hilo Bay and to stimulate thinking towards innovative solutions.
They are not definitive solutions to development of Hilo Bay. To find those
definitive solutions will require a detailed, comprehensive study by the best
experts in the field.
-16-
tot za
Hawaii -Island Chamber Of Commerce J4 - 16 9: .. 22 21 23 22 MJ 39 "
230
Need for a Hilo Bay Study 55 '6F 56 e3 Z3 6 o Existing Breakwater tB ...., aIa 18 5 18 ji, _ _ zz s,
za
September 1973 65 f - ` 'z4 ULTIMATE BREAKWATER EXPANSION
fio 62 zz CONTROL GATE - \ 6 6 6 .5___/__23 =m _5 to r�1
t �
{� 21 35 IMI 60 BJ 8 17 4 PLUNGE TROUGH 17 q.._, 17 21 ` 79 Ns
55 " _
32 ecat'ian'� .. ...j 1. '. ^b I2 � � 6 w6. 10 21 i 22 26 - 55
i Fi 1}s« 52 23 13 21 .I6 .. �9 �.{. %i- 17 _ ./ 25 \]0 _
Y 5 /31 39 17'..- U s` t I ':1 353.
7
IS a27 e
.. 23 IS IS 21 21 ` \ 35
• 51 SJ 57 Z 24
20 16 - IS 1q 37
' e 5 - I I IL _ 19 36: 2 .' 16 15. B 36 \yp ` "
47 53 SURGE BARRIER AND ISLAND PARK- ;i 4 s 6 .ie 2iB _ 't ? ao 4o z3 is 25 \ \ 2e 3f qqm .
4J rl
�..r' . 23 37 • � r I6 �.•��� 42 43 15. 15 !. 12j 24 \ I•I dal
' 9 IS . ' 48 51 54 2. :I6 15 'I• IS "19 Jmut.s. BGAT.I MARINA 11 14 'r l 15; 2g sC 25 \
RELOCATED BREAKWATER U •-+
sg `' i
IB 17 I6. 1 .1 •.
f35
�s
3
17 �J1 3i I » 50 IF IS �` 13 43 42 14 " 14 20 3fi `\ 21 Ed -I •�
: 1r 20 t A -a
12 /..�`•. ... , 51 2 I6 1, r I 14 J .... 42 I ACCESS ROAD .: 23
\. 29 �.� pT� �py��� SHOALS
51 .6 r �}y��T� 14 .
•WLLaTMnv aS VilC 11•G SHGrbit✓ c 71 .4--N HU 'POND 41 14-41, j4 I'.IB. 33 1_ d...l 22 l� Fi
' Wainaku Beach 4i 16 Is 7 Is ,,. x..: a _. 14 ...20 _ Fj� ♦ \I 27
!' f IO % .17
47 20=' 6 2' ❑CONTROL GATE AND BRIDGE ¢,
: r4clt �•:41ee14•a rt 47 L .., . 13 a ez so ...... 7 15 ' - ROp ��� !t5 to
34 `
I 9' 28 ;, 44 x ._ 40 .40 29 IZ 27 40 ..31a. U Vtio
• / 16: f -+ 40 43 45 22 r� 1 .. 2i 18 15.E 2' :
33 ..... ... ..... 22. JI.13 II .. I6 _ 23 4C 5.
/ 7 rte' 4'1 �� ..... 4 24 17 - 4V' \\ i3
26. Fr 41 40 29 15 `: 19 : FERRY LIP
. V.li • -.33 4b i .. 44 C'S" . 22'1}.
42 S
6 k X24 36 37 42 44` ^ 41 . 713 8�5 38 \ ..18 ,�. 76
1 V JI ZO U Q{A^3^ 4J 42 13 15' :17' 15 .17 r 28
43 41 31 38 .19 15 - 36 .: 14 I2 12: t'; 4
\ y \
Wainakn •'++e+l/ •31 40 41 » >. _ .1 ij.` i13. •7T: IS 14 17 'r
Blonde Reef I //R�O� Tye WT ���s
. 31 70. 34 17 42
38 38 42 N >n 39 ,...2 37 ..I6 39 /LLV DGi K' CO1V i fL11\L•(1 •"
7 16 32 43 42 41 27: 3 24
'� ... : 4 38 40 42 42 43 40 39 -.36 3Y ':: 11'.. q 14'\1 N 3 ,. el
14 . / `: 39 .,i 40 - 39.,12 ...II '� 36 'y CAaSUARIML S 2
40 n�T
II 29 32 '
31 36 41 :.":':. i.20:':'.:i.11 I q •�..
