Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0630.001 2008-2010 (Part 2)SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii VOLUME II APPENDICES LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Public Involvement and Agency Coordination Al: Notice of Intent in Federal Register and EISPN Notice in OEQC Bulletin A2: Comments to NOI /EISPN and HDOT Responses A3: 9/6/09 Letter, U.S. Army Garrison to HDOT A4: Public Hearing Notice Sample, Flyer, List of Places Flyer Posted A5: Agenda, Sign -In Sheets, & Transcripts of Public Hearings A6: Comments to Draft EIS and Responses Appendix B Waters of U.S. Report and Correspondence Appendix C Botanical Report Appendix D Vertebrate Fauna Report Appendix E Depleted Uranium Report Appendix F1 Archaeological Report Appendix F2 Section 106 Correspondence Appendix G Section 7 ESA Reports and Correspondence [This page intentionally left blank] SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix A Public Involvement and Agency Coordination Al: Notice of Intent in Federal Register and EISPN Notice in OEQC Environmental Notice [This page intentionally left blank] 1 foreign nationals begin participation in this program each year. In February 2004, the Department announced a pilot program whereby Department designated au pair sponsors could request the extension of program participation beyond the original 2- month maximum period afforded an pair participants. In June of 2006, following a review of the two -year pilot program, the Department amended program regulations to permit designated sponsors to submit requests to the Department for consideration of program extensions for six, nine or 12 month durations for first -year au pair participants beyond the maximum duration of participation allowed under the existing regulations. As the au pair program enters its twentieth year of operation, the Department has been asked to consider amending the age eligibility requirement for au pair participants by increasing the age limitation from 26 to 30. Further, the Department has been asked to consider permitting foreign nationals who previously participated in the au pair program to repeat program participation. The Department hereby solicits comments from the general public and other interested parties regarding these two issues. This certification ill be published in the Federal Register, Dated: November , 6, 2007. Stanley S. Colvin, Director, Office of Exchange Coordination and e ig, ation, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State, [FR Doc. E7-23883 38 sled 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as Amended by Pubic Law 104-13; Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Tennessee Valley yyAgg comment ACTION: Proposed Collection; :.somme g t request. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended) . The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public comments on this proposed collection as provided by 3 . d 1) . Requests for information, including copies of the information collection proposed and supporting documentation should be directed to the Agency Clearance 1 - t 69726 Federal Register Vol, 72, No. 236 Monday, December 10, 2007 Notices Officer: Alice a Witt, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street (E13-533), Chattanooga, TN 37402 -2801; (423) 751-6832. (SC: IZ) Comments should be sent to the Agency Clearance Officer no later than February 8, WIWI SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Type of s: Regular submission; proposal for a reinstatement of a previously approved collection control number 3316 - 0009). Title of Thforma i Collection: Salary Surveys for Engineering Association (EA) and Law Enforcement Employee Association (LEEA) Bargaining Unit Employees. Frequency of Use: Annually. Type of Affected governments, y�!y�i Federal pM Y}d Public: State xfp5 �f i+ -5 or local y.pov rnm+..`n , C de a agencies, non- profit institutions, businesses, or other for - profit. Small Businesses or Organizations Affected: A: 45; EA: 3 . Federal Budget Functional Category Code: 999. Estimated Number of Annual Responses: EA: 30; LEEA: 20. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: A: 120; LEEA: 60. Estimated vrag Burden Hours Per Response: EA: 4; LEEA: 3. Need For and Use of orti o : TVA conducts an annual salary survey for employee compensation and benefits as a basis for labor negotiations in determining prevailing rates of pay and benefits for represented salary policy employees. TVA surveys firms, and Federal, State, and local governments whose employees perform work similar to that of TVA's salary policy employees. Steven A. A der on, Senior Manager, IT Planning & Governance, Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-23828 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental impact Statements Flawail County, HI AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)—Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD), DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: FHWA–CFLHD is issuing this notice to advise the public that a supplemental environmental impact statement will be prepared for a proposed highway project in Ha wail County, Hai ai`i. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONT T: Ricardo Suarez, Division CFLHD Engineer, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80228 and/or Ronald F. Tsu uki, State Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Honolulu, HI 96813. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in consultation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation HT), -will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SETS) for an ongoing project to improve and realign the Saddle Road (State Highway 200), an existing highway in Hawaii County, Hawaii., The purpose of the project is to provide a safe and efficient route for access to land uses along Saddle Road and for cross-island traffic between East and West Hawaii. The ongoing and planned improvements to Saddle Road would also address five general types of needs: Roadway deficiencies, conflicts and hazards with military operations, capacity, safety, and social demand and economic development. The final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project was completed August 9, 1999 and the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on October 30, 1999. The project began construction in 2004 and approximately 30% of the project has been completed or is now under construction. In 2006, the Department of the Army (Army) purchased a Parker Ranch property known as the e` rnuku parcel. This property included the area planned for the selected alternative (W-3) for western section of the Saddle Road. On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Army Garrison, Iawai'i, requested that HDOT and FHWA consider relocating the highway about a mile southwest towards the southern boundary of Ke'Orn k .. This would allow the Army to naxr..ie its training opportunities and minimize conflict with the traveling public. This request meets one of the original purposes of the Saddle Road EIS, which was to minimize conflict between civilian and military uses in the area, and FHWA and HDOT thus have determined that it is prudent to re- examine the alternatives for the western section of the EIS. Alternatives under consideration at this time include 1) taking no action; (2) using the alternative for the western section of the project that was recommended in the Final EIS and selected in the ROD; and (3) relocating this segment of the highway nearer the southern boundary of the Ke'dmuku parcel. The SETS will also reconfirm the reasons that alternatives for the western section were dropped from consideration in the original EIS, and reconsider then, if appropriate. Beca public scoping meetings for the Saddle Road improvements project were held in Hilo, Kona and Waimea during the development of the original EIS, no additional scoping is required for an ongoing project, where an SEIS is prepared that does not involve a reassessment of the entire action, However, letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal, Public hearings will be held in both West and East Ha rai'i. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the hearings, The draft SEIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and that all significant issues are identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the SETS should be directed to the FHWA—CFLHD or the HD OT at the addresses provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal Programs and activities apply to this program) Issued on: November 27, 2007. Ricardo Suarez, P.E., Division Engineer, Calla [FR Doc. 07-5988 Flied 12-7-07; 8 :45 am] B1LUNG CODE 491 --M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA , Department of Transportation. ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition submitted itted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30162 by Mr. Richard H. Mc Swain of Mc Swain Engineering Inc. to NHTSA s Office of Defects Investigation U, received June 29, 2007, requesting that the agency commence a proceeding to determine the existence of a defect related to motor vehicle safety with Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 236 Monday, December 10, 2007 Notices 69727 Pry respect to the manual seatback recliner mechanism in model year 1989 Ford Probe vehicles (subject vehicles). After a review of the petition and other information, NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of the agency's investigative resources on the issues raised by the petition does not appear to be warranted. The agency accordingly has denied the petition. The petition is hereinafter identified as —001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steve Chan, Safety Defects Engineer, Defects Assessment Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTS , 1200 New jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 Telephone: (202) 366-8537. SUPPLEMENTARY I I : On June 29, 2007 NHTSA received a petition from Mr„ Richard H. McSwain o McSwain Engineering Inc., requesting that the agency investigate the failure of the seatback recliner mechanisms in the subject vehicles. The petition is based on an examination of a passenger side front seat recliner mechanism from a subject vehicle involved in a multi- vehicle collision, of an exemplar seat, as well as mechanical testing of a seat from a subject vehicle. The petitioner identified a failure mode involving bypass of the seatback stop pin (inside the recliner mechanism) during forward movement of the seatback, such as when entering and exiting the rear seat. The petition stated that stop pin bypass allows the recliner mechanism sector gear to over- travel with respect to the pawl. Return of the seatback to the upright position may then bend the first tooth of the pawl, resulting in a false or partial engagement of the sector and pawl teeth. This false engagement condition is transmitted to the opposing recliner mechanism via a mechanical communication cable. According to the petition, the ultimate result is the inability of the recliner mechanism to support the seatback during a collision event. The petitioner concluded that the stop pin bypass that initiated the failure mode is a result of inadequate height of the pin and the resulting inadequate contact between the pin and seatback stop. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard MVSS No. 207 `Seating Systems," specifies that seats in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses must meet certain static force test requirements. However, for seats that hinge on folding seatbacks, the restraining device, once engaged, shall not release when a force equal to twenty times the weight of the seatback is applied through the center of gravity for the seat in the direction the seat is facing. It is not uncommon to see the seatbacks of new vehicles moved from their initial positions after a FMVSS simulated vehicular collision. The identified failure mode may be the result of progressive wear and tear of the seatback stop pin, the seatback stop, and other seat components in vehicles that are on average, 17 years old. Available data do not suggest that this has occurred with a notable frequency. ODT reviewed its consumer complaint data received over the last nineteen years and found no complaints of seatback collapse (with or without a vehicle collision) in the subject vehicles, in view of the foregoing, and considering the advanced age of the subject vehicles, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order for the notification and remedy of the alleged defect as defined by the petitioner at the conclusion of the investigation requested in the petition. The statutory requirement that the manufacturer provide a free remedy does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first purchaser more than 10 calendar years before an order is issued. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the petition is denied. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: December 4, 2007 Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-23853 Filed 12-7-07; 8 :45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket Nc4 N S- 2007 -0042; N e General Motors Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance General Motors Corporation (GM) has determined that certain model year 2005, 2006 & 2007 Cadillac STS passenger cars equipped with sunroofs do not fully comply with paragraph S4(e) of 49 CFR 571.118, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard FM SS No. 118 Power- Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems, GM has filed an appropriate report pursuant to CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), GM has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and • (3) Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamalahoa Highway (HRS 343 FEA- EISPN) District: TU Proposing Agency: Accepting Authority: Consultant: Status: Public Comment Deadline: Permits Required: South Kohala (3rd): 6 -7- 001:003 State of Hawai` i, Department of Transporta- tion, Highways Division, 869 Punchbowl Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i, 96813. Contact: Ronald F. Tsuzuki (808 -587 -1830) The Honorable Linda Lingle, Governor, State of Hawai` i, Executive Chambers, State Capitol, Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813 DMT Consultant Engineers, 677 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 703, Honolulu, Hawai` i 96813. Contact: Bruce K. Meyers (808- 961 -5527) Final Environmental Assessment and Environ- mental Impact Statement Preparation Notice, pending 30 -day public comment. Address com- ments to the applicant with copies to the ac- cepting authority, consultant and OEQC. January 22, 2008 (Request for 45 -day comment period) Fed Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit *; Sec- tion 106 concurrence. State Highways Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys- tem Permit, Coastal Zone Management Con- sistency; Conservation District Use Permit* (for portion). County: Grading Grubbing, Ex- cavating and Stockpiling Permits; Subdivision Approval (* - not yet determined) In 1996, Saddle Road was a narrow, two lane road with steep grades, sharp curves, poor pavement, and substandard drain- age. The road had become vital for access to the U.S. Army's Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, out- door recreation areas, ranch lands, and the communities of Waiki` i Ranch and Kaumana. Its role was increasing as a cross island transportation route linking East and West Hawai` i for business travel, the transport of goods and services, tourism /recreation, shopping, and commuting. The Saddle Road passed through key training areas of PTA, creating conflicts between motorists and military training units. Roadway deficiencies also hindered the response of emergency vehicles responding to fires and ac- cidents along Saddle Road. A project to improve Saddle Road was initiated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the State Department of Transportation (HDOT) and the U.S. Army. An EIS was completed in 1999, and since that time 6 miles of the 47 -mile road have been built, with another 15 miles now in construction. In 2006, the Army purchased a Parker Ranch property known as the Ke`amuku parcel, which included the area planned for the western section of the Saddle Road. The Army intends to incor- porate the property within PTA and use it for military training. In 2006, the Army requested that the HDOT and FHWA consider relocating about 9 miles of the proposed highway about a mile southwest towards the southern boundary of Ke`amuku. As this would minimize conflict between military and the traveling December 8, 2007 public, the agencies have agreed to the request. The joint State - federal SEIS will examine the differences in environmental impact between the originally proposed route and a new route to be identified near the southern boundary of Ke`amuku. (4) University of Hawaii, Hilo College of Hawaiian Language Facilities (HRS 343 DEA) District: TU Proposing Agency: Determination Agency: Consultant: Public Comment Deadline: Status: Permits Required: South Hilo (3rd): 2 -4 -01:07 University of Hawai`i, Office of Capital Im- provements, 1960 East West Road, Biomed Sci. Bld. Ctyd. B -102, Honolulu, Hawai` i 96822. Contact: Maynard G . P. Young (808- 956 -4071) Same as above. Geometrician Associates, PO Box 396, Hilo Hawai` i 96721. Contact: Ron Terry (808 -969- 7090) January 7, 2008 Draft environmental assessment (DEA) notice pending 30 -day public comment. Address com- ments to the proposing agency with copies to the consultant and OEQC. Hawai` i County: Planning Department Ap- proval Plan Approval and Building Permit; Plan- ning Commission Height Variance; Public Works Grading Permit, Driveway Permit and Drainage Approval; State: DOH NPDES The University of Hawai` i at Hilo proposes to develop facili- ties to house Ka Haka `Ula 0 Ke ` elikolani, the College of Hawai- ian Language. The facilities will expand educational opportuni- ties and help revitalize Hawaiian language and culture. The Col- lege was established at UH Hilo in 1997 and includes the Hawai- ian Studies Division, the Hawaiian Language Center Division, the Laboratory School Division and an Outreach Program. The College's facilities are currently spread among five existing build- ings at UH Hilo and another building located six miles from cam- pus. The new facility will accommodate the current programs as well as future growth. Phase 1 is currently in design and will include a two -story building for administrative offices and class- rooms and two one -story daycare /preschool structure, connected by covered walkways, with associated parking, utilities, and land- scaping. Later phases will accommodate the teacher training program, media /telecommunications services, and graduate stu- dents. The College is being developed within the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program. It will incor- porate many environmentally sustainable features and will meet standards for a silver certificate in this "green building" rating system. Construction would have a minor and easily mitigable effect on traffic. Long -term traffic impacts would be minimal and mitigated through proper design of entry /exit points. Short -term noise, air, and water quality impacts associated with grading and landscaping would be mitigated. A Storm Water Pollution Pre- vention Plan (SWPPP) to contain sediment and storm water run- off during grading and construction will be developed and imple- mented. The site has been mostly graded or otherwise disturbed - by [This page intentionally left blank] SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix A Public Involvement and Agency Coordination A2: Comments to NOI /EISPN and HDOT Responses [This page intentionally left blank] FEB-05-2008 17=12 Harry Kim Mayor January 22, 2008 Mr_ Ron Terry Geometrician Associates PO IThx 39( Ili lo, H[ 96721 Dear Mr. Terry: Frors_185 3155938 Fage:3 /46 arfurag rtf Aatuaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT PARTMENT 101 Pa hi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii S45720 (808) 961 -8288 + FAX (80 8) 961 -8742 Subject: Consultation for Ow Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SETS) Project: Saddle Road (SR 200) between Mile Post 42 and Mamalahoa Highway Tax Ma Ke • 3 6-7-1: s ortion of 3- e'arnuku South Kohala Hawaii Brad Kurokawa, ASLA LEED® AP Deputy Director We have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice dated December 6, 2007 for the construction of Saddle road (SR 20()) on the Kc'dmuku parcel between Mile post 42 and Mamaiahoa Highway and have the following comments to offer. The .Bike Plan Hawaii lists bicycle lanes on Saddle Road between Maxnalahoa Highway and Hilo as a long -tenor priority that could be implemented with minor improvements to the existing roadway. Although bicycle lanes are not discussed in the EIS Preparation Notice, the SEI.S should discuss the feasibility of incorporating bicycle lanes into the proposed project, Due to the topography in the project area it is likely that with construction of the selected alignment a new sccnic view plane will he created for motorists. To enhance the experience of tourism travelers, HD OT should consider constructing roadside turnouts for scenic viewing purposes, Thwa('i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employei Christopher J. Yuen Director FEB--05 -2008 17:1E From:18663166988 Page:4'46 Mr. Ron Terry Geometrician, Associates Page 2 January 22, 2008 To rcducc conflicts between civilian and military vehicles, grade- separated structures such as overpass or underpass crossings should be constructed at all intersections of the selected Saddle Road alignment with the former tank road, which the Army proposed using in their FIS to transport Stryker vehicles From Kawaihae Harbor to PTA. Please provide an illustration in the STS of the W - and W -3 alignments in relation to the military trail that will he used to transport Stryker vehicles_ Please provide this oCltce with a copy of the draft EA upon its publication. Should you have questions, please contact Maija Cottle of my staff at 961 extension 253. Sincerely, _ „, 1 if is CHR ES 1'OPITER J. Y.7L� Planning Director MJC_cs '.\ . pwin601M i,ja\EA -LIS 're -4.`+ ctsult i. on1f mnt\Sadd1c }load MP 42 to M malahua 6 -7 -1 -3 P -crnnlh due xc: MT. Nelson Sagum Ha i'1 State Department. of Transportation Highways ays Division 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Director Office of Environmental Quality Control 235 South Beretaiii a Street, Suite 702 IIonolulu, HI 96813 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. Christopher J. Yuen Director Plan ing Department R . County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Ms. Yuen: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 FEB 2.1 20D8 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated January 22, 2008, in which you provided us with your comments regarding the subject project. A brief statement from your comments and our tentative responses are provided below: The SETS should discuss the feasibility of incorporating bicycle lanes into the proposed project. Bicycle lanes along the proposed highway will be further evaluated during the development of the project's Supplemental EIS. However, at the moment, the typical section of the proposed highway will definitely include 8-foot shoulders on each side of the highway, which may be used by bicyclists and are favored by the State Department of Transportation (DOT). 2. . DOT should consider constructing roadside turnouts . . The project's Supplemental EIS will include a discussion of the scenic turnouts along the proposed highway and will consider several possible locations for these facilities. Although there seems to be widespread support of scenic turnouts, these facilities may be costly to construct and operate. 3. To reduce conflicts between civilian and military vehicles, grade - separated structures such as overpass or underpass crossings should be constructed at all intersections of the selected Saddle Road alignment with the former tank road . BRENNON T. MORiO A INTERIM DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY -PA 2.7123 Christopher J. Yuen Page 2 One of the primary reasons in favor of the relocation of the proposed Saddle Road involves the reduction of conflicts with military vehicles and the necessity to construct such grade - separated structures. We are very hopeful that military training maneuvers will be confined to areas north of the proposed highway and crossings will be infrequent; at locations where multiple or frequent crossings are anticipated, grade - separated structures will be considered. Please also note, upon its completion, a copy of the draft Supplemental EIS will be forwarded to your office for your review and comments. If you have any other questions or issues concerning this project, please contact Nelson Sagum, our project manager, at (808) 587 -1834. Very truly yours, • ryl 411 ;:ki 1160.0 RE ON T. IORIO •J., P.E. Interim Director of Transportation be: HWY -PA NS:th HWY -PA 2.7123 FEB-05-2008 17:13 F r~ o m: 18663166988 F a g e: 6/ 46 LINDA LINO LE GOVEFINOR Mr. Ron Terry Geometrician Associates P..)_ Box 396 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Dear Mr. Terry: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND GENERAL SERVICES P.D. BOX 110, HONOLULU, HAWAII !:i6t110 JAN 2 2_ 200 Subject: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice Saddle Road (Route 200), Maralahoa liightway ( Route 190) Island of Hawaii, Kohala TM K: ( 6- 7- 001 :003 Thank you for the opportunity to review the information regarding the subject project. The project does not impact any of the Department of Accounting and General Services' projects or existing facilities and we have no comments to offer. Inhere are ally questions regarding the above, please have your staff c.al1 Mr. David DcPontc of the Planning Branch at 586-0492. Sincerely, Davca c: Mr. Laurence K. Liu, Director, OEQC Mr. Nelson. Sagum. DOT - Highways Mr. Glepn Okada, DADS Hawaii Dislri t (flce A RC ERNEST LAU Public Works Adrninigtrazor RUSS K. SAITO coMPTROL.i.FR BARBARA A. ANN$ OPt3TY COMPTROLLER (P) OZ Z8 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. Ernest Lau Public Works Administrator State of Hawaii Department of Accounting and General Services P.O. Box 119 Honolulu, Hawaii 96810 Dear Mr. Lau: Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated January 22, 2008, in which you stated that our proposed highway project would not impact any of the Department of Accounting and General Services' projects or existing facilities. If you have any questions or issues concerning this project, please contact Nelson Sagum, our project manager, at (808) 587-1834. Very truly yours, r BRENNON T. MORIOKA, ' �! ., P.E. Interim Director of Transportation bc: H` Y -PA NS:th STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 FEB 2 1 2008 BRENNON T. MORIOKA INTERIM DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL Q. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL_ KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO; HWY -PA 23130 FEB-05-2008 17:12 From :18563155988 Fa ge :2/46 Harry Kim Mayor January 11, 2008 Ron Terry Geometrician Associates R 0. Box 396 Hilo, I--tawai` i 96721 Dear Mr. Terry: Sincerely, '1\ 6174: 1 44-C Diane Ley Deputy Director County of Hawaii DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 25 Aupunr Street, Room 109 * Hilo. Hawaii 96720 -4252 (808) 961 , 8366 • Fax ON) 935-1205 E-MElile RE: Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamatahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Kohala District, Hawai' i Island Thank you for providing the County of Hawai` is Department of Research and Development with an opportunity to review and provide comments on the Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice for the proposed realignment of Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42. Kohala District, Hawe i Island. Our Department has no comments or concerns at this time. C: Director, Office of Environmental Quality Control Nelson Sagum, Highways Division, Hawai~ i Department of Transportation Hawal`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider end Emp1oyar Jane H. Testa Director Diane L. Ley Deputy D rtr.l r T LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Ms. Diane Ley Deputy Director Department of Research and Development County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Ms. Ley: Very truly y9urs, IRENNON T. MORIOKA, Ph.D k, P.E. Interim Director of Transportation be: HWY -PA NS:th STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 FEB 2 1 2008 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) If you have any questions or issues concerning this project, we encourage you to contact Nelson Sagum, our project manager, at (808) 5874834. BRENNON T. MORIOKA INTERIM DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL 0. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEEND BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY .PA 2.7133 Thank you for your letter, dated January 11, 2008, in which you stated that you had no comments to offer regarding the Supplemental EISPN for this project. We appreciate your review of this document. FEB -05 -2008 17 :12 Mr. Ron Terry (eonietrician Associates, LLC P.O. Box 396 IIilo, HI 96721 From :18B6316E888 Page :5'46 DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAI 145 KEKUANAO'A STREET. SUITE 20 • Hll 0 HAwAI'I 96720 TELEPHONE (841 0 Yt FAX (800) 961 -8667 January 28, 2008 s U P P t 1 E MENTAL EN NIKON M E 1 ' I' A I IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARATION NOTICE SADDLE ROAD (STA'IT ROUTE 200) MAMALAHOA HIGHWAY (STATE ROUTE 190) TO MILEPOST 42 'FAX MAP KEY 6 -7- 1)01 :003 This is in response to the subject Supplemental EIS Prcpration Notice. Please be informed that there are no existing Department of Water Supply facilities within the project area. Therefore, we will not need to review the L]ratt Supplemental EIS for this project when it is completed. Should there be any questions, please contact Mr. Finn McCall of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 255. I{M:dfg Sincerely yours, Ilion a Pavao, P.E. Manager copy - Office ice of Environmental Quality Control State of' Hawaii, Department of Transportation, TTighways Division ...Water Thu Ocpilrten8nt rat wwter upply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer To flu uurnpluint of discrimination. write USDA Director. Offico of Civil HightS, Room 326 -W, Whitten Building. 14th and Indopundurluu Avenue. SW, W8shirl9loi7 DC 29250.9410 Or Cti)I (21J) T20-59 4 (voice; and TDD) LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. Milton D. Pavao Manager Department of Water Supply County of Hawaii 345 Kekuanao'a Street, Suite 20 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Pavao: Very truly yours, • I. bc; HWY-PA NS :th BRENNON T. MOPJO : .Da, P.E. f °° interim Director of Transportation STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 FEB 2 1 200 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated January 28, 2008, in which you stated that there are no County of Hawaii, Department of water Supply facilities in the project area, and consequently, your subsequent review of the draft Supplemental EIS will not be necessary. We appreciate receiving this information, and at this time, we will not be forwarding a copy of the draft Supplemental EIS to your office. If you have any questions or issues concerning this project, please contact Nelson Sagurn, our project manager, at (808) 587 -1834 BRENNON T. MORIOKA INTERIM DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCH1 IN REPLY REAR TO: HWY-PA 23132 FEB -05 -2008 17 :11 Harry Kim 4fuvur December 13, 2007 Mr, Ron Terry Geometrician Associates P,0, Box 396 Hilo, HI 96720 From: 18663166988 Fage :1 "46 11 iiuttf g DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Auptini Street • Hilo, Hilwai'i 9720 OR) 961 -8083 • Fax (805) 961-8086 http:Ilc47.1ia ii.hi.0 /dirccti I r r i rrinE.htm SUBJECT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARATION NOTICE SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200 ), MA MALAIIt A HIGHWAY (STATE ROUTE 15 9) TO MILEPOST 42 TMK: 6 -7 -001 :003 We have reviewed the subject request and have no comments to offer, Thank you for allowing us to comment on this project. a ZO Bobo" Jean Lei tit ead Todd DIRECTOR cc: Director, O E C Hawa "i State DOT, Highways Division ) County of llawai i is ail Equal C)pprirtunity P xpvidcr' and Eniploya, Bobby Jeait Leithe d - '1 odd Director NeIon Ho lkouly Dry e ctr i- LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead -Todd Director Department of Environmental Management County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 210 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Ms. Leithead -Todd: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 FEB z i 2008 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated December 13, 2007, in which you stated that you had no comments to offer regarding the Supplemental EISPN for this project. We appreciate your review of this document. If you have any questions or issues concerning this project, we encourage you to contact Nelson Sagum, our project manager, at (808) 587 -1834. Very truly yours, BRENNON T. MORIOKA, .D P.E. Interim. Director of Transportation be: HWY-PA NS:th BRENNON T. MORIOKA INTERIM DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHJ IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY -PA 2.7134 FEB-05-2008 17:13 From :18663166988 Page :7'46 MAJOR i"iENJAL AOINERT G. F. LEE DIRECTOR or C IVIL DEFENSE EDWARD T. TEIXEIRA VICE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEI-ENSE Mr_ Ron Terry Geometrician Associates, LLC P, O. Box 396 Hilt), Hawaii awaii 96721 Dear Mfr_ Terry: Thank you fhr the opportunity to comment can this Supplemental Environmental 'impact Statement (SEISM After careful review of the documents for this Saddle Road realignment, State Civil Defense (SCD) recommends that the developer not he required to install an outdoor warning siren. SCD already has a siren simulator installed at the Pohakul is Training Area Military Police office, If you have any questions, please call Mr. Norman Ogasawara, Assistant. Telecommunications Officer, at (SOX) 7334300, ext. 531_ Sincerely, EDWARD 'r TFI EIRA Vice Director of Civil Defuse Enc. LINDA LINGLE GDVFRNOR e: Hawaii Civil Defense Agency SCD Radio Shop STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE 3949 DIAMOND HEAD ROAD HONOLULU, HAWAII 9681 654€05 January 3, 2008 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Saddle Road, Manial a ho a Highway to Milepost 42 TM („31- : i- 7- 001 :003 PI`IDNE (ACA) i :i-430() FAX Ran) 7334287 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. Edward T. Teixeira Vice Director of Civil Defense State of Hawaii Department of Defense 3949 Diamond Head Road Honolulu, Hawaii 96816 -4495 Dear Mr. Teixeira: Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your January 3, 2008 letter that advises us that the State Civil Defense has installed a siren simulator at the Pohakuloa Training Area. Therefore, our contractor will not be required to install an outdoor warning siren. If you have any questions or issues concerning this project, please contact Nelson Sagum, our project manager, at 587-1834. Very truly yours, NS :th bc: HWY -PA BRENNON T. MORIOKA, Ph.D., P.E. Interim Director of Transportation STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 FEB 2 7 2008 BRENNON T. MORIOKA INTERIM DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY -PA 2.7124 FEB -05 -2008 17:13 LINDA L1NGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII Mr. Ron Terry Geometrician Associates P.O. Box 396 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Dear Mr. Terry: Clean Water Branch From:186631E6988 Page:8'45 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P.O. B x 337E HONOLULU. HAWAII 9ii8O1 -3:3,A January 22, 2008 SUBJECT; Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement preparation Notice for Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamalahoa IIighway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Project Keamuku, South Kohala, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii TMK: (3) 6-7-001: 003 Thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the subject document. The document was routed to the various branches of the Department of health (DOIT) Environmental Health Administration. We have the following Clean Water Branch and General comments. Please note that our review is based solely on the information provided in the subject document and its compliance with Ilawaii .Administrative Rules (HAFT), Chapters 11-54 and 11-55, You may be responsible for ful i i lling additional requirements related to our program. We recommend that you also Tead OUT standard comments on our wcbsitc at http :l /www.h wail. vlhealtiVenvironmentallenv -pl Hung/ land. rse / `WF - standa.rdcomment.p if, 1. Any project and its potential impacts to State waters must meet the following criteria: a. Antidegradation policy (T Section 11-54-L1), .1), which requires that the existing uses ar:.d the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses of the receiving State water he maintained and protected. h. Designated uses (HAR, Section 11- 54 -3), as determined by the classification of the receiving State waters. c. Water quality criteria CHAR, Sections 11 - - through 11-54-8). CHIYOM1r L. FUKUNG, M. Lillitclijki OF HEALTH in reply. please rotor to. EPO -07 -228 FEB-05-2008 17 :13 Fr orn :18663166988 Fa e : 9' T6 Mr. Terry ,l atmary 22, 2008 Page 2 2. The project was granted a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) individual permit for the section of the project from Milepost 28-42 and Phase 3. This permit is set to expire on November 29, 2009 NPDES general permit coverage for the portion of the project from MP 19-28 expired on November 6, 2007. The CWB has not received a Notice of Intent to renew this coverage and if construction is ongoing as stated in the subject document, then it is considered to be a violation of HAR, Chapter 11 .55. 3. Please note that all discharges related to the project construction or operation activities, whether or not NPDES permit coverage and/or Section 401 Water Quality Certification are required, must comply with the States water Quality Standards. Noncompliance with water quality requirements contained in IIAR, Chapter 1.1-54, an dlor permitting requirements, specified ii HAR, Chapter 11 --55, may he subject to penalties of $25,000 per day per violation. If you have any questions, please visit our wehsitc at http: //w ww_hawaii. gevllealthien ironm al / atericIeanwater /index.lmt -nf, or contact the Engineering Section, CWB, at 5864309. General We strongly recommend that you review all of the Standard Confluents on our website: www.w ttite.hi us /Iiealthlenv iron iiiental /cnv - p1a miming /1anduselanduse.htmi. Any comments specifically applicable to this project should be adhered to. If there are any questions about these comments please contact Jiacai Liu with the Environmental Planning Office at 586 -4346 Sincerely, KELVIN H. STJNADA, MANAGER Environmental Planning Office c: EPO CWB EH- Hawaii LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. Kevin H. Sunada, Manager State of Hawaii Department of Health Environmental Planning Office P.O. Box 3 378 Honolulu, Hawaii 96801 -3378 Dear Mr. Sunada: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 MAR 1 9 1008 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated January 22, 2008, which commented on the Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice based on Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapters 11-54 and 11-55. Your letter also provided us with a website containing your standard comments for projects and we are indeed grateful for this information. Brief statements from the comments of your letter, along with our tentative responses, are provided below: 1. Anti- degradation policy, designated uses as determined by classification of the receiving waters, and water quality criteria. This project will fully comply with the Consent Decree, dated January 2006, in regards to requirements of Clean Water Act and the regulations developed in accordance with this Act. At this point, it appears that the project will not affect any State waters, and consequently, efforts to comply with Consent Decree may be minimal. 2. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NP E) general permit coverage for the portion of the project„ from MP 19 -28 expired on November 6, 2007. According to our records, the Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division, filed a Notice of Intent (NOl) to develop a NPDES general permit with your agency in September 2007. A Department of Health letter, dated October 4, 2007, granted an administrative extension of NPDES general permit, until your agency is able to complete its processing of the NOS. BRENNON T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY -PA 2.7279 Mr. Kevin H. Sunada Page 2 be: HWY -PA NS :th HWY -PA 2.7279 3. ... all discharges related to the project construction or operation activities, . . must comply with the State's Water Quality Standards. We appreciate your assistance. If any questions or problems arise, please feel free to contact Nelson Sagum, Project Manager, at 587-1834, Very truly yours, Cef Again, we do not anticipate that this project will affect any waters of the State of Hawaii. In the event that State waters may be impacted, appropriate construction methods will be utilized to control discharges from the project site, which should assure compliance with the State's Water Quality Standards and the Consent Decree, as prepared pursuant to the Clean Water Act. BRENNON T. MORIOKA, Ph.D., F.E. Director of Transportation FEB -05 -2008 17 :14 LINDA LINGLE GUVLRNOR From: 106531E6988 Page :1O'45 Mr. Ron Terry Geometrician Associates, LLC P.O. Box 396 Hilo, H wai 96721 Dear Mr. Terry: pincer; Iv i x Derek H. Fujikami Construction Management Section Chief STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES HAWAII PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY 1002 NORTH SCHOOL STREET P. c.). ROX 17 I7 Honolulu. Hawaii 96817 December 14, 2007 CHAD K. TANIGUCHI E Ec ti I IVf— DIRECTOR IN REPLY REFER TO 07: C M /0291 Thank you for your letter dated December 6, 2007 regarding the Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamatahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Project in the County of Hawaii. We have no comments on the Environmental I m pact Statement Preparation Notice for the above project. Should you have any questions, please call me at 832 -6020. c: Director, Office of Environmental Quality Control Mr. Nielson Sagum, Hawaii State Dept. of Transportation LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. Derek H. Fujikarni Construction Management Section Chief State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services Hawaii. Public Housing Authority P.O. Box 17907 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 Dear Mr. Fujikarni: Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamaiahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated December 14, 2007, in which you stated that you had no comments to offer regarding the Supplemental EISPN for this project. We appreciate your review of this document. In the future, if you have any questions or issues concerning this project, we encourage you to contact Nelson Sagum, Project Manager, at 587 -1 834. Very truly yours, 2C714",:".A.Gka BRENNON T. MORIOKA, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Transportation bc: HWY-PA NS :th STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU HAWAII 96813-5097 March 25, 2008 BRENNON T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY -PA 2.7278 FEB- 05 -2008 17 :14 From :18663166988 PHONE (808) 594 -1888 January 25, 2008 J Ron Terry Geometrician Associates LLC P.t_). Box 396 Hilo, HI 96721 Dear Ron Terry, STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS 711 KAPI'OLAN1 BOULEVARD, SUITE 500 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 Page:11 /46 FAX (808) 594 -1865 HRDO7/3273C RE: Request for comments on the preparation notice for the Supplemental Euvirnii.niental Impact Statement for the Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mimalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) is in receipt of the above-referenced request. The federal and state departments of transportation are planning to develop a new alternative path for a section of the Saddle Road improvement project_ The 1999 Saddle Road EIS analyzed two alternative routes for the Saddle Road improvement project. That study will now be revisited by the Supplemental EIS because both alternative routes fr the 1999 EIS run through a large property that the 'U.S. Army purchased from Parker Ranch in 2006 for the Stryker Transformation Projeci _ The Supplemental EIS will investigate a new alignment located near the southern boundary of the Army's newly - acquired. 23,977 -acre lie `timuku parcel. The new route is expected to lower the frequency -of interactions between military training that will occur in the K.e‘timuka parcel and Saddle Road motorists. OIIA offers the following comments. s. OHA looks forward to participating in all consultations for this project that are conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National historic Preservation Act. We also request to be involved in any consultations that occur relating to the 2004 Programmatic Agreement regarding the Section 1{)6 responsibilil ies for the Army's proposed transformation of the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team. OHA is a concurring party to that agreement. We also anticipate that the Supplemental HIS will address the impacts the project will have on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices and rights, as well as any Traditional Cultural Properties, as defined by National Register Bulletin 38 (National Park. Service 1990). FEE -E5 -2009 17:14 From :18663166988 Ron Terry Geometrician Agsociatcs 1l1C January 25. 2008 ['age 2 Finally, t)HA asks to be informed urn future public meetings regarding this issue in advance so tha l we may attend . We look forward to reviewing iewing the Supplemental HIS, when it becomes available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. if you have further questions, please contact Sterling Wong (80g) 594 -()24 or e-mail him at ster1ingw@oim u :g. Sincerely, idzw, Clyde _ Nasnu`o Administrator C: Nelson Sag-um State Department of Transportation Highways Division 869 Punchbowl Street #301 Honolulu, HT 96813 Director Office of Environmental Quality Control 235 South Beretania Street, Suite 702 Honolulu, HI 96813 Ruby 'McDonald Office of Hawaiian Affairs 75-5706 Hamm a it l , Ste. 107 Kailua-Kona, 111'96740 Lukela Ruddle Office of Hawaiian Affairs 162 A Baker Avenue Hilo, HI 96720-4869 Page:12 /46 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. Clyde W. Namuo Administrator State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs 711 Kapolei Boulevard, Suite 500 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Namuo: Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated January 25, 2008, which commented on the proposed Saddle Road and its potential impact on both Native Hawaiian practices and rights and traditional cultural properties in the project area. We appreciate your willingness to participate in the consultation processes for this project, which will be conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Our archaeological/cultural consultants will be contacting you in order to properly schedule this meeting. We have not been directly involved in the 2004 Programmatic Agreement regarding the U.S. Army's transfonnation of the 2ncd Brigade, 25 infantry Division to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team. A copy of your letter will be forwarded to the U.S. Army, Carps of Engineers, for their information and further action. In addition, we assure you that every effort will be made to notify the Office of Hawaiian Affairs of our future public meetings for this project. If any other questions or issues arise regarding this project, please contact Nelson Sagum, Project Manager, at 587 -1834. Very truly yours, bc: HWY -PA NS:th BRENNON T. MORIOKA, .D., P.E. Director of Transportation. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 BAR 1 9 Zoos BRENNON T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-PA 2.7277 FEB-05-2008 17:15 Fr o m : 18663165988 In Reply Refer To: 2008-TA.0087 (ER 071(059) Mr. Ricardo Suarez, P. E. Division CFLHD Engineer 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Dear Mr. Suarez: United States Department of the Intcrxor F1IH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3 - 122, Box 50088 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 JAN 14 200a Subject: Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Realignment of Saddle Road (Keamuku Parcel), Hawaii Page :13/45 The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the Federal Highway Administration notice in the Federal Register dated December 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 236, Page 69726 - 69727). The following information is to assist you and the Hawaii Department of Transportation, in preparing the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SETS) for the realigned portion of Saddle Road. The purpose of the project is to provide a at and efficient route for access to land uses along Saddle Road and for cross- island traffic between East and West Hawaii. We have reviewed the information in the Record of Decision (ROD) (October 30, 1999) and pertinent information in our files, including data compiled by the Hawaii Eiodiversity and Mapping Program, the Hawaii Geographic Analysis Program, and the interagency West Hawaii Wildfire Management Group's wiidlat d fire history. We offer the following recommendations as potential issues to be reviewed and addressed in the SEI , 1. The southwestern portion of the Keamuku parcel harbors a significant concentration of punt species that arc federally listed as threatened or endangered including Ilapiostachys I plostachya, Silene 1anceo1at and Stenogyne angusfUblla. If alternative three from the Federal Register Notice is chosen, "relocating this segment of the highway nearer the southern boundary of the Keamuku parcel" the highway could directly impact listed plants species. We recommend current botanical survey information (i.e., within the last year) be included in the SEIS. 2. The proposed project is located OD the dry leeward side of West Hawaii, where wildland Tres may affect endangered species and critical habitat. Since the time the original ROD for was finalized in 1 999, the threat of wildland Tire has increased significantly in West TAKE PRIDE IN M ERI A FEB-05-2008 17:15 Mr, Ricardo Suarez 3. We have taken a broad look at the general area of influence for this project, including areas that may potentially be impacted by wildland fire interdependent with the realigned Saddle Road. The following is a list of threatened and endangered species that could In impacted by this project (Table 1). Enclosure Hawaii. Measures for wildland fire prevention and suppression should be addressed in the SETS. We hope this information assists you in drafting the Saddle Road ,LEIS. If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Dr. Jeff Zirnpfcr, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Technical Assistance and Consultation Program (phone: 808/792 -9400; fax: 808/792-9581). cc; OEPC, Vijai N. Rai From: 18663166988 Page : 14' 46 Sirs. :eteiy, T ., Patrick Leonard Field Supervisor FEB-05-2008 17:15 Fr om : 18663166988 Mr. Ricardo Suarez Table 1.. Threatened and endangered species within the area of potenti2l influence of Saddle Road. Scientific Name Harris Birds mmilVill rgyroxiphiu n sandwicense subsp. sandwicense kspieniwn peruviwnurn var. insulare ClermontICS lIndseyana Clennontia peleana subsp_ . inguliflora fIap1osiachys hapkkslachya Lvodendrlon hosakae Melanthera venosa Portulaca sclerocarpa Silene 1iawaiien sis Silene lanceolala Solanum incompletuin Sienogyne angusti folio Tetrarnofopir rn arenariun var. co?? ferturr Vigna o -wah ue isl s Branca sandWicensis Buteo solitcrrius Hetmignathus tnunroi Loxinid ,s halite ti Loxops coccineus coccineus °rmorrr, siis inana Ftkradroma .sandivichensis Mammals Lasiurus cinereus .semotts Critical Habitat Loxioides baillcuui /soden dr ion h osakac Vi na o -wah uensis Common Name ahj nail na, silversword no common name oha, oha wai oha, oha wai no common name aupaka nehe ihi no common name no common name popolo ku mai no common name no common name no common name nemm, Hawaiian goose Hawaiian hawk, io akiapolaau pal to Hawaii akcpa Hawaii creeper 'Hawaiian dark- rumped petrel, uau Hawaiian hoary bat, opeapea paiiia aupaka no common name Status Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Ennscred Endangered Endangered Endangered Threatened Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Page:15'46 3 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. Patrick Leonard Field Supervisor Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of interior 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room. 3 -122 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear Mr. Leonard: Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated January 14, 2008, which provided us with your recommendations and requirements for this project's Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Your letter also provided us with a listing of threatened and endangered species in the vicinity of this project, and we appreciate receiving this information. in accordance with Section 7, of the Endangered Species Act, botanical surveys will be conducted along the proposed corridors of this project and the results of these surveys will be included in the project's Supplemental EIS. At the moment, we are proposing that these surveys extend 250 feet from the centerline of each alternative alignment, with an expanded width in the southwestern portion of Keamuku. As stated in your letter, fire risk and wildfire mitigation and suppression will be discussed in the Supplemental EIS. The development of this highway will also be coordinated with the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, as they share your concerns on the growing frequency of wildfires in the project area. We assure you that every effort will be made, to reduce wildfires along the proposed highway and minimize the effects of these fires on our protected wildlife in the project area. If you have any other questions or comments regarding this project, please feel free to contact Nelson Sagum, Project Manager, at 587 -1834. Very truly yours, BRENNON T. MORIO Director of Transportation be: HWY -PA NS:th STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 889 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 MAC 1 9 2008 BRENNON T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY -PA 2.7276 FEB-05-2008 17 :15 From: 18E631EEEc $ Page :16/46 United States Department of the Interior U. S. CJE LOGICAL SURVEY Hawaiian Vok auo Observatory P_0_ Box 51 Hawaii National Park, Ht 96718-0051 (808) 967 -8824 FAX (808) 967 -8$90 MAi s jimk us ,Rov To: Geometrician Associates From: Jim Kauahikaua, SIC Date: December 28, 2007 Subject: comments on Supplemen Environment Impact Statement Preparation Notice, Saddle Road (State Route 2()O) . fl -JWA Project No. 200(00) Thy is a misunderstanding about earthquake shaking probabilities in the following section: 2.1.1 Geologic Resource and Hazards The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is not a "seismic probability rating," but is a set of minimum. construction standards intended to ensure that a building be located, design, and constructed so that any threat to life, health, and welfare of its occupants and the public is minimized or prevented, Its provisions specify ways to make buildings resistant to damage from earthquakes and are based on expected shaking intensities. The Island of Hawaii i is in UBC Cane 4 in which constnaction is intended to resist a 10% chance of shaking equivalent to 0.4g within 50 years, where g is the acceleration of gravity. Recent work shows that maximum shaking on areas ofHawai'i island south of Waikoloa Village (including this Niudy area) have a 10% chance of exceeding accelerations of 0.4g within 50 years (Klein and others, 200 I; also see li ttp:' /pubs. a qs . gcxvii i map! i - 2 7 4/), if designers want to utilize the best estimates on . probable future shaking, they should enrisult these references. Klein F. W., Frankel A. 1 ., Mueller C. S., Wesson R. L. and P. G. Okubo, 2001. Seismic Hazard in Hawaii: High Rate of Large Earthquakes and Probabilistic Ground-Motion Maps. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 91, 3, pp+ 479 -498 Cc: Director, Office of Environmental quality Con of Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Highways Division USGS science fora wing wurf LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Dr. James Kauahikaua Scientist-In-Charge Hawaii Volcano Observatory U. S. Geological Survey P. 0. Box 51 Hawaii National Park, Hawaii 96718-0051 Dear Dr. Kauahikaua: Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your memorandum, dated December 28, 2007, which commented on the the Supplemental EISPN and minimum design standards as stated in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Our statements regarding the UBC will be corrected in the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and this information will be passed on to our project design engineers. We appreciate your concern for your community. If any other issues or problems arise, please feel free to contact Nelson Sagur, our project manager, at 587 -1834. Very truly yours, ry-- BRENNON T. MORIOKA, h.D., P.E. Director of Transportation be: HWY -PA NS :th STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -6097 MAR 2 0 zf'O8 BRENNON T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-PA 23275 FEB-05-2008 17:16 From: 18663166988 ei tost oc, f irk 14 *441 cpolf(S Richard Suarez Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 west Dakota Avenue Lakewood, CO 80228 Dear Mr. Suarez and Mr. Tsuzuki: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne & #root San Francisco, CA 94105.3901 January 9, 2008 -27 Ronald F. Ts uzuk i Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division - Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, Hawai "l 96813 Subject: Scoping Comments for Sa: dle Road (State Route 200), Manual ahoy Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42, Hawaii County, Hawaii P'a ge : 17 ' 46 The U, S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Federal Register Notice published on December 10, 2007, and associated project materials submitted to our agency requesting comments on the Federal Highway Administration (F1IWA) and Hawaii Department of Transportation (TIDOT) decision to prepare a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft S CIS) for Saddle Road (State Route 2O0), Matnalahoa Highway (State: Route 190) to Milepost 42. In 1999, the FRWA published a Finial Environmental Impact Statement (FEI for Saddle Road, from Manialahoa Highway to Milepost 6. In 2006, The U.S. Army Garrison, Hawai' i, acquired the Keamuku parcel which is traversed by the proposed western section of Saddle Road (W3). The SE1S will evaluate western alignment alternatives to maximize army training opportunities on the parcel and minimize conflict with the traveling public. EPA commented on the original Saddle Road Draft Environmental Impact Statement and FEIS. EPA also provided feedback on the original project through the interagency 1 995 National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act Section 404 Integration Process for Surface Transportation Prujects in the SW r1E o f Hawaii Memorandum of ` Understanding (NEPA /404 MOU), To ensure that a revised alignment is the least environmentally damaging and practicable alternative (LEDPA) and to streamline resource and regulatory agency feedback on the supplemental NEPA analysis, EPA recommends Following the NEPA /404 ITT J process as applicable. We encourage FIiWA and HDOT to contact the NEPA./404 signatory agencies so that the appropriate concurrence points can be addressed as early as possible in the NEPA process. EPA coping comments are provided pursuant to the National Envirotunental Policy At (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CE) regulations (40 CPR Parts 1500 -1508) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Printed on Recycled Paper FEB-05-2008 17:16 F r o m : 18563166988 Page: 18' 45 Clean water Act Section 40 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Waters The Draft SE1S should disclose the approximate area of waters of the United States that occur within the study area of the proposed project, including intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands. The Clean water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) at 40 CFR Part 230.1Q(a) state that "... no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences." FlUWA and HDOT will have to demonstrate that potential impacts to waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable prior to obtaining a CWA Section 404 permit (40 CFR 230.10(a) and 230.10(d)) from the U *S. Army Corps of'Engineers (Corps). We urge FHWA and HDOT, in planning alternative designs for the project, to incorporate the following recommendations into the Draft SETS: • Demonstrate that all potential impacts to waters r f the United States have been avoided and minimized. if these resources cannot be avoided, the project -level analyses should clearly demonstrate how cost, logistical, or teohuological constraints preclude avoidance and minimization of impacts. Propose mitigation to offset impacts to waters of the United States. • Quantify the benefits from measures and modifications designed to avoid and minimize impacts to water resources for each alternative studied; for example, number of stream crossings avoided, acres of waters of the United States avoided, etc. • Identify all protected resources with special designations and all special aquatic sites' and waters within state, local, and federal protected lands. Additional steps should be taken to avoid and minimize impacts to these areas. Rapanos Guidance hi light of the recent Supreme Court decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States, and Carabelt v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 2208 ( 2006 ) (jointly hereafter Rapanos), EPA and the Cotes are required to coordinate on ,Jurisdictional Determinations (JDs) under CWA Section 404 in certain situations under joint agency guidance issued on June 5, 2007 (See http : / /www.ts ce. rrny.millcwicecwolreg /cwjguic rap t os mo_ a QA- 5 : !i 7.pd# ). EPA Tecomrends HDOT and FHWA involve the Corps and EPA as early as practicable in your review of potentially jurisdictional waters to facilitate their coordination on waters subject to the guidance. For Section 404 coordination, please contact Wendy Wiitse of EPA's Region Hawaii Field Office at 808 -541 -2752 or willse..w.cPCIY@,e,Pa.gov. 1 Special aquatic sites are defined at 40 CFR 230.40 —230.45 and include wetlands, thud flats, vcgctated shallows, coral reef and riffle and pool coinple es 2 FEB-05-2008 17:16 Erom:18663166988 Fa e:i9'46 Inyits! re S scie In accordance with Executive Order 13112, EPA recommends that the Draft. SEIS identify proposed methods to minimize the spread of invasive species and utilive native plant and tree species where revegetation is planned, The islands offlawari are particularly vulnerable to invasive species, and construction associated with the project has the potential to.aid in the establishment of invasive plants along any rawly disturbed corridors. EPA recommends tliat FHWA and HDOT coordinate invasive species management with local agencies and organizations to stop established invasive species from spreading on Hawaii. Measures to reduce the potential for the spread of invasive species will be more effective when they are coordinated with outer ongoing planning efforts, Resources related to Federal and State programs to address invasive specks can be found at; http ; / /www.invasivcspeciesinfo.gov/ Air 19 Construction activities may result in short and long -term impacts on air quality — particularly emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx - an ozone precursor), particulate matter less than 1.0 microns in size (PMIO). and carbon monoxide, The Draft SEIS should discuss the general air quality impacts of the project and discuss options for mitigating these impacts. To reduce construction-related air quality impacts, EPA recommends that the Draft SETS address the feasibility of implementing air quality related mitigation to reduce emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) and other pollutants from construction, including: Fugitive Dust Source Controls: ▪ Stabilize open storage piles and disturbed areas by covering and/or applying water or chemical /organic dust palliative where appropriate. This applies to both inactive and active sites, during workdays, weekends, holidays, and windy conditions, • Install wind fencing and phase grading operations whcrc appropriate, and operate water trucks for stabilization of surfaces under windy conditions. • When hauling material and operating non- earthmoving equipment, prevent spillage and limit speeds to 15 miles per hour (rnph). Limit speed of earth - moving equipment to l 0 mph. Mobile and Stationary Source Controls.; • Reduce use, trips, and unnecessary idling from heavy equipment, • Maintain and tune engines per manufacturer's specifications to perform at EPA, certification levels and to perform at verified standards applicable to retrofit technologies. Employ periodic, unscheduled inspections to limit unnecessary idling and to ensure that construction equipment is properly maintained, tuned, and modified consistent with established specifications. • Prohibit any tampering with engines and require continuing adherence to manufacturer's recommendations ▪ If practicable, lease new, clean equipment meeting the applicable Federal Standards- In general, only Tier 2 or newer engines should be employed in the construction phase. 3 FEB-05-2008 17:17 From:18663166988 Page:20 /46 • Utilize R PA- .registered particulate traps and other appropriate controls where suitable to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and other pollutants at the construction site. A I _ and calutttiyampast 1PA requires evaluation of indirect and cumulative effects which are caused by the action (40 CFR Parts 1508,00b) and 1508.7). "Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land usc, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems." CEQ regulations also state that an RIS should include the "means to mitigate adverse environmental effects." (40 CFR 1 502] 6(h)). This provision applies to indirect effects as well as direct effects. Induced commercial, recreational, and residential growth can adversely affect water quality, wetlands, and other natural resources, The Draft SEIS should evaluate the increased rates of growth for commercial, recreational, or residential purposes indirectly caused by the proposed changes to the project. Specifically, the Draft SEIS should estimate reasonably foreseeable changes in land use patterns, as well as the increased number of automobile and truck trips associated with new land uses. Impacts to cultural, water, socioeconomic, and community resources associated with new development and increased vehicle miles traveled should be specifically addressed in the Draft SEIS. Appropriate mitigation to minimize impacts should be included. Cumulative impacts are defined in the CEQ NEPA regulations as the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non - Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 158.7). 'These actions include both transportation and non - transportation activities. The cumulative impact analysis should consider all nearby projects such as adjacent roadway improvements, military initiatives, residential development, and other projects that are reasonably foreseeable and are identified in the surrounding area, including those that have occurred or are planned since the 1 999 FEIS. Where adverse cumulative impacts are identified, the Draft SEIS should identify appropriate mitigation measures even if the mitigation is the responsibility of other entities. Disclose the parties that would be responsible for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating those adverse impacts (CEQ's Forty Most Frequently Asked Questions #19). EPA recommends using the California Department of Transportation Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Analyses, which are co by EPA and FIWA and are applicable to impact analyses for projects outside of California. This guidance can be found at [http//www.doLca.gov/ser/cumuIative_uicIance/purposehtm] and [http :llwww.dof.ea.gov /ser /Growth - related fndirectlmpactAnalysis /gri _ guidance.htmj. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 addresses Environmental Justice in minority and tow income populations, and the Council on Environmental Quality has developed guidance concerning how to address 'Environmental Justice in the environmental review process 4 FEB -05 -2008 1? :17 Fr om :18E6315E988 Fa 9e ; 21'46 (http://ceqehdoegov/nepaJregs/ej/justie.pdf) Community involvement activities supporting the project should include opportunities for incorporating public input into the facility area design and location process, especially from any members of the community who may benefit or be adversely affected by the project. The Draft SETS should identify whether the proposed changes may disproportionately and adversely affect low income or minority populations in the surrounding area and should provide appropriate mitigation measures for any adverse impacts. We appreciate thc opportunity to provide comments on the preparation of the Draft SEMM and look forward to continued participation in this process as more information becomes available. Please send hard copies of materials to the address above (mail code ED 2) and email information to the email addresses provided above. If you have any questions, please contact me, the lead reviewer for this project. .1 can be reached at 415-947i-418R or sturges.susan@epa.gov. 5 Sincerely, CC: Susan Meyer, Army Corps of Engineers Michael Molina, US Fish and Wildlife Service Susan Sturges Life Sci + iftist Environmental Review Office LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Ms. Susan Sturges, Life Scientist Environmental Review Office U.S. Environmental mental Protection Agency Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105 -3901 Dear Ms. Sturges: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 859 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 9681 3 -5097 March 253 2008 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Man2alahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Notice of Intent Thank you for your letter, dated January 9, 2008, which provided scoping comments pursuant to our Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. The EPA comments, essentially involved four (4) major issues, which will be addressed in the project's draft Supplemental EIS and/or in the development of this document, and the final Supplemental EIS. These critical issues include the Memorandum of Understanding of National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Invasive Species; Air Quality; Indirect and Cumulative Impacts; and Environmental Justice. As recommended, we will be coordinating with appropriate governmental agencies to obtain their input to these processes. We believe that the proposed highway is highly desired by our residential and visitor commuters on the island of Hawaii, and consequently, we appreciate your support of this project. If any questions or problems arise, please contact Nelson S agurn, Project Manager, at (808) 587 -1834. Very truly yours, BRENNON T. MORIOKA, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Transportation bc: HWY-PA NS:th BRENNON T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCES PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SERICUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-PA 2.7490 FEB-05-2008 17 :21 Geometrician Associates PO Box 396 Hilo, Hl 96721 Attn: Ron Terry From:18E63166988 Pa9e:33'46 BIG ISLAND BIRD HUNTERS 17-124 Palaai Street !(iapjll December 7, 2007 Subject: SEISPN Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamatahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 County of i Iawaii, State of Ilawail 41W A Project No. 200(00) Due to the preliminary nature of the information included in the SRISPN, we wish to reserve Our comments until more definitive information becomes available. However, we do have a definite interest in the project and request informal meetings to establish dialogue and input before the Draft EIS is compiled. Further, we ask to be included on a mailing list to receive all publicly issued documents and announcements related to the project. We also petition to become a CONSULTED 1?I PART'S for this project as allowed. in the state Department of Health Administrative Rules (11-2004 5B). We base this request on the following_ • Our members have had historical hunting use of the Kaohe Game Management Arca (GMA) and the Puuanahulu GMA. The Kaohe GMA is adjacent to the extension of the proposed Saddle Road near mile post 42, and the Puuanahulu GMA immediately abuts the Keamuku land corridor proposed for route W -7. Should the final Tealigturient of Sad.dle Road from mile post 42 to Marnalahoa Highway infringe on the use or any part of the Kaohe or Puuanahulu GMA it would deny our members access to our accepted. cultural practices and resources. • Our organization has worked cooperatively with the state DLNR,, Division of Forestry and Wikllife and voluntarily installed rain catchment structures and water storage tanks within both Kaohe and Puuanahulu (MA with the intent of l FEB-05-2008 17 : 21 Fr om : 18663166988 Pa ge : 34' 45 supplying water for the wildlife population_ Additionally, we want to eventually establish tree and brush outplantings, aided in growth by the water from these catchment systems, These outplantings could then potentially collect dew from tog in the area to fizther increase moisture collection and serve as windbreaks to create a more hospitable environment lion flora and fauna. Thy you for providing this opportunity to correspond with you, and we look forward to establishing; dialogue with you_ Sincerely, Steven Hurt President 2 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. Steven Hurt, President Big Island Bird Hunters 17 -124 Palani Street Keaau, Hawaii 96749 Dear Mr. Hurt: Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated December 7, 2007, which provided us with your comments pursuant to the Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice for this project. Your organization will be included in our listing of consulted parties for this project, and consequently, you should be furnished with a copy of our draft Supplemental EIS and other project documents and notices. In addition, we do not anticipate any infringement of the Kaohe Game Management Area (GMA) and the proposed highway is just northerly of the Puuanahulu GMA as it approaches Mamalahoa Highway. In the vicinity of Mamalahoa Highway, the proposed highway was located as far south as possible in order to intersect Mamalahoa Highway at an appropriate angle. We appreciate the efforts of your organization regarding the preservation of your hunting areas. We will conscientiously evaluate any impacts and propose mitigation, if these impacts will have an adverse effect on the game management areas for the island of Hawaii. If you have any questions, please call Nelson Sagum, Project Manager, at (808) 587 -1834. Very truly yours, 7 B ON T. MORIOKA, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Transportation bc: HWY -PA NS:th STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 April 1, 2008 BRENNON T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHJ IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY -PA 2.7493 FEB -05 -2002 17:22 From :18663165998 (;:it gEt ri 20(7 -O8 Hoard President Rubor President-Elect 1 arl,ara A. i 1 a3t i ng 1.w' President Maid i3cgicr Treidswrpr 3.011 M i yat.aa I (L E f } r�E',fi1c r;'Itt David Del u? Jr. Directors Vaughn Cook Gary F u j i1i r'a sia.n Fortuna. Jr. Judith Fox-Goldstein Mike Gl'asnnn Joseph 1 lanlev. Jr .tan 1 l igash i Jiro Kennel }' Randy Kurohara a W arrc ri Lee Barry ti uii4'f Seth Mura higr Irene Nagao Sharon Scheele Roan Schurra Steve Shrophire Alice Sledge Me1e Spencer Ari Ross.} I scri8. Ph.D. .I LT(. USu Carol Van (am p Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce January 19, 2()(1; Nelson Sagunn Hawai` i Suite Department of Transportation Highways Division 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawai` i 9613 Director Office of Environmental Quality Control 235 S. Beretania, Suite 7(12 l lotiolulu, Hawaii 96813 Ron Terry C i otl)Ct!'ie iaf Associates PO Box 396 l Pilo, Hawai i 96721 Aloha. On bchal f of the l Tawaii Island Chamber of Commerce, our leadership has considered the Supplemental Envirornnient{i.I Impact Statement Preparation Notice fm the Saddle Road (State Route 200) MVIamal hoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42, FWA Project No. 200(00). It has been clear for some time that improvements are needed to the Saddle Road. The improvements will make the road safer for trans-island frank:, and make it easier for a growing number of commuters, including shortening the drive tittle. An improved Saddle Read will he good for our workforce, many who find alTord.able housing on the East Bier, hut rind employment on the West Side. Nor can we discount that reduced travel time also means fuel energy savings in terms of fewer miles driven for these commuters. While we support careful planning and consideration ol all impacts, we urge a timely completion of improvements to this road. It remains one of the most dangerous rural roads in our state. The 109 - year - old Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce represents more than 330 businesses and neatly 700 members. Sincerely, Vj eti5 L aY-4-- Barbara A. Hastiitgs Chair, Government Affairs ! k. r Paoe :35'46 106 Kamehameha Avenue Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (SoB) 935 Fax: (808) 9 E- inait: {r11rrmin iZ www.hkc.btz LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Ms. Barbara A. Hastings Chair, Government Affairs Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce 106 Karehameha Avenue Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Ms. Hastings: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 March 25, 2008 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated January 19, 2008, which provided us with your comments for this project pursuant to this project's Supplemental I3ISPN. We are appreciative of your review of this document. We are also deeply appreciative of the support of the Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce for the proposed Saddle Road, and indeed, we are very hopeful of the timely completion of this study. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Nelson Sagum, Project Manager, at (808) 587-1834. Very truly yours, be: HWY-PA NS:th Bi tNNON T. MORIOKA h..ii..�., P. E. r i Director of Transportation BRENNQN T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL I EENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-PA 2.7492 FEB--05 -2008 17 :EE From: 18663166988 Original Message —__ To: rips hawaii.rr_corn Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3 :35 PM Subject: Comments on Saddle Road Project Ron Terry, Paul Normann Kurtistown, HI 966 -7622 :r:•.;.... " Page : 36" 6 Here are my comments concerning the Saddle Road realignment. There are serious health concerns for anyone working on road construction in the area of Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). Of primary concern at this time are the potential risks posed by airborne Depleted Uranium dust, something neither the Hawaii health department nor the military have tested for in any methodological way- I strongly urge that air monitoring stations, testing for airborne Depleted Uranum dust particles, be set up along the proposed route of the Saddle Road realignment. The monitoring should start before construction begins and continue throughout the duration of the project. The data from these air monitors should published both in paper form and on the Internet where they should be accessible to the general public in real time, 24 / 7. Further, the contractors or engineers working on this project should work with Dr. Lorrin Ping to design and scientifically sound sampling methodology to test for the presence of DU. Such monitoring will help protect the safety of the workers who will be exposed to windblown dust throughout the project. Dear Mr. Normann: Your email to Mr. Ron Terry, dated January 22, 2008, has been forwarded to the State Department of Transportation (DOT), for our consideration and response. We are certainly aware of the depleted uranium (DU) issue in the project area, and we appreciate your concern for our construction workers in this vicinity. Undoubtedly, we would be seeking the assistance of the U.S. Army in regards to a satisfactory resolution this problem; however, the U.S_ Army has been proactively engaged in gathering information on the level and effects of DU in the vicinity of the Pohakuloa Training Area. According to their records, approximately "$5.5 million and countless manhours" have been spent in this study, and we are hopeful that the U.S. Army will continue to monitor the radioactivity in the project area throughout the construction period of the proposed Saddle Road. For your information, the State DOT will also be preparing an independent study which will focus on a risk assessment involving the probable adverse effects from DU at Pohakuloa. This study will be included in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Study for this project and will be available for review by Dr. Lorrin Pang and other interested parties. We appreciate your participation in this project. If you have any other comments or questions, please contact me at nelson. sager @hawai _co ; or (808) 587-1834. Aloha, Nelson Sagum Nelson Sagum/HWYIHIDDT To "Paul Normann" <paulwnormann @yahoo.com> 02/29/2008 03:46 PM cc bcc Brennon MoriokafADMIN /HIDOT rx HIIJQT, Glenn Yasui /HWY /HIDOT a7HIDOT, Dina Lau /HWY /HIDDT, rterry@a hawaii.rr.com, br eyers @okahara.com, Subject Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 42 FEB -85 -2888 17 :24 From:18663166988 Department of Transportation, Highways Division Ann: r :: Ronald F. Tsu iuki 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu. HI 96813 MAT Consultant E ngrne6rs Attn, f3r Luce K. Meyer% 677 Ala MQana Boulevard. Suite /03 Hor•t luiu. Hi 9681 office of l` rw i ro n me nta l (Qwr I l ty Control Attn: Leioiaapa A Karl eharnehk 235 South 8eretiraa Street, Suite 702 hit 96813 SUBJECT; Saddle Road (State Route 200), Merflak3hoa Highway OARS 343 FEA-E 5PN) Pe : 45'46 3n a member of the Hawari County Transportation Commission, the Hawat'i County Highway Safety Council, and the Flawai County Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Cornrnittee. am providing the following comments on the proposed 5 i Environmental impact Statement for the realignment cif Sacdd #e 11o:oi d:3, riot on behalf of these hoards but. a{ an Ind ividuai seeking the hest sot ution to ;ii.c.