......31 : 34 - I.� 39" :.:..: I 1' �12.i... .�r .; :' ..9..11:' 9. ^y D I W i STGRAGE
IS3..... 34 37 ..19 ': . • ... IS•..9,4...°. �..
TTp�T�•L� �i�T ..... .
4 _,.7 ': » 3 31 35 40 ' TURNING BASIN 39 f/21s«'i•�.... ..... �.. .... ,��
27 %. 37 36 'C"9'5
;:....
6 ! 22 OR•2- . 40 ... pkF, / Pr.. m.ma'3T�y'II. , 63
4040
34 32 33 DGCK3
14 1
r OT3 27 4 31 J3 36 32 39 :_ 40 4 Fl R 6s« 9 09 38 37 ------- ' ' - I 37 3�5`! �_ I4 0 17: 5
9 .A 28 .. .. , 33 38 7B 39 .: `.'j�•. ;�• 37 37 "-J6 3b_ Jb ... 38 38
23 -31 34 .'. .: .i8,1 8 •; \ 36 x'40 41____. .f�([
r s 27 `s : s 25 27 I ..� ', ...... .. 31 i4 37 bt N . 25 : Ie. x:9..3 ..3 7 i 1/!` 34 3\ 36 36 . K U H 1 ' B A Y 41.__ 3 • F c CONTAINER .... "_
�"..,20 :..: 27... " i 371 37 38 9 .�
16 29 - . 3.. 3. 9E 3fi 38 36 3a..
5- ` 20 25 .4. M N 32 33 Kanfa]na7a'�vL,I 7 %. 33 33 :g GE _. KUK/pB+y
2 le .. .. \ 36 37 35 '" , F. +Kae
6 26 il3 ,
IS ... .. 3I ....'II >.'27 .. :'...:....5 ;, Z - G 1 t �R
-. B. 14 23 2i'y I 26. +J : ... ........ ............. j7B..:914' " 9 F19:.:'a:: .:3: 23 •_e14: 36 ROl i1V BARGE DOCK 3
' • qq ":7 ` T 29 .: d •IB 29 : 16...: '10 07
1'9 7 : 11 r .:':.I I':
14•.� _ WAILUKU SURFING SHOALS 28 28 29 n 19 ,....' 7 .. b.. �/ 3s a (Radio B
il6 4 -41 .. :;17q ...i ��35w.�.n-: 26..,.uV/2
4 10: 1 _ _'". I 23 ...: 9.. COCOaIIIIo 1-6 10 I -� ...::: fib:::: :..::::: . ..:4� J4 . 4038 9
7 \
23 "25 » 27 26 9 .e .4.... 10K"7 Y3 B ,7 II 7
5
iT I I
!> 33
7 . 7 16 .. 25 25 6 5 ; 9 n ....10 8 9 ? 74 0.
20 23 03' 10 9
25
y� pp nn
U U E 0 9 �� 4^.9 20 21 y 21 2 » YJ 24 .II c'°oteria9e 2 7 s.,g°Yae TV TR + .s79 13 q 7 B o r IFs • � '"8: ACCESS ROAD
* : 13 10 �dObst
J5 7 20 20 21 29 22 21 23 2 f • 10 '
20� 4N
44f oku It 16 19/- .y 20
22 :QF 1 10: OTT4L6
0 12 '
g j ' ..'"� 6m a9 B mac
e
412
e
�:
s <� `•../� ,a 20 zo zo .... :., 20 ;;1. 1�D1vAi�40 UAB
>.:17 19' » 19 4 19 51 10
• o. < .. ..
a
IB ,i
r
{ D a: a Wa'hai 10 4 7+3 -_
i Liliuokalani Park ' .. road
9. 14 16 C' % 17 #. 17 �7 - " to ?r• .pi qqti.- • :'9 9.''•
OD ,� IT i 9 Rrj i ', 9
i4 16 IS MN 17 13 1!.:
e ° 4 8
J3 IS IS 15 16 IS 14 '.>4 / F R b71t all4.
14 14 IS 14 P
..
9
Exiating Black Sand Beach
P9V -
��`• o O /O \ OAp�4 .. -... -
..... 9
7
jL q
e
a^ °r
D
2°WAIAKEA
o♦ 9 •
_ _fir„na
- aOana/ 1`t TRIAL PLAN 11A
qi"
3 L00,
ja R.m•, 1 " 1000' 9/73
-17-
V
55
m
bo
36
42
61
34
63
5
13
16
e I 'Ar."
-- , KUN/O 8A y
1 t `RANGE
�.o
7 �. J I6 C 25 25 8. 5 9 10 10 9 8 8 r42 : 33
8 9
7 19 23 > �`��' 1k
t l t n �C 25 2 c. �:w. 7 10 dObdtr "1i. 7 `' :':.. 32.-" ROAD ---._.
1 13 ` ACCESS
UjJ' L' O 9 4 8 16 19 21 22 24 II Footbridge 7 �o�• TV TR 13 8 13 g 8 IO::yll 7j �'.'.
20 21 sy 23 23 22 10 Ip RSL .
\
20', 22 23 17 6: Qti n 12 / /
1 3 5 7 � ' hd 20 20 ' b, cj�a `' 10 12 3 % aC�o
19: 20 21 21 16 �j h 12 /
.)ku ane 9 t 16 / ' 20 21 �s,_. ct ti 4 8
f i°`MARAOKU tS
520 9
20 20 I� I 20 �r t" �/ , �$ 'S� /
C:
I u�7 / 19 ` s9 19 19 15 J` 10 �1 7 3
:.....
W%F ( Li.liuokalani Park --- 13a Poria , 9
a 9 14 Ig 1 17 17 l0 8 e j"�� c L c `,�- o0 MP
C• IQ 13 IS Oi, '# 4 8 g 9
17 bh M 6
�� 14 15 6 16 15 I5
15 ^
A A,- 14 F R 47tt
s 4 4 /
`rJ� aa
13 hrd 15 14
+ l 14 14 15 14 8:1 0
O Q C 9 9 II a c �
o ® ,
Existing Black Sand Beach
h� 7 N'2" �14
f�V A _ 8 7 8 8 0' Sa11.15\ o
yak 8 3 Obl%� 5 81 r
0 4 .. 4 4 4 8- D i.
L o 0 0 3 1910 WAIAKEA
oQ � o
- D,a,=aria' I i TRIAL P L A N n A u
3 roa i`Lve Ramps Tt 1 0009/73
I 'i
-17- General Lymzn l��ic�ld
27 20
_ 18 22 22
18
28
30
39
Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce
16 19
63 67 34
22 21
17E�ri.sti27g Breakwater
23 22
18
18
28 h d
^�
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
55 58 17I
16
. - 8 �a 18
-21 — — _ _
22 IS
- .... - -- ULTIMATE BREAKWATER
EXPANSION
September 1973
P
62 65 23
CONTROL GATE
16 15 23 -20 —{9 -co S— — — —
,o 16 _
_ z
— *V-• ` 1 \
39
f1
60 22
63
17
\ __ ... _.
_I,_— TROUGH
4 PL GE
17'
g 19
c -.
22
f 21 35
hrd 60
55
/BRI II ^�
r P 36 ��6 I�
] . () /l �r�f
17 10
.�� �/ 25
2i \ 26
\
30
/ 9 14 /
�3i
BEL[ -
``22 19 16 a ...' ; I. 17 35 8
52 Fi 21sec 52 13 13 lJ���
'7 �• : 17
\
\
5 1
/ �- 38
r�
57 20 16 15 r h*
27
IS 19 23 37 15 I5 2 21
19 36
24
I6 IS• 8
21 \
36' \lird �
35
+ 5 l i 14lie
_
51 _ 57 .I i 4
-
53 SURGE BARRIER AND ISLAND PARK I`
�
18 12 .
15 18 21 1 30
16 15
r\ \` r
40 13 24
25
18 • \
28
3:
�` ,.,,• 43 47
37
25
16
. r
42 43
SMALL BOAT MARINA 5 '��a 14 _
1�.
14r I1 15 29
25 RELOCATED BREAKWATER
ix
U
15
g
}' 3 .r
54
53
1
��
9 i4 l l
16 42 2
I I
43
.5148 , �. 35
20 36
\ 21 W
` \
31 3D
} 13 �f
20,
V9 50 15
„ ' ?