(nri ittudate all rr4(ade5 cf trrvei ` oiJzt o g Robert ward / / •6•`_'i2tj 1 ci'o1aupd i Std eet Kailtia Kona, H1 96740 FEB-05-2008 17:25 From :18553166988 SUBJECT: Saddle Road (State Saute 200), Marrialahoe Highway (HR$ 841 FEA- Fl5PN) Page :46/46 i would like to take the time to offer a few comments on the proposed supplemental Environmental Impact Statement fur the realignment of Saddle Road. Regional transportation is an important issue today artd Will become even more important in the future as we explore other opportunities including increased transit operations and freight hauling (perhaps including solid waste). Because of the heavy potential use the design of this transportation corridor will have a significant impact on its users Other ancillary function of the corridor including vogetAtion rrianapen;ent, fire breaks and err otgency access are important cons;deratit,ns as well. Commencing with the Federal Highway Administration's edicts issued at the beginning of this millennium, moving though the State DOT level with Bike plan Hawaii, and all the way to the County r3f R RWa # r cien t. !l plan, the need to include faciii icy for di! mode!, of travel in roadway c1i• .ii n ;, e sent +a1 Conventional highway travel lam --.s with paved shoulders Can accommodate motor vehicles and the shoulder bikeways may be used by bicyclist that can negotiMe thr 8% gradients. Something mart} is required if we want to accommodate all modes of interurban transportation. improving the right -of -way corridors adjacent to the central highway cross - section} weld provide a low cost Solution and ultimately create a ''complete highway" The portion of corridor laying northerly of the highway cross - section could he lightly graded with major collision has €r s removed. This could become a dedicated travel route for 'off -road vehicles ". Occupying the space between a major highway and a live -fire training facility would be ideal strategic placement and provide compatible land use. This would e5sentia1#V vviden the corridor to provide a much needed expanded fire breaR. The second suppl rr ental corridor would include a paved Shared -Use Path and unpaved equestrian trail. These could be curvilinear in design (particularly in areas where the highway maximum grade approach 8 %) to achieve a 5 percent grade that is more desirable for cyclists and would also be fully ADA compliant_ These paths would closely follow the routi of the highway but could more closely follow the natural terrain, The path would further expand the fire break but some trees could remain as a wind break and provide shade for the usei*s as well without increasing roadside hazards. Future cption5 could include extending the 5uiple €riental corridors along tht iurri nt Marniiiat) a Highway betwe ri the exi5ting saddle road Arid the s74`Vir intersection with the relor,ate d Saddle Rod This would .pecificaily torrfonn to the DOT Bike Plan Hawaii which intended to utilize the remnants of the old marnalahoa High ray The Bike Plat} k1ernent Was p$aiined as a Sllarcci-lJse Path with construction in 2013 or 1 t.:r (which could coinricio with 'the=. proposed Saddle Road realignment) total construction costs and phasing are concerns that must be evaluated. Certain elements of tht supplemental corridors might lag behind that actual highway construction for various reasons, and could require some funding from alternative sources. However, it is imperative that the planning, right. -of -way and design phases incorporate all facilities,. Robert ward KailLta Kona Hi LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. Robert Ward Commissioner Hawai'i County Transportation Commission 77 -6526 Ho'olaupa'i Street Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Dear Mr. Ward: bc: HWY -PA NS:th BRENNON T. MORIOKA, Ph.D., P.B. Interim Director of Transportation STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 FEB 2 5 '1008 Subject: Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 42, Project No. DP -HI- 0200(5) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice Thank you for your letter and comments, which indicated your concern for bicyclists and other modes of transportation that may be using the proposed Saddle Road, from Mamalahoa Highway (Sly 190) to Milepost 42. Your letter stated that our proposed right -of- -way width and the design of the highway should consider its use by off-road vehicles, recreational bicyclists and equestrians. Please note that the proposed minimum right- of-way width is 200 feet which should be sufficient to accommodate various facilities for these modes of transportation. However, our participation in the construction of adjacent facilities is very dependent on the results of our studies, which should be developed pursuant to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for this project. Furthermore, if you have any records or surveys, or if you know of the availability of any information which would be of assistance to us, please provide thern to us or let us know of its location. As you have also indicated, the proposed typical section for the highway will include 8 -foot shoulders, which will also be available to island bicyclists. We sincerely appreciate your participation in this project. If you have any other comments or questions, please contact us at your earliest opportunity. BRENNON T. MORIOKA INTERIM DIRECTOR Deputy Orectors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL Kf END BRIAN H. GE#<IGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-PA 23121 FEE -05 -20138 17:22 From: 18663166988 stor the po with 0100 PATH FEOPLES ADVOCACY FOR TRAILS HAWAI' &{.3t.7f ci Otr c tor; • y. • • :� „ Fx+- -: u five Dire i ' frr I is5ic)r} L qa1 AdViSO �• S !;{ Consultants Serving �dd 1 PO VA 42 • KMtttA- KOMA, HAwAr i 96 T45 808 -321-'711 + share1heroodE 'pain owaii.orO ,r .Department of Transportation, Highways Division Attu: Ronald F, Tru ki X69 Punchbowl Street Honolulu: ill 96813 DMT Consultant Engineers Attn: Bruce K. Meyers 677 Ala. Warm Boulevard, Suite 703 Honolulu, HI 96813 Officx of Envi ron rnental Quality Control Attn: Leiopapa A amcharneha 235 South Beret'tnia Street.., Suite 702 1- onolulu, H1 96813 January 22, 2008 Regarding: Saddle Road (State. Route 200), Mamalsboa Highway (RR 343 FEA -EI I'N) Page :37'46 PATH, a grassroots bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organization, wishes to bring to the attention of the DOT and OEQC the tremendous opportunity to create safe inter - modal regional transportation facilities with the realignment of the Saddle Road in Keanwku. The mission of the State of l lawaiiis 'Department ofTransportation Highway Division is to: ;`provide a saib, and efficient and accessible highway system through the utilization of available resotirc .s injhe maintenance, enhancement and support of land transportation facilities." The Sandie Road and connecting Mantalahoa Highway represent two HDOT assets that encapsulate this mission with the potential to hecornc a "complete highway" serving all users through this regiom of the island. Similar to the notion of'Corpletc Streets 'designed for all users, including motorists, transit, pedestrians and bicyclists, a Complete Highway would provide access, safety and efficiency to all users of the transportation system. It would also serve the vet) necessary functions of fire control, vegetation management and emergency access. Such a complete highway draws upon available resources within DOT and results in a value -added transportation facility that contribute; to quality of life and sustainability for the island. FEB 17:23 Fr om : 18 663166988 cComplete Highway' design for Saddle Road is supported at the Federal level through FHWA's flexible desigri guidelines, the State of_ Hawaii's Bike Plan and the Hawaii County General Plan and emerging Roadway Standards and Community Development Plans. We urge DOT to envision Saddle Road as a "Complete Highway" with the following components: Shoulder Bikeways. Just as the mission states, use of existing resources within DOT provides the most efficient and coa effective solution in providing safe, accessible and efficient transportation facilities. The new sections of Saddle road that are completed from Mauna Kea State Park to the Mauna Kea Access Road include shouldkt bikeways suitable for bicycling, emergency breakdown and shoulder stabilization for ion s term roadway maintenance. We urge the continuation of this design for the west side sections. This provides bicycle facilities within the existing highway right of way and adds tremendous value to the transportation Facility with, minimal additional invegtmcnt in the Conn of signagc and striping. Shared Use Path System. That being taid, cnvnntiornal highway Lravel lanes with paved shoulders rkiri i4f-rommodate motor vehicles and the shoulder bikeways !ray be used by bicyclist that can negotiate the 8% gradients. Something more is required if we want to accommodate ail modes of interurban transportation up the 3,000 ascent from Marnalahoa Hwy to Ki ohana (Girl Scout Camp)_ This sediun woui l require a curvilinear path to meet AASFITO bicycle guidelines and ADS' requirements for pedestrians on the ,ono ascent from Mamalahoa Highway, Such a shared use pathway along Saddle Road would then connect with several Bike Plan Hawaii projects ,that identify old remnants of Marnalahoa Highway. This stretches from Parker mach's rodeo rounds in Waimea to the new Saddle Road realignment in Keamuku. From there sections of Old Mamalahoa as well as fire bre& roads continue to puu Waawaa and Puu Anahulu and on to Kona. The Sham -Use Path serves a broader sperm of potential users (and can provide both emergency access and firebreaks). Conventional paved Shared Paths can accommodate most bicyclists and pedestrians. Optional 'green drainage" sections provide a unique equestrian opportunity. Even the growth of motorized off-road users could be accommodated on some segments (specifically the portion of the corridor laying norherly of the highway cross- section could be nightly g raded with major collision hazards removed. This could Mme a dedicated travel route for "of -road vehicles ". Occupying the space between a major highway and a, live-fire training facility would be ideal strategic placement and provide compatible land use,) These paths would closely follow the route of the highway but could more closely follow the natural terrain. The path would further expand fire bra but some trees could remain as a wind break and provide shade for the mars as .well, without increasing roadside hazards_ in orde r to move forward with a "Complete l lighway" concept, it is critical that planning, right- of.-way acquisition and design incorporate shoulder bikeways and shared use paths as identified in Bike Plan Hawaii_ We urge 001 to take these steps now to insure the best chance of success in creating a "Complete Highway" for Hawaii island, Kind Regards, Laura Dierenf ekd Executive Director PATT I Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawaii Page:38'46 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Ms. Laura Dierenfield Executive director PATH Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawaii P. O. Box 62 Kailua -Kona, Hawaii 96745 Dear Ms. Dierenfield: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 APR - 1 2008 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated January 22, 2008, which provided us with your comments regarding the proposed Saddle Road, pursuant to the Supplemental EISPN for this project. We appreciate your review of the Supplemental EISPN, and we have the following responses in regards to each of your comments: The proposed typical section for the highway will include 8 -foot shoulders. The use of these 8 -foot shoulders will be shared by both island bicyclists and motorists. In addition, your letter stated that our proposed right -of -way width and the design of the "complete highway" should consider its use by off -road vehicles and recreational bicyclists. Please note that the proposed minimum right-of-way width is 200 feet which should be sufficient to accommodate various facilities for these modes of transportation. However, our participation in the construction of "shared use pathways" is very dependent on the results of our studies, which should be developed in sequence with the Supplemental EIS for this project. Hence, if you have any records or surveys, or if you know of the availability of any information which could be of assistance to us, please provide them to us or let us know of its location. We sincerely appreciate your participation in this project. If you have any other comments or questions, please contact Nelson Sagum, Project Manager, at (808) 587 -1834. Very truly yours, bc: HWY -PA NS:th B NNON T. MORIOKA, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Transportation BRENNON T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCH1 IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY -PA 2.7491 FE8 -05 -8888 17 :83 From: 18863188888 !IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact person' Cory Harden Sierra Club, Moku Loa group P.0 Box 1137 Hilo, Hawal'i 967 1 508 -958 -8985 rri h ir~ rpac.1 e l L ,hi.sierr cia.orq January 15. 2008, Hilo Hawaii' PRESS RELEASE Sierra Club citing risks 6f dispersing depleted uranium at Pohaksaloa, called on the Army to halt both a planned February training_ and practice bombing with 2000 -pound inert bombs "We are extremely concerned," said Cory Harden of the Club's Moku Loa group, "because minute amounts of DU can impact health, DU can be transported for miles in the air, and DU can be dispersed by rodents." The Army does not yet know the exact locations of all the DU, or whether it can be completely cleaned up. Sierra club is also calling for air monitoring funded by the Army and designed to detect intermittent spikes in radiation, with results immediately available on the Internet; investigation for decay products of DU; and an information meeting in Hilo by mid- February. cmoriv T,t, ti )J' " 11,..-iiNi \"1/4 \(:“ A 4 ( 41 Pa9e:39'46 1 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Ms. Cory Harden Sierra Club, Moku Loa Group P. G. Box 1137 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Dear Ms. Harden: Very truly yours, be: HWY -PA NS:dn B '1 NNON T. MORIOKA, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Transportation STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 April 7, 2008 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental CIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for a copy of your press release and its enclosures, dated January 15, 2008, regarding military activities and the existence of depleted uranium (DU) in the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) of the U.S. Army. For your information, the State Department of Transportation also has several questions regarding the DU in PTA, and consequently, we have initiated an independent study which would develop a risk assessment regarding the adverse effects of the DU that may occur as a consequence of the construction and operation of the proposed Saddle Road. All of our studies and its findings will be included in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. In addition, your comments have been forwarded to our environmental and risk assessment subconsultants, who will evaluate them during the preparation of their studies for the project's Supplemental EIS. We intend to include your press release in the Supplemental EIS; however, because of our copyright concerns, your enclosures will not be duplicated in this document. If you have any questions or issues concerning this project, please contact Nelson Sagum, Project Manager, at (808) 587 -1834. BRENNON T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY -PA 2.7507 FEB-05 -2008 17 :24 From :18663166988 Page:43 /46 Original Message From: "Aaron Stene" <aaron @ haw aiiantcl_nct To: "Ron Terry" <rtcrry j t aii.rr.eom Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:32 AM Subject: Re: Saddle Road Aloha Ron, I'm not sure i I' the supplernental EIS (for the it .rrt 41 to Mamalahoa highway) would address this, But I'll give it a shot. I assume the alignment of this segment of roadway would be addressed in the SETS_ So I'd like to put niy .02 in. I think the alignment that would minimize the the civilian/Army interaction and not impact the alignment of the Saddle Road extension would be the best alignment. I tried looking for the map of the different aligninents (in WIIT). 1 couldn't find it. But I believe this is the W -7 alignment. Would you suggest. T e -mail I e -mail the QEQC and DOT my thoughts too. > Aaron > ****4q**************************** Aaron Stene > ailua -- Una, Hawaii > http.;/./jhekonablog_wordprcss.coitil > ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * *** ** * * * * * * * * * ** 1 Dear Mr. Steno: Nelson Sagum /HWY /HIDOT To "Aaron $tene`! <aaron@a hawaiiantel.net> 02/27/2008 03 :57 PM cc Brennon Morioka /ADMIN /HIDOT 3HIDOT, Glenn Yasui /HWY /HIDOT @HIDOT, Dina Lau /HWY /HIDOT, rterry@hawaii.rr.com hawaii.rr.com bcc Subject Saddle Road, Marnalahoa Hwy to Milepost 42 Your email to Mr. Ron Terry, dated December 15, 2007, has been forwarded to the State Department of Transportation, for our consideration and response. First of all, we appreciate your interest in the proposed Saddle Road, from Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 42. We believe that island residents and tourists should indeed benefit from the construction of this facility. Secondly, we are grateful for your support of alignment W -7, and we also believe that this alignment will minimize civilian and military interaction. It should also be noted that at least one grade - separated military crossing will be provided for this highway section. if you have any additional comments or questions, please forward them to me at nelson. sagum hawall. qov or call me at (808) 587 -1834. Aloha, Nelson Saguia FEE - 85--2008 17:24 From :18663156888 Page :44/45 Dear Mr. Terry: Mr. Ron Terry Geometrician Associates PO Box 396 Hilo, HI 96721 WAIKI'I • RANCH HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION January 16, 2008 These are the comments of the WW1 lei i Ranch Homeowners' Association regarding the Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice for the Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 42 Project. The Waiki'i Ranch Homeowners' Association (WRHOA) supports the W - Proposed SEIS Alignment of the New Saddle Road. A correction needs to be made on page 14 of the SETS Preparation Notice. There are two wells at Waiki'i Ranch. The depth is 4,300 feet below ground elevation of 4,260 feet. The water level is 2,730 feet below ground elevation. Sincerely yours, Vice President, WRHOA Copies to: Director Office of Ernvironmental Quality Control 235 South ,eretania St., Suite 702 Honolulu, HI 96813 Nelson Sagum Hawaii State Dept. of Transportation Highways Division 859 Punchbowl St Honolulu, HI 96813 p, O, Box 6389 • KamueI t, HI 96743 , ( 808) 885 -4884 • FAX ( 885-0433 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. T. J. McAniff Vice President Waiki'i Ranch Homeowners' Association P. 0. Box 6389 Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 Dear Mr. McAniff: Very truly yours, (a4 rrs) BRENNON T. MORIOKA, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Transportation bc: HWY -PA NS :dn STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT O F TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 April 1, 2008 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated January 16, 2008, which commented on the Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice for this project. We appreciate your review of this document. We are also grateful for your indication of the support of the W aiki' i Ranch Homeowners' Association ) for alignment W-7 and for your efforts involved in correcting the misinformation contained in this Supplemental EISPN, regarding the number of wells at Waiki' i Ranch. We look forward to hearing from you and the WRHA as this project develops. If you have any questions or comments concerning this project, please contact Nelson Sagum, Project Manager, at (808) 587-1834. BRENNON T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY -PA 2.7505 FEB-05-2008 17:23 F r a n : 1 86631 6698E South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee P.O. Box 383375 Waikoloa, HI 96738 January 15, 2006 Mr. Nelson Sagum State of Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Ron Terry Geometrician Associates P.O. Box 396 Hilo, HI 96721 Director Office of Environmental Quality Control 235 South Beretania Street, Suite 702 Honolulu, HI 96613 RE: Saddle Road, Mamalahoa to Milepost 42 to Queen Kalahumanu Highway Project Comments Dear Mr_ Sagum; At the January 8, 2008 Meeting of South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee safety and other concerns related to the Saddle Road, Mamalahoa to Milepost 42 to Queen a'ahumanu Highway Project were discussed by the membership. A major concern is that this new road will be a heavily used connector between East and West Hawaii. As the Island population grows, future traffic on this road will increase substantially. Many members remember the light use at first of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway- Today this is a heavily used congested 2 lane route with many safety issues_ Most members feel strongly that this project should be designed for the future potential and planned growth. Procurement of a wide Right of Way now will avoid rising procurement costs and access problems in the future. The current situation with the State Waimea Bypass Project is a good example of the problems that can be avoided by establishing a ROW adequate for the future. If funding is not available to build a "super highway now ", design and procure the necessary ROW now is the point. The following comments were made by the membership for your review and Consideration; FE9-85 -8888 17:23 From:18663166988 Page:41'45 1. Interchanges: a, Grade separated interchanges are preferred. Right of Way and desi -gn should be for future needs. b. Waikoloa pillage, Waikoloa Beach Resort Node and other future subdivision development and the existing Saddle Road are alone the route. These properties need interchange access now and accommodation for future growth. None of these mentioned subdivisions are built out at present. Future expanded growth should be in the design. c. Design and coordinate with Hawaii County Dept. of Public Works an interchange for a proposed future County road extension of Paniolo Avenue or Kila ila Street in Waikoloa Village, to run south and connect to the Saddle Road Extension. d. Design an interchange for connecting the existing Saddle Road to the new proposed Saddle Road alignment. 2. Slow traffic lane for trucks to pull off on steep grades. 3_ Runaway truck ramps designed and constructed concurrently with roadway. 4_ Pull offs for tourists to look at views, or tired drivers to rest. Design for future rest stop with rest rooms. 5. Need for smooth flow of commercial and military traffic, Road will traverse some steep terrain. No stop lights are preferred to keep trucks and buses moving. Keep traffic moving with separated grade interchange ramps for smooth transition of commercial trucks and other vehicles into and out of traffic flow. 6. Divided highway. Build two lanes now. Eventually build two more as a divided highway with planted medians so that two lanes will be westbound, and two eastbound. This will provide slow and turn lanes while maintaining a free flow lane. Queen a'ahurmanu Highway design has resulted in too many head on collisions. 7. ROW width should be at least 250 to 300 Feet wide like the present Queen a'ahumanu HVVY improvement project alignment. FE9-05 -2008 17 :24 From: 18663166988 Page :42'46 8. Build the highway beyond present needs - triple what we seem to need now. Build for future needs and expansion. 9. Accentuate SAFETY in designing grade, and for mix of use: workers, residents, tourists, bicyclists and commercial trucks including trucks hauling fuel. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this long awaited project and hope you will keep South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee informed as the project progresses. Hopefully the end result will be a well designed, safe roadway that serves present and future needs, Mahalo for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Mike Price - Chair South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee CC: State Representative Cindy Evans Councilman Pete Hoffmann Brennon Morioka- Interim Director DOT Highways Division Stanley Tamura - District Engineer DOT Highways Division Bruce McClure - Director County Department of Public Works Galen Kuba- Division Chief County Department of Public Works Engineering Division Bruce TSuChida TOwnscape- K DP Andrew Choy- Townsca pe- KC D P LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Mr. Mike Price, Chair South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee P. 0. Box 383375 Waiko loa, Hawaii 96738 Dear Mr. Price: STATE OF H AWAI I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 April 7, 2008 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice ($ISPN) Thank you for your letter, dated January 15, 2008, which compiled the comments made by your membership regarding the proposed Saddle Road, from Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 42, EISPN. For each of these comments we have the following: 1. Purchase additional right-of-way to accommodate future growth. The proposed right -of -way width should be at least 250 to 300 feet wide. At the moment, our proposed minimum right -of -way width is 200 feet, which should be sufficient for anticipated traffic growth. It should be noted that the U.S. Army currently owns the land which may be acquired for the highway, and they are very mindful about preserving an adequate training area and the lessening of the effects of this training on the proposed highway. 2: Interchanges are preferred. Interchanges are very costly to construct, and consequently, such facilities will usually be implemented only where they may be feasible or significantly improve highway safety. Currently, an interchange will be considered for the Saddle Road/Mamalahoa Highway crossing; however, this interchange will be evaluated as part of the proposed Saddle Road Extension, from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Mamalahoa Highway. We also believe that an interchange at the junction of the proposed Saddle Road and the old Saddle road may be infeasible; however, additional right -of -way may be acquired in the vicinity of the old Saddle Road intersection in the event that an interchange may be needed. BRENNON T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEENO BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY -PA 2.7504 Mr. Mike Price HWY -PA Page 2 2.7504 Interchanges for Waikoloa Village, Waikoloa Beach Resort and Paniola Avenue will also be considered during the development of the proposed Saddle Road Extension, from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Mamalahoa Highway. 3. A truck climbing lane is needed. We agree with your statement and are proposing that a truck climbing lane be provided for the length of this project. 4. Emergency escape ramps are needed. At leaseone (1) emergency ramp will be constructed along proposed the osed Saddle p Road Extension, from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Mamalahoa Highway. Additional emergency ramps may be installed, should more of these ramps be necessary. 5. Scenic turnouts or rest stops should also be provided. The Supplementary EIS will have a discussion regarding rest stops, which will include a diagram of possible locations for these facilities. We also agree that a rest stop is needed; however, there may be issues regarding the availability of adequate infrastructure and the concerns of the U.S. Army. 6. When four (4) lanes are being proposed for Saddle Road, the proposed facility should be a divided highway. We agree with this statement; however, we believe that this discussion is more likely to occur during the development of another project in the near future. Accentuate safety, and its use by bicyclists and commercial trucks, during your layout of the proposed grade of this highway. The proposed maximum grade of this highway is 7 percent, which should be suitable for all travelers along this highway. One of the primary purposes of this project is to improve travel safety for all users, and the design of the highway will be reflective of this. In addition, the proposed minimum right-of-way width for this highway may be able to accommodate an adjacent facility in the event that recreational bicyclists or off -road enthusiasts also express an avid interest in traveling alongside this highway. Mr. Mike Price HWY-PA Page 3 2.7504 Very truly yours, bc: HWY-PA NS: do We trust that we have satisfactorily addressed your concerns and the concerns of the South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee, and we appreciate your continuing interest in our highway projects. If you have any other questions or comments, please contact Nelson Sagum, Project Manager, at (808) 587-1834. BRENNON T. MORIDKA, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Transportation FEB-05-2008 17:17 F r o m : 1866316698E P a s e : 28' 46 Aloha Ron, Please include the material below in the record for the Saddle Rd. EIS. The Keamuku parcel where the road is intended to go is normally directly downwind of the PTA impact area and may be contaminated with radiation from uranium weapons training. Radiation has been confirmed at PTA on August 20, 2007. The most serious health hazard involves the inhalation of uranium oxide particles. I'll include comments by Dr. Lorrin Pang, MD of Maui who I recommend as a consultant on the medical effects issue. He has given me permission to circulate his commonts about the military's position on radiation. Cowin Pang is highly critical of the military and the Hawaii State Dept. of Health not addressing the serious issue of uranium oxide. Jim Albertini Mali, 'Aina Center For Non - violent Education & Action P.O. Box AB ' Ola' a (Kurtistown) , Hawaii 96760 Phone 808 -966 -7622 email lai nterac. net www.malu- aina.orra • .ww���w- iw�rrwwwr.r��w�.- Comments by Dr, Lorrin Pang, MD January 19, 2008 I have offered to constructively contribute to this effort by joining the investigative committee but this was denied by the Gov. I can now only criticize what has transpired but will try to remain constructive. It has repeatedly been the community request that a survey be done which will detect markers for all forms of uranium weaponry, both Davey Crocketts( ballast) and penetrators (ballistic, as Army defines). It has always been pointed out that the ballistic type are far more dangerous - releasing far traveling plumes of oxides and nano- particles, which become inhaled then very slowly cleared from the body with a distinct type of distribution (macrophagefl phatic system). Nano toxicity remains unknown. In contrast the ballast forms released Metallic U shrapnel of limited migration, risk of inhalation, with rapid clearance (unless permanently imbedded shrapnel) and more of a blood borne distribution in the body. Initially the Army said they knew of AT LEAST ballast weaponry but now their latest brochure (Information Booklet - Depleted Uranium in Hawaii, no date but distributed at the Juan 2008 Hawaii legislative meeting) invites that they ONLY address ballast, page 12.. I am rather disappointed that the Army is not willing to address the more dangerous from of U radiation based on the "best of their knowledge" which initially proved incorrect with even ballast usage. A good (pidemiologic and statistically sound) survey for ballistic markers (oxides) at ballistic distances would go a long way to appease the critics. Is this intended in the final report (item 4 page 10)? Many of the brochure's claims about minimal migration of U contamination, heavier non migrating particles, claims of safety based on extrapolation from other U experiences, detection at points far from the target zones, etc. etc seem erroneous until ft is pointed out near the end of the brochure they only address ballast weaponry (page 12 last item). That only ballast weaponry is addressed should be in the title of the brochure, The justification for this limited search should be on page 2 - as it is contrary to Army policy for procedures to survey for contamination (which is based on survey rather than the more fallible historical knowledge). Even IF only ballast weaponry was used - the decades' subsequent conventional explosives used on the target sites could have rendered the initially ballast forms of U airborne with conversion to the more dangerous plumes and oxides. FEB -05 -2003 17:18 From :18653166988 Pa9e:23 /46 The public should only be satisfied with comprehensive surveys which will include the search for u Oxides contamination and at distances beyond conventional ballast scattering. The dust samples form the particulate survey could be used for that. If oxides or evidence of extensive migration of ANY U compounds are found, regardless of the prwported source, one must set the objective of the survey as one of contamination (comparison to control sites, IAW Army regulation) rather than health threshold set by the NRC (since these may not be extrapolable to nano U or U oxide toxicity). Some to the responses to public concerns are misleading and unscientific .* for example page 10 item 5: If there Is a questions of the high reading one should question the specificity {possibility of false positive) instead the Army makes the argument that the detectors aro insensitive (false negatives), For a high reading the correct response should have been to see if the reading could be repeated at the same site with more sensitive equipment and greater statistical sensitivity. Community volunteers perfomed this at the Kona site with tens of thousands of air samples (counts or decays per minute, CPM readings) using the best detectors available to them. At my own expense and as a private citizen I presented on the Big island a written analysis with statistical interpretation to the public, Seri Inouye's representative and the media (Army and DOH were invited, though not personally by me, but did not attend). Most importantly 1 answered questions from the public on the spot (in contrast to the recent legislative hearing). The results were reassuring. There is an Army/DOH claim that repeated sampling was done with sophisticated equipment. We have repeatedly asked for details to examine analysis (for example, means vs frequencies of CPM data), statistical power and scheme to insure sensitive (for example wind /dust conditions) sampling sitos. To date this has not been made availabe to the public, hopefully it will be presented in the final report. We seem to always be arguing that it would be wrong to only ruin the analysis on means. As cited above this would base the risk on the NRC recommendations for health risks based largely on non oxide U forms from other situations. But of course if ono choosos to ignore the U oxides based on the presumption that only ballast forms were used then we have a self fulfilling "confirmation" of safety. The argument that General Lee was so concerned seems a bit odd. No one from the Army attended my presentation of the community survey which I presented in Hilo. He would have been happy with my conclusions and could have presented his survey methods and results at the same time. Maybe we might have disagreed on how to proceed, maybe not. To me it seems very strange that all the collaborators (especially the CDC and NRC) would not have raised the above concerns with the brochure. Again I offered to collaborate up front but was denied this. As 1 understand it Sec Davis was willing but not Gov Lingle thought there was enough expertise elsewhere. Allow me at least this constructive criticism before the final report. as I too am a land owner (small vacant plot) on the Big island. Finally, I am a stakeholder with no conflict of interest who is trying to uphold federal regulations of safety. I have been warned by colleagues to "watch my back" that I am a "marked" man but have told them that whistle blower laws protect me against retaliation. I have confidence in Sec Davis on this point. Lorrin Pang, MD, MPH (as private citizen) Retired Army Medical Corp Best Doctors of America list 2006 -8 Consultant WHO (since 1 985) Consultant Glaxo Smith Kline Below are comments by Jim Albertini and dialogue with Ftuss Takata of the Hawaii Dept. of Health. Jim, FE8 -85 -8888 17:18 From: 18663 188988 P a c e: 24' 46 Russ, Mahalo for your answers. The truth is you don't have the facts. You do not know how much DU has been used at PTA. You do not have comprehensive monitoring data. Show us the data about no radioactivity above background levels. How many readings did you take, for what time frame, and where, under what wind conditions. We have obtained 75 counts per minute (3 - 4 times background levels) at Mauna Kea State park on May 29, 2007 with dust devils coming right off the PTA impact area. Normally you will get background level readings. Averaging won't cut it. It is the spikes that concerns us, All that it takes are small particles, carried by the winds, of inhalled DU to cause health problems. That's why we need 360 degress monitoring around PTA with a paper trail and the data available to citizens via home computers. Put the het on Dan Inouye to come up with the funding for first clasp monitoring of the military radiation contamination on our Island home. Then well have the facts. Mahalo. Jim Albertini Malu 'Airia Center For Non- violent Education & Action R.o. Box AB 'OIa`a (Kurtistown), Hawaii 96760 Phone 808- 966 -7622 email jacinterpic.nel www ;ma1u- aina,0n - - - -- Original Me - - - -- To: im Albertini ; imcom paci i - du . hawaii.arm Cc: Faye Hanoliano ; [ wignt Takam ne ; Cindy Evans ; Robert N. Herkes ; Jerry L. Chang Russell S Kokubun ;1,91rainn,e R. Inouye ; Harry Kim ; Alan McNarie ; PCRC ; A P ; advertiser ; Garden Ise ; Garden Wand d ; Hawaii Island Journal ; Hilo Trib ; Hono Weekly ; Honolulu Star- Bulletin ; Ian Lind ; KBOO ; Kevin Dayton ; kQmb.ty ; khnl tv8 ; l PllA ; Maui news ; namakaRinterpac.net ; Rod Thomp pn ; Audrey McAvoy ; WestHawaii Today ; Honolulu Advertiser ; Pacific Buj News ; j Yushirnoto ; Brenda Ford ; Emily Naeole ; Dominic YaIiona ; Bob Jacobson ; AnQ9l , awn ; Pgnald Ikeda ; Pete Hoffmann ; Stacv K. Hiqa ; Andv.Levin ; Jan S nyd r ; Barbara Bell ; Nelson Ho ; Chris Y en ; 220rmaine Shigernura Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2006 1:43 PM Subject: RE: No answers to DU questions Jim, Here are my answers: See below in blue. Russ From; Jim Albertini [moilto:ja©rnterpac.netl Sent: Wed 1/16/2008 12 :06 PM To: Takata, Russell S.; lrncom - psi - h waii.army.rT1il cc: Faye Hanohano; Dwight Takamine; Cindy Evans; Robert N. Herkes; _Jerry L. Chang; Russell S. Kokubun; Lorrainne R. Inouye; Harry Kim; Alan McNarie; PCRC; A P; advertiser; Garden Ise; Garden Island; Hawaii Island Journal; Hilo Trib; Hono Weekly; Honolulu Star - Bulletin; Ian Lind; KBOO; Kevin Dayton; kgmb tv9; khnl tv8; KPUA; Maui news; 1:.amakaftrnterpaornet Rod Thompson; Audrey McAvoy; WestHawaii Today; Honolulu Advertiser; Pacific Business News; j ¥oshimoto; Brenda Ford; Emily Naeole; Dominic Yagong; Bob _Jacobson; Angel Pilago; Donald Ikeda; Pete Hoffmann; Stacy K. Higa; Andy Levin; Janet Snyder; Barbara Bell; Nelson Ho; Chris Yuen; Charmafne Shigemura Subject: No answers to DU questions FEB -05 -2008 17 =19 From:1866316698B Pa9e:25'46 It's been nearly two months since these questions were presented Nov. 18, 2007 to Army Col, Killian, DOH Russ Takata, Cindy Evans, etc, No answers. How come? Questions for Meetings on Depleted Uranium Nov, 2007 STATE ONLY ANSWERS 1. Why have you (State & military) refused balanced forums with presenters including Dr. Lorrin Pang, MD, Peace activist Jim Albertini and others? I will not debate the facts, 2. You have downplayed the health hazards of DU. Isn't that misleading the public? No, I have not downplayed the health effects. In fact, health effects were covered in my Powerpoint presentation. 3. Where is the data to support your claims minimizing DU health risks? No evidence of radioactivity above background levels. 4. Did a.ny DU particles on- the - ground become airborne and blow off - base on Oct. 23, 2007 when several 000 - pound bombs were dropped on Pohakuloa (PTA) by B -2 bombers, There has been no change in background levels in populated areas outside of PTA, 5. Disclose all live -fire weapons and number of rounds fired at PTA, and other training there since DU has been confirmed at PTA on Aug. 20, 2007. Army 6- isn't it time we start operating on the precautionary principle. Stop all live -fire at PTA for the following reasons' 1. we have a roasonab1e suspicion of harm from the possible spread of DU particles; 2, there is uncertainty about the full extent and nature of the DU contamination at PTA; 3, we have a duty to take action to prevent harm to human health and the environment; 4 the cause and effect relationships are not fully known and established scientifically concerning Du. There has been no radioactivity over normal background lever. 7. Is Army Regulation 700-48 being violated? AR 700-48 ...2 -4 Handling of RCE (radiologically contaminated equipment) ... During peacetime or soon as operational risk permits, the Corps /JTF /Division Commander's 11S1 (Radiation Safety Officer) will identify, segregate, isolate, secure, and label all RAE. Procedures to minimize the spread of radioactivity will be implemented as soon as possible.. Army 1-E6 -05 -8888 17 :19 From:18663166988 Page:26'46 8. Is there any use of DU (past, present, and /or planned) and/ or other activities such as Stryker training at Pohakuloa that could result in the spread of aerosolized DU, and/or DU compounds? Army 9. Summarize the results of research -past, present and/or planned - on health risks from 1. live munitions exploding on top of DU left on the ground in Hawaii, during forty years of training; 2. vaporized and /or aerosolized DLI; 3. DU nanotoxicity_ Nanaparticles of a gubstanr,A m9y have properties different from those of the original subsume, such as becoming toxins or super - catalysts; 4. DU oxides which are insoluble and so are not excreted from the body. Army 10. Describe past, present, and /or planned use of radioactive substances at PTA. Army 11. Large areas of PTA and Makua are off - limits because of ICM )Improved Conventional Munitions) which are cluster bombs. Some type of cluster bombs such as ADAM (Area Denial Anti- personnel Mine) contain DU. Is there any use (past, present, and /or planned) at PTA and/or Makuua of cluster bombs containing DU Army 12. The Davy Crockett spotting rounds containing DU used at PTA was one of approximately 60 different nuclear weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal during the 1960s and 70s. Have other spotting rounds involving other weapon systems been used at PTA that contain DU? News reports (7/4/07 Big Is. Weekly, 115) said 714 Davy Crockett DU spotting rounds were shipped to Hawaii. How many remain unaccounted for? Where else have DU Davy Crockett spotting rounds been shipped around the U.S. and outside of the U.S? Identify the sites and the numbers shipped_ Army 13. Will the military pay for 24 hour mass spectrometer independent testing for DU exposure for military and civilian personnel, and /or private contractors at PTA, Schofield, and civilians around such bases who believe they may have been exposed? Army 14. Have tree bark, animal droppings, and vehicle air filters been tested for DU presence at PTA? Not by State •1 5. Why did the Army deny the use of DU In Hawaii for years? Why did the Army fail to publicize the 2005 discovery of DU at Schofield until after citizen groups made the facts known? FEB-05-2008 17:19 Fr om: 18663166988 Fa se : 2 ?'46 Lorrin Pang, MD Army 16. If State incursion on Federal property is illegal how is it the State is involved in ongoing DU testing? The State was invited by the Army to participate in activities to obtain a human health risk assessment. The State is not independently conducting DU testing on military property. - 1 7. If the State, CDC, NRC and Army disagree on what should be told to the public, will one party be allowed to speak independently? The State speaks independently, Military Clean -Up NOT Build Up! Conl.act: M tiu " ina Center For Non - violent Education & Action P.O. Box AB OIa'a (Kurtis1�wn) Haw{ i } i 96760. Phone (808) 966 -7622. Email ja@?intcrpacaet < naiI10 :ja interpac.net> l�ttp :llw y �.malu- ainit.org "Assuming the machinery is acuurete and that the sampling site is truly down wind of the traget site, hew many samples (CPM or DPM) will be done? The sampling number should be based on the statistical power to detect the frequency of high CPM above some threshold (say 2 SD's above the mean of background). That frequency based on what Jim tint saw in Waikii (4/500) would be quite a bit smaller than 1 %. To use tho means of CPM is misleading if a onetime inhalation exposure is not cleared from the body for such a long time (U oxides with 5 half lives approx several decades) and if the distribution in the body is fixed to a few selected cells." ---- riinal Message To: Takata, Russoli S. Cc: Bob % Jacobson ; Clifton Tsui' ; con resswornanmaziehirono con ressionalemaildis atcherucom ; Harry Kim ; Josh Green ; Cindy v, ans ; Al�Ni ; E l K ; A P ; advertiser ; Garden Ise ; Garden Island ; Hawaii Island Journal ; Hilo Trib ; Hono Weekly ; H lulu for -gulletin ; lan Lind ; KBOO ; Kevin, pop"), kgrb tv9 : khnl tv8 ; K ; Maui news ; r arnaka i n er ; Rod Thompson ; Audrey McAvoy ; WestHawaii Today ; Honolulu Advertiser ; Pacific , usines ; shannon rudolph ; Dr_ Lorrin Pang Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1 1:00 PM Subject: Re: Action on DU Russ, We are not dealing with radiation from a nuclear blast of cold war nuclear weapon testing. DU is much more sinister. It is the inhalation of small DU oxide particles that is of greatest concern. Alpha particles breathed in, not external exposure. You just can't go around and check for an hour here and there and conclude nothing above background therefore PTA can continue business as usual with DU contamination present. We know the DU is there. We do not know the full extent of the contamination. Likely there are hundreds of Davy Crockotte spotting rounds given what was shipped to Hawaii and perhaps other Du rounds as well. The only way to tell if it is going off base (and we have readings to suggest it is) is to encircle the base with high tech 24/7 air monitors with a paper trail and citizen computer access to the data at all times. Otherwise we simply are not going to buy your claims, and the FEB -05 -2002 17:20 From:18663166988 Page:29'46 military claims, of no problem!. The cost of such monitors is peanuts to the $2 billion the military spends PER DAY! waging war and spreading opals like they're doing at PTA. The scientific reason for you to pursue cessation of activity at PTA is the DU present could be spread off base by live -fire, and other activities that puts dust into the air. We have already sent you material by radiation export Dr. Rosalie Bertell strongly critiquing the Army's 6 page DU November 2007 handout, We also sent you material by Dr. Leonard Dietz and DU being carried more than 26 miles from a plant that simply manufactured 30 -mm DU rounds near Albany, N.Y. That plant has been shut down because it exceeded a NY state radioactivity limit of 150 microcuries (387 g of DU metal) for airborne emissions in a given month, One DU aircraft 30 -mm round contains 272 g of DU metal. By the way, what is Hawaii's radioactivity limit for airborne emissions in a given month? Is there a federal standard as well? You have plenty of scientific material to call for a halt to B -2 bombing at PTA and the upcoming major live --fire in February 2008. From the Dept. of the Army, sadly, we expect very little. From the Dept. of HEALTH, we expect more. Mahal°. Jim Albertini Mali `Aina Center For lion- violent Education, & Action P.O. Box AB 'OIa'a (Kurtistown), Hawaii 96760 Phone 808-966-7622 email ;aQinterpac.net www,malu- aina.crg -_ -W- Original Message :77 �,T•+ w Russ 11 1 '.iJ :•.• .... :i..i ii .i:'' . . .. .. , ;t:. :pie.i6 1�... .• . .. ... .. i .. '+Z. ,. .. i 'Iti' ' .i. i.i • • i . • ' To: Jim Albertini CO: B Jacobson ; Clifton Tsuji ; p2nciresswomqnnwiehirono@congressionalemaildispatcher.com ; array Kim ; Josh Green ; Cindy Evans ; Alan McNarie ; PCRC ;APP ; advertiser ; Garden Ise ; Garden 1 land ; Hawaii lslar d 4nurna1 ; Hi10 Tri ; Hyno Weekly ; Honolulu Star - Bulletin ; Ian Lire ; j BQQ ; Kevin Davton ; kgmb tv9 ; khnl tv8 ; KPUA ; Maui news ; namaka@int ?rrac.net ; FIod Thompson ; Au y McAvoy ; WestHawaii Today ; Honolulu Advertiser ; Pacific Bu lows News Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12`55 PM Subject: RE: Action on DU Have a good day, Russ Too little? This monitoring system provided key data to the Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System for most of the cold War period! You have no idea of the requisite actions necessary to ensure the public's health and safety. But, I will ignore your comment and continue to pursue my efforts to seek the facts for public health and safety. The bottom line is that there has been no racl oaQtivity detected above background levels in our ambient surveys of the adjacent proximity of PTA on Saddle Road and the communities in Konawaena, Kealakekua, Holua[ua, Waikoloa, Waikil Ranch, and the Girl Scout camp! As a matter of fact, the background is quite low. And therefore, there is no scientific reason for me to pursue cessation of activity at PTA. As 1 noted In earlier conversations with you, 1 will give you the facts and will not compromise my integrity for anyone. FEB-05-2008 17:88 From :18663166988 P a 9 e : 29' 48 FrO i; aim Albertini [mailto :ja interpac.net3 Sent: Wed 1/16/2008 11:56 AM To; Takata, Russell 5. Cc: Bob Jacobson; Clifton Tsuji; con $ resswomanmazi - hi > . • ell - ' .0 Lemaildispatcher.ccm; Harry Kim; Josh Green; Cindy Evans; Alan McNarie; PCRC; A P; advertiser; Garden Ise; Garden Istand; Hawaii Island Journal; Hilo Trib; Hono Weekly; Honolulu Star - Bulletin; tan Lind; MEMO; Kevin Dayton; kgmb tv9; khnl tv8; KPUA; Maui news; namaka @ interpac.net; Rod Thompson; Audrey McAvoy; WestHawaii Today; Honolulu Advertiser; Pacific Business News Subject! Re: Adion on DU Aloha Russ, My initial reaction to your news of an initiat air monitoring is that it's something but too little. We citizens, with our own community experts, want in on the decision making process_ We want timely access to all the data as well. The key tieing at the moment is to STOP all activity at PTA ( -2 bombing and major live -fire planned for Feb.) and other places that could spread the radioactivity before a compotete assessment is completed, You only know that Davy Crockette DU spottings rounds are at PTA_ You have no idea if other DU rounds are there and how many. You, and elected officials need to speak out on this to the media if you want to maintain any credibility in the community. Otherwise health and safety of the community is taking a back seat to imperial warmaking. Is there any meaning left to "national security ?" Jim Albertini Malty - Aina Center For Non - violent Education & Action P.O. Box AB 'ola`a (Kurtistown), Hawaii 96760 Phone 808-966-7622 email 'a in ter a,et www.maiu- aina.org ori Message ;. �,; To: im Albrtln! _..._ ....mil.,^ ...�........ Cc: Bob Jacobson ; Clifton Tsuji ; Gon iyoss con ressionaleiriaiidisatcr.com ; Harry Kim ; Josh Green ; Cir!dy_ Evans Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:56 AM Subject: RE: Action on DU Aloha Russ, Happy New Year to you. Below is a copy of a recent email I sent to Col. Killian. Jim, Happy New Year to you too. I have made arrangements with EPA to start initial air monitoring using a well validated protocol and monitor for ambient levels. We will shake down the equipment and procedures, identify an initial site, and begin operating within thirty days. More later. Russ From: Jim Albertini [mailto:ja interpac,net] Sent: Tue 1/15/2008 9 :31. PM To: Takata, Russell 5. Cc: Bob Jacobson; Tifton Tsuji; congresswornanrnaziehirono c rrrgressionalerriaildispatcher .cum; Harry Kim; bosh Green; Cindy Evans Subject: Action on DU FEB -05 -2008 17:E0 From :18663166988 Page :30/46 I hereby request you contact U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye and seek funding for first class citizen high tech DU monitors around all confirmed or suspected bases where DU has been used in Hawaii_ Afterall, billions are spent on the war and military build up in Hawaii. A few milliOn should be available for monitors. If my math is correct it costs $1 35,600 in fuel for a B-2 bomber to fly from Guam to Hawaii to drop 2000 lb bombs at PTA risking the spread of DU contamination. Just stopping a few of those bombing flights would help pay for some monitors. Ftuss, we want some positive action. Stop the live fire military plans for Feb. at PTA. You and the Army do not even know the full extent of the DU contamination at PTA. To go forward with live -fire is nuts and shows contempt for the health and safety of the troops who will train there and the citizens of this island. You need to speak up and stand up now for public health now. Mahal°. Jim Albertini Malu `Aina Center For lion- violent Education & Action P.O. Box AB `Ola "a. (Kurtistown), Hawaii 96760 Phone 808- 966 -7622 email ia@interpac.net www.nralu-- aina.or Aloha Col. Killian: This is to again put in writing our organization's "Citizen DU Action Demands" that were circulated after the confirmation of DU at Pohakuloa in Aug. 2007 and again presented to you and State DOH employee Russ Takata at the one sided Nov. 18, 2007 meeting on DU, (See below). 1 also want to again request a response in writing to the questions I submitted at the Nov. 18, 2007 meeting on DU . To date I have riot received any response. You give lip service to concerns for health and safety but your actions and lack of actions speak otherwise. I look forward to a more positive attitude from you and other military people toward the citizens of Hawaii in 2008. Jim Albertini Malu `Aina Center For Non - violent Education & Action P.O. Box AB `Ola'a (Kurtistown), Hawaii 96760 Phone 808 - 966 -7622 email ja @interpac.net www.malu- aina.orq RADIATION MONITORING IN HAWAII! On Monday, August 20, 2007 the U.S. Army confirmed the presence of depleted uranium (DU) at the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) in the center of Hawaii Island. See <http' / /www_armytirnes.comf news / 2007 /08 /ap_hawaiiuranium_O70821 /> The DU confirmation came after years of the military denying its presence. Citizen groups kept the pressure on the military and began doing their own radiation monitoring. Also see http:f /www.hawaiitr'ibune herald. corn / articles / 2007 /08 /26 /locaLnews /locaI03.prt < http:// www. hawaiitribune- heraId.comfarticles /2007/08/26 /local news /locaI03.prt> < http: f/ www. hawaiitribune- herald.comfarticlesJ2007f08 /26 /local news /IocaI04,prt> DU is primarily U - 228, the isotope of uranium that remains after the fissionable isotope, U -235 has been extracted from natural urarium ore, DU has a half -life of 4.5 billion years. The military has used DU in spotting rounds for the Davy Crockett nuclear weapon system and these spotting FEB -05 -2008 17 :21 Fram.18663166988 Fa9e :31'46 rounds have been fired at Schofield Barracks on Oahu and at PTA on Hawaii Island, perhaps other firing ranges in Hawaii and elsewhere too. Other DU spotting rounds may have been fired_ Davy Crockett was just one of approximately 60 different kinds of U.S. nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal Training with a wide range of weapon systems has taken place at PTA and other live -fire areas throughout Hawaii. The Davy Crockett may just be the tip of a much larger radiation nightmare for Hawaii residents and visitors alike The military says it has no records on the issue. The U.S. used DU armor and bunker piercing weapons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. For more on DU weapons and its hazards See 4http:// www. informationclearinghouse .infolarticlel8 42.htm> On Tuesday, May 29, 2007 a citizen radiation monitor recorded elevated radiation readings at Mauna Kea State Park adtacent to the military's Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) in the center of Hawaii Island. The wind on 5/29 blew directly off the live -fire training areas at PTA and dust devils of suspended topsoil were visible in the air. The elevated radiation readings were as high as 75 counts per minute when normal background is 5 - 20 counts per minute. A number of private citizens are now doing radiation monitoring on Hawaii island_ It should be noted that Hawaii Island already has a dubious distinction of the nuclear age. According to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, of 65 randomly selected worldwide soil samples tested for accumulation of long plutonium radiation contamination from atmospheric nuclear weapon testing, our Big Island soil ranked NUMBER ONE! Plutonium is one of the most potent carcinogenic substances known_ Less than one - millionth of a gram is capable of producing cancer after close exposure. Plutonium has a half - life of 24,000 years, which means it is potentially toxic to humans for at (east a half million years. As plutonium is concentrated in the ecological food chain, people can absorb significant quantities. It is preferentially stored in the liver and bone marrow and can cross the placenta into the unborn fetus. (To read the above AEC report see Nature Magazine, Vol. 241, February 10, 1973.) It should also be noted that the Navy acknowledges discharging millions of gallons of radioactive liquid waste into Pearl Harbor on Oahu and dumping over two thousand 55- gallon steel drums of radioactive solid waste on the ocean floor off Hawaii's shores. What effects such pollution may have on marine life arid, in turn, the health and safety of Hawaii's people is simply not clear. But it is commonly accepted that there is no safe level of radiation. (See the book {'The Dark Side of Paradise" by Albertini, et. all page 18.) Military Clean -Up NOT Build -Up! CITIZEN ACTION DEMANDS 1. Immediate halt to all live -fire and any activity that creates dust at Schofield Barracks, Pohakuioa and other military ranges In Hawaii until there is a complete assessment and clean up of the DU present. Further live -fire and other activities could result in the spread of airborne DU particles which are particularly hazardous if Inhaled. 2. Citizen monitors, Including Dr. Lorrin Pang MD, former attorney, OHA trustee, and nuclear worker Clarence Ku Ching, and Jim Atbertini or some other representative from the peace movement to be Involved in the DU assessment and monitoring process to assure transparency and community confidence. 3. The establishment of permanent, continuous, high tech counts per minute (cpm) monitors (at the Army's expense) but independently operated around range Impact area where the real -time data is available to the public on line. FEE - 05.2008 17:21 Fr om: 18663166988 Fa ge :32/46 4. Testing (at Army expense) for DU exposure of PTA and other military personnel, and members of the civilian community who feel they may have been exposed to DU. (The U.S. is spending $2 billion a day on the military. There should be funds available to see if citizens are being contaminated by its own radioactive weapons.) 5r Ongoing public balanced informational and CI & A meetings involving the Army, State Dept. of Health, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Dr. Lorrin Pang and other community resource people_ LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR Dear Mr, Albertini: Very truly yours, BRENNON T. MORIOKA, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Transportation bc: H Y -PA NS:dn STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 April 7, 2008 Mr. Jim Albertini Malu `Gina Center for Non - Violent Education & Action P. D. Box AB Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42 Supplemental EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) Thank you for your e-mail/commentary, as addressed to Mr. Ron Terry, our project subconsultant, regarding the existence of depleted uranium (DU) in the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), of the U.S. Army. For your information, the State Department of Transportation also has several questions regarding the DU, and consequently, we have initiated an independent study which would develop a risk assessment regarding the adverse effects of the DU, that may occur as a consequence of the construction and operation of the proposed Saddle Road. All of our studies will be included in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. In addition, your comments have been forwarded to our environmental and risk assessment subconsultants, who will evaluate them during the preparation of their studies for the project's Supplemental EIS. We believe that most of your comments will also be included in the Supplemental EIS. We appreciate your attendance and the participation of your organization at our meeting with Mr. Terry in January 2008. If you have any questions or comments concerning this project, please contact Nelson Sagum, Project Manager, at (808) 587 -1834. BRENNON T. MORIOKA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors MICHAEL D. FORMBY FRANCIS PAUL KEEN° BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-PA 2.7506 SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix A Public Involvement and Agency Coordination A3: 9/6/09 Letter, U.S. Army Garrison to HDOT [This page intentionally left blank] REPLY TO ATTENTION Q Office of the Garrison Commander Mr. Rodney Har ga Director, Department of Tr ,ation o State of Hawaii 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Haifa . 96813 Dear Mr. Haraga: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS, I I 1 D STATES ARMY GARRISON, HAWAII SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, HAWAII 96857 -5000 September 8, 2006 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Central Federal Lands Highway nisi ; 4., in cooperation with the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) has proposed to improve Saddle Road (State Route 200 from Hilo to Mamalahoa oa Highway) on the Island of Hawaii (FHWA Project No. A-A- . The proposed Section of the realignment goes through the newly acquired "Keamuku Maneuver ..ray' which is part of the Army's 'o ak loa Training Area (PTA). The US Army Garrison, Hawaii (USAG-HI) totally supports the Saddle Road Improvement Project in its entirety. The road will greatly benefit the local community by decreasing cross- island travel times and improving traffic safety. However, with the recent acquisition of the Keamuku Maneuver Area, the Army requests that FHWA/HDOT review the selection of route W-3 as preferred Saddle Road realignment alternative as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), dated August 1999. This recommended realignment bisects the K ar uku Maneuver Area ad divides the maneuver area into two sections. Maneuver trails would have to cross route W-3 at several grade separated underpasses that imp dmi t t e restrictions during training exercises and severely imp is training s . � � ti ,� , the impact x 9'? training, 4 � �. 3 "� s f � � �-k I� ;r � To mi m ze. he im . t on mini g, �e � y y is requesting t F � 1 ` . _TROD consider new route that runs along the southern boundary of th Keamuku Maneuver Are (see enclosed intent ��,f. 4k the � ^,£y. �3 5 �• � � new route � � }{ -^. '� not < G �,'. adversely �'+ ao f � � a $ 't- C'° 4 ` Y Y � � y times 3 y b� 4o- public -G � G l u map), 3a. 5 .. �r n - '=.l ,P. 3+ e `,.� � o n •} r o v� br i s Y }+.-f %t +r f d � �..: A � a s. f e ks} a' r w +c% �r 3. L.+. iF i in �' L o �S � � � "r�° 5 the •T2 � �+� i F is willing to serve as a ';. r0 "�`• $+o- �'- { agency f i safety. As the earlier planning t, � # s -i °gig to sere s a cooperating ge c in the Supplemental EIS process. In order to coordinate the connection of this new route with the H 's Saddle Road Extension Project (Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Mamalahoa Highway), please contact Mr. Michael Kama o, Chief, Planning Division, Directorate of Public Works at 656-1410 xt. 1207. The US Army greatly appreciates your consideration of this request. A similar letter is being sent to the co-proponent on this project: Nils Clara H. Conner, Director, Program Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division, Federal Highway Administration, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-2683 copy of both letters is being sent to ML Peter Cline, Highways for National Defense - Defense Access Roads Program, Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC:, 720 Thimble Shoals Boulevard, Suite 130, Newport News, VA 23606-4537065011 Enclosure -2- Sincerely, Howardj. Killian Colone An Commanding New Proposed Alignment --110-4110— . --10--11V-- US Army's Proposed Alignment [This page intentionally left blank] SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix A Public Involvement and Agency Coordination A4: Public Hearing Notice Sample, Flyer, List of Places Flyer Posted �L New Alignment to Finish Saddle Road Comment on the Alignment See Maps of Where the Road Would End The completion of the road would improve safety and will reduce travel time between Hilo and Kona by at least 30 minutes. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared. Your input on environmental impacts, project impacts, and proposed mitigation. See www.saddleroad.com for more information or a copy of any project - related documents. Comment at the public hearings, or submit written comments to: Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi Hawaii DOT, Hwy Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 Please share your thoughts! Public Hearings: Hilo— Wednesday Dec. 9th, 5pm at Aunty Sally's Luau Hale Kona — Thursday Dec. 10th 3:30pm at NELHA Gateway Center Comments Must be Sent by January 7th, 2010 Saddle Road EIS Hearing Flyers Posted at Following Places /Business Note: *BB (Bulletin Board) Hilo /Keaau /Pahoa, Thursday 12/3/09 Hilo Rice Noodle Kai Store BB IHOP - Prince Kuhio Plaza Big Island Built - Prince Kuhio Plaza CD Wizard BB Miranda Country Store BB Magoo's Auto Parts BB Leung's BB Dino's Fishing & Tackle Down to Earth 76 Gas Station on Kilauea Ave Kope Kope Cafe 100 New Star Restaurant Affordable Catering Punahele Bakery Suzuki Motorcycle Deal Lanky's Bakery Island Naturals — Hilo Pacific Music Ina Signs KTA downtown BB Aloha Luigi's Hilo Natural Foods Kandi's Drive Inn Ando Store Wikiwiki - Ainaola Country Club Store 76 Gas Station Kaumana Blane's Drive Inn Basically Books Cronies Wilson's by the Sea Shave Ice Sunny's Gas Station Bay Front Chevron Cafe Pesto Hawaiian Art Verna's General Store Lava Rock Cafe Hilo Lunch Shop Hawaii Printing Corp. J. Hara Store Keaau Laundry Ace Hardware -Keaau Keaau Steak House Alibi Bar Ainaloa Community Center BB +Prince Kuhio Plaza Digital Billboards +Three Electronic 52" vertical billboards rotated Flyer (full 20 sec.) every 3 -4 minutes during mall hours from 12/3 to 12/11/09. Mt.View/Volcano /Ka`u /HOVE /Kona, Sunday 12/6/09 Verna's Too Mt. View Mini Mart Mt. View Bakery Mt. View Video Hirano Store Volcano Village Store Volcano Wash & Dry Volcano Golf Course Volcano Golf Course Restaurant Kame Gas Station Pahala Mini Mart Pahala Town Center BB Pahala Cafe Pahala Community Center Ka`u Hospital Punaluu Golf Course Naalehu 78 Gas & Mini Mart Punaluu Bake Shop Naalehu Ace Hardware Naalehu Island Market Hana Hou Restaurant Shaka Restaurant & Bar Wong Yuen's Store Kau Outpost Pohue Plaza Gift Shop Spirit Gas Station- Ocean View Movie Gallery Malama Market Desert Rock Cafe Pohue Plaza BB HOVE Bakery Ocean View Pizzaria Rancho Ace Hardware Center Kahuku Country Market Kahuku Coffee Lava Tube Restaurant and Sports Bar Fujihara Store Higashi Store Patel's Spirit Gas & Mini Mart Keoki's Roadside Cafe Big Jake's Island BBQ Kona Seafood Coffees N. Epicurea Ege Store Keke's The Coffee Shack Capt. Cook Video Kealakekua Ranch Center BB Senior Billy's Mexican Rest. Manago Restaurant and Hotel L & L Drive Inn Aloha Gas & Mini Mart Shiraki Dry Cleaners BB Chevron Gas & Food Mart -Capt. Cook Capt. Cook Mini Mart BB Mi's Italian Bistro State Auto Parts, Inc Patz Pies Mango Court BB Island Naturals KC Washerette Sandy's Drive In Oshima Store Oshima Surf Shell Gas & Mini Mart Teshima's Restaurant W.S. Hanato's Barber Shop Aloha Gas Circus Shop'us KTA — Keauhou Rocky's Pizza Sheraton Keauhou Resort Keauhou Beach Resort Banyan Mart Kona Surf Liquor & Deli Huggo's Lulu's Kava Bar Tante's Restaurant KTA - Kailua Kona Denny's Starbucks SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix A Public Involvement and Agency Coordination A5: Agenda, Sign -In Sheets, & Transcripts of Public Hearings [This page intentionally left blank] Letter App. A5 App. A6 Ltr Pg /FHWA reply Pg 1 H32 1/30 Cory Harden, Sierra Club 2 H62 31/32 Patrick Kahawaiola`a 3 H49 33/34 Kale Gumapac 4 36/37 Pete Lindsey, Hawai`i Construction Laborers Union Local 368 5 3 8/3 9 Doreen Friberg 6 40/41 David Uhlmann 7 42/43 Peter Boucher, P.E. 8 44/45 S. Troute 9 H39 46/47 Jeffrey Melrose 10 48/49 Michael Dworsky 11 H44 50/52 Simbralynn Kanaka`ole 12 54/55 Sally Miller 13 56 (see Ltr41) Laura Dierenfield 14 K38 57/58 Tammy Harp 15 59/60 Isaac Harp 16 62/63 Susan Law 17 64/65 Tim Law 18 66/67 Tim Hershman 19 68/69 Merna Izawa 20 70/71 Takeo Izawa 21 72/73 Adam Jardine 22 74/75 Debbie Baker 23 76/77 Jon Kunimura 24 78/79 Peggy M. Ciriako 25 80/81 Margaret K. Masunaga 26 82/83 Marsha Boyle 27 84/85 Sheryl Henderson 28 86/87 John Buckstead 29 88/89 Steve Hurt 30 91/92 Phyllis Tarail 31 93/94 Tom Geballe 32 95/96 Roger Harris 33 97/101 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Environmental Review Office 34 102/103 Edward Brown, Goodfellow 35 104/105 Hawai`i Fire Department 36 106/107 Mark McGuffie, Director, Enterprise Honolulu 37 108/109 Hawai`i County Police Department 38 111/112 Hartwell Aloha Kaeo 39 113/115 Robert Ward 40 117/118 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Water Science Center 41 119/121 Laura Dierenfield, People's Advocacy for Trails Hawai`i 42 123/124 Eugene H. Nishimura, Japanese Chamber of Commerce 43 125/126 Stephanie Nagata Index for Comments to Draft EIS Notes: Oral testimony in hearing transcripts in App. A5; letters, faxes or emails are contained in App. A6 In App. A5, separate page numbering for Hilo and Kona (H= Hilo page #; K -Kona page #). Comment letter number is upper left corner on 1 page of each letter. For those who provided only oral testimony, only FHWA response letter is contained in App. A6 and indexed here Letter App. A5 App. A6 Ltr Pg /FHWA reply Pg 44 127/129 State Historic Preservation Division 45 130/133 Mike Price, Chair, South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee 46 134/135 Department of Business Economic Development & Tourism, Office of Hawaiian Strategic Industries 47 136/149 Department of Land and Natural Resources (Engineering Division, Land Division, Office of Coastal and Conservation Lands) 48 151/152 David Tarnas and M. Carolyn Stewart 49 153/154 Verne Wood, President, Puna Water Services Inc. 50 155/161 University of Hawai`i Environmental Center 51 164/165 University of Hawai`i at Hilo, Marketing /Alumni 52 166/169 Tom Lenchanko and Alika Poe Silva 53 170/172 Department of Business Economic Development & Tourism, Office of Planning 54 173/174 Aaron Stene 55 175/185 Michael Reimer 56 189/190 Representative Faye Hanohano, District 4 57 191/192 Department of Accounting and General Services 58 H4 193 Joel Tuck* 59 H4 194 Hugh Ono* 60 H4 195 Claudia Wilcox Boucher* 61 H24 199 Bill Davis, for Hawaiian Homes Commission, Chairman* 62 H25 197 County Council Vice -Chair Emily Naeole Beason 63 H27 198 Shalan Crysdale, The Nature Conservancy* 64 H28 199 Sharon Hettema* 65 H30 200 Galen Kelly* 66 H35 201 Jim Albertini, Malu `Aina* 67 H38 202 Dean Au, Hawai` i Carpenters Union Local 745* 68 H40 203 Mary Begier, Hawai`i Isl. Chamber of Commerce* 69 H41 204 Michael Cadaoas* (H42) 70 H41 205 Deborah Ward, Sierra Club* 71 H47 206 Joseph Kuali` i Camara 72 H51 208 Christian Rygh* 73 K2 210 Rodney Watanabe* 74 K3 211 Mel Ventura* 75 K3 212 Arnold Kanai* 76 1(4, 35 213 Ken Melrose* 77 K5, 32 214 John Parazette* 78 K40 215 Diane Quitiquit* 79 K24 216 Rep. Denny Coffman, District 6* 80 K25 217 Michael Matsukawa* 81 K27 218 Walter Kunitake, Chair, Saddle Road Task Force* 82 K28 219 Norman Kaimuloa* 83 K32 220 Vivian Landrum, Kona - Kohala Chamber of Commerce* (K32) 84 K35 221 Robert Meierdiercks* 85 K37 222 James Boyle* 86 242 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 • • • 1 .M. M • 1 r. OPENING BEM • A. Introductions • 11. PRESENTATION SADDLE ROAD • M alahoa H to Milepost 41 Island ,pf Hawaii Public Tie m • • Dec her 9, 2009 A ty Sally's Luau Hale 799 Piil1 Street Hilo, Hawaii B. Purpose of the He *ng A. History of the Project Mr. Dave Gedeon B. W-7 Route and Characteristics Mr. Bruce Meyers C. SEIS Findings Mr. Ron Terry D. Schedule: SEIS, Design, and Construction Mr. Dave Gedeon III. FO AL TESTIMO PERIOD AGENDA 1 • REC2SS715714IN.' ▪ " . . ......=•. •= .tmuJ T . m •• NT. RESPONSE TO TTEN QUESTIONS (if time p its)Mr. Jiro Sumada VI. ADJOU MENT • :4 • Mr. Jiro Surnada ••■•••..m= m MM.. mEMMImm MEM OPENING RE SADDLE RO M. alahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Public Hearing Dec- ber 10, 2009 National Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority Gateway Energy Center 73-4460 Queen Ka'ah anu Highway Kailua-Kona, Hawaii AGENDA Mr. Jiro Sumada A. Introductions B. Purpose of the He ng II. PRESENTATION A. History of the Project Mr. Dave Gedeon B. W-7 Route and Characteristics Mr. Bruce Meyers C. SEIS Findings Mr. Ron Terry D. Schedule: SEIS, Design, and Construction Mr. Dave Gedeon . III. L TESTIMONY.RERIOD = ;; . = . • • • IV. RECESS, 15-MIN. V. RESPONSE TO TTEN QUESTIONS (if time pe i Mr. Jiro Sumada VI. ADJOURNMENT SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Please Print Public Hearing - December 9, 2009, Hilo NAME ORGANIZATION ,S 5,( L I H - e' �jcrx.C. da&Tt JL'&( Mar { &Volb (N11-123,2,e'Q vee: 9, 't 1\1[61:rk loci 5 (91..-54er- 4 CoU I i m ADDRESS t -IA/ , s 1 /ZE 44-z / KckIc 0 e l ( 72o K z a 8 !J ! kuum waJVtc, I)/ irb 96720 t'L.(,{,r/tec 1q2 KAAIR P`. /Q0 lE5 Laha,i j--/,10 fLq-05- 14/aAl i/1 c;J\ 4-t F ,a6 It 1 q67/1 A- 1 tij 1-7 -2to TELEPHONE 2(, 4, - 0? - 2;) a t6(—S 9 3 ) - , '1 c) 3 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Please Print Public Hearing - December 9, 2009, Hilo NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS 5V/4/04 Afri 4 1--A CA 0..1A 1�,�1 �1 L3 \?D)iA l - HcwfLI�I.'� CiJ VYI ►'✓I UlYlll(AA c � � tt 1,4 i g_ ;) ( i EMAIL TELEPHONE �bt — 6'vs�' I 0 K&@,h.it vvat Cem 5 ref A 44AJ a: fn i i. c 6" 7 6 -4 5 .c.) el. to u a ;ttb Lit c„, L._ t4c;\ k ?t, 0 j , t L;- 4 \\ . '\ (1\ NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS EMAIL TELEPHONE \IA tkit-,51--.--},---- ..s ,...„...._\ . I tt-& k- - .L=k --- --:; tpupc-0----- , �,vl C We Ss Y AY) (0 & s , •P`D o 195 �- a k ka aS • . . q (► ( -- S a P \ /6 7 L Ai it - Q A 1 A , tti tA ., 4. / b , g c)N / rt)3 f "2 1-llv r ii A _I 7/ r t Nt ce, tr° i ..e, f A G k 0 ke/t, 14 ( .c . k )„... % 1 k:) t (/L (5 A 3 I5 ,_.. rY L ., Q .. e. i . , c[)r'r 4 1 35 dt A ' o (1,C1 :1 in() `lv '` 'k, t cc - t -s -. t C� \ J J .r'� i r r Abc:.„(_:, � c NAY-) 4-c_.- I F,, 5 9S A; 0 - x . c ,,., - 7( --7 Do i` V a Ci e \ o 1, k. k "'L .= t `;._ . D. oo ‘....< k 0 lA i (c t f c 2 7 E (A n om ' C A / v ( 4 4 4 9 e r c 0 5C VcdAVaii u t-, & t o e 014. , tivtb alt L i - c..o 34C C. 3a 1 0 A ti tiq 4/ Re-6W e 5 1-ki,J VA-fag.,9 �� ��. � � rR �-- '7 . � �� �" + f7 4'k/iv �I�C� fl/ beti-9,:feth‘tiiiLlu'e l k ' ' ., , 0 c Vi. a. e. 1 " C /Lc t. 5 Ijk . Co-1/41? ,Q-j ..aE ILK ? . 0 . 5 0 % y.,,;.-\--i 5 i'v.,ti 9 L, ii,L4 oc-..si : '36 69B) y e„,.„ vie ‘,-.. . ii)1' oeto 61( hit i i I ki c . , it -- L 4 a 1 ,,,,.k o , tA ia q1.4. fr il 6/61 L ., y erlicq„../0.,:,.. e;,-,,,, (13S- 13 clkA; 4.,T,Tz_R--. n , . i IT le .:4,..., zi- t- __SA. i C) 7 14:11. H t , - i.- t3-tv ewe 14; tcl 6 0 - -- I F)tf', ( t--C- ,F , Z .J J',I .-fr- ed/ 4....ca ,. Or, ' DA C A \ARk. Cf ,:t_ C C-. , ° X q 1 f RrhCt r' 4' A C.:' (C: . tt kct_ ,-,:= CA. t.:. -e ,L, L 4 -1 ^'w 1 \((-) W Y � �r)� l KN-1 ' ti/ N� W Lr V Li-it4 c -c� • c 1 v SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Please Print Public Hearing - December 9, 2009, Hilo NAME VwW kc ar \r '?----0..vvDvi j 4-(.44?--A C iZ o Ec..( 61 0-1 A Coe Ove'AP\ N Cc•1 \ TtA7 , I \ bk,) ORGANIZATION I�. island C1kt $r.n e /i' t«.4, cA iA s SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Please Print ADDRESS 'c 6 La [ �T co-7 6. 6c raw 19 i 7/6; //)16 j--/--14,4 / /9/ I t I 2/Q g(/(-) 66.7x, •\ c-* t404 % k+&- (? X 1 '1 \ k Q 5 fl?Ur7 ... q 61 EMAIL azivv;vte 6 ,\oe„,( - c.,-\-_,c., -4) (-4-4-o e:. �-- r-e � t 4.e go? et.4,4 L 4/c/U ? 0, . , ( Q A-. os e e_6 Ltht Public Hearing - December 9, 2009, Hilo TELEPHONE - 717r 35- � s I.G t 965 - GAG 6 4 7 ) / -0 5 ?rf- ic Z -5 o z_c gas -rcn 7,‘ .2 2— IG% 7j 'S‘76 'qv -3:Is NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS EMAIL TELEPHONE �� . s L t tom ' ,. : � 4 f . I mo, )._,,, ' ? l ? 1 ;1, }. 1: i 10 Q i L W 1L1/ /J C(asl 319 ) / 'b et(pae vW, ei 1)L-i _~ i 1>a4APP 1a k1 14 . 4a l , titaka . i * C- 9e r ..i.5,0 1AS Pi 6 f L A- 6.2r W►- t . I - i c3 tv" VeL-iLe- "- b ks-- i6 15 L i k LQI,L4 'I - P.O. 1-. x IT-11 Ki:,t,,,--(_ 1 ,,--s (,. ,,t,,_,'siz.-1' -,,,, t---.; .c.„.,___ lic --Locct *LiLk„, 0 0---kor Ktic : Po teDo 64-1 nfwil: ,cer ST E Tom — - 1 q AQ--V u N V 7--- , r b 7 0 ` -6 5 l - c_ ,.. .- 1 53- ___ LArki CF--. -- c c:' 4 > i , :5 x \\ 1\j-N7A 9 6 ---- s K..9... s 6 -260___.-q_. - c N -) c--0 --6 Ic c '-'ei-f-e, ktiiilg-.\i 14 Uolom dt4 Ito /IA , , qvi'( 9--. .f.r( 10 ( 0-1-9[7 k 73c 63) -- 0 Y -WM 4- p2ez.�.� LS 'o f " x: K ,s-L-- , , J._.0 H - { f 9 ' To �{//�� )`'- ! ' r R/ rr/'�� f1�/ r,A\--/,,,_ f ly 9,, `y ^' L /y'��•�.+�t J ' A:k 1 A / r l ?c4J';x i 1 t idk' ; ;c oke &i ; 5f r :--i- ft/LD ft/L 9 IA- k i ,:, 1 t ,; 15, 1 ch i n r ez i X/ k - ~ ; Piet / J' :4 ; ifi, 5 V\c �. ?t / �'' • - � i:� � �7 =� � � � L� � � � � � �'L �3 �.`1 � ice.+ � l � 1 �:..� ��i� � 4 � t:l'� , � -!(--0 '". � ct gk- �I�"ez_4 r , - J#6 r.-r yF --7,z4 fi c-i 73 ,- / -- -c -, ) - ( ----de---i— Nc.. 7 /, 1 ... , .c. _ -4 (- IT.: 1 4 - . c :77C 'N.( ..7 7 I. b,„... i. "C' = �-f M f u \,(rte ,1l. 76_ 4 efq c )) IV- i A ,,, ,- . t-01 �� '�� } ;i 1 -3./y f 1 f /{j!I] � � f [ + i . A -V C L1 O I W CJ 1 1 l Y C, f 1./ � �' /� 1 C1 4 r ' ' � ' . " i i4S VO !f ��,// �rl L^ I � - / / f l L p i � '� � � _ t I ! I..i]�i �.� I )(r, . k \ e � � t ��.a • 5.\00 ) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Please Print Public Hearing - December 9, 2009, Hilo NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS EMAIL TELEPHONE ? ., G ._ L%\r . 1 ' 1 cC - i't° KNA°\€- AQ- A` z ' vk c . c'{ e til eJ U : --■rc-1 44, A-take) -a Fc t e i .6(v 1 q67 q,j5 4 ic 8 licit . cb-ivt 1 - ; - , 0 ..e-tc...,./ Vcc Pc f- c‘0 -7 5 - & ( l e , /a ; 902_, 4;=s.,._.,7 ' G 2;/ HC- 11 3 L i L. / � i-, G- 0 : 4i i, - , y v/ .,,= ; _4 ^r•� : \ 3 U ' : C 1 Z-4 H CC , N A C 3 y \ G l c l . i s -E C A t-k 4 1 0 1 : x s yiV‘, c A l- t - t D P--, 1: /,L! >c A l �S 7 F - l P P 1 r-'0 / • F i t t - - { Pfr\o-picoF c r7 p, L. 6 4 ,..4-,-,.:- 9 , --,---) r9 1:— "C> , 14' C CI (C, k 1 Li 1--, i •!". 2 ' • -‹.),c a..J 6 6,1 6 t,\ -,4---, 1.--k 17-c7 . - t'--160,-4 S1/2 . C 1, r ,.. ' `R '''' X) i- 70. r' itl..,2 .? /14, //i t-y ctock.r 6 r'i -1 • ! b P L- '3 0 i 06 G-' l 5 iC ) &" - 6 y c1 ---.....L.L -?,e itir - 4f Af (--.. ,:: . ,/ , -. ...._ , c.?0,Ff c 79 5 7 -- ...-.L.4, 'e \;\ 5e gi c � (, ) J fi Ro ,K-e. /;k/ / eg4 ??;P r , . 2 Y 4ie, 997 1 mile lam: , ,,.2 r r k), Lqyq6,2,6c-e. / 12..t...„4,-,2-- kl 9-L r -je- Ft ey, , . 4 q � ■ r .e,4, Aiie, /z.-/i „ v „9‘ SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Please Print Public Hearing - December 9, 2009, Hilo NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS . EMAIL TELEPHONE :8/7-e---/217 Pe--/&__ C'<" - ' .- z . , cA.7....2 . ___..,„--- --m-- z ,,,, „----->_..;_-_,L.., ....,-- C. ,_ k.,_ ..____, h . - z:'.. city' Ci. cri ,, ,c- � z /= 6;75 r 1 :L. �1,� ; fa •c) ` �� tL�� � r�r..f . 4 V3 ^/ 6 3 G T6 0,L L (i 1 l4/1 (rt S�. 2- F , ice 1/ ,D,‘; (X/A1 id14. VA cPc_(, _____ 4.-- %. -r)0 � -� 65-)-3- SC.,- i ; 1 N c • F6 1 7_7 �;� i S it9 q-, �sc5 , Ka",=;,C21, )) a' 3/—o9$ 1 .