13 �4
42,
141
'0
ACCESS ROAD
23
\
W
51 51 µ 6 1, r'�
} 12 �„ 2s .\ 7
} �� WAINAKU SURFING SHOALS ,: 19 7
4, 14:;41
.�-- NEHU POND 40 l4
41
14 r: 18 33
j4 20
I 13 13 22
L G
�`` P �N17
21 0
` 27
W Beach i"
ainaku Be
47 �
5:2
GATE AND BRIDGE ��--
47 20. �' a
'� io . 34 "
i i CONTROL
15 It'p�
\ ` 0
0
19 /
'Alealcn Pt 36 ''
STACK 20 ,
47
- " 22
r `l 31
44 45 46 22 ��
13 14 42 40
4p 12
40 28.
21 15'22:':,lI
.. 27 .
I
2 40....
16 hrd
:
32.. `
19
4C
\ 22 0
U
-
r/
g 16 / , 33
43
v� I ;;: 33Ld3
�. l 4 i :.
26
16..
sft 40
41 15:'"
'
I 23
24 17 15
29 :19
22:14
�.p..�. p �+p
r�[1i7.1 SLIP
(2I"" 33
44
C"5 . 71.1
\.2
'.7 13......
2 15,
38
— �..�.::( 'II
28
8 36
/24
: v 31
37 44
42 Ok Fl°31
40 43 43
41 41
43 42 \
31 38
13 IS :' :17:
14
19 .. IS 36 ': "
00
15 17 (_i
12 '12: 14
�' \
/
Wainaku Mill
--
41 43
40
�/
�Li,
Blonde ReQl
.13: .
41'.: 12':
37 16 "
IS 14 17 17
39 I7/RO DOCK 3 I3 �i-. CONTAINER '
24
31
I6 ' ^ 31 30 32 3v
1
38 A4 M
36 37 42 43 42
,rr
41 40 2739
39 ' ::2L 19 11
Z�
1.24
37 II - I. 10 14•^�,
3
/ 126
38 42
42
43 40
36
•
3 ..: 12 ,, `I. 36 PAL'4/CASUARINA SCREEN 15 t �'
y
2
20
14
I I ` 29
n ✓
3
39 40
32 31 36 41
34...
.
2 I3 !
20 ..•,....: 9'• I I 8
39 19 I :.,',. 12;... 13 ."' . " ... I
14 P....
..1.
D A
STORAGE'
5
`
31
IS
7 30
34 37
31
O 35
39
40 TURNING BASIN
F/2Iset'7'
q.
3? .....• Pnv malnM
..�_
II 14
0
4 yt•
22 27
8
OR„2.1 40
. F! R 4sec
4
40
R
38 -----
`4 32 33
37 �c1
DOCKS 14
I
-
.,. 15
>; 3 27
39
30 hrd 31 36 32
33
4 F_l 6sec 39
40 38
38 i9 ''
37 -- 37----
37
36 a 38 38 3 '
v
28 33 38
;:; _: 16 :.�7
9• 7':- IOa .t\'
37
36 ---------_
36 - 40-___ 41 3
:;•:,' ,`��s� 23
' e IS 19 27
31 34
�/
37 35
6> M 16. '” 9 '•. ' 7 :4' i :::j' 34' \
36 25 : 7 2
''
3 6
-•41----
I{ (% H I O38 B A Y
39
• F c CONTAINER
8
g 5 20
°�„•.,.,• 16 25
25 27 26 31 34 35
29
: O 3'; 3 .:'
27 .. 13. • 3 :* ; ffi•
Rax-11ai11ai Pl I 33 33
33 7
371 36
36 37 �N 36 3
STORAGE
i
�'. 5 20
15.
29
26 M 32
23 j 28
24
26 ,' . ..
; 18i35
31 I I lou/
118.•.9 ” a 9 : 19
d 16.29: 16.••
P 136
:...ao23.::;�:.i4 .. 35
.•'
35
36 ROf RO BARGE DOCK
37
W
—
Z(Radio
F G
w. 7 14
/ '
o� 29
�.-_ '
�.1 ;. 8 I .. `10.4N,/O,,35R
29 27 19 7 0 10 f . ...
0 17:9'"' '4
35 3. R„ _ 40 ,�
On „, �4
a Be
7 14"
8 28
--- WAILUKU SURFING SHOALS
19 : /
16 4 0
.. •
I I '•::::::..:
... ....... �i......... .......... :. 38 A .
5 7
4 7 ` 10
t
-- — --- — -
/-_I 23
23 25 0
......
----- 9 _. COCOa ut l—g 10
27 Z6 •, 'g 14 10 oe.... 8 Ip 7
10 Fq r ANo
8 g II : 33 34 �0 2
55
m
bo
36
42
61
34
63
5
13
16
e I 'Ar."
-- , KUN/O 8A y
1 t `RANGE
�.o
7 �. J I6 C 25 25 8. 5 9 10 10 9 8 8 r42 : 33
8 9
7 19 23 > �`��' 1k
t l t n �C 25 2 c. �:w. 7 10 dObdtr "1i. 7 `' :':.. 32.-" ROAD ---._.
1 13 ` ACCESS
UjJ' L' O 9 4 8 16 19 21 22 24 II Footbridge 7 �o�• TV TR 13 8 13 g 8 IO::yll 7j �'.'.
20 21 sy 23 23 22 10 Ip RSL .
\
20', 22 23 17 6: Qti n 12 / /
1 3 5 7 � ' hd 20 20 ' b, cj�a `' 10 12 3 % aC�o
19: 20 21 21 16 �j h 12 /
.)ku ane 9 t 16 / ' 20 21 �s,_. ct ti 4 8
f i°`MARAOKU tS
520 9
20 20 I� I 20 �r t" �/ , �$ 'S� /
C:
I u�7 / 19 ` s9 19 19 15 J` 10 �1 7 3
:.....
W%F ( Li.liuokalani Park --- 13a Poria , 9
a 9 14 Ig 1 17 17 l0 8 e j"�� c L c `,�- o0 MP
C• IQ 13 IS Oi, '# 4 8 g 9
17 bh M 6
�� 14 15 6 16 15 I5
15 ^
A A,- 14 F R 47tt
s 4 4 /
`rJ� aa
13 hrd 15 14
+ l 14 14 15 14 8:1 0
O Q C 9 9 II a c �
o ® ,
Existing Black Sand Beach
h� 7 N'2" �14
f�V A _ 8 7 8 8 0' Sa11.15\ o
yak 8 3 Obl%� 5 81 r
0 4 .. 4 4 4 8- D i.
L o 0 0 3 1910 WAIAKEA
oQ � o
- D,a,=aria' I i TRIAL P L A N n A u
3 roa i`Lve Ramps Tt 1 0009/73
I 'i
-17- General Lymzn l��ic�ld
21
18 2 /
r /6 /
�e CONTROL GATE 22 h� 3Jc Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce
0
16 2? 2/ 22 22 Need for a Hilo Bay Study
6
16 15 18 18. 23 e; September 1973
23
..B_....9 -` .18 16 :: X18
2C 19 '17 22
30
9 ..Co 9 21 30
21
SMALL BOAT MARINA 9,C7 22
3 J 19 16
FIRST INCREMENT to 3J `3
/s.. 20-. 21 21... 2416 Al/
dro
25
/4 13 ,3 5 ../5 30 /5 24 29 39
43 421_ _ _- 21
423 SECOND INCREMENT f'0 4 4 /2 40 23 8 3g 22 40
3g ✓_ ` — //// - .. _ 29 2/ 24 Existing Breakwater .26
18
y 4 21
4/40 l4. �0 20 hv' 25 25 bey ,30.:.
42 40 /4 /4 14.
.18
22
40 34 13 33 r 22 21 28
42 :� 28 if . s .. l ` /7. i 18 :
4/ ,(f /2. 26 ?0 i8 23 22
4/2(` 11 2/ �..., 1/lS
2 4l 40 /S ...J . ' /3 �/2�:� 2J-: 1y /4 `13. �3 2j
CK
c ,m IIdC
JEREI�iF 22 , Is
SBC, L
1N / p 3
i /5 r 40 /9 /J 20 28I7 /8: 22 21 :30Qi
`3 l9 s20 9 DOCK 16
40 40 4i..75 .....� 36 jNCREMENT 8_23
1)17 22 2l
N
l/ 14 - 18 27
X42 39 22 37 / ..a24_: /5 12 17 17 w•
. i : /2 ,J /0 /8
9
40 3g/? :36 /i I6 IS . /2. 22 17 18 2 28
40 4 q 40 39 3g 20 36 22..... 24 6 4 216 14 Ig! 1
of 6 Ji2� 3> 23 J O
16 6sec 3g lsec'1' •... ...-.,,?z /3 { // /0
9
i8.%. J .. .. 13 /5 .12 ` ' 18 26
? ..'jp%:,•. 38 3 /3 29 IS /3
9' • 3J 36
J z 37 s ��•,9;; :'' ACCESS ROAD REI,OCATEA BREAKWATEF 2 K
3 J
1 3 4z •' •34 35 37 3 3J 35 /4 g 4 s ... /5 /4 11 10 10 ,12`
7 9: f 3J 3J 3p1 /22
P 2
p * •'3 ? 33 3Ji 36 36 �`� 3g 36 4�1214 42
9
?7 9
3g P,.