-F....omi - kr 7:44 K4- T 4 T �L.cTe2r c._., !uc 456- 4 k eikya n4flc, s1 A"/a, u. L- /-7 aka a -i-r 60," 735- f029 x!f 6 C ) / ) (,--/ a'1 "-J. ..IL ( f b 4C/21 12421 L-c - 7 1 . .-12,11,E.,---477( - 1 1 .S 2 - 5 - ' R sk --h. (fT tv Ve_a,cu-e... --.1 b 7 '14 tlf t3 _ '4I/1 1) kc: €4-bsot '9 - „.1, T_:: C. Made, t; nt) 0103 KQO-r,v 14 tG0 ib 1 u 1.ee..,¢) 5II. i 107 I-1;ro (,, ma c iL. o r , 1 3 5 - r $o f 7 th 4( Two ';#;!\ �t i-c-- 941 F01��� -u. (G-4 : 6 }-_ kiU' HI m�.nual.zp �.n4rnai f • co-m 3 3 3 - M a.. V 11_ .: \<!. \ ' ' - ' ' .. 'k2iC,.(_ . , ew i 4-(1-eA 6 -' o 14/(,hpc., cSf ihh f6/ -64,y _ f e7a1rckuL SIG 6 � �, L n ti 1&dk-;O( Leto K A kG X 71 ���i(iCL1� P._5 2-ei.' G� i. 4 � . d4net4 : ' 933-- „....._, /5-c77 2(7- ciT,51 tht GL ,f S X73 !'. I 2q G {a f{� Mc') r• f ec1u • FUkG1Ylt'l -C 1 4 Wolii 0:- 7o 70 '"??0?‹ Q2 Votc,„ fft tc7-gt5- k(F) lekviiii.co 11n • )ofas zAt _ siE //2 ovNC� ks S! �i (o 7C7ZO d .cow, /:33 -2 7 2 7 � c l�.n 1:)rrIVi SC Q (UzGt (:(O Gda e_ S s Cot , C „/ c_33- Z? 2-- SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Please Print Public Hearing - December 9, 2009, Hilo SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii 1 wish to present my testimony on this project. (Please return to the information desk.) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii (Please return to the information desk.) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii (Please return to the information desk.) Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 My name is: i, - Organization, if any: My mailing address is: -Ago f r,i‘ - _R es My email address is: ! wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: My email address is: ['Aft) Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 4/ ile.Fga& zdak, /)f q Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 0\* l wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: �, , � Y kLAki Organization, if any: T� My mailing address is: N My email address is: c• P `� S D AL' £ e., -- K7Ni C . o 4 G SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii 1 wish to present my testimony on this project My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: (Please return to the information desk) (Please return to the information desk.) My email address is: SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii 1 wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: My email address is: SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii I wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: (Please return to the information desk.) My email address is: h ci roN J/ef7e'm Sei7 Ciya w y' 36d /Oa 70 N d/tJ I k// 1301, Lid_ I till() 76, 7 . 0 Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 C( ‘\AOiv SL(j ��6 (I; k n 6'12 r y voN ) .,6 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Public Hearing Island of Hawaii December 9 - 10, 2009 1 wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: (Please return to the information desk.) 1 wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: (Please return to the information desk.) (Please return to the information desk.) My email address is: My email address is: 1 wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: My email address is: 1Y \s e t rnal k Al ‘ E l 17 )?) � 'IJa6w+N ) O/(,--/(,D J SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Public Hearing Island of Hawaii December 9 -10, 2009 Decip eitt,;., �- ' ev 7 t1s rr. C ary. SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Public Hearing Island of Hawaii December 9 2009 luLiSicb Eel- a y te,(n7s c ...L.c.› 3 , kte icit?) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Public Hearing Island of Hawaii December 9 -10, 2009 I wish to present my . testimony on this project. My name is: . L Organization, if any: Mee, My mailing address is: /Q/ (Please return to the information desk) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii (Please return to the information desk.) My email address is: My email address is: )( tin ; St, 7iF 2(5 A /Pt alc) Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 eor f �l.til I wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: G CE.re 1 ( cut LO 4-5 Organization, if any: My mailing address is: ?‘ iXW b76 0 My email address is: C-0-I,tLs) .) In- ct-A - Ce0t (Please return to the information desk.) 4'1G/opt Public Hearing December 9-10, 2009 I wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: � � -cry JourcQ Organization, if any: cchLb R revs My mailing address is: R.'° • � � \ 1 Kt& r4;. 5e1/4SW1/t_ cC&i c SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii l wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: i Organization, if any: O""-° k.-e--&/ VAA- IN My mailing address is: 1 b° tS My email address is: � � ` � t )--t { e}v "A'3 (Please return to the information desk.) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii wish present to resent my testimony on this project. 1 My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: (Please return to the information desk.) My email address is: M y email address is: SADDLE ROAD ' hw a to Milepost 41 Mamalahoa Highway Island of Hawaii testimony on this project. wish to present my test Y wl � My name is: Organization, if any: M y mailing address is: •.lo64\ Kali; Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 viA I fA Paz K p1 \ 4 - d o , 4}-t cf(p 4&&1 kQ)hv'.( public iiearin December 9-10, 2009 ' desk.) the information ) (Please return # M ■* a..ssssa/ ssfaisssesiafasssiasasss//■ aaassraasassaaasa■ asaass/ eseaasssfsssae•• .• .sss.sarss /aasse. /sss••sa.ssssasasses /••sees /sassssss• ■srasssa/ sasses/ aassssse/ ss/ a■. sa/ s/ rrs/ sasssaaf■ ssaassesasfs. .ssessasasrarsasssaasa/ assssasssesaaaasess./es.rr..ses.sessrsss/s■ SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii ! wish to present my testimony on this project. I My name is: rr Vvq4 Organization, if any: (Please return to the information desk) Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 My mailing address is: eo, ,,x (' #d) I,/ 9 7-7 / My email address is: �►�'i - P h k 4 , � e� \‘,:\ [This page intentionally left blank] SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 island of Hawaii Please Print Public Hearing - December 10, 2009, in Kona ORGANIZATION NAME F(Er-A) al Ail 41- ORGANIZATION f1/4 `\Nis K , 4L 31 //74 / ‘ 40/\ ler 0/vai 7f5 Velt4 \it& 1-14L-7c SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Please Print ADDRESS - 2 - 3 R- , 1 . 561f _ I » M o - EMAIL Public Hearing - December 10, 2009, in Kona TELEPHONE 36) NAME O ORGANIZATION A ADDRESS E EMAIL T TELEPHONE Art_ i4dziail 2 _ --c . 111111INIMPAREMEILIMENI --r_oi BD), 443-734 ka1„,46 4,-1 • L 4 23 ,e 4 - c 7 - ,' . -0 az ii" - P ' , .7 94_ 1 4..1 . P PL .. c . . '-d-t' \- tJ1 1 U4 i ix MOviikt, 0 01, Xleco,v - p , , C CZ':b 5L.t.c (6e qc I q i ; k'l A IIMIREMINIIII A .S'-..,S - AAVII6C V .+. 4(62/6 ' * 111 "4 ' ' 11111111111111111111EZDZEN , te-5 C ..i ) -- A# ; .j,..5,. ,7 1 C J o om -- - 1 ,, - - 73 - ( /5.) / , ,, , I-7,4 i.A.-.47 an_ F A: A: . 6// "4 . 7 Y4) - - Ae ,-,., .- • . A.u7 - : c-4: ,..- C; a a3-.30e,5 -, v=7. Ii.cz.zoloa 1 1 , --(9832_ ,) KA 1 ), )9 , , k• ( .0. I IIIIIIIIIIIIMIII T Tij - 2N - (,,,'-1 l r r._ ;c 3 Ku/. e . i .- Kcii-ol,,,,.... 1,.•1 ,, P P-;7L: y _5 (,.- C)-.14 ( 3 ) 4 - - 1 (A /4-6T _, 1 h h.0(:) L,, . khe, A-0-e),6 B BoiA Sci0 )31 s sksrl-, b kAkr i , \i€ c , , '-'s -- 59;35 ,:ibiv ic i, kf% tleto ie k. / /Z-7-C-- 7 76; 7e,- / o ‘4, k.7,„,. p& ido /c - ' ' SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Please Print Public Hearing - December 10, 2009, in Kona NAME L eL)1i!f L't (R0-() 0 f c_jI) i V ,'?a vz'/o 117( h J � - ORGANIZATION 434 t SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Please Print Oc ADDRESS 73-2 4,3Cikd kK 96740 s ` kk L4k Y 1 � � �J{ A r l J � r 9 , , (`) �• Y' -V -Q„_ ! 2,'' 2 / J' 4 L.i 04 u( LAC {r '76-7e, 25 4 4 Ai • 7-2) Fi � J/Z o C - Z L. ,`� ' . • �.i fir' A; f EMAIL �� l . ,: �' :i \ �� :/ • 1 .t�'- -ice �� �C' a e c-4 (x) 'tr(si/ q,( 6 t„v r a-c-i-Alu&R.kh if Public Hearing - December 10, 2009, in Kona ;m m.. TELEPHONE %-?377 r r -, 7-- z - - Ji5 = b‹., r �+ NifkylE ORGANIZATION ADDRESS EMAIL TELEPHONE if ,, ,,',...-g 4‘ 4:7- / ,' eip,-, 49‘,.1 , 817011,47 ? Z 2 To r7e .,._ - ._. e9/ - - - - - - / - - - /» , 5 4A / 7 4 , 1 K ./' . . f y _ . b,}7' C .,c A r / j M 4 , t ) L e / 1 4z6 1a9 _._. ,A,,,e,,,,--- g ./2_ .,____,„,, (A__ •-(c.cei;4‘,...." ,,,, „,,c,,/,(_:_...: 64,4,,,,z_ .(f-.. Zw,,,,- kief I • &://i tc.q C ,/, - ',f - 1 . tr 7 _ / \i a P-A- /4- ,z7---.)--64 l ' !c ?-+ K-oi , [--i , it - .--,ok, il, L'___Ai CO "A (- 1 3 e - 6/ - ' ' 1 1-q-k.L.L(0, ei ac;-(tic., P c,) ic,z3' 7 ( (,- ai ( --,,I, 1 e--- ( MA\ (\,1‘), 2q*c --z7r-rt-,:-- 0 0 000 0.1L, 1 _ Ici -) to LA L. , 1 At__. IA,)/411q0 . 'Plzx 'oz) ()fricu.511/4-yo.LA .1(„74- -3‘ 42r ec'z'Aivotki(VT‘1,4s. (616 -ois,3q 4 0 PoZol. 4 Kc„,,,,,k 7h 7q3 , " 4 "-c' --- 6 ,Li‘n- - f-! ( L',4,,„ 3-- , j3, 'C _La.: , Yi._ . ,,- ri 1 -4- i 9 u - c . ----- 5 - 07X . 7 e-/ -S 6:f 7'.e I 72 6 7 V() 667E ()a A- r-ri -1-'6; i , J . 1 tc.) - -i ( q6c.ii.04_ V i Y left (--\ i---,a,, ru,--y-v--- dze,y 4 2 (d' 4n/ne,/,-- Was /..‹.- Itia...(4.0...tvite.,..--Z Konc, - _:,, C hco-r\ 42.1 -ze//J 74, ,i, fi, 4 -S /< — QV --.2-t ; liVii A) it 1/ 4'4 7,o 75 �7 t< 1.-to4C'E RI H w y ' „,,?.:so J 922 _ 1 a 0 4 4ki/14 m,, ,S. i - ha i.- .1._ e cg...4.,,,,.,0.,„ V "ii I ci. ca-kLocicz- - ic-zhc-d ci. c-i, . ,C/2i e 2 .-,- e ".(,, e. 7 zi; - 5aq --a,s 9SZ 6 fl- 7 ./ „ (A: )\-III bz 5,,/ A- '1?--z)vi_ , L \MIAg 67 e'Cil '€-' --- L(--lgte - -k-Lt, - ,,,,,, c6k , 1 73-._ tb--- Ikt— K-Ic (-)e, 7/-/ 6 L I I Se CoIL4,,,,,,g ii. V) ln bo,f/e._ .)-(0 „PH S /7 . Co ‘ r , j lax3")A-e__. 7 0 2. (kt, t, .CO lii 7 in 1-- .32) .-S - 6- ii c i ” SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Please Print Public Hearing - December 10, 2009, in Kona SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii 1 wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: E'# , �.• I Organization, if any: i:»; C. ,,.r` My mailing address is: 77 -Zia' JA 1 014 ', ►l (Please return to the information desk.) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii (Please return to the information desk.) Mifi 7li 11 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii 1 wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: Organization, if any: (Please return to the information desk.) My email address is: My email address is: 1l..... . .................... My email address is: Public Hearing December 9-10, 2009 A c Public Hearing December 9-10, 2009 1 wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: M C i /} rf if /C Organization, if any: My mailing address is: 7�'3 717 � � 6th / 64 I�( /e,44h,t4f _ l�.a, 567 V (e.) 32�p Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 My mailing address is: 47- S6 /#/ &frtde, 6 fz recffc SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii I wish to present my testimony on this project My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: 131) (Please return to the information desk.) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: ---Apedac. , e4Nhei- (Please return to the information desk) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii I wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: $1 Ai Organization, if any: My mailing address is: L I -4" WVW /k 4,LCA-0 ccfW V4-bet- IC c c 6 My email address is: j<AAV‘14 le‘i&L t4,4 (Please return to the information desk) My email address is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: 404. `-(;0 We. My email address is: C?f',00/c'/?4 £0 Vori"Tur-A. Public Hearing December 9 2009 Public Hearing December 9 2009 Public Hearing December 9-10, 2009 (01 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii I wish to present my testimony on this project My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: (Please return to the information desk) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii (Please return to the information desk) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii I wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: (Please return to the information desk) My email address is: My email address is: My email address is: 69N14 loA tevtor RAAA-Opc Vi\)wyJ I wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: gaiad— �'� Organization, if any: Se_ My mailing address is: � � r /� 'cr e 1 � 7" 3 Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 MD- ILZ Public Hearing December 9 -10, 200 9 KKA tistoA70, :Q , e - 014-1 `./P719 Ptze Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 toc ) O I K h -aVA 1l-1 ecTrzkr itroktg•kr., #441)-vAkfirL. wEr l'titio SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii I wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: (Please return to the information desk.) (Please return to the information desk.) My email address is: SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii I wish to present my testimony on this project My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: My email address is: SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii or v • 1J rYN Na oy( I vvt0hQl4. 6 K HIqj Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 Po 4)ic 411-0,0 Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 1 wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: 44 T Mei e1,41 1,44g-S Organization, if any: �: .1 ,,. � My mailing address is: — ! 2C J.Qt#i'.i4"ai10{ Y g � My email address is: 6 ' 6 1 (Please return to the information desk) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii I wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: (Please return to the information desk.) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii (Please return to the information desk) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii (Please return to the information desk) My email address is: My email address is: My email address is: - 50 / 0 MAiI S�� Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 I wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: je S Y � \wr Organization, if any: N � }� My mailing address is: i4O Vt- Wt(Atiottho W 969 - 4-0 let)6 02 ton 1 wish to present my testimony on this project. My name is: ki't• 9 Organization, if any: 4e) My mailing address is: ' 0 # wia.� a Public Hearing December 9 -10, 2009 kockma3 ()o v✓i �5 1 2 STATE OF HAWAII 3 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4 HIGHWAYS DIVISION, PLANNING BRANCH 5 6 7 8 PUBLIC HEARING 9 10 11 12 Saddle Road 13 Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 14 14 Island of Hawai'i 15 Project No. HI 200 (00) 16 17 December 9, 2009 18 6:00 p.m. 19 Aunty Sally's Luau Hale 20 799 Pi'ilani Street 21 Hilo, Hawai'i 22 23 24 25 1 [This page intentionally left blank] 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 State DOT: Mr. Jiro Sumada 4 Central Federal Lands: Mr. Dave Gedeon 5 Consultants: Mr. Bruce Meyers 6 Mr. Ron Terry 7 Mr. Glenn Escott 8 Mr. Reggie David 9 Mr. Russell Koji 10 11 Opening Pule: Skylark 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 I N D E X 2 3 PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGE 4 Informal testimonies 5 Joel Tuck 4 6 Hugh Ono 4 7 Claudia Wilcox Boucher 4 8 9 Formal testimonies 10 Bill Davis 25 11 Emily Naeole Beason 27 12 Shalan Crysdale 28 13 Sharon Hettem 29 14 Galen Kelly 31 15 Cory Harden 33 16 Jim Albertini 36 17 Dean Au 39 18 Jeffrey Melrose 40 19 Mary Begier 41 20 Michael Cadaoas 42 21 Deborah Ward 42 22 Simbralynn Kanaka'ole 46 23 Joseph Kuali'i Camara 49 24 Kale Gumapac 50 25 Christian Rygh 53 3 4 1 December 9, 2009 2 (Public testimonies given informally to the court 3 reporter before formal commencement of public hearing) 4 5 MR. TUCK: My name is Joel Tuck. I'm a resident 6 of Hawaiian Beaches in the district of Puna. I travel 7 to Kona regularly. I support the realignment and 8 because when I have visitors here from the mainland 9 they can't drive their rental cars over the Saddle 10 Road which no one has been able to do since the 1970s 11 when I first started coming. That's about it. 12 MR. ONO: What I would like to say I support 13 this last segment of the Project because an initiative 14 that was started off with the mayor, Mayor Dante 15 Carpenter, as his campaign platform when he got 16 elected as mayor of the County of Hawai'i to make a 17 more expedient and better connection between East 18 Hawai'i and West Hawai'i. And this is the last and 19 final segment. Therefore I support it. Thank you. 20 MS. BOUCHER: Aloha. My name is Claudia 21 Wilcox Boucher. I'm an instructor at Hawai'i 22 Community College. And I am very supportive of an 23 access road that will bring East and West Hawai'i 24 together so we can truly operate as a unified county. 25 Mahalo. 5 1 December 9, 2009 2 MR. SUMADA: Good evening, ladies and 3 gentlemen. I just want to welcome everybody for 4 coming tonight. My name is Jiro Sumada. I'm the 5 deputy director for the Department of Transportation, 6 Highways Division. I'd like to officially declare the 7 public hearing open. 8 At this time I'd like to introduce some 9 public officials that are here. From the State we 10 have Representative Hanohano; from the Federal 11 Government we have Dave Gedeon, Melissa Dickard and 12 Steve Hallisy from Central Federal Lands; from the 13 County, Councilmember Emily Naeole. 14 We also have some DOT staff from our highways 15 division; Ken Tatsuguchi, Dina Lau from our planning 16 branch, Dean Yogi from rights -of -way; we have Stan 17 Tamura and Sal Panem from our Hawai'i district office. 18 Was there anybody else? 19 From the consultants we have Donald Okahara 20 and Bruce Meyers from Okahara & Associates. They'll 21 come up later. The Saddle Road Task Force, these guys 22 were there from the very beginning. We have Alvin 23 Chong, Dwayne Mukai standing up in the yellow shirt, 24 Mr. Okumura, Arnold. 25 And I want to make special recognition for 1 the task force. Because it was through that effort 6 2 that they brought the whole community together, both 3 sides of the island, government agencies. They 4 brought the whole planning effort together. You're 5 seeing part of it and being part of it tonight. But 6 they were the originators. How long ago was that, 7 Mr. Okumura? Over 15 years ago. So their continued 8 commitment to the Project is very inspiring. But 9 thank you, folks for coming. (Applause) 10 The purpose of tonight's hearing is to 11 discuss the location and design of the proposed Saddle 12 Road State Route 200, from the Mamalahoa Highway, the 13 mauka highway in West Hawai'i to Milepost 41 of Saddle 14 Road as well as socio- economic and environmental 15 impacts. 16 The alignment is being considered which would 17 essentially pass through the Keamuku parcel and locate 18 the new highway closely following the southern 19 boundary of that parcel. 20 We were asked by the Army to consider this 21 new alignment, I think, in 2007. And we agreed to it 22 because it would push the roadway farther south and 23 away from the military operations that they do at the 24 Pohakuloa Training Area. 25 This public hearing is being held for 1 several reasons and I have to mention all of them. 2 First, it's a means of informing you of the State 3 Department of Transportation's plans that are being 4 developed through the State Highways Division. 5 Our intent is that you should be informed 6 and determine on a factual basis how you as the 7 general public, property owners, motorists and other 8 interested citizens may be affected either 9 beneficially or adversely by the proposed highway. 10 Secondly, this public hearing is held in 11 order that we may obtain facts from you folks that 12 have not formally been brought to our attention in 13 connection to the location, the design and the 14 potential impacts of the proposed Project. 15 The notices for tonight's meeting were 16 published in the "Honolulu Star - Bulletin" on 17 November 19, 2009 and on December 2, 2009. Notices 18 were also published in "West Hawaii Today" and "The 19 Hawaii Tribune Herald." 20 The basic agenda for tonight: First, we'll 21 go over some of the history of the Project with Dave 22 Gedeon from Central Federal Lands in Denver. Then 23 we'll have our planning consultants come up and speak 24 on behalf of the State department of transportation, 25 go over the basic design, the alignment and the 7 8 1 environmental impacts for the Project. 2 Then we're going to take formal testimony 3 from you folks so that you can share with us your 4 concerns or issues and even your support if you want 5 to share that tonight; take a short break after the 6 testimony and then we'll get into some questions and 7 answers. So we appreciate you folks coming out for 8 this thing. 9 And I'd like to cover very briefly some of 10 the more important guidelines for the meeting tonight. 11 It is a very formal meeting. For me personally I'm 12 not too comfortable going through this process but I 13 wish, pray you bear with me. 14 First, we're not here tonight to debate the 15 Project, the benefits, the pros and cons for it but to 16 solicit factual testimony from you. We're not here -- 17 also, this hearing is not intended to be a popular 18 referendum. We're not going to take a vote at the end 19 about the Project, whether it should proceed or stop 20 or change in any way. That's not what this hearing is 21 about. 22 We do want to extend every opportunity for 23 all of you to express your concerns and present any 24 facts that the department may not be aware of or had 25 not properly considered. 9 1 Secondly, we want to emphasize the 2 importance of your testimonies. All proceedings from 3 this hearing are being recorded. We have our court 4 reporter right here. And it's important that all the 5 questions and testimonies are clearly stated into the 6 microphone. 7 Testimony should be factual, brief, 8 unemotional and free of any political references. 9 Extraneous material of any nature whatsoever is not 10 properly a part of these proceedings. And all 11 speakers we ask they confine their statements to the 12 subject matter under discussion. 13 As moderator I'm supposed to monitor that 14 and if need be interrupt to make sure we stay on track 15 and in accordance with the guidelines. 16 Thirdly, all of those wishing to testify are 17 asked to fill out a speaker information card. And, 18 let's see, I think that's this quarter sheet that you 19 got at the entrance, and turn that in. And we will 20 take your testimony in the order that they were 21 received. I think we are going to try to limit it 22 based on the number to maybe 3 to 5 minutes each. And 23 I'll give you a time. 24 Anybody wishing to ask questions, then 25 you're asked to fill out this half sheet of paper that 10 1 was also at the entrance and turn that in. Then I'll 2 read the questions and then we'll have the panel of 3 experts available to answer them. 4 And now let's see. Some of you who may be 5 reluctant to give testimony or to ask questions, the 6 department feels very strongly that we want to get 7 your input. So if you folks -- we have this full size 8 sheet of paper if you want to give written testimony. 9 And we'll take testimony or input from the public up 10 until January 7th, 2010, okay, of next year. 11 So we want to get your input. That's what 12 these public hearings are for. There's one here in 13 Hilo; there's going to be another one tomorrow in 14 Kona. The more input we receive the better it is to 15 strengthen the decision - making process that we go 16 through as we go through this supplemental 17 environmental document. 18 Following the public hearing the highways 19 division staff will evaluate your testimonies and 20 information presented tonight and tomorrow night, 21 together with the factual data that we already have. 22 I'd like to mention that all information 23 gathered in regards to the location, design, or the 24 environmental impacts for this Project including the 25 public hearing transcript, that Holly's helping us 11 1 with, and the written statements received will be 2 available upon request for public inspection and 3 copying. 4 We will now get into the details of the 5 proposed Project so I'd like to call up Dave Gedeon to 6 give a brief history. 7 MR. GEDEON: Thank you, Jiro. Good evening, 8 everyone. I do appreciate everyone coming. From our 9 organization on behalf of the Federal Highway 10 Administration we certainly are happy that you all 11 were able to make it tonight. 12 I'm going to give a very brief history of the 13 Saddle Road Project, the Saddle Road Improvement 14 Project. There are four agencies primarily 15 responsible for the improvements to Saddle Road. At 16 the local level county of Hawai'i, who has been 17 maintaining Saddle Road since 1957, at least, under an 18 agreement with the State of Hawai'i. 19 At the state level the Hawai'i department of 20 transportation who actually owns the road and will 21 take over maintenance responsibility as each new 22 section of Saddle Road is completed and opened to 23 public traffic. 24 At the federal level, the Department of the 25 Army whose lands, either leased or owned lands, we 12 1 cross over approximately 22 miles of Army land. 2 And finally the Federal Highway 3 Administration whose responsibility is to oversee and 4 administer federal construction monies. We also are 5 the lead design and construction management agency for 6 the Saddle Road Project. 7 In terms of Hawaii DOT and the Department of 8 Army both have also been major financial contributors 9 to the Project. The state of Hawai'i through the 10 federal aid system has provided nearly $110 million to 11 Saddle Road Project to date. 12 And the Department of Army has also 13 contributed approximately $112.5 million to the Saddle 14 Road Project. The origins of the Saddle Road Project 15 can be traced back to the mid 1980s when the county of 16 Hawai'i was seeking ways of improving the road of 17 badly needed improvements. I believe that was under 18 Mayor Carpenter's administration. 19 Over the next several years efforts were made 20 to secure funds to advance the Project. In 1989 the 21 Department of Defense agreed to provide funds from its 22 military construction program for its fair -share of 23 improvements to the Saddle Road Project serving their 24 defense installation, Pohakuloa Training Area. 25 In 1991 it was -- let me back up just a 13 1 second. Those funds that were approved from the 2 Department of Defense were only for improvements to 3 Saddle Road within PTA on the existing road. So that 4 was about a 12 -mile section of existing Saddle Road 5 through PTA. 6 In 1991 it was agreed that we should move the 7 alignment of Saddle Road to north of PTA to separate 8 civilian traffic from military training operations. 9 That decision triggered a subsequent decision to 10 prepare an environmental impact statement for the 11 entire Saddle Road route from Milepost 6 in Kaumana to 12 SR 190, Mamalahoa Highway. 13 Work on the EIS began in 1994 and was 14 completed in 1999. A Record of Decision was signed by 15 our office on October 31st of 1999. We immediately 16 began design work for the first construction project 17 in the year 2000. That was culminated in a project 18 award, our first project award, in late 2003. Actual 19 ground breaking began in February of 2004. 20 In 2007 we finally opened the very first 21 section of Saddle Road 7 miles from Milepost 28 which 22 was the access to Mauna Kea observatories up to mile 23 34, 35 which is Mauna Kea State Park. 24 The two subsequent years after that we opened 25 two additional sections of Saddle Road to public 14 1 traffic. And as of today approximately 23 miles of 2 Saddle Road of the 48- mile -long route have been 3 improved and open to public traffic. 4 As I mentioned 23 miles have been opened. 5 I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to reach this but 6 that begins at Mile 19 and extends all the way to Mile 7 41 or roughly 42 which is at the bottom of the 7 Steps 8 area. 9 Under construction -- and this is a project 10 we just awarded two or three months ago -- is for 11 construction, the next construction which is from 12 Milepost 11 to Milepost 19. 13 The remaining east side from mile 11 down to 14 Milepost 6 which ties into Puainako, is presently in 15 design. It's at about a 70 percent stage of 16 completion. And pending availability of funding to 17 build that portion we will have that project ready by 18 late next summer to advertise for competitive bid. 19 I want to swing over to the west side because 20 this gets into why we're really here tonight. Our 21 original EIS selected the W -3 alignment. I know 22 that's difficult for all of you to see. But we 23 selected the W -3 alignment in our original EIS as the 24 west side alternative that would be constructed. That 25 was in 1999. 15 1 In 2006 the Department of Army acquired 2 23,000 acres of land which is shaded in this green 3 area here; acquired that 23,000 acres of land and 4 subsequently requested that the Hawai'i Department of 5 Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration 6 consider a new alternative that would move that 7 alignment further to the south. 8 The purpose of that, again, would be to 9 separate civilian traffic from military training. 10 That is why we are here tonight. We are in the 11 process of preparing a supplemental environmental 12 impact statement to assess this W -7 alignment. 13 And with that I'm going to turn it over to 14 Bruce Meyers, our consultant, who will talk more 15 specifically about that W -7 alignment. 16 MR. MEYERS: I'm going to talk about the 17 design basically, the design aspects of this Project. 18 The green line represents the W -7 alignment. And it 19 is -- the length of it's approximately 10.3 miles in 20 length. It connects to the portion that's completed 21 now near Milepost 41, 41 and -a -half at the lower 22 section or the low side of the bottom of the 7 Steps 23 area. 24 And the alignment itself was chosen basically 25 because of the environmental resources in the area and 16 1 also because of the grades. We didn't want to let the 2 grades be too step. That's basically the reason for 3 the curves and what you see here is to avoid the 4 natural resources, some of the archaeological 5 resources as well as the grades of the road, the 6 steepness of the road. 7 The road ties into the Mamalahoa Highway at 8 Milepost 14. You can -- if you drive it you can 9 probably see the stakes out there. I don't know if 10 they're still there. Maybe not. But you can see a 11 lot of paint marks in the road anyway. But it's at 12 Milepost 14. 13 MR. SUMADA: Bruce, can you give some 14 references between Waikoloa and Queen K. 15 MR. MEYERS: This is the Waikoloa Road right 16 here. This is Queen K Highway, Mamalaoha to Waimea, 17 Mamalahoa to Kona. This is the Old Saddle Road right 18 here -- the existing Saddle Road. I'm sorry, the 19 existing Saddle Road; Waiki'i Ranch and the Kilohana 20 Girl Scout Camp. 21 So that's basically it about the alignment 22 itself. This is an artist's rendition of what it kind 23 of looked like. This is taken kind of from a photo 24 looking towards -- this is Mauna Kea. And the highway 25 is two 12 -foot lanes, wide lanes east and westbound as 1 well as a climbing lane going uphill. So this is the 17 2 eastbound lane here. 3 This is a climbing lane, as well as an 8 -foot 4 shoulder on each side. At this time the climbing lane 5 is shown right from Mamalahoa all the way to where it 6 flattens off near Milepost 41, 42 area. 7 The speed limit will be 55 miles an hour. 8 There will be -- during the design portion of it 9 they'll look at sites for scenic pull -outs. There 10 will also be an underpass. There's a rough location 11 of where that might be at this point. But there will 12 be a military underpass so that those training can go 13 under the highway. I think that's it. At this time 14 I'll turn it over to Ron Terry. 15 Sorry. I forgot about this slide. This is 16 the east side what was completed. Basically as far as 17 the road is concerned what it will look like. The 18 8 -foot shoulder, the two westbound lanes. This is the 19 truck lane or the climbing lane. And then this is the 20 eastbound lane the other side with the 8 -foot 21 shoulder. Basically the same thing. Sorry. 22 MR. TERRY: Good evening. I know this is a 23 formal proceeding. But I want to do something maybe a 24 little irregular. I just want to thank everybody 25 another time for coming out. I'm really gratified to 18 1 see this level of interest in the community. And I 2 see my family, my friends, students, teachers that 3 I've had, people that I've worked with in the 4 community for a long time. It's just fantastic to see 5 this kind of participation in a project. 6 As Dave said we're doing a supplemental 7 environmental impact statement. And we've had teams 8 of researchers out on this land for about two years 9 now. And this summarizes the major studies that we've 10 done. We had teams of archaeologists out there who 11 did, who looked at existing studies that had been 12 done. The entire Keamuku parcel had been inventoried 13 for sites on a low level and then looked at the 14 specific corridor as well. 15 We had biologists -- most of the corridor is 16 actually basically a glorified cow pasture -- but we 17 had biologists looking intensively at every aspect of 18 it. We spent weeks out there and looked at plants and 19 birds and other animals as well. There are endangered 20 plants that are identified nearby. We had to study 21 those areas. 22 We looked at wildfire because that's a big 23 issue on this part of Kona. Pu'uanahulu is wildfire 24 central. We went and examined drainage and streams. 25 We did soil sampling for depleted uranium because that 19 1 had come up as an issue. And we found no evidence of 2 depleted uranium in the corridor in any of our sample 3 sites. 4 We did an extensive cumulative impacts study. 5 We looked for hazardous materials and unexploded 6 ordnance on a low - level, just a visual. Next slide. 7 We want to get to the testimony. And I don't 8 want to belabor this stuff. Mostly we found not much 9 in the way of impacts. We found one archaeological 10 site that will be impacted. There were six in the 11 general areas, all from historic era, in other words 12 post -1778. Most of them are 20th Century sites that 13 are associated with ranching. There is one 20th 14 Century Site that is a long roadbed. 15 If you're driving along the Kona road you can 16 see it above you. You see kind of traces of an old 17 roadbed. This site's almost nine miles long and we're 18 going to take out about a 100 -foot section of that. 19 And the rest of it's actually going to be preserved. 20 Next slide. Okay. Biological resources. As 21 I said we had important resources nearby. And we 22 routed the road to miss that. We did some special 23 studies not only in the summer but also in the rainy 24 periods so we could look for sprouts of this 25 endangered plant. 20 1 We looked at -- the army is doing intensive 2 wildfire mitigation management up there. So we looked 3 at the way we could get our road to integrate well 4 with that, to have our road be a good fire prevention 5 tool and a fire fighting tool. And if you've looked 6 at some of the typical sections, we have different 7 approaches in different parts of the road. 8 Next. We identified no unexploded ordnance 9 in the core, or none is known from there, none was 10 observed. But there's going to be a preconstruction 11 sweep of this area to make sure. 12 It was part of the Keamuku maneuver area. 13 There was training here in World War II. There 14 doesn't appear to be much live fire but there's a 15 potential, and we're going to look for it. 16 Scenic impacts. Mostly they're positive. 17 This is going to open up some fantastic views of 18 Hualalai, Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and kind of distantly 19 out to the coast. We looked at it in the context of 20 other things that are going on including the military 21 training, and the possibility of a Saddle Road 22 extension road that would head down towards Waikoloa. 23 Socio- economic impacts. I'd say these are 24 generally beneficial. There's no communities, towns, 25 houses, anything located anywhere near this road. 1 It's completely enclosed on a military base. So the 21 2 socio- economic impacts are basically uniting our 3 island, getting it closer together. This is going to 4 cut about 20 minutes off the trip to Kona, between 5 Hilo and Kona. If I'm in Kona I'm gonna say 20 6 minutes off the trip to Hilo. 7 It's going to make it 20 minutes shorter, 8 just that section. Altogether we're probably looking 9 at a half hour difference for the entire Saddle Road 10 but just this section. 11 And not only faster because faster isn't 12 everything, the main purpose behind this road it's 13 safe. And it's going to make us safer. 14 Just yesterday I was the first car coming 15 across the Saddle Road when there was a really pretty 16 bad accident right in front of me. It just brought it 17 home to me what this road is all about. It was on the 18 existing section of the 7 Steps area. Many of you saw 19 it in the paper today. It was a terrible thing to see 20 in person. I hope the person who was medivac'd out of 21 there is okay. 22 This is the kind of thing we can avoid by 23 having a safe, modern road. 24 I'm going to turn it back over to Dave and 25 he's going to talk about schedules. 22 1 MR. GEDEON: This is a very brief schedule, 2 obviously, just to summarize. The draft supplemental 3 EIS was published in November 2009. What is important 4 here is the close of the formal comment period. The 5 date for that is January 7th of 2010. And that would 6 be any written comments that are submitted by mail 7 must be postmarked by January 7th. 8 Our target date for completing the 9 supplemental EIS is February -ish of next year with the 10 Record of Decision in March, assuming that we have no 11 major issues that arise through this public comment 12 period. 13 We have two additional items up there, final 14 design and construction. I know everybody's 15 interested in that if this job does move forward. I 16 think the important thing there is to emphasize that 17 both of them are dependent on funding being available. 18 And at this point we are not in a position to say we 19 have money to move forward. 20 But we will move forward as soon as money is 21 available. What we are estimating on the design work 22 is anywhere from 12 to 18 months to finish up the 23 design. And for construction anywhere in the 24 neighborhood of 18 to 24 months to build out the full 25 10 miles of the W -7 alignment. 23 1 And with that I think we're pretty much done 2 with most of the presentation. And Jiro will be back 3 up to close out. 4 MR. SUMADA: Thanks, Dave and Bruce and Ron. 5 Now we'd like to get to the testimony part, the second 6 purpose of this meeting. We'll call you up in the 7 order that you signed up for to testify. 8 What we'd like is if you could limit your 9 testimony to 3 minutes 'cause there's quite a bit 10 folks that want to testify. 11 If others in the audience that haven't signed 12 up and you feel moved to testify, you know, feel free 13 at any time to go fill out this quarter sheet form 14 that was at the entrance when you came in and we can 15 add you at the tail end. 16 Really the purpose of this whole thing is to 17 get as much input, feedback from the public to make 18 sure that, you know, before any decision is made that 19 all the different pertinent facts are considered 20 before we move forward or stop it or back up or 21 regroup or whatever. 22 So nothing's a done deal. Nothing's a done 23 deal. Okay? And it depends -- the environmental 24 process, it depends on input from the public. 25 That's why I would like to echo what Ron said 24 1 that we appreciate you folks coming out and being 2 participants of the process. To me it's always better 3 to hear firsthand what's going on as opposed to 4 secondhand from a friend or reading it in the paper. 5 So thank you for coming out. 6 First up if you could just state your name 7 and the organization you're with. Bill Davis, if you 8 could come forward and just speak into the microphone 9 and our court reporter will get everything down. 10 (Mr. Davis reading testimony of Kaulana H.R. Park, 11 Chairman, Hawaiian Homes Commission) 12 "Thank you, Mr. Sumada. Thank you for the 13 opportunity to provide comments on the draft 14 supplemental environmental impact statement covering 15 Alignment W -7 of the Saddle Road from Mamalahoa to 16 Milepost 41. 17 "We support the realignment and improvement 18 program of the Saddle Road. Likewise, we support the 19 alignment of W -7 as noted in the supplemental EIS. 20 This alignment appears to be the most reasonable 21 overall access between east and west as well as allows 22 for reasonable use of property affected by the 23 alignment. 24 "These improvements to the Saddle Road will 25 increase safety for those driving the road in addition 25 1 to shortening the drive time between East and West 2 Hawai'i. 3 "As you know the Department of Hawaiian Home 4 Lands has been involved in the planning process of our 5 lands at Humu'ula and Pi'ihonua Mauka known as the 6 'Aina Mauna Legacy Program. 7 "We intend to restore much of the native 8 forest that once dominated much of this landscape as 9 well as provide for homesteading pasture and other 10 economic opportunities for our beneficiaries. An 11 improved Saddle Road will benefit these proposed uses 12 on our property. 13 "We appreciate that various governmental 14 agencies are cooperating in the Saddle Road 15 realignment and improvement program. We encourage you 16 to move forward with alignment W -7 in this phase of 17 the improvements. Aloha and mahalo, Kaulana H.R. 18 Park, Chairman, Hawaiian Homes Commission." Thank 19 you. 20 MR. SUMADA: Thanks, Mr. Davis. Next 21 Councilmember Emily Naeole Beason. 22 COUNCILMEMBER BEASON: Aloha. My name is 23 Emily Naeole Beason. And I rarely go to these kind of 24 public hearings but I'm glad I'm here tonight. I 25 drive -- it's been -- this is my 4th year as a county 26 1 councilwoman of the 5th district. And I drive to Kona 2 every month. 3 And I go -- I drive on the Hamakua Coast as I 4 go to Kona because there's a part that, you know, the 5 road is not fixed yet up at Saddle Road from the Girl 6 Scouts all the way down to Waimea. And that's the 7 reason I don't go up that route. That road, that 8 route is kinda real junk. And I promised my car I 9 wouldn't bus' her up. (Audience laughter) So I go 10 around Hamakua even though it takes a little longer. 11 So, you know, there's a lot of good things 12 that I see. We need to connect Hilo to Kona in the 13 shorter term. So there's a lot of good things I see 14 that's gonna happen when this road come to pass. Like 15 you said the military has purchased the lands. And 16 best we get out of their way, you know. 17 I've had people come to the council to talk 18 to us about depleted uranium. So if we moved the road 19 down aways out of the military, you know, where 20 they're doing their thing, I think it's a good thing. 21 So there's a lot of good things I see that 22 this, you know, this alignment W -7 will help the 23 people of this island. 24 For myself too I wanna thank the people 25 that's been on this course for over 15 years. I look 27 1 on the side I see some of our uncles there pretty high 2 in age. So they must have been working quite a many 3 years to help things move along. We just have to be 4 in support and make things move. I just want to say 5 thank you. Mahalo. 6 7 Crysdale. 8 MR. SUMADA: Thank you. Next we have Shalan MR. CRYSDALE: Good evening, everybody. My 9 name is Shalan Crysdale. I'm currently working for 10 the Nature Conservancy in Ka'u. From mid - October to 11 2006 to just January 2009 I worked at Keamuku for the 12 military doing a hazard assessment of the gulches and 13 gullies of the area of the ranch. I tried to be very 14 observant of the patterns and the things I was seeing 15 out there. 16 We had the opportunity to do quite a bit of 17 the gulch and gully systems that run along the area of 18 this alignment. And from what I was able to see I'd 19 say this was the alignment that would avoid the most 20 dangerous and prone -to- flooding areas of the ranch 21 area -- of the ranch itself. 22 I think the only things I'd like to draw 23 attention to would just be not so much the native 24 resources of the area, as Mr. Terry had stated it's a 25 glorified ranch. 28 1 And the problem that would come up, I would 2 imagine, would really just be the non - native migration 3 of animals moving back and forth between the lava flow 4 and the ranch area. Quite a few miles of the lava 5 flow doesn't actually have any fencing along it. And 6 goats have come into the habit of moving in and out of 7 the lava flow I'm guessing for protection from God 8 knows what day in day out. The same would be with 9 pigs. 10 And so that would be probably the only 11 concern I'd like to raise as a question to those doing 12 the environmental impact statement. Thank you. 13 MR. SUMADA: Thank you, Shalan. Next we have 14 Sharon Hettem. 15 MS. HETTEM: My name is Sharon Hettem. I'm 16 here to testify for myself and my family. I'm 17 concerned about the depleted uranium issue. We, a 18 year ago, tried to get the Army to admit that there 19 actually was depleted uranium there and passed a 20 resolution to ask them to do testing. And none of 21 which has been accomplished to date. 22 However, the alignment of the road I think 23 it's better that they're not putting it through the 24 middle of the training area. However, it's still 25 going through the base. 29 1 And the problem with the depleted uranium is 2 not the depleted uranium that may be in the soil. The 3 area where the road is being built on the one side was 4 pasture. It was not even used for training. So 5 there's probably that the soil samples were accurate 6 and that there probably isn't there in the soil. 7 But what I'm really concerned is airborne 8 depleted uranium. Some training areas where there has 9 been in the past use of depleted uranium weaponry, 10 when that area is bombed it creates microscopic 11 ceramitised airborne particles. It bakes them into a 12 little tiny particle that you can't see that's blown 13 in the air that no longer is soluble. 14 Anybody that is downwind of that, whether 15 you're driving along that road through the military 16 base and the wind blows across the road and your 17 windows are open, you're going to be breathing the 18 contamination from the depleted uranium when the 19 bombing is occurring. So that it is creating these 20 airborne things. 21 These depleted uranium particles, as I said, 22 are not soluble. So that when you breathe them into 23 your lungs they're there forever. And you can be 24 affected by accumulation of minute amounts of radio 25 activity which can cause cancers and various other 30 1 things. The air exposure, which they have not tested 2 for, is my main concern with this road or any road 3 going through that area when they're building it and 4 when people are traveling on it. 5 MR. SUMADA: Thank you, Sharon. Next we have 6 Galen Kelly. 7 MS. KELLY: Aloha. I just kind of wanted to 8 comment on the restrictions about not getting 9 emotional. To me it's like asking me to be dishonest. 10 So I just had to mention that. I'm also here with 11 concern for the DU. I saw the little poster up there 12 that said "Depleted Uranium," and spoke with Russell 13 over here who's from an independent company that did 14 the DU study. And was shocked when he told me they 15 only tested the soil. 16 Because all the scientific experts are 17 telling us it's about what's stirred up in the air. 18 And some of us who have Geiger counters and have been 19 taking readings have gotten high spikes. Your study 20 only showed background radiation but we had different 21 results. 22 Our challenge to bring this issue forth is 23 that it's invisible depleted uranium. You can't see 24 it. So it's very hard to prove. But there are things 25 going on all over the planet that are showing birth 31 1 defects and cancers, contaminations of various 2 degrees. 3 It's pretty much been proven that the areas 4 that there were war zones where depleted uranium was 5 used, that these type of defects are showing up. 6 Some brought up the idea that the area where 7 you want to put the new road had not had any bombing 8 since World War II. But, again, we go back to, you 9 know, when there's air stirring it up the radiation 10 flows downwind. So it puts all of us at risk. Let's 11 see. 12 And also the returning vehicles, Strykers, 13 coming back from Iraq having been in the battles using 14 depleted uranium, and their armor contains the 15 depleted uranium as well that's brought back. And 16 we're told the cleaning process of vehicles doesn't 17 get all the radiation off. 18 So, and also just right now we're having the 19 NRC talking with us. They're supposed to come here in 20 January, let us know if they're going to move forward 21 with further investigation of the Army and further 22 cleaning up. So just wanted to make you aware of 23 that, but you probably already are. 24 The only other thing in closing I would say 25 is that it's always interesting to me that these type 32 1 of meetings where the officials are here that there 2 are so few native Hawaiians. 3 And I would love to see that those chairs 4 over there filled with our kupuna. And we would be 5 asking them for the direction and the guidance. And 6 there's a great sadness in my heart that that issue 7 always has to be in the background. So thank you. 8 MR. SUMADA: Thank you, Galen. Next we have 9 Cory Harden. 10 MS. HARDEN: Good evening. Thanks for taking 11 comments. Making comments for Sierra Club, Makaloa 12 Group. We commend the EIS preparers for many passages 13 which show sensitivity to native Hawaiian culture and 14 concern for preserving Hawai'i Island's natural 15 resources. 16 We support the chosen route as the best 17 alternative. We support plans for wide shoulders for 18 pedestrians and bicyclists. 19 However, it appears assessment of some 20 impacts is inadequate which would mean the mitigation 21 plans would also be inadequate. 22 We commend the preparers for conducting a 23 depleted uranium study. Unfortunately, as others have 24 said, the study fails to test for airborne DU and DU 25 compounds. The study raised many concerns for 33 1 Dr. Mike Reimer of Kona who holds a Ph.D. in Geology. 2 The study relies on Army information to 3 mention only one DU ground at Pohakuloa. But there 4 may this 2000 based on two lines of evidence, one from 5 Army Colonel Killian, in training manuals and one from 6 a Sierra Club consultant. 7 Also the Army DU studies are facing a legal 8 challenge from four individuals in Hawai'i. There 9 will be a proceeding in Hilo in January. I'm one of 10 the folks challenging as an individual. 11 We support clearance of unexploded ordnance 12 for the road. We wish the military would follow suit 13 to clear explosive toxins and other hazards neglected 14 for decades on more than 50 old sites on Hawai'i 15 Island. We are really concerned about fire risk, 16 giving ongoing military training, plus the Strykers, 17 plus the new road. 18 The EIS states accurately that wildfire 19 threatens Hawaiian ecosystems because few native 20 Hawaiian animals or plants are adapted to wildfires. 21 They generally perish when exposed to fire. 22 Native plant communities are often 23 subsequently overwhelmed by more aggressive alien 24 species. Many non - native species thrive in the 25 aftermath of fires. And the entire west side of the 34 1 Big Island is subject to extensive wildfires. 2 We're glad to see that an Integrated Fire 3 Plan is being developed by numerous agencies and that 4 a recent study has been done. And we hope that fire 5 safety will be greatly improved. 6 For the overpass of the military area we feel 7 that details should be included in the Draft EIS so 8 the public can have input. We also feel distractions 9 to motorists from military training should be 10 evaluated, dust, pyrotechnics at night, noise and 11 light from explosions and noise from helicopters and 12 large airplanes and large vehicles. 13 They call for more thorough assessment of 14 impacts to formerly remote areas when a better road 15 brings more tourists and residents. We'd like as much 16 mitigation as possible from the loss of beautiful 17 viewplanes. 18 We suggest that funding be sought from 19 astronomers and developers who will benefit from the 20 road. We ask for more information on the convoys and 21 construction water trucks. 22 We ask for evaluation of induced demand. 23 That means when there's better road people start 24 driving more. We would like to see some traffic 25 calming features, even something simple like the dots 1 in the center line being closer together so you 35 2 realize how fast you're going. 3 We hope there would be bus service on the 4 improved road. Thanks for listening to our concerns. 5 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Cory. Next we have 6 Jim Albertini. 7 MR. ALBERTINI: Aloha and thanks for everyone 8 coming out. I don't have any contentions with the 9 road. Although I do think that we need to think in 10 terms of peak oil. 11 That means when the supply begins to be below 12 the demand the price of gas continues to escalate. 13 That may not be that far off when gas gets to twenty 14 dollars a gallon. So we maybe need to think beyond 15 roadways to other means of transportation. 16 But I'm here to speak mainly on the depleted 17 uranium issue. I have several statements from 18 doctors, both medical and scientific people, that say 19 that the depleted uranium as stated in this report may 20 be understated. And they will be submitting their own 21 testimonies here. 22 I want to make the comments that on 23 May 27th -- May 29, 2007 I was at Mauna Kea State 24 Park. We had our own radiation monitors. And the 25 winds were blowing from the southwest right toward the 36 1 park with dust devil's visible in the air. 2 Our monitors spiked at 75 counts per minute 3 when the normal readings were 5 to 15 counts per 4 minute. We knew at that point that something serious 5 with radiation was coming up Pohakuloa. 6 It was three months later in August of 2007 7 when it was officially confirmed that depleted uranium 8 weapons had been used at Pohakuloa from 1962 to 1968. 9 Now, the military says the weapons have been banned 10 since 1996 used in training. 11 But that's 34 years from 1962 when other 12 depleted uranium weapons besides the Davy Crockett may 13 have been used there. I have a list I'll be 14 submitting as part of my testimony where there are 15 dozens of weapons in the U.S. arsenal. Army, Navy, 16 Air Force, Marines, and other countries have used 17 depleted uranium weapons. 18 We suspect there's a nightmare at Pohakuloa 19 with depleted uranium contamination. It's not just 20 here in Hawai'i. It's now been confirmed that weapons 21 have been used in training in 13 states, and three 22 foreign countries by the United States. 23 I want to briefly read one sentence from 24 Dr. Helen Caldicott, who's a mover and shaker 25 internationally with the Physicians for Social 37 1 Responsibility and Doctors Beyond Borders. Her 2 organization was awarded the Nobel peace prize. She's 3 a pediatrician and a professor at Harvard Medical 4 School. 5 She says, "Here's what depleted uranium is. 6 It's a deadly carcinogenic and mutagenic poison that 7 remains radioactive for over 4.5 billion years. 8 "When used it is converted to tiny 9 aerosolized particles that are inhaled and 10 translocated to the lymph nodes and also deposited in 11 bone, kidneys, and excreted in the semen where almost 12 certainly the uranium can cause birth defects. It 13 also causes bone cancer, leukemia, lung cancer, 14 lymphoma, and kidney cancer. 15 "As a heavy metal it is also a renal poison 16 and in high doses can cause acute kidney damage. 17 There's large literature occurring about the various 18 pathogenic ways that uranium causes mutation and 19 cancer. Refer to my book The New Nuclear Danger." 20 Then she goes on to talk about how the United 21 States has used thousands of tons of it in Iraq. And 22 she says, "This is contaminating the cradle of 23 civilization for eternity, inducing more and more 24 cancers especially in children, genetic disease and 25 congenital malformations. Such U.S. military policy 38 1 is beyond a war crime." 2 MR. SUMADA: Can you please wrap it up, 3 Mr. Albertini. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. I think that this issue 5 is going to be a long time to be dealt with. The 6 studies that have been done are inconclusive and we 7 need more attention on it. Thank you. 8 MR. SUMADA: Thank you very, very much. Next 9 we have Dean Au. 10 MR. AU: Hello, everyone. Carpenters' Union 11 Local 745. We support the Saddle Road mainly for the 12 reason of work. There's no carpentry work on this 13 Project, but it will give Hilo carpenters union and 14 non -union a safe road that will get them to their job 15 in a timely manner. 16 There are a number of big future developments 17 on the west side of the Big Island. Some of them are 18 Palama Nui, Forest City, Bridge of Aina Le'a and 19 Villages of Lai'opua. These are big subdivisions. 20 It's going to keep a lot of construction workers, not 21 only carpenters in Hilo, work. 22 I myself have traveled this road for a number 23 of years. Many contractors, union and non - union, will 24 benefit with this proposed road. Many construction 25 companies ban their employees from traveling on this 1 roads with company vehicles. The danger and 2 conditions of this road take its toll on company 3 trucks. 4 As a result, employees need to wake up at 5 4:00 a.m. in the morning, get to our jobs and get to 6 our baseyards at 4:30, leave our baseyards at 5 so we 7 can get to work at 7. To come back home a lot of 8 times we don't get back to our families until 6:30, 7 9 sometimes even 8 at light. 10 Most importantly, the safety for carpenters, 11 all construction workers and everyone, everyone 12 traveling this road will benefit from this. We want 13 to get home safe and in a timely manner. Thank you. 14 15 Melrose. 16 39 MR. SUMADA: Thank you. Next we have Jeffrey MR. MELROSE: Thank you for the opportunity 17 to comment. My name is Jeffrey Melrose. I'm a land 18 planner. I've driven the Saddle Road at least once a 19 week for the better part of 20 years. I've seen my 20 share of close calls and accidents. I know people, 21 friends who have passed away on it. 22 In my younger years as a hunter I have walked 23 portions of the alignment. I don't by any means 24 believe I know it well. But I really, in all of 25 Hawai'i I don't think there's a better place to build 40 1 a road than this particular piece of land, just given 2 the way the resources that are there, the slope. It's 3 a good piece of property to put a road in. 4 It's also -- somebody made the comment that 5 this is kind of wildfire central. I think we have all 6 seen that happen. This road would do a lot to keep 7 that from happening. 8 I do want to add a word of thanks to somebody 9 who's not here, to former Mayor Dante Carpenter who I 10 think during his time in office made the Saddle Road a 11 priority. And we're still living with that attention 12 he placed and that we're following. 13 I think it's a good sign -- or it's a sign to 14 us, I don't know if it's a good sign, but it's a sign 15 to us of how long roads take to get done. And I think 16 it's the persistence the guys who have been working on 17 this for a long time deserve our thanks. I thank you 18 and my car thanks you (Laughter) . 19 MR. SUMADA: Thank you. Next were Mary 20 Begier. 21 Ms. BEGIER: Good evening. My name is Mary 22 Begier. I'm the president of the Hawai'i Island 23 Chamber of Commerce. We would like to speak in 24 support of this road being placed in this position. 25 I've, like many other testifiers here this evening, 41 1 been a first responder, so to speak, at an accident 2 site or even just a flat tire. You have to think 3 twice about can you safely pull over to help them with 4 your cellphone or something like that. So I do think 5 that this is not only good for our economy, good for 6 jobs, et cetera. Setting that all aside it's just 7 good for humankind. Thank you. 8 MR. SUMADA: Thank you. Next is Michael 9 Cadaoas. 10 MR. CADAOAS: Everybody, my name is Michael 11 Cadaoas. I'm a construction worker. And I work all 12 over this island doing construction. And I'm sure a 13 lot of you've seen the traffic problems we've been 14 having forever wherever you're going. 15 A straightening of Saddle Road was needed 16 yesterday but I'm glad it's getting done now. Imagine 17 25, 50 years from now what our kids going be going 18 through traffic -wise? Thank you. 19 MR. SUMADA: Thank you. Next Deborah Ward. 20 MS. WARD: Good evening. My name's Deborah 21 Ward. I'm a Sierra Club member, environmentalist and 22 a biologist. But I'm speaking on my own behalf 23 tonight. 24 The reason that I came is that I'm concerned 25 when I look at the new sections in the middle near 42 1 the Mauna Kea access road and just between Hilo and 2 that area that the shoulders are very broad. 3 But the broad cleared areas on the side of 4 the shoulders are being invaded now with mullan, 5 senecio, the pink plant. I forget the name of it. It 6 ceases to stick in my brain right this minute. But 7 the mullein and senecio for sure are moving in at 8 tremendous rate. 9 And I'm afraid that that invasion of 10 non - native plants on the cleared areas that are so 11 broad on both sides is actually going to cause us 12 problems in the future either because they are 13 fire - tolerant plants and also because they will then 14 invade the native areas on the adjacent sides of the 15 road. 16 So I'd like to ask you to consider not having 17 the broad, cleared areas beyond the shoulders because 18 I think that at least in the area that I've seen those 19 have not been conducive to good ecological principles. 20 They're actually causing more damage. 21 So if there's a way to avoid doing that in 22 the future I think it would be good and I think there 23 needs to be somebody to address what's going on on 24 those areas now. 25 I'm not one to advocate herbicide, but I 43 1 don't know any other way. There may be saltwater or 2 something else that might be effective in killing 3 those invasive plants around those high graded areas. 4 But I think avoiding that kind of problem in the 5 future would be good. 6 As I was listening to Jim and Cory talking, 7 talking about the DU, I was thinking about my dear 8 friend Lani Stemmermann who was a biologist who spent 9 many years in the late '80s and early '90s studying 10 the ecological areas within the Pohakuloa Training 11 Area. 12 She eventually prevailed in a lawsuit that 13 made the Army reconsider its environmental assessment 14 that ignored the native plants that were indigenous 15 and endemic to that area. And although she prevailed, 16 she also died. She died of lymphoma at the age of 42. 17 It could well be -- it's hard to do an 18 epidemiological study on soldiers that are going to be 19 moving from a training area into a war area. But when 20 someone has not been exposed to anything other than 21 working in native forests, then works at Pohakuloa and 22 dies at the age of 42 of lymphoma, I think it's 23 instructive and we might want to look into the effects 24 of people who live here and their proximity to the 25 depleted uranium. Maybe there's an epidemiological 44 1 pattern there that we should consider. We thank you 2 for your time. 3 MR. SUMADA: Thank you, Deborah. I hope I 4 can pronounce this. Simbralynn Kanaka'ole. 5 MS. KANAKA'OLE: Aloha. Good evening. I'm 6 here today representing myself and my 'ohana. But 7 mainly I need to know what is your consultation 8 protocols for this Project. Are they in compliance 9 with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 10 Act? 11 If not, or you don't have one in there, I'd 12 like to advise that this be included in your Project 13 studies; that you need to consultant with Na ' Ohana 0 14 Keawe, that means the families of Keawe, before you 15 start doing any more damage. 16 I was recently informed by Dan Ho of a 17 situation that happened here in Hilo that he was a 18 party to. And he filed a complaint, he submitted it 19 to the county council, in regards to the flooding that 20 occurred in 2000. Apparently what I have in my hand 21 is documented evidence of racketeering on this 22 flooding that occurred. 23 He basically says that alterations were done 24 on top, like a one foot -- a one foot hill. And that 25 caused -- and that he notified the county and those 45 1 concerned about what was happening. And that if they 2 continued to do this that it would incite another 3 flooding that would jeopardize the families and 4 subdivisions of Waiakea Uka. 5 This occurred in November 2008, last year, 6 exactly what he had said. Apparently -- I just got 7 through looking at your map -- and it coincides with 8 what he's saying occurred. That's because you guys 9 went and already made the road, right? 10 MR. SUMADA: Okay. 11 MS. KANAKAOLE: Now, this flooding, you 12 altered on the top the natural course of the water 13 went and diverted into another area. It made those 14 subdivisions existing in jeopardy. People were put in 15 jeopardy and are in jeopardy because of that. 16 Now, if you're gonna do this to the other 17 side, your alteration of natural historical sites, the 18 natural flow on the other side of the mountain will 19 jeopardize the people and families living at the base 20 because the water will redirect itself because you 21 just altered the road on the other side. 22 Now, I'm not sure if you guys went and looked 23 into that or if you guys are not claiming that you're 24 responsible for what happened to Waiakea Uka. Because 25 you guys just did this road up there making it nicer 46 1 and everybody can get there and drive faster, you 2 know. 3 Yeah, you guys went open the road. Yeah, 4 it's a benefit. It cuts 30 minutes. But guess what? 5 People speed. They go faster because they have a 6 bigger road. That causes more accidents. 7 My understanding Mr. Kevin Dayton has 8 informed me they're not even capable of performing, 9 which is the county administrative facilities fence, 10 they couldn't even perform a tsunami drill as required 11 by the EPA since 2000. 12 To date they were supposed -- it's required 13 that the county perform an evacuation drill just for a 14 tsunami, let alone a worst case scenario. 15 Now, if you guys -- the military's up on the 16 hill and they're doing whatever they're doing up 17 there, we get all contaminated, where everybody going 18 run? There's no shelters available. These shelters 19 are not adequate. This is what the county is telling 20 us. And we're all in jeopardy. 21 All this stuff that you guys do on the top of 22 the mountain, guess what? It goes into the watershed. 23 Now they're talking in the mainland that the water's 24 contaminated. Guess what? You're contaminating the 25 water. We don't drink the water. Is that worth it? 47 1 Thirty minutes? Is it worth it? 2 You know, Akua made the land. Our tutus made 3 the land for a reason. It's not to play games up on 4 the top of the mountain and be detrimental to the 5 people. You're supposed to be protecting us? How are 6 you protecting us? 7 Have you guys ever come and consulted with 8 us? No. 'Cause I sure wasn't consulted and I'm a 9 practitioner. I go up there all the time. I don't 10 appreciate historical -- I mean cultural encroachments 11 on historical sites either. 12 That is exact -- to me, all of it from one 13 end of the Hawaiian Islands to the other is 14 historical. My tutus, our tutus navigated the entire 15 Hawaiian archipelago. It is all historical. 16 And I do not appreciate war games when we are 17 a neutral nation. I mean I have a lot of stuff to say 18 but this is shameful. I don't benefit. My children 19 won't benefit. My grandchildren won't benefit. If we 20 allow this we're allowing you to poison us. Cease and 21 desist. Thank you. 22 MR. SUMADA: Thank you very much. Next we 23 have Joseph Kuali'i Camara. 24 MR. CAMARA: Hi. My name is Joseph Kuali'i 25 Camara. I'm a resident of Kaumana. I have mixed 48 1 feelings about this road. On the one hand I think 2 it's mostly good for people of the Big Island 3 especially for safety and, um, speed of transporting 4 in between Kona and Hilo as well as the jobs that it 5 will provide for contractors. 6 But the one thing, the one thing that I 7 wanted to bring up -- similar issue to one that was 8 brought up already was this road being, um, you know, 9 the width of the road and with the large embankments 10 on the side be inundated with weeds, and the movement 11 of weeds along the road. 12 I know the benefits of the road is going to 13 be good. But especially on the Hilo side new section 14 there that they're making, I drove the road last week. 15 And I heard about this hearing. 16 After seeing all the forests that's been 17 cleared in this swath I felt I had to come down here 18 and just make some things known. 19 I mean, like, even though in that section 20 there might not be any endang -- federally listed or 21 endangered or threatened species. It's a functioning 22 Ohia- dominant watershed, you know. Those kinda things 23 ah, you know, it's, um, it's sad because they also get 24 put second to our needs. 25 But, yeah, I would hope, I would hope that in 49 1 the planning that more care be given to, to the, um, 2 environmental impacts that these weeds that are now 3 coming on these cleared sites and spreading out into 4 the native habitat up there. 5 I just hope that in the future, like, more 6 care would be given towards that because, because once 7 you, um, push something with a bulldozer, you know, 8 um, chances are it's going to come back non - native. 9 And, yeah, once it's done it's hard to be undone. 10 Um, and especially with the Stryker Brigade 11 coming and doing, I'm not exactly sure what they're 12 doing to the Pacific, but I would hope that care be 13 given that they're not, the vehicles themselves are 14 not becoming vectors for exotic plants from other 15 places in the world coming into our watershed above 16 Hilo. Thank you very much for this time. 17 MR. SUMADA: Okay. Thank you, Joseph. Next 18 is Kale Gumapac. 19 MR. GUMAPAC: My name's Kale Gumapac. I'm 20 with the Kanaka Council of Moku o Keawe. And in 21 looking at all of this from what I've heard, from what 22 I've seen it's unfortunate that we don't have more 23 kanaka ma'oli sitting there. As we take a look at all 24 of these, all of the issues that's coming down in the 25 extension of the road, it's very difficult when we're 1 not hearing more of the impact on the traditions and 50 2 the cultural side. 3 Because the EIS that you guys did ten years 4 ago, ten years ago is different from what's happening 5 today. But yet you're still using the EIS in order to 6 proceed with this construction. 7 The other thing that I heard that was 8 difficult, I hope some archaeologist was up there 9 taking a look what they said was, "It's only a ranch." 10 Well, you know what? Before the ranch that was a 11 Hawaiian forest. And when it was there it was used by 12 our kupuna. 13 So there's suspect when it comes to an 14 archaeological assessment that's being done when 15 somebody says, "It's only a ranch." That's the way 16 they look at that. That's all that's there. Bruddah, 17 what about underneath the grass? 18 We have seen many times where these kinds of 19 things proceed and you run into who? Our kupuna iwi. 20 "It wasn't there. We never know it was there. We did 21 the assessments." So the archaeologists that we have 22 here today around Hawai'i, they're all suspect. We 23 don't trust them because we have seen what they have 24 done. We have been involved in many of these cases. 25 And it's all about the money. It's not about 51 1 protecting our culture and our traditions and our 2 kupuna. I'm not hearing that tonight. 3 I'm hearing everything else. Yes, we do need 4 a road for transporting people. But who did you guys 5 consult? Who was the consultants? I don't see any 6 Hawaiians over here that you were consulting. 7 We have many of us that's been involved in 8 kupuna iwi. Many of us who had to go in, re -inter the 9 iwi because of the destruction that construction has 10 made. We need to bring this up. This needs to be 11 reassessed. And your assessment back in 1999 on the 12 EIS is flawed. It's a flawed assessment. It's too 13 old. 14 What is the impact on the kanaka maoli? What 15 is the cultural impact? What is the psychological 16 impact? Have you guys addressed that in your EIS? 17 'A'ole. That's why we are having to come here do this 18 all the time. 19 This is not the first time. And this will 20 not be the last time. The Kanaka Council stands ready 21 if you run into iwi, which we know you will, we're 22 going stop you. 23 MR. SUMADA: Thank you, Kale. Last testifier 24 we have so far is Christian Rygh. 25 MR. RYGH: My name is Christian Rygh. I 52 1 worked at PTA with Shalan Crysdale last year, a 2 temporary. I was up there four or five months. I was 3 fortunate to be able to explore some of the Keamuku on 4 foot which apparently just because of the ranching, 5 the access I guess not a lot of people actually get 6 down to go there. So I thought I'd come because I 7 have been out there. 8 I haven't read the whole EIS. I don't want 9 to present that I have. And there are some issues 10 that I'm not really fully informed on. 11 But I wanted to speak to that -- kind of 12 remind everybody here I believe we are here to talk 13 about the W -7 alignment which is just the portion of 14 the Saddle Road going through the Keamuku parcel. 15 So some of the comments being made about DU, 16 don't get me wrong, I'm not a proponent of nuclear 17 weapons by any stretch, but I don't know how much of 18 it -- we're not actually here debating that the 19 military started the base and was bombing. 20 And the impact area we're talking about a 21 segment of the road going through Keamuku parcel which 22 I guess there's a few Charley Crockett -- the Davy 23 Crockett, sorry, weapons. It's not like we're 24 proposing here tonight to talk about making the 25 highway go through the impact area. We are talking 1 about a stretch of the highway going through the 53 2 ranch -land. 3 So I don't know that much about DU, what 4 everyone's talking about they did the soil analysis 5 but they didn't do the airborne analysis. What struck 6 my mind if it's really that airborne does it make a 7 difference -- aren't we already driving through it 8 when we go on Saddle Road now? Is there really -- the 9 winds. 10 So what are we really talking about here? 11 Like a lot of these people mentioned there's a lot of 12 good to be had on this road. 13 A lot of lives are going to be spared from 14 the road being safer and having better shoulders and 15 the turning radius, modern engineered road. 16 I'm not sure that we are not here to debate 17 that there's an impact area up there on Mauna Kea. I 18 don't really like that that's there either. 19 We need that for our national defense and 20 things like that. Personally I kind of wish that we 21 didn't have to bomb with nuclear materials on our 22 island but that's not really the issue here. 23 I like the point that people brought up about 24 the mullan on the sides of the road. Some people in 25 the panel mentioned this is going to be a great new 54 1 fire fighting tool. 2 That may be but I think there's a counter to 3 that too. This new alignment that we're talking 4 about -- not to the whole Saddle Road -- but this 5 particular alignment is cutting through an area that 6 right now doesn't have anything going through it. 7 So there's going to be an influx of weed 8 seeds maybe, not new weed, the same weeds are already 9 around, but there's going to be a new corridor now 10 opening up. I would testify with my time on the 11 ground out there it's not like, you know, a tremendous 12 amount of rare native plants around it. 13 It's an overgrown ranch -land, and things like 14 that. So I wouldn't be that concerned that much about 15 bulldozing over rare and threatened species out there. 16 However, we are going to be introducing a new 17 corridor of the existing weeds that's already up there 18 on Saddle Road that we see. 19 And also with the fire that, yeah, it could 20 be a tool to fight fire but really with cigarette 21 butts now there's a new source where the fire can 22 start. 23 I'd be interested in knowing how much 24 cooperation there's going to be between the military 25 and the people that's maintaining the highway as, you 55 1 know, what the protocol not really if a fire breaks 2 out but when. Also I didn't know if it's appropriate 3 to pose a question now to the council, if I just open 4 it now and they answer it later? 5 MR. SUMADA: Later. We're going to take a 6 little recess. 7 MR. RYGH: Okay. I was wondering, you know, 8 exactly how close, I know it varies, but on average is 9 the W -7 alignment going to go to the actual Keamuku 10 flow? And what implications does that have for the 11 fighting of wildfire? I know the terrain on the 12 Keamuku flow it would be a lot harder to fight fire on 13 foot. 14 MR. SUMADA: That would be good. Just write 15 it down on this half sheet. And then hang around for 16 the question period. 17 MR. RYGH: That's all I have. Thank you. 18 MR. SUMADA: All right. That's all we have 19 for testifiers. We're going to take about a short 15 20 minute break right now, recess. You know, we still 21 want to get input. 22 If you feel you want to give written 23 testimony that's another way of doing it. So just 24 grab a form, this full sheet of paper at the front and 25 you can make written testimony. We'll take a short 56 1 break and we'll do question and answer with the panel 2 up front. Thank you. 3 (Recess was held.) 4 MR. SUMADA: (7:30) This is the 5 question- and - answer period. I'll get it going. But 6 if during the process if you folks come up with more 7 questions just fill out this sheet. It's up front and 8 they'll get it to me. 9 The first question came from Cory Harden: 10 "Why was no testing done for airborne depleted 11 uranium ?" Let me back up. I should introduce the 12 panel, the panel of experts. 13 So we have Reggie David for Zoology, Russell 14 Okoji for the depleted uranium, Grant Gerrish for 15 Botany -- we'll get him here -- Glenn Escott for 16 Archaeology. Is Glenn here? We have Steve Hallisy 17 from Federal Highways. That's Steve in the green. 18 So why don't I go back to the question from 19 Cory: "Why was no testing done for airborne depleted 20 uranium ?" 21 DR. KOJI: Hi. My name is Russell Koji. I 22 have a Ph.D. in Toxicology. I work for a company 23 called AMEC Earth Environmental. We did the depleted 24 uranium study. 25 And the short answer to that question really 57 1 is that we felt -- first of all, we are working with 2 the W -7 portion of the alignment. And our study 3 evaluated that portion of the alignment. 4 It did not evaluate the impact area or areas 5 around the impact area. So what would the potential 6 impacts or health risks be in that area? 7 The short answer would be to depleted uranium 8 or uranium particles found in that area. And it's 9 exactly what we evaluated. We took soil samples along 10 five different areas along the W -7 alignment. 11 We compared the concentrations with what we 12 found to the naturally occurring uranium levels 13 determined in the literature and found that they were 14 below background. 15 We didn't do this one way. We did it two 16 different ways. We actually used analytical methods 17 that were more sensitive to -- we use ICPM, and ICPMS. 18 That's one analytical method to evaluate uranium and 19 uranium isotopes. 20 That particular method is more sensitive to 21 picking up Uranium 234 and Uranium 239. Two 22 thirty -five is another isotope of particular 23 importance. What we did we used alpha- spectroscopy to 24 determine the concentration of Uranium 235. 25 And in all cases what we found was 58 1 concentrations were below background. In general we 2 would just stop the assessment there. But we took it 3 one step further. 4 And we said, well, let's take a look at what 5 the isotopic ratios would be, which is another way of 6 source determination. And, again, we found this is 7 naturally occurring or below naturally occurring 8 concentrations of uranium. 9 Generally you'd stop there. But we took it 10 one step further. And we said, okay, do a human 11 health risk assessment on this stuff. What if we put 12 a child sitting along the alignment where we took our 13 samples from? 14 And we put them there every single weekend, 15 let them play in the dirt for two hours a day. And 16 what would the risk be? Again, cancer risks and 17 non - cancer risks were well below what would be 18 considered a problem. So that's in a nutshell the 19 AMECH assessment. 20 Airborne concentrations, we're looking at the 21 W -7 alignment. We felt that the soil concentrations 22 right near the alignment would be the most indicative 23 what would be the most representative of what people 24 would be exposed to without looking at the impact 25 area. I'm sorry. 59 1 MR. SUMADA: Thank you, Russell. I don't 2 know if that answered your question, Cory. But we'll 3 take your question and talk amongst the team, figure 4 out what's the best approach to deal with that. 5 Next question is also from Cory. "What will 6 happen to the old Saddle Road running by Waiki'i 7 Ranch ?" 8 I think the county -- it's going to get 9 turned over to the county. Actually they maintain it 10 anyway. But it will still be open for use for those 11 residents as an access to their property and everybody 12 else too. But just the traffic on there would be a 13 lot less. Okay. 14 This is a whole bunch of questions from one 15 individual: "The Saddle Road website mentions that 16 the State intends to provide the area near Pu'umali 17 for bird hunting. It's been 10 years since the Record 18 of Decision was signed. Why has bird hunting not been 19 allowed ?" 20 MR. HARDEN: They're all related questions. 21 MR. SUMADA: Okay. "Kaohe was supposed to be 22 mowed. Nothing has happened. It is a fire hazard." 23 Number 3. "Why has the total thousand seven 24 hundred forty acres not been fenced if it is 25 considered a critical habitat for the Palila ?" 