35 36 38 32 ///%y 13
0
�0 10. /6:29 /g R 6 k U k 36 BgIbq pr . IS Ig'.
/§ ..../0.23..':8•' 3J 36- CONTROL GATE A -��� 38 3SP` II I2. l4 1 j 9
�:•.: 0C
9 8 .... / 3J 38 8 4/``
l4 llt..i 35 R
/0 3 3 1
l0 e e 8 /0 / % 6 35 38 9 35 / 8 + ..:
e 11 2735' 36 34 36 F G : 7 : 0 2g
17.
,... `
0� 40 3J
10 7 6 7
/p' ... 4 � 11
10 as 1,0
TV TRcJ,;'o.,^. 9 8 8) ..�. N 4p�o Z•a 35 11 ' /
4 2 p
3 P 7.
8 13 8 9 >Z 3g e\�33. 36 w ` 4' 9n,7, 5... ��a.
"V. @ 03 9 7 8 8• .�''cJ3 34 �'f' A� A 30: 2 a Radio +�yj 124ft •`�Ry/o
l ry
-.8 /2 /0 g /0 9 !42
gNCFq>-
/0 hey d�bslr 3312 la, u'
2
ay 8 mer' g Beach Jz g ..
6
fOV` 1 /0 ed•S 9 -
4 �e 7 5 O T ANK
a
3 R
9.-
4 B 9- ..... s . ' ®® � � ® ACCESS ROAD• I
T R I A L P L A N " B"
lit = 8001 9/73
Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce
Need for a Hilo Bay Study
September 1973
APPENDIX "C"
POSSIBLE "SINGLE EVENT11 ECONOMIC FACTORS
INDUSTRY: A $450 million refinery is under consideration for the Kohala Dis-
trict to utilize Hawaii Island's close in -shore deep water for supertankers;
to utilize its mid -Pacific distribution position to furnish Japan and the USA
with refined petro -products derived from Middle East crude oil; and to utilize
its non-expropriatable American soil on which to safely build.
SCIENCE: Astrophysics: The unusually good atmospheric conditions atop Mauna
Kea (13,8001) could result in growth of a mountain top observatory complex
worth more than $100 million if all projected observatory sites are utilized.
Geophysics: This island's fortunate possession of geothermal energy; of near -
shore, ocean temperature differential energy; and high intensity solar energy
could encourage major research efforts in the worldwide search for new energy
resources.
MANUFACTURING: Hawaii's unique mid -Pacific position makes it of considerable
interest to Japanese manufacturers wishing to assemble products on American
soil. If present efforts to repeal the Jones Act should succeed (thereby per-
mitting shipment from Hawaii to the mainland USA in foreign ships), followed
!:.-,y the proposed establishment of a Free Trade Zone at the Port of Hilo, an un-
precedented growth might occur in Hilo's manufacturing and shipping activity.
TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGHS: The Island of Hawaii has a unique potential for
the development of electric energy sources that do not require fossil or nu-
clear fuels.
1. Large quantities of geothermal energy close to the surface.
2. Deep ocean water temperature differentials very close to shore.
3. Several wind power locations suitable for high level pumped
water storage for peak electrical loads.
4. Excellent potential for direct sunlight to electricity con-
version systems on the upper cloud free slopes of Mauna Kea
and Mauna Loa.
5. Further development of practical, high pressure, fiber powered
electrical generation systems. The first system of this kind
in the world will start delivering electrical power to the Is-
land of Hawaii next year from the raw sugar processing factory
at Pepeekeo, Hawaii.
As the economic and ecological costs of fossil and nuclear fueled electricit%7
increase throughout the world, electrical generation methods such as those,
above may make the Island of Hawaii's electricity relatively low cost and at-
tractive to new industry. Recent development of techniques to mine seabottom
manganese nodules found adjacent to the Hawaiian Islands might result in a
nearby raw material that could be processed with local electricity and shipped
from Hawaii Island ports.
r°
-19-