60 1 The last question was: "Given these 2 discrepancies why should we think that the provisions 3 of this supplemental EIS will be followed ?" 4 So who wants to take that one on? 5 MR. GEDEON: Question No. 1 regarding the 6 State's intention to provide the one area for bird 7 hunting. It's indicating Pu'umali area. I think 8 that's really a question for the State. Probably 9 DOFAW. I don't know if it has not been allowed, bird 10 hunting has not been allowed up there or not. That's 11 certainly outside of our jurisdiction. 12 The second question is with regards to a line 13 item in the so- called Palila MOU in which we made a 14 commitment to provide funds for various mitigation 15 elements totaling nearly $15 million. 16 To date we have spent well over $20 million 17 on mitigation related to the Saddle Road impacts. The 18 item specifically that's being asked here is a very 19 small item for providing funds to DOFAW to purchase a 20 mower and to fund a mower operator for a, I believe, 21 period of three years. Total dollars on that was in 22 the neighborhood of about $115,000. That has not been 23 an item that anyone has been clamoring that we provide 24 the funds to DOFAW for. 25 I have personally talked to DOFAW two or 61 1 three times over the last couple of years and said 2 whenever they do want the money, because it is a 3 relatively small amount, we can transfer that money to 4 them. The question just came up maybe 5, 10 minutes 5 ago. As soon as DOFAW contacts me we will move the 6 money to then to proceed with the acquisition of the 7 mower. 8 There is a question here about: "Why has the 9 total 1740 acres not been fenced ?" 10 As far as I know we have completely fenced 11 all of the areas that we had agreed to fence at 12 Pu'umali as well as the Kaohe site. I'm not sure 13 which of those the 1740 acres is but that has all been 14 fenced. 15 And it was done, completed probably about 16 three years ago, two or three years ago. Probably 17 took us two or three years to build it just because 18 it's such a difficult installation on the steep slopes 19 and the remoteness. 20 And then the last question is: "Basically 21 given these deficiencies why should we think the 22 provisions of this SEIS will be followed ?" 23 I believe, in my opinion, we certainly have 24 addressed all of the first three with the exception of 25 providing the $115,000 to DOFAW. Again, we can pursue 62 1 that at any time. 2 MR. SUMADA: Thank you, Dave. Is there 3 anybody else that wanted to ask a question that they 4 didn't fill out a form or something? 5 MR. KAWAIOLA: I did. That was based just on 6 the last question. 7 MR. SUMADA: Okay. Patrick, why don't you 8 come up to the mic. Yeah. We want Holly to make 9 sure -- I'll give her the spelling of your last name. 10 Kahawaiola'a. Go ahead, Patrick. 11 MR. KAHAWAIOLA'A: Yeah, Pat Kahawaiola'a The 12 last question just goes to the federal government's 13 prepared to give DOFAW $115,000 get a mower, provide 14 an operator. State Highway Department has a mower. 15 They have an operator. They're gonna take the land. 16 I mean they're being, taking care of the road. Why 17 don't you give the 150,000 to the State Highways? 18 It will probably go four years as opposed to 19 three based on the fact they got the mower and they 20 got the operator? Thank you. 21 MR. SUMADA: Okay. Now, speaking on behalf 22 of State Highways, (audience laughing) Patrick, we 23 would encourage Mr. Gedeon to give the DOFAW the 24 appropriate amount of money in accordance with the MOA 25 so that they can fulfill their obligation. And we'll 63 1 just take care of the road maintenance from our side. 2 Although that probably's a very practical 3 recommendation, Patrick and which we appreciate your 4 input on. Always thinking. That's what we love about 5 Patrick. Kale? Am I breaking the rules here? Joel, 6 Sorry. 7 MR. GUMAPAC: That's okay. I'll ask the 8 question anyway. For the archaeologist. "What has 9 been done as far as cultural and traditional 10 assessments so far? And also, in addition to the 11 cultural assessments has there been any findings that 12 you've done ?" 13 MR. ESCOTT: To answer that question, there 14 have been a number of archaelogical studies on that 15 parcel. The Army, of course, did an archaeological 16 inventory survey of that parcel. And then on top of 17 that we went back out there, did another study, 18 another archaeological inventory survey. So that area 19 of the corridor has been studied twice. 20 And sites that were along the corridor, most 21 of which are along the edges of the corridor, there 22 are five rock mounds which correspond to the boundary 23 of the Parker Ranch parcel there which is also the 24 boundary between Pu'uanahulu and the boundary of 25 Keamuku. So those two areas. 64 1 And they're probably, they seem to be from 2 the maps that we have looked at when they were 3 surveyed in the early historic eras also when the 4 ranch surveyed their own land. So we have those. 5 There's also a ranch fence and then the road 6 that Ron Terry mentioned. So there was a size of it 7 done. 8 As far as the research that has been done 9 we've done a lot of consultation. We've looked at old 10 mo'olelo. We've looked at documentation such as the 11 heart - stirring story of Kamiki and Makaia'ole. 12 We've consulted a lot of work, a couple Kepa 13 Maly did for Waiki'i, Pu'uanahulu so properties on 14 either side. So we have talked to a lot of people, 15 done a lot of research in the archives as well. 16 So from what we found the majority of early 17 activity in that area is travel through it, not actual 18 habitation. No one was living up in that area. Was 19 pili grasslands. 20 Some people came to get their pili. Most of 21 the habitations was Waimea, more towards Kohala 22 Mountain. That's where we have the archaeological 23 remains that show that. 24 This on this piece of property not so much. 25 Of course there's been ranching out there for quite 65 1 sometime. 2 So it's possible if there were some earlier 3 sites they might have been disturbed. But we're not 4 finding anything that looks like habitation. So it's 5 just travel through the area and what we have, the 6 ranching features. 7 I don't know if that answers your question 8 but that's what we have, what we have done. 9 So, Kale and, Patrick so I don't get in 10 trouble can you fill out the written piece of paper, 11 and write down your question. (Audience chuckling) 12 MR. SUMADA: What I'd like to do is close the 13 meeting and thank everybody for coming. We really 14 appreciate your sticking with the whole process. 15 Again, if you want to make written testimony, 16 you know, you get a form like this and just mail it in 17 to us. We're taking testimony to January 7th, 2010. 18 Okay. Anyway, thank you, everybody, for coming. We 19 really appreciate your taking the time out of your 20 schedules to spend time with us. Thank you very much. 21 (The proceedings were closed at 7:40 p.m.) 22 -- oo00oo -- 23 24 25 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, HOLLY HACKETT, CSR, RPR, in and for the State 4 of Hawai'i, do hereby certify; 5 That I was acting as court reporter in the 6 foregoing Saddle Road Alignment Public Hearing held on 7 the 9th day of December 2009; 8 That the proceedings was taken down in 9 computerized machine shorthand by me and was 10 thereafter reduced to print by me; 11 That the foregoing represents, to the best 12 of my ability, a true and correct transcript of the 13 proceedings had in the foregoing public hearing. 14 15 DATED: This day of 2009 16 17 18 19 20 HOLLY M. HACKETT, CSR #130, RPR Certified Shorthand Reporter 21 22 23 24 25 66 PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 10, 2009 4:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. SADDLE ROAD MAMALAHOA HIGHWAY TO MILEPOST 41 ISLAND OF HAWAII NATIONAL ENERGY LABORATORY OF HAWAII AUTHORITY GATEWAY ENERGY CENTER 73 -4460 QUEEN KA'AHUMANU HIGHWAY KAILUA -KONA, HAWAII PRESIDING OFFICER: JIRO SUMADA REPORTED BY: PATRICIA L. NELSON, CSR -465 RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 1 2 3 (Individual private testimony.) 3:53 p.m. RODNEY WATANABE: Rodney Watanabe, and my 4 address is 73 -5611 Olowalu Street, Kailua -Kona, 96740. 5 Yeah, I think actually I'm very much in 6 favor of the alignment. I'm a transplant from Hilo. 7 I've been living on the Kona side for about 26 years now, 8 but I still have family, obviously, on the Hilo side, and 9 so periodically I like to go back to the Hilo side to 10 visit family. However, I refuse to go on the Saddle Road 11 and haven't been on that road for years now because of 12 the disrepair on the west Hawaii side, and I think this 13 would be a great addition. 14 And in addition to all of that, when the 15 economy was much better a lot of people were, shall we 16 say, commuting from the east side to the west side, you 17 know, because the jobs were largely here, and I think, 18 you know, at some point the economy will recover and it's 19 going to be a benefit to them as well. 20 Besides, I think we also need jobs. We 21 definitely need jobs, and, unfortunately, I think this 22 recovery is going to be pretty slow, and so we need to 23 start setting up the jobs now to make sure we have 24 economic growth. 25 3:55 p.m. RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 2 1 MEL VENTURA: My name is Mel Ventura, 2 V- e- n- t- u -r -a, address is P.O. Box 2045, Kailua -Kona, 3 96745, and I would provide testimony in favor of the 4 proposed road realignment. I think that the road in its 5 current state is at best uncomfortable to travel and at 6 worst hazardous. 7 I would agree with everyone who would 8 argue about, everyone who would argue in favor of the 9 economic benefits of a better Saddle Road. I would agree 10 with everything they say. 11 Because of the current state it's in I 12 don't think the road is being utilized to its fullest 13 extent, and I don't think we are realizing the full 14 economic benefits as well as the benefits that a more 15 integrated west Hawaii community and east Hawaii 16 community could have that a better Saddle Road could 17 provide us. 18 3:57 p.m. 19 ARNOLD KANAI: My name is Arnold Kanai, 20 A- r- n- o -1 -d, K- a- n -a -i. My address is 73 -5611 Olowalu 21 Street, Kailua -Kona, Hawaii, 96740, and I'm testifying in 22 favor of the Saddle Road realignment mainly because 23 through personal experience. 24 Up to about six months ago and the 25 preceding 18 months I had to take my mother to RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 3 1 Hilo Hospital to unclog a fistula for her dialysis 2 because that procedure was not available in Kona. What 3 normally would take less than a two -hour trip ended up to 4 be three hours because of construction, and to have an 5 80, you know, 85- year -old lady, who is disabled, sitting 6 in a car for three hours is just unbearable. And I 7 believe the alignment would have cut that time down to, 8 again, well under two hours and at least provide my 9 mother, which is basically a life and death procedure, to 10 have done in a reasonable amount of time and reduce the 11 fatigue on her. 12 So I'm hoping, though my mother has 13 passed, that I may not need to go through that trauma and 14 benefit from this alignment, as well as other members of 15 both ends of the island. 16 3:58 p.m. 17 KEN MELROSE: Ken Melrose, Post Office 18 Box 109, or do you want street address, 81 -950 Onouli 19 Road, Kealakekua. 20 I think what the federal government has 21 done in the first phases of the Saddle Road is absolutely 22 gorgeous, and I really look forward to seeing it connect 23 to Mamalahoa and having it come as far as south toward 24 Kona as it can. It is a benefit to the overall island 25 circulation plan and a real benefit to the community and RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 4 1 I completely support it, alignment W -7. 2 4:00 p.m. 3 JOHN PARAZETTE: John Parazette, 4 P a r a z e t t e , P.O. Box 9021, Kailua -Kona 96745. 5 It's just very simple, I just want to 6 state that I don't believe that a double line is 7 necessary on a two -lane road unless there is limited 8 vision in the distance ahead. And too commonly around 9 here we see double lines used when there's good 10 visibility, and a double line is never supposed to be 11 crossed in passing or for any purpose, and it limits, you 12 know, to my mind to that extent it limits the use of the 13 road and, of course, and forces people to make the 14 decision whether or not to break the law by crossing a 15 double line to pass a slow moving vehicle. 16 17 18 19 (Individual private testimony concluded at 4:02 p.m.) (Off the record.) (Back on the record at 4:12 p.m.) 20 JIRO SUMADA: It's 4:15, so I declare the 21 public hearing officially open. 22 I want to apologize, folks, I don't like 23 usually to run formal meetings, but they tell me this is 24 a very formal process that we have to follow. I have to, 25 they gave me a script, so I have to follow the script, RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 5 1 and last night I only stumbled once and they gave me 2 scoldings at the end of the meeting, so hopefully I will 3 do better today. 4 Anyway, my name is Jiro Sumada. I'm the 5 deputy director for the Department of Transportation. I 6 would like to introduce some of the dignitaries we have 7 in the audience. We have Rep Denny Coffman from the 8 State Legislature from the federal government. We have 9 Dave Gedeon, Steve Hallisy, Melissa Dickard and 10 Matt Ambroziak from Central Federal Lands out of Denver. 11 We also have from the federal government 12 Pat Phung and John Nicholson from the Federal Highways 13 Administration Hawaii office. 14 From the county we have council member 15 Pete Hoffmann and are there any other council members 16 here? 17 SPEAKER: They all ran away. 18 JIRO SUMADA: We also have Bobby Command 19 from the mayor's office, Warren Lee from public works, I 20 thought I saw him. Hey, Warren, thank you for coming. 21 From the DOT staff in Honolulu we have 22 Ken Tatsuguchi and Dina Lau, they are from our planning 23 branch, Dean Yogi from rights of way. We also have 24 Stan Tamura and Sal Panem from the Hawaii district office 25 here on the Big Island. RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 6 1 The consultants, I will just introduce 2 Bruce Meyers, Okahara & Associates, he is the prime 3 consultant for this environmental effort. 4 We also have members of the Saddle Road 5 task force, and I'd really like to ask them to stand and 6 be recognized. Walter Kunitake and Arnold Okamura, I 7 think they are the co- chairs of the task force right now, 8 Alvin Chong, Robert Kim, and did Marni Herkes come? She 9 said she would. 10 Anyway, you know, I want to thank these 11 folks. They started this whole effort, I forget, was it 12 13 or 15 years ago, but they brought this task force 13 together of community members from east Hawaii, west 14 Hawaii, government officials, that are all involved in 15 this process, and it's truly been a successful 16 collaboration, and I would like to recognize them and 17 thank them for their commitment to staying with it for 18 this much needed project. 19 The purpose of tonight's meeting, or this 20 afternoon's meeting, is twofold, mainly, it's to discuss 21 the location and the design of the proposed Saddle Road 22 from Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 on Saddle Road, as 23 well as not only that alignment, but also the social, 24 economic and environmental impacts that the project would 25 have. RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 7 1 A new alignment is being considered. The 2 previous alignment passed through this Ke'amuku parcel 3 that the Army bought a few years ago, and the new 4 alignment will relocate that, the roadway, this segment 5 of Saddle Road, farther south along the border of that 6 parcel. 7 The public meeting is held for several 8 reasons. First, it's a means of informing you, the 9 public, of what the State Department of Transportation is 10 doing in developing the Saddle Road project. 11 Our intent is that you should be informed 12 on the factual basis on how you, as the general public, 13 property owners, motorists, and other interested 14 citizens, may be affected, either beneficially or 15 adversely by the proposed highway. 16 Secondly, the public hearing is held in 17 order that we may obtain facts from you folks that was 18 not previously brought to our attention, and in 19 connection with the location, the design, and the 20 potential impacts. 21 Notices for tonight's meeting were put in, 22 published in the Honolulu Star Bulletin on November 10th, 23 2009 and on December 2nd, 2009. Notices were also 24 published in West Hawaii Today and the Hawaii Tribune 25 Herald. RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 8 1 Now, I would like to cover the agenda for 2 tonight that we have up here. First, we will have a 3 short presentation by Dave Gedeon, Bruce Meyers and 4 Ron Terry about the project, a short history, and then 5 they will get into the details of the project. 6 Then we will receive testimony from you, 7 and that's a really important part of this whole process 8 that we are going through. So we encourage folks to come 9 forward and give their testimony. Then we will take a 10 short recess and then we will resume with some questions 11 and answers. 12 Now, I'd like to cover some of the 13 guidelines for tonight, today's meeting, and how we are 14 going to run it. 15 First, the purpose of the meeting is we're 16 not here to debate the proposed improvements but to 17 solicit factual testimony from you folks, nor is the 18 hearing intended to be a popular referendum, that is, we 19 are not going to be voting on whether to build the road 20 or not to build the road in the proposed alignment. 21 We do want to extend to you every 22 opportunity to voice your concerns and to present any new 23 facts that the department may have not been aware of or 24 not properly considered. 25 Secondly, we'd like to emphasize the RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 9 1 importance of your testimony. All proceedings of the 2 hearings are being recorded. It is important that all 3 questions and the testimony are clearly stated into the 4 microphone and should be factual, brief, unemotional and 5 free of political references, extraneous material of any 6 nature whatsoever not properly part of the, will not be 7 properly a part of the proceedings, and all speakers must 8 confine their statements to the subject under discussion. 9 Myself as the moderator today, it's my job 10 to make sure we all stay on course, on track, and if need 11 be, interrupt to make sure that the testimony isn't 12 wandering off in one side direction. 13 Thirdly, all of those wishing to testify 14 are asked to fill out a speaker information card. I 15 think it was made available as you came in and signed in 16 at the front desk. 17 Testimony will be received in the order 18 those cards are received, and in order to give everyone a 19 chance to testify, we are going to limit the speakers to 20 about three minutes each. 21 Also those wishing to ask questions, if 22 you could write those questions out on the forms, it was 23 the half sheet sized forms that were also given at the 24 front when you signed in, and we will take questions at 25 the tail end of the meeting. RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 10 1 Then to make sure that we get all of the, 2 as much public input as we can, and for those of you that 3 may be shy and don't want to give testimony or to ask 4 questions, we provided a full -page sign up, I mean, a 5 written input that you can make and just send it in to 6 us. Those, we will be taking those until January 7th of 7 2010. 8 Following the public hearing the highway 9 division staff will evaluate your testimonies and 10 information presented today together with the factual 11 data that we already have. 12 So I would like to mention to all that all 13 information gathered in regards to the location, design 14 and environmental impacts of this project, including the 15 public hearing transcript that Patty is helping us with, 16 and written statements received, will be available upon 17 request for public inspection and copying. 18 We will now get to the details of the 19 proposed project, so let me just call on Dave Gedeon from 20 the Federal Highways Central Federal Lands office to give 21 you some brief history on the project. 22 23 24 David. DAVID GEDEON: Thank you, Jiro. Good afternoon everyone. On behalf of the 25 Federal Highway Administration I too would like to RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 11 1 welcome you and express my appreciation for you coming 2 this afternoon. 3 The Saddle Road improvement project is 4 actually being sponsored or improved by four agencies. 5 At the local level, County of Hawaii, who 6 has been maintaining the road since, I believe, 1957 or 7 earlier under an agreement with the State of Hawaii, and 8 at that time Territory of Hawaii. 9 At the state level the Hawaii Department 10 of Transportation, who actually owns the road and who is 11 taking over maintenance responsibility as each segment of 12 Saddle Road is improved and open to the public. 13 At the federal level the Department of the 14 Army, who approximately 22 miles of the new road crosses 15 through their lands, either owned or through lease. 16 And then finally the Federal Highway 17 Administration, which is my agency. We are responsible 18 for administering the federal dollars in this project. 19 We are also the lead agency for design and construction 20 of the Saddle Road project. 21 I just might mention that the Hawaii DOT 22 has provided approximately $110 million for the 23 Saddle Road project to date, and the Department of 24 Army has also contributed about approximately $112.5 25 million. RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 12 1 The Saddle Road project, the origins of 2 the Saddle Road project go back to the mid 1980s when the 3 County of Hawaii was seeking ways to make much needed 4 improvements to the road. My understanding is that was 5 under Mayor Carpenter's administration back then. 6 Over the next several years the four 7 agencies sought ways to find funds to make the 8 improvements. In 1989 the Department of Army, through 9 congressional action, appropriated the first funds to 10 improve Saddle Road. 11 However, in 1991 the four agencies decided 12 that the road should actually be moved to north of PTA 13 rather than through PTA, so that decision led to a 14 subsequent decision to prepare an EIS for the entire 15 Saddle Road out from Milepost 6 on Kaumana all the way to 16 State Route 190. 17 We began work on the EIS in 1994 and we 18 completed the EIS in late 1999. The Record of Decision 19 was signed, I believe it was on October 31st of 1999. 20 Design began immediately in January of 2000 and our first 21 construction project was awarded in late 2003. 22 Official ground breaking began in February 23 of 2004 and our very first project was open to public 24 traffic in I believe it was February of 2007. 25 Since then we have opened two additional RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 13 1 sections of Saddle Road and to date approximately 23 2 miles of Saddle Road have been improved and opened to 3 public traffic. 4 Bruce, can you show that next slide? 5 So the little things I don't think many of 6 you will be able to see. The portion that has been 7 opened to date begins at mile 19 on the east side, 8 extends past the Mauna Kea observatory access road, past 9 the state park, past PTA, and ends at approximately 10 milepost 41 or 42, which is at the bottom of the 11 so- called seven steps area. 12 Under construction is a project that we 13 just awarded, oh, I don't know, maybe three months or so 14 ago, that begins at milepost 11 and extends to mile 19. 15 This project is scheduled to be completed by fall of 16 2011. 17 The last remaining project on the east 18 side extends from mile 11 down to milepost 6 where it 19 ties into Puainako Street. That project is at the 70 20 percent design stage and pending the acquisition of right 21 of way for that five -mile stretch as well as the 22 appropriation of funds this project should be ready to be 23 advertised by fall of next year. 24 On the west side, the original EIS that we 25 prepared in 1999 went forward with a selected alternative RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 14 1 of this W -3 alignment. 2 In 2006 the Army acquired 23,000 acres of 3 land referred to normally as the Ke'amuku parcel, which 4 is shaded in this. And at that time the Department of 5 the Army requested that the Hawaii Department of 6 Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration 7 shift the W -3 alignment further south to, I will use a 8 military term I was taught, deconflict civilian traffic, 9 civilian traffic from military training operations. 10 So the W -7 alignment follows closely to 11 the property line of this Ke'amuku parcel. And with that 12 I am going to turn it over to Bruce Meyers who has more 13 details with regards to the specific of the W -7 14 alignment. 15 BRUCE MEYERS: Thank you, Dave. 16 My name is Bruce Meyers. I am with 17 Okahara & Associates and we will be talking about the 18 design aspects of the project. 19 This is a closer view of the W -7 20 alignment. The alignment, as Dave mentioned, goes from 21 approximately milepost 42 and follows this green line 22 here and connects to the Mamalahoa Highway at 23 milepost 14. 24 You might recognize this area. This is, 25 this bend right here is the area that they had the RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 15 1 earthquake repairs right here. So it's, I think, about 2 three, three miles from the Waikoloa Road, sorry, the 3 Waikoloa junction. This alignment was selected based on 4 trying to stay out of the way of historical as well as 5 natural resources, as well as trying to keep the grades 6 not too steep. That's basically the reasons for this 7 alignment that is shown. 8 This is about 10.3 miles in length. There 9 will probably, there will likely be some places where 10 they will have either a turnout or a pullout for scenic 11 and historical interpretive sign opportunities. 12 There will also be an approximate location 13 here a military underpass so that, so that it is 14 separated, the traffic is separated from the military 15 traffic. 16 This is an artist rendition of what it 17 might look like. This is looking towards the east so you 18 are going uphill just after you get off of 19 Mamalahoa Highway, and the lanes are 12 -foot lanes, you 20 will see one eastbound here, one westbound. And also 21 going east we will have a climbing lane. This is also a 22 12 -foot climbing lane and then the shoulders on the sides 23 are eight -foot wide paved shoulders. 24 The speed limit is, if you can see there, 25 is 55 miles an hour. RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 16 1 This is very, basically it's the same as 2 what it looks like on the east side. This is the section 3 that was recently completed, the same cross - section here, 4 eight -foot shoulder, 12 -foot climbing lane, 12 -foot 5 through lane, 12 -foot through lane going east and then 6 the shoulder. 7 So that's the basic design elements of the 8 project. 9 At this time I will turn the panel over to 10 Ron Terry on the environmental aspects of the project. 11 RON TERRY: Lost the background? Okay. I 12 will have to turn around to read it. 13 I am sorry, we have some pictures behind 14 here and the PowerPoint fixer gods took them away 15 apparently. 16 I would just like to discuss the EIS that 17 we prepared for this. It's a supplemental EIS. We had a 18 team of researchers that did work on it. We did a bunch 19 of major studies on it and those interested can pick up a 20 little light bedside reading here. It's available at 21 saddleroad.com and it's at all the libraries. We have 22 several copies. 23 The archeological studies that we did were 24 conducted by SES Archeology, a local firm out of Honolulu 25 and Hilo. We supplemented the work that we had done in RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 17 1 the original EIS, which included an extensive cultural 2 impact assessment by Pualani Kanaka'ole Kanahele and 3 Ed Kanahele and we integrated technographies that were 4 done subsequently by Kepa Maly for the Ke'amuku area and 5 other interviews that were done around and we evaluated 6 the cultural resources. 7 Getting closer? Thank you. 8 Okay. We did botanical surveys, and our 9 botany, our botanist is here tonight, Dr. Grant Gerrish 10 from the University of Hawaii. He just showed up, so 11 those of you at the open house portion of the hearing 12 probably didn't get to meet him, but he will be available 13 for questions. 14 We did zoological studies with 15 Reggie David, a Kona resident, who had done the avian 16 studies for the earlier EIS as well. Socioeconomic 17 assessments and, next slide, we also studied wildfire. I 18 think that anybody who lives in Kona knows that fire is a 19 huge issue. 20 Pu'uanahulu is sometimes called ground 21 central, ground zero for the, for fire danger, and our 22 alignment comes very close to Pu'uanahulu, so we studied 23 the Army's fire plan. We integrated measures that are 24 being used by the Army as well as developed new measures 25 in our road design to accommodate fire danger to make our RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 18 1 road as fire safe as possible and at the same time make 2 it a firefighting tool. This will increase access to 3 Pu'uanahulu where many of the fires come up from 4 Mamalahoa Highway and then threaten into PTA and they 5 have to fight it out of there. 6 We also did depleted uranium studies and 7 Dr. Russell Okoji is here from AMET and he has been out 8 at the open house talking to people. And we looked for 9 evidence of depleted uranium in various ways, it was a 10 very thorough assessment, and we found no evidence 11 whatsoever of depleted uranium dust in the corridor. 12 The environmental assessment looked at 13 cumulative impacts from all the projects that were taken 14 place nearby, and looked for hazardous materials and 15 unexploded ordinance on a high level. 16 Okay. Our major findings in terms of 17 archeology, we were able to work our road around most of 18 the archeological sites, in fact all but one. All the 19 archeological sites we found anywhere near the corridor 20 related to ranching. They were mostly 20th century 21 survey markers, fence posts, that sort of thing. 22 The one feature that we are impacting is 23 the old Waimea Kona Road. If you drive along 24 Mamalahoa Highway you can see above you remnants of this 25 old road, stacked rock, nice road beds sometimes, it's RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 19 1 here in some places and not in others. It's about a 2 nine -mile feature, I believe, and we're going to effect a 3 hundred feet of it. We are going right through that 100 4 feet, and the rest of the site is actually going to be 5 preserved. So we have very small archeological impacts. 6 The area has not been used for gathering 7 in many years or other Hawaiian cultural practices and 8 it's now a military base and our extensive set of 9 interviews did not reveal the presence of any Hawaiian 10 cultural practices on the particular alignment or any 11 interference with such. 12 Also there were no burials located 13 anywhere near the alignment. We do have knowledge of 14 burials and did find burials in different parts of the 15 area, but nowhere near the alignment. 16 We were also able to avoid any sensitive 17 biological resources, in particular threatened and 18 endangered species. There is a concentration of 19 endangered species located on the edge of PTA, the old 20 part of PTA, and we routed our road just to maintain a 21 distance of at least 500 feet. We did extensive surveys, 22 both in the dry and rainy season, to look for individuals 23 of these. 24 And unexploded ordinance, we didn't find 25 any evidence of that during our, our surveys by our RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 20 1 biologists or archeologists and other folks that were out 2 on the land, but prior to construction we are going to do 3 a systematic sweep of the area looking for the UXO that 4 might be buried under the ground. 5 Any road has some scenic impacts but 6 probably the major impact you could say is beneficial. 7 It's going to open up sweeping views of Hualalai, 8 Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea, from angles that most of you have 9 probably never seen the land from, really beautiful views 10 that I feel like I have been privileged to see and now 11 our whole island is going to be able to see these. 12 Our road construction techniques are such 13 that they minimize terrain alteration. We try to keep 14 the cutting and filling to a minimum and naturalize the 15 sides of the road. 16 Socioeconomic impacts. We have about a 17 30 -page chapter on this full of tables and charts and 18 bells and whistles that show, you know, what's happening 19 with housing and commuting and population, but I think 20 the major finding could be summarized as it's an 21 incredible benefit for our island, and we have the 22 ability to link east Hawaii and west Hawaii in a way 23 that's probably an opportunity that's never happened 24 before. 25 And this is what we heard in all our RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 21 22 1 interviews with folks, is that there are many people who 2 work on one side of the island or the other and live on 3 the other and they need to get back and forth between the 4 island. 5 This will reduce the commuting time, for 6 example, between Kona and Hilo by 20 minutes. And this 7 is not primarily a time saving exercise, I mean, this is 8 about safety. And we heard last night from carpenters 9 who regularly travel the road, and, you know, they talked 10 about what it means to get up at 4:30 in the morning and 11 travel across the road and worrying about the safety of 12 the road. And I think that socioeconomically can be 13 summarized by that, principally it will unite our island 14 and will provide for much safer travel. 15 And with that I'll turn it back over to 16 Dave Gedeon for scheduling. 17 DAVE GEDEON: We're just showing the major 18 milestones remaining here. As everyone probably knows, 19 the draft supplemental EIS was published last month 20 November. The close of the public comment period is 21 January 7th of next year. All written comments sent by 22 mail must be postmarked by midnight on January 7th. 23 E- mails, I would assume we will accept 24 e -mails that are sent by midnight Hawaii time. 25 The target date for completion of the RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 1 supplemental EIS is February of next year, end of 2 February of next year, and that would be followed by a 3 Record of Decision by late March, assuming we do not run 4 into any major new issues that come forward through the 5 public hearings or the agency comments. 6 Assuming we have a signed ROD by the end 7 of March, final design can begin immediately at that 8 point, and we are estimating that final design will take 9 12 to 18 months to complete. 10 Construction will begin after final design 11 and we are estimating construction will take 18 to 24 12 months. 13 I want to emphasize that for final design 14 and construction, both are pending the availability of 15 funding, and at this point we're not, we're not ready to 16 go forward with at least the construction project due to 17 the lack of funds at this point. 18 19 20 Bruce and Ron. 21 So I think that's it. Jiro. JIRO SUMADA: Okay. Thank you Dave and Now we would like to get to the testimony 22 part of the presentation. And while Melissa brings that 23 forward, those people that signed up, I would like to 24 offer that if you haven't already and you would still 25 like to testify -- oh, okay. RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 23 1 They just encouraged me to ask folks if 2 you could fill in chairs in the front. They are going to 3 put some more chairs in the back, so if you could just 4 move forward and fill up, and, you know, they will bring 5 out some more chairs for the guys standing in the back. 6 So if you haven't, if you want to testify 7 and you, and you haven't done so already, please fill out 8 this short quarter sheet form. It's available at the 9 table as you walked in. 10 If you have a question to ask, then you 11 fill out the half -sized sheet form and just write down 12 your question on those forms and they will give me the 13 question and I will read the question and we will have 14 our experts answer them. This is after the break. Okay. 15 So when you step forward to deliver your 16 testimony, to help our court reporter, Patty, if you 17 would speak into the microphone, state your name and the 18 organization you represent, if any, and if you can just 19 speak calmly and slowly so that she can get everything. 20 The first testifier we have is 21 Denny Coffman followed by Mike Matsukawa. 22 DENNY COFFMAN: Yes, my name is 23 Denny Coffman. I'm the State House and District 24 Representative for District Six here in the Big Island. 25 My comments I want to make is that I RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 24 1 represent about 15,000 registered voters in the north 2 Kona district. This information about this Saddle Road 3 was published in West Hawaii Today sometime during the 4 summer. 5 As a State House representative I usually 6 get e -mails from lots of people when there's issues and 7 concerns. I have not received any negative comments on 8 this. The only discussions I have had are all positive 9 dealing with issues that were just raised a minute ago 10 about the safety of the road. This last section being 11 finished will greatly finalize the safety aspects of it 12 and the community sees this as an economic boost for the 13 entire island, so thank you. 14 JIRO SUMADA: Thank you, Rep Coffman. 15 Next we have Mike Matsukawa followed by 16 Rodney Watanabe. 17 MICHAEL MATSUKAWA: Thank you. My name is 18 Mike Matsukawa. I'm a resident of Kona and I'm a local 19 attorney there. 20 I think it would be very prudent if the 21 people preparing the supplemental EIS would address 22 Judge King's recent ruling. He rendered a ruling dealing 23 with old boundary lines on the Big Island. His decision 24 was on November 20th, I think, of this year, and the 25 State was a party to the case, as was the United States RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 25 1 National Parks Service, and some private landowners, and 2 the issue had to do with how do you locate the ancient 3 boundaries that had been laid out during the early period 4 when grants were being awarded. 5 I say this because if I were going to 6 oppose the EIS, that's what I would jump on, and I think 7 that would be something prudent to address ahead of time. 8 The State surveyor is aware of the case because they were 9 parties, and I think it would really put to rest those 10 type of issues so that people can focus on the project 11 itself and its potential impacts. 12 I support the road. I support the 13 project. I hope it makes money flow quicker from Hilo 14 back to Kona. Thank you. 15 JIRO SUMADA: Thank you, Mike. 16 Next Rodney Watanabe followed by 17 Mel Ventura. 18 RODNEY WATANABE: Excuse me, I provided to 19 this lady earlier. 20 21 Rodney. 22 23 24 testimony. 25 JIRO SUMADA: Oh, okay. Thank you, So Mel. MEL VENTURA: Same thing, I did provide my JIRO SUMADA: Boy, you guys are very RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 26 RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 27 1 efficient here. Okay, Mel. 2 Arnold Kanai. 3 ARNOLD KANAI: Same here. 4 JIRO SUMADA: Okay. Moving right along. 5 Walter Kunitake. 6 WALTER KUNITAKE: Yes, I'm one of those 7 that's been on this task force for a while, and one thing 8 that I would like to say, you know, first of all, you 9 know, I'm totally in support of this W -7 to go ahead. 10 Over the years that I've participated as a 11 task force member I feel very proud that I'm on this team 12 because, you know, there are a lot of agencies talked 13 about who is involved, whether it be federal highways or 14 state DOT or county or engineers or consultants, Army. 15 We hold quarterly meetings for the 16 Saddle Road task force. It's a working meeting and it's 17 attended by 20 to 30 people at each of these meetings and 18 it is a working meeting, and this is a time when we share 19 our concerns, issues, how the progress is going on 20 different segments, because this Saddle Road project, you 21 know, even though today we are focusing on W -7, it's been 22 a project that really started from, it's really from mile 23 marker 6, which is the Puainako extension all the way 24 across the island. 25 And I can say this much, that the players 1 in this project have been very, very meticulous, very up 2 front about various issues. And you heard Ron talk about 3 the various concerns about biological, historical, 4 cultural, and I think the groups that's involved, the 5 players that are involved are doing a really tremendous 6 job, and I think we should be very happy that we have 7 this team of people, because the meetings that we have 8 are very, very productive. If there are concerns, the 9 concerns are addressed head on, and I think the resolve 10 is very reasonable. 11 So I feel very comfortable with what we 12 are proposing here, the realignment to W -7, and I would 13 like to say thank you very much to everybody for doing 14 this great highway that will connect east Hawaii and west 15 Hawaii. Thank you. 16 JIRO SUMADA: Okay. Thank you, Walter. 17 Next we have, now forgive me if I 18 pronounce your name wrong, Norman Kaimuloa -- 19 NORMAN KAIMULOA: Kaimuloa. 20 JIRO SUMADA: -- sorry, from the 21 carpenters union. 22 23 every day. 24 NORMAN KAIMULOA: That's okay, that's JIRO SUMADA: Thanks, Norman. 25 NORMAN KAIMULOA: Aloha everybody. My RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 28 1 name is Norman Kaimuloa. I represent the carpenters 2 union and last week we had a task force come to our union 3 meeting and they spoke about this realignment of this 4 Saddle Road and they kind of explained to us it was 16 5 years in the making, and for the carpenters union, this 6 road, we are for this road because this road will help 7 us. 8 We have the observatory coming up and when 9 this road comes up it will have our members drive that 10 road safer in less time so they can spend time with their 11 families. Yeah. 12 I remember driving this Saddle Road. The 13 first time I drove it was 30 years ago, yeah, it was 14 brand new. You know, it was brand new. I couldn't 15 believe it. And at that time I was living in Honolulu, 16 and I'd say, gee, this island, I got to move back because 17 I was born here, yeah, I got to move back, the roads are 18 so nice. 19 But since 30 years ago to now, you know, 20 the roads are opposite, it's all bust up, you know what I 21 mean. So for me, I'm glad, I'm glad to see this happen, 22 and, you know, like I say, I like to see this go through. 23 Thank you. 24 JIRO SUMADA: Thank you, Arnold. 25 Next we have Isaac Harp followed by RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 29 1 John Parazette. 2 ISAAC HARP: Aloha. Isaac Harp 3 representing myself. 4 I am just wondering why the overall 5 project appears to be broken down into several smaller 6 projects or phases and why we are not discussing the blue 7 dash line that was on the map out there that start from 8 Mamalahoa Highway and goes down makai to the ocean 9 highway. And it appears that, that there is a part of a 10 plan for the future, from what I see on the maps out 11 there, and why is consideration not given to connecting 12 to the existing Waikoloa Road rather than creating a new 13 road taking up more land just south of Waikoloa Road. 14 Waikoloa Road could use the improvements, 15 as we all know, and I think as far as cost consideration, 16 that should be taken into account. I think creating an 17 entirely new road would cost more than fixing up an 18 existing road. 19 And I'm concerned that the alignment of 20 the section up here to go over State controlled lands and 21 I think the State has been giving up enough lands to 22 development and roadways and things as it is. 23 And I would also like to request, I think 24 a lot of Hawaii would be interested in viewing the 25 documentation that proves that clear title to this land RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 30 1 is proper and correct, including the former Parker Ranch 2 land which was purchased by the military, that 23,000 3 acres. 4 And I understand that you did the depleted 5 uranium study in the area and I'm concerned that the 6 study was on such a small scale, from what I had a little 7 discussion out there with the gentleman about the 8 depleted uranium study, and it seems to have occurred at 9 a very small scale, and I think we need a much larger 10 scale than that. 11 And this material has a half life of 4.5 12 billion years, older than the plans itself, I understand, 13 and this could be similar to the asbestos situation. It 14 took many decades before they figured out that asbestos 15 was bad for a human's health. 16 I think we need to be absolutely certain 17 that depleted uranium is not a threat to human health 18 before we go disturbing anymore land within the Pohakuloa 19 training area. 20 And I would just like to mention that Kona 21 is considered a downwind area from the Pohakuloa training 22 area, and Kona has the highest per capita rates of 23 various forms of cancer in all of Hawaii. 24 Thank you. 25 JIRO SUMADA: Okay. Isaac, thank you for RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 31 1 your testimony. The first part you had a question, yeah, 2 about the, talking about the other road. 3 4 was -- 5 17 18 19 Ken Melrose. 20 ISAAC HARP: Yeah, I was wondering why it JIRO SUMADA: So if you can fill out that 6 half sheet paper with your question, then after the break 7 you can ask that one. Okay? 8 ISAAC HARP: Thank you. 9 JIRO SUMADA: Thank you, Isaac. 10 Next, Jack Parazette. 11 JOHN PARAZETTE: This is just a general 12 concern but it relates to this road. I think that a 13 double line, which is commonly used on the road, is 14 inappropriate except for areas where site distance is 15 restricted, and that way people aren't, aren't forced to 16 break the law to pass a slow moving vehicle. That's all. JIRO SUMADA: Okay. Thank you, Jack. Next Vivian Landrum and following is VIVIAN LANDRUM: Aloha everyone. My name 21 is Vivian Landrum. I am the president and CEO of the 22 Kona - Kohala Chamber of Commence. We represent over 500, 23 550 now, our numbers went down a little bit but they are 24 coming up again, so proud to say 550 businesses. 25 We are the leading business advocacy RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 32 1 organization on the west side here. I actually went 2 through the draft EIS, all 346 pages I think it was, 3 something like that, went through and concur with so many 4 of the points made in there, but there's only a couple 5 that I wanted to touch on here. 6 As Ron pointed out, the economic impact to 7 the island is extremely beneficial and it's really 8 critically needed at this time. Our tourism numbers are, 9 they are just woeful. The highway offers us the 10 opportunity to finish the link between the east and west 11 and enables us to promote this destination truly as one 12 island allowing visitors and their residents to commute 13 between both sides with ease. 14 Our businesses here will be able to expand 15 their reach and offer services to both the east and the 16 west in a timely and a more efficient manner. Cutting 17 down that driving time is critical. It saves them on gas 18 mileage. 19 For the past year and a half the Chamber 20 has been preaching shop, buy, and buy local. This road 21 will expand those possibilities as well and still 22 continue to keep our local dollars on this island. 23 This road will enable us to support each 24 other east and west. For the west side the easier 25 accessibility to government offices is probably very RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 33 1 important to our member businesses, especially when they RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 34 2 are trying to get permits. 3 We rarely get to take advantage of all the 4 offerings that UH Hilo has and this will change that. 5 And now I would like to talk just a moment 6 about the safety of that road. As the draft SEIS pointed 7 out, the road is narrow, winding, two lane, we could go 8 on about the challenges with it. Some sections I don't 9 think could have been considered a two -lane road. 10 In 2000 a group of students from the high 11 school spent the weekend at Mauna Kea State Park. Around 12 2 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon, it probably was a pretty 13 rainy day, a car came around a bend and sent a car with 14 four high school students off the road. They rolled 15 three times and hit a tree. Miraculously no one in that 16 car was killed, but my daughter suffered a broken back. 17 She spent the next three months learning how to walk 18 again with a titanium cage in her back. So I personally 19 know this road is dangerous the way it is now. 20 There are many other stories out there and 21 they are far worse, their endings are far worse than 22 ours. We were very lucky. So I wanted you to know that 23 we support this road. We like that you have addressed 24 the sensitive issues here. We think that you have done 25 an excellent job of covering all the challenges and we 1 urge you to move forward with the project. 2 3 Thank you. 4 Excuse my voice. It got a little cracky. JIRO SUMADA: Thank you, Vivian. 5 Next Ken Melrose. 6 KEN MELROSE: Thank you. My name is 7 Ken Melrose. I did provide testimony to the court 8 reporter in support of this W -7 alignment. I have been 9 driving the existing Saddle Road for about 35 years now 10 and I want to compliment the highway administration and 11 those involved. 12 The new sections of the road are 13 absolutely incredibly safe and scenic. We get to see 14 parts of this island that we never would have gotten to 15 see, and it's a wonderful benefit. And one day maybe 16 they will take the Saddle Road off the endangered list 17 for the rental cars. 18 Thank you very much. 19 JIRO SUMADA: Thank you, Ken. 20 Next is, now forgive me on this name, 21 Robert Meierdiercks from the carpenters union. 22 ROBERT MEIERDIERCKS: My name is 23 Robert Meierdiercks, I'm a resident of the state for 46 24 years, grew up in Honolulu, Kailua, moved to Kona in 25 1971, worked construction 20 years. I've been on staff RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 35 1 at the carpenters union for 20 years. 2 I have worked personally in Waikoloa. I 3 lived in south Kona so that was quite a drive, I built 4 homes down in Puako where we had to drive all the way 5 through Waimea down to Puako to work on houses we built 6 down there. 7 We have approximately 450 members in Kona 8 and a little over 300 in Hilo, and it depends on the 9 economic climate where it was good in the past seven, 10 eight years, well, it's, from about two years ago, seven, 11 eight years a good economic climate, especially on the 12 Kona side. 13 We have members that drive over from Hilo 14 and one of the standing jokes from the guys that drove 15 over from Hilo, even though they carpooled, we asked them 16 what car are you on, the second, third or fourth or fifth 17 car they had gone through commuting from Hilo to Kona to 18 work, because that's where the jobs were. 19 That's just some of the things that happen 20 and they always have concerns about the roads, what the 21 best times to drive, what time to stay away from, what 22 time the fogs came in, what times the fogs left, and that 23 type of thing. So they had to time their trips on the 24 specific climate changes on the different elevations you 25 encounter on that road. RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 36 1 So any improvement to the existing, 2 especially on the Kona side, we've seen Hilo, Kona, Hilo, 3 Kona, Hilo, Hilo, and now we want to see something in 4 Kona to make the improvements for our people on this 5 side, whether they work. 6 What we see in the future for our people 7 is more of the jobs are going to be in Hilo right now so 8 our guys are going to be transferring from, you know, 9 driving daily from Kona to Hilo on the jobs that are 10 coming up in the future in Hilo. 11 Just for the record, we're over 90 percent 12 unemployed here in Kona, our members, and approximately 13 60 percent unemployed in Hilo. 14 Thank you. 15 JIRO SUMADA: Thank you, Robert. 16 Next Jon Kunimura. 17 JON KUNIMURA: Sorry, I already submitted 18 by testimony on paper. 19 20 21 JIRO SUMADA: Okay. Thank you, Jon. James Boyle. JAMES BOYLE: Aloha everyone. I'm 22 James R. Boyle, I'm a resident of Kailua -Kona and I 23 strongly support this project. I don't want to be too 24 redundant. All the positive reasons that I support it 25 have basically been covered by the previous presenters, RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 37 1 but I might also add that my wife and I had the pleasure 2 of recently driving to Hilo over the Saddle Road which we 3 religiously avoided in the past. I figured at the time 4 of day I could squeak over to Hilo the fast way. 5 The first part of the trip was 6 devastatingly harrowing, it was scary, it was bumpy, I 7 had to ride the middle of the road all the way to where 8 the improvements began. 9 Once we got to the improvements, it was 10 awe - inspiring. The roadway was absolutely fantastic. 11 The work that they did is better than any road that I 12 have ever seen in Hawaii in my entire life. I felt I was 13 already in Hilo it was so good. Just kidding. 14 Anyway, I think that this project is going 15 to greatly improve that area and also will benefit so 16 many people they are too numerous to mention right now. 17 Again, I strongly support this project. 18 It's a great gift to the island of Hawaii. 19 Thank you. 20 JIRO SUMADA: Thank you, James. 21 Our last speaker is Tammy Harp. 22 TAMMY HARP: I put it into questions. 23 JIRO SUMADA: Okay. So why don't we take 24 a 15- minute break, and right after that we will get into 25 question and answers. So if you folks have any RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 38 1 questions, feel free to fill out that half -sized sheet 2 and turn it in to the attendant and they will bring it 3 forward. 4 Thank you very much. 5 (At 5:05 p.m. a break was taken.) 6 7 8 to order. 9 (Back on the record at 5:21 p.m.) JIRO SUMADA: Okay. Now, if we can come Let's see, we have questions and answers, 10 and one question we have is from Laura Dierenfield. What 11 will the intersection at Mamalahoa Highway look like, and 12 is there an opportunity for a staging area at the 13 intersection of Mamalahoa and Saddle Road for ride share 14 or bus or recreational use in the future? 15 Let me ask Bruce Meyers from Okahara & 16 Associates to answer this. 17 BRUCE MEYERS: The intersection at 18 Mamalahoa Highway at this time will be a T- intersection, 19 so it's what's called an at -grade intersection. There 20 will be full channelization there and probably will have 21 an island, a wide island between directions on 22 Mamalahoa Highway, deceleration lanes, acceleration 23 lanes. As far as the details of the intersection, it 24 will come out during the final design of the project. 25 In terms of a staging area, is this, I RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 39 2 good, good point. This wasn't really considered for this 3 intersection and it will now be considered. All we can 4 say is we will look at it and see what kind of 5 opportunities there will be to do something like this. 6 That's it. 7 JIRO SUMADA: Are there any other 8 questions that folks wanted to make? 9 Okay. If not, you know, we still want to 10 receive comments, as many people as possible. If you 11 were shy and didn't want to come up and speak, we have 12 this written testimony form that you can still fill out 13 and mail into us or even e -mail your comments to us. We 14 will take them until January 7th, 2010, right? 15 So at this time I would like to close the 16 public hearing, and it looks like it's about 5:25, and I 17 want to thank everybody for coming and sticking with us 18 and getting the information firsthand and being part of 19 this whole process that we have. 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 think this is like a park and ride facility. This is a Thank you and have a safe drive home. Thank you. (Presentation concluded at 5:24 p.m.) 6:24 p.m. (Individual private testimony.) DIANE QUITIQUIT: My name is RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 40 1 Diane Quitiquit, Q- u- i- t- i- q- u -i -t, 75 -5591 Hienaloli, 2 H- i- e- n- a- 1 -o -1 -i Road, Number 11, Kailua -Kona 96740. 3 I came to testify in support of the 4 Saddle Road improvement and encourage the federal 5 government to continue the project for several reasons. 6 First, it is, our economy is in great need 7 of assistance and having a more direct route from the 8 east side to the west side will help employment on the 9 Big Island of Hawaii and help our economy grow. 10 Secondly, for safety reasons. It's 11 important that we have a secondary road on the island 12 for, in times of road closures in other locations it's 13 important to have that, that route. 14 I think it will do much to build the 15 community on the Big Island as we are able to bring 16 people closer together. 17 And I think that will suffice. 18 6:27 p.m. 19 (Public Hearing concluded at 6:55 p.m.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 41 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STATE OF HAWAII ) 3 ) SS 4 CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU ) 5 6 I, PATRICIA L. NELSON, do hereby certify; 7 That on December 10, 2009, at 3:57 p.m. 8 that the proceeding was taken down by me in machine 9 shorthand and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form 10 under my supervision, and that the foregoing represents, 11 to the best of my ability, a true and correct transcript 12 of the proceedings had in the foregoing matter. 13 I further certify that I am not an attorney 14 for any of the parties hereto, nor in any way concerned 15 with the cause. 16 DATED this 4th day of January, 2010, in 17 Honolulu, Hawaii. 18 19 20 21 22 PATRICIA L. NELSON, CSR -465 23 My Commission Expires: 9 -28 -2012 24 25 RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC. Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524 -2090 42 [This page intentionally left blank] SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix A Public Involvement and Agency Coordination A6: Comments to Draft EIS and Responses [This page intentionally left blank] Letter App. A5 App. A6 Ltr Pg /FHWA reply Pg 1 H32 1/30 Cory Harden, Sierra Club 2 H62 31/32 Patrick Kahawaiola`a 3 H49 33/34 Kale Gumapac 4 36/37 Pete Lindsey, Hawai`i Construction Laborers Union Local 368 5 3 8/3 9 Doreen Friberg 6 40/41 David Uhlmann 7 42/43 Peter Boucher, P.E. 8 44/45 S. Troute 9 H39 46/47 Jeffrey Melrose 10 48/49 Michael Dworsky 11 H44 50/52 Simbralynn Kanaka`ole 12 54/55 Sally Miller 13 56 (see Ltr41) Laura Dierenfield 14 K38 57/58 Tammy Harp 15 59/60 Isaac Harp 16 62/63 Susan Law 17 64/65 Tim Law 18 66/67 Tim Hershman 19 68/69 Merna Izawa 20 70/71 Takeo Izawa 21 72/73 Adam Jardine 22 74/75 Debbie Baker 23 76/77 Jon Kunimura 24 78/79 Peggy M. Ciriako 25 80/81 Margaret K. Masunaga 26 82/83 Marsha Boyle 27 84/85 Sheryl Henderson 28 86/87 John Buckstead 29 88/89 Steve Hurt 30 91/92 Phyllis Tarail 31 93/94 Tom Geballe 32 95/96 Roger Harris 33 97/101 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Environmental Review Office 34 102/103 Edward Brown, Goodfellow 35 104/105 Hawai`i Fire Department 36 106/107 Mark McGuffie, Director, Enterprise Honolulu 37 108/109 Hawai`i County Police Department 38 111/112 Hartwell Aloha Kaeo 39 113/115 Robert Ward 40 117/118 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Water Science Center 41 119/121 Laura Dierenfield, People's Advocacy for Trails Hawai`i 42 123/124 Eugene H. Nishimura, Japanese Chamber of Commerce 43 125/126 Stephanie Nagata Index for Comments to Draft EIS Notes: Oral testimony in hearing transcripts in App. A5; letters, faxes or emails are contained in App. A6 In App. A5, separate page numbering for Hilo and Kona (H= Hilo page #; K -Kona page #). Comment letter number is upper left corner on 1 page of each letter. For those who provided only oral testimony, only FHWA response letter is contained in App. A6 and indexed here Letter App. A5 App. A6 Ltr Pg /FHWA reply Pg 44 127/129 State Historic Preservation Division 45 130/133 Mike Price, Chair, South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee 46 134/135 Department of Business Economic Development & Tourism, Office of Hawaiian Strategic Industries 47 136/149 Department of Land and Natural Resources (Engineering Division, Land Division, Office of Coastal and Conservation Lands) 48 151/152 David Tarnas and M. Carolyn Stewart 49 153/154 Verne Wood, President, Puna Water Services Inc. 50 155/161 University of Hawai`i Environmental Center 51 164/165 University of Hawai`i at Hilo, Marketing /Alumni 52 166/169 Tom Lenchanko and Alika Poe Silva 53 170/172 Department of Business Economic Development & Tourism, Office of Planning 54 173/174 Aaron Stene 55 175/185 Michael Reimer 56 189/190 Representative Faye Hanohano, District 4 57 191/192 Department of Accounting and General Services 58 H4 193 Joel Tuck* 59 H4 194 Hugh Ono* 60 H4 195 Claudia Wilcox Boucher* 61 H24 199 Bill Davis, for Hawaiian Homes Commission, Chairman* 62 H25 197 County Council Vice -Chair Emily Naeole Beason 63 H27 198 Shalan Crysdale, The Nature Conservancy* 64 H28 199 Sharon Hettema* 65 H30 200 Galen Kelly* 66 H35 201 Jim Albertini, Malu `Aina* 67 H38 202 Dean Au, Hawai` i Carpenters Union Local 745* 68 H40 203 Mary Begier, Hawai`i Isl. Chamber of Commerce* 69 H41 204 Michael Cadaoas* (H42) 70 H41 205 Deborah Ward, Sierra Club* 71 H47 206 Joseph Kuali` i Camara 72 H51 208 Christian Rygh* 73 K2 210 Rodney Watanabe* 74 K3 211 Mel Ventura* 75 K3 212 Arnold Kanai* 76 1(4, 35 213 Ken Melrose* 77 K5, 32 214 John Parazette* 78 K40 215 Diane Quitiquit* 79 K24 216 Rep. Denny Coffman, District 6* 80 K25 217 Michael Matsukawa* 81 K27 218 Walter Kunitake, Chair, Saddle Road Task Force* 82 K28 219 Norman Kaimuloa* 83 K32 220 Vivian Landrum, Kona - Kohala Chamber of Commerce* (K32) 84 K35 221 Robert Meierdiercks* 85 K37 222 James Boyle* 86 242 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Public Hearing FOR QUESTIONS ONLY Vtil Wi S yi clNic U N 41t 66\e-(qt. c L6A L(L_Pki(kii1/4/1 (Please return to the information desk) V f( Q r �� SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii My name is: • C'i 1'\\t\ SADDLE ROAD Ma Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Public Hearing FOR QUESTIQNS ONLY 1 PI\ 5AP GE December 9, 2009 December 9, 2005 C k(1 (2- A-1- 1.11111111011111111111.11. PAGE My name is 000001 C 0 (`'`f kl\ � � ° 1\/ s " A`N C ) Comments on Saddle Road Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Wednesday, December 9, 2009 5 PM Aunty Sally's Luau House, Hilo Cory' Harden, Sierra Club, Make Loa group, PO Box 1137, Hilo, Hawaii 96721 808-968-8965, mh@interpac.net SUMMARY OF COMMENTS We commend the preparers for numerous passages which show sensitivity to native Hawaiian culture and concern for preserving Hawaii Island's natural resources. We support the W-7 route as the best alternative. We support plans forwide. shoulders for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, it appears assessment of many impacts is inadequate, which renders mitigation plans also inadequate., We commend preparers for conducting a.: depleted uranium study. Unfortunately, the study fails to test for airborne DU and DU compounds, and .raised many concerns for Dr. Mike Reimer of Kona, who holds a PhD in geology. The study r on Array information to mention only one DU round at r ohaI•l1iloa, But there may ray have been 2,000—based on two different Fines of evidence, one from Army Colonel Killian, and one from a Sierra Club consultant. And Army DU studies face a legal challenge from me,- as an individual, and several other people. We support clearance of unexploded ordnance for the :road, and once again call on the military to clear explosives, toxins, and other hazards neglected for decades on more than fifty old sites on Hawar'i Island. We are very concerned that fire -risks seem to be underestimated, given ongoing military training, plus Stryker impacts, plus the new road. The S,DEIS.states, accurately, that wildfire "poses a grave threat to Hawaiian ecosystem ...Because few native Hawaiian animals or plants are adapted to wildfires; . they :generally perish when exposed to fire ...native plant communities. are often subsequently overwhelmed by more aggressive alien species. Many nonnative species...thrive in the aftermath of fires... the entire west side of the Big Island... is subject to extensive wildfires." fp. 3-73] Unfortunately, a fire study cited by the SDEIS is not current, since it is based on data from ten years ago. In addition, the ignition source for many fires is unknown, and most Army fire history files are incomplete because some were destroyed after five years. For the overpass' of the military area, we feel details should be included in the SOBS so the public can have input Distractions to motorists from military training should be evaluated —dust, pyrotechnics at night, noise and fight from explosions, and noise from helicopters, large airplanes, and large vehicles. We ask that comments on the archaeological report appear in the SDEIS so the public can comment. We call for more thorough assessment of impacts to formerly remote areas when an improved road brings more tourists and residents. We call for as much mitigation as possible for the loss of relatively pristine vistas. We ask that funding be sought from astronomers and developers who will benefit from the road. We ask for more information on convoys and construction water trucks. We ask for evaluation of induced demand (better roads encouraging more driving.) We call for traffic calming features. We support bus service on the improved road. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. PAGE 000002 SPECIFIC COMMENTS FUNDING p. S--9 "Astronomers, support staff, and suppliers with bases in Hilo or Waimea use the road as access to Mauna Kea and its 13 observatories." p, 1 -1 "Saddle Road is the only paved road serving ...the Mauna Kea Astronomical Observatory Complex..." How much are observatories contributing to the cost of building and maintaining the road? If nothing, have they been approached - -or will they be—about contributing? Which agency or agencies would be the appropriate ones to approach them? p. 1 -15 "The underlying reason for the projected increase is a variety of demands including... residential development in the Kohala, Waikoloa, and Waiki`l Ranch areas..." How much are developers contributing to the cost of building and maintaining the road? If nothing, have they been approached--or will they be-- about contributing? Which agency or agencies would be the appropriate ones to approach them? MULTIPLE IMPACTS p. S -11 "An improved Saddle Road would .increase the number of tourists visiting the east side of the island since, at present, only about one -third include the Hilo area in their itineraries." Evaluate impacts - economic benefits, wear and tear on roads, trash, traffic. p, 3-40 The 1 999 EIS noted that increasing use of Saddle Road could somewhat degrade the quality of the experience of wild areas, cause overcrowding, and contribute to the usage of off -road vehicles and mountain .bikes within the study corridor. Improvement of Saddle Road within sections 11 and iii has already been a factor in the increase in traffic and use of the Saddle area, and completing the critical Section 1 link would likely continue this trend. Increased accessibility and use of formerly isolated recreational areas does bring_with it increased management responsibilities, but overall it is a substantial recreational benefit." Give more specifics- - . estimate the increased number of trips from tourism, hiking, hunting, mountain bikes, off -road vehicles, and others • evaluate impacts • propose management measures, including responsible agencies and funding sources p. 3 -97 Prior to construction, a final review will be conducted to determine the probability of caves or lava tubes in the construction corridor, Should significant caves be present, final design and/or construction techniques will be developed to avoid or minimize impacts. Define "significant." UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE &27 Prior to construction, FHWA will conduct an unexploded ordnance survey. if the risk of encountering UX0 is low, then the USACE will be consulted to provide U O construction support. If the risk of encountering UXO is high, then full UXO clearance will be performed to ensure the safety of the site. The Army will document U O surveys and removal actions in full accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance. All ordnance found will be removed from the project area in accordance with DOA regulations in coordination with USAG -HI.., In all training activities at Kearnuku and other areas of PTA, the Army will continue to educate soldiers on how to identify LJO and the proper safety procedures for marking and reporting UXO, in order to reduce impacts not only to soldiers but also to motorists on W -7." We support this. We also call on military forces to clean up all unexploded ordnance, toxins, and other hazards left on the 50 -plus old military sites on Hawaii Island. Children should not be digging up grenades in their school gardens in Waimea. Teenagers should not be finding three - root -long mortar rounds PAGE 000003 while hiking, also in Waimea. Swimmers should not be finding unexploded ordnance in 30 feet of water off Hapuna. Divers should not. be finding shells 50 yards off Leleiwi Beach. We're told Congress worm put enough money into cleanup. We urge that money be put in escrow for cleanup whenever a new military projec t goes forward. If old hazards are neglected while new hazards azarS.i�f generated, argenerated, we'll never catch up. DEPLETED URANIUM SDEIS p. S -11 `The project included sampling of soil at five locations, using two independent methods to determine if DU or other forms of -uranium above natural levels were present. No above - normal levels were found. A baseline humanYhealth risk assessment was performed to evaluate the potential risk posed by the uranium isotopes detected for both construction workers and recreational receptors. Neither risk level exceeded the most conservative U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) lifetime cancer risk regulatory level of concern or the noncarcinogenic Hazard Index regulatory level of concern." See comments 011 Appendix E. pp. 4 -4 to 4-5 Naturally occurring 234U/238U ratio in soil has been determined to be in the range of 0.5 to 1.2 (Sansone et al. 2001 ).234U /238U ratios at the Saddle Road alignment ranged from 0.74 to 1.79..." Is the 1.79 level significant? Appendix E stud The study raised many questions for Dr. Mike Reimer, who will send detailed comments. Testing should be done for airborne DI.J'and'DU compounds from PTA or other sources. Why did the Saddle Road researchers'have enough information fora BHHRA, while the Army, despite finding some DU at Pohakuloa; didn't? p. ES -2 "In August 2007, US Army contractors discovered one intact M101 spotting round during a screening survey of the remote Impact Area at PTA... Subsequent surveys uncovered aluminum firing tubes for the spotting round, but no additional spotting rounds themselves." Over 2,000 spotting rounds may have been used, and searches may have missed them because only a small fraction of the impact area was searched, and search conditions were difficult. Note that several people, including myself as an individual, plan to argue these points before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in January 2010. Note also that Dr. Mike Reimer, PhD and Dr. Lorrin Pang have raised numerous concerns about Army DU studies. [their resumes are attached] The DSB!S should include and evaluate the following information: Re. 2,000 spotting rounds "An environmental consultant [Peter Strauss, hired by Sierra clubs estimated there may be as many as 2,000 depleted uranium rounds at Pohakuloa Training Area...The consultants analysis was based on an Army report estimating that between 120 and 400 firing pistons are scattered around impact ranges at PTA... Each piston would have fired up to five of the DU rounds, for a total of between 600 and 2,000 rounds fired, Strauss said. " [Sierra Club consultant disputes Army's DU tally, Hawai'i Tribune - Herald, 5-- 26-08] PAGE 000004 The 2,050 figure was based on old training manuals, which specify how many rounds soldiers had to shoot to be qualified on the weapon system. [from my notes on Col, Killian's presentation to Hawaii- County Council 2-3 -09, and conversations with him that day] From a County meeting.... Councilmember Pete Hoffmann ...the Sierra Club consultant continues to say 2,000 spotting rounds may be at Pohakuloa, What...what's your comments on that? Colonel Killian I know that there are 714 rounds shipped..to Hawaii that.. my .sensing : is most of them were fired at Schofield...I would, I would estimaterthatprobably, and what we've been using is conservative numbers, to say at least 50 %?of them were.used,:at Pohakuloa. Now if you go through the training manuals of the era.. it: would require more than 714 rounds over an 8 year period of time to qualify the requisite :-amount of ,crews. However, when you look at ... archival research at. other places. they,. for whatever reason, the Army did not send that many rounds out to the field so..l can't account for that. All I can say factually is that we believe 714 rounds were shipped and expended here. . Councilmember Pete Hoffmann Is there any possible support for a figure of 2,000 spotting rounds at PTA? Colonel Killian If you, 1 you do the math, if you extrapolate the math with the, the contemporary training :manuals. l think cerise up with a number of 2,050. [my transcription, from County ,D VD, of Hawaii County Council Public Works & lntergove mental -Relations Committee meeting held 2-3-09j "U.S. Army Colonel Killian...said the types of exercises conducted at PTA (Pohakuloa Training Area) would require the firing of at least 2,050...spotting rounds." [Depleted Uranium at Pohakuloa, West Hawaii Today, 2-4-09] The Army quotes a report to support a lower number of spotting rounds. But in my copy of the report, the-text in bold is missing 'Total rounds verified shipped from Oahu from Lake City Ordnance Plant were 714 rounds on 27 April 1962. Notice this date coincides with the first weapons - arriving at Oahu in the spring of 1962. As discussed in Section 8.1, this original shipping quantity is not close to-the "worst case scenario" estimate of usage for six years with 14 weapons (2,620 rounds.) This shipping quantity averages only 8.5 rounds fired per year per weapon. It is highly probable that additional stocks of the Cartridge, 20 mm Spotting M 1 o1 were order [sic] from one of the Ordnance Depots (Letterkenny or Pueblo) during the six active years of the Davy Crockett Weapon System in Hawaii." [Army extract from Archives Search Report, cited in a lever to U.S. Rep. Maxie Hirono, dated about 5- 20 -09] Re. limited search "Due to the potential presence of U G /IVIED, improved conventional munitions (ICM), and terrain conditions at the PTA range, only -limited access for GWS and soil sampling was anticipated to be available." ['Final Technical Memorandum for Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) Aerial Surveys, 7- 24 -09, p. 1-1] "uO avoidance was practiced in other GWS areas and coverage was dependent on the ability to enter an area." [Final Technical Memorandum for Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) Aerial Surveys, 7-24-09, p. 4 -51 PAGE 000005 'see enclosed Figure - 3=4;. PTA Areas df- Interest, which shows limited area searched] Note also that air~ searches were hampered by debris kicked up by helicopters, gnund searches were hampered by dangerous terrain, and satellite imagery was not tried yet. CULTURAL/ HISTORIC p. 2-10 Table 2.2.2 SEIS Alignments Comparison Matrix Why is "Minimize impacts to historic properties and cultural resources" "not fully assessed" for W-7 a, b, and c? p. 3-24 "The archaeological report discussing historic properties was provided to various agencies and groups, including the State Historic Preservation Division, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Hawaiian Civic Clubs, the Royal Order of Kamehameha, and others, for their comment, as part of consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Final SEIS will present the results of this coordination." This should be in the DEIS so the public can comment. VISUAL p. S -27 Construction of the proposed highway would result in a substantial change in visual character due to the introduction of a paved road to the existing pastoral setting. p. 6-22 Visual Quality...Current Character...Viewshed offers unique, far - ranging scenic vistas that are relatively pristine... Effect of Proposed Action...Will insert a built element into the environment, changing the vistas. This impact is unfortunate. p. S -28. determined appropriate during final design, the project may include informal scenic Typical Sections s with interpretive sign in a few locations, such as the Old Waimea - Kona Road and the overlook above Ke`amuku Village. We support this. TRAFFIC Evaluate the effects of induced demand (more and better roads encouraging more driving.) Include issues from the enclosed Wikipedia article. Include traffic calming features in road design.. How will the noise, glare, and distraction of nighttime military training affect motorists? III they think it's an emergency situation? We support planning bus service on W-7. Will the old section of Saddle Road running by Waiki'i Ranch be open to the general public? p. S -7 "Mamalahoa Highway would be crossed at -grade or by a grade - separated structure." p. 1 -8 A The W -7 alignment is expected to only require one crossing, the details for which will be determined in cooperation with the Army during final design," p. 2 -21 Military traffic passing between Kean niku and the main sections of PTA would be required to cross W -7. This would occur at one point, the location of which is not yet specified, which would be a grade - separated crossing. It is likely that military traffic would pass under Saddle Road." Since traffic overpasses on Hawaii/ Island are uncommon, simply announcing the final design in the FEJS is insufficient. The DEIS should describe options for the details below, so the public can have input through the EIS process. • location • which traffic will go on top—military or civilian • expected military traffic volume PAGE 000006 safety measures, including measures to reduce .motorist distraction, and to separate military and civilian activities p. 1 -1 `The transportation of ammunition, training equipment, and troops.from harbors on both the west and east side of the island periodically involves long, slow moving convoys on Saddle Road. About 1,150 military vehicles made trips to PTA in 2008, primarily in convoys between PTA and the port at Kawaihae. The convoys .only travel cluring non- peak.periods, are escorted by y Hawaii Count Police Department vehicles :in :he- :front::an d.back to-. and move at 10 miles an hour below posted speed limits. Military trips - currently comprise less than one percent of all Saddle Road traffic. Due to continuing overseas deployments, the annual training levels at PTA are lower than • previousty_- - in.the. . decade,. - a :trepci Bich = is .expected to reverse within several years, • Give high and low estimates, per_ year,. - :re_ number of onvoys, . and frequency,' for 20 - 2015. Are there any regulatory limits on the number, size, and - frequency, of convoys? What recourse do citizens have if they feel there are too- many convoys? . Will convoys use W-7, or the old Saddle Road running by Waiki'} Ranch? When will the tank trail from Pohakuloa to Kawaihae be completed, and how will this affect convoy traffic? Fig. 1.1.2 Does the new Section 11 mean no more military firing over the highway? p. 1-14 "The conclusion based on these predictions foftraffic volume] was that the level of need far exceeded the road's existing traffic capacity." Consider saying "demand ", not "need" Evaluate how the slowed-down economy and increased overseas military deployments will affect the demand for traffic capacity. p. 3 -57 "...widened, paved shoulders proposed for the project would minimize the hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists..." We support this.. AIR QUALITY Evaluate how dust from Strykers will affect motorists. Consider this information. Stryker FEIS May 2004 Chapter 4 p 22 "Effective mitigation measures f or.dust] are more difficult to identify for off -road maneuver areas. Rotating maneuvers among available areas is effective only when those areas are substantially larger. Such activity rotation may be possible at PTA..." [bold added/ Chapter 4 p 23 "Wind erosion issues are of particular concern near the WPAA because soils in that area are derived from very low - density volcanic ash. In July 1999, a severe dust storm resulted from wind blowing over areas denuded of vegetation by a recent fire. The result was fugitive dust emissions at high enough levels to require temporary evacuation of residences at Waiki'i Ranch.... It is unlikely that vegetation reseeding programs would be sufficiently, effective to reduce the net increase in annual erosion to a less than significant level at all installations." Chapter :4 p 24 "The- effectiveness of reseeding programs depends on having adequate germination and vegetation establishment periods between repeated disturbances. This may not be possible for the large off :road maneuver areas that would become available at PTA..." p. 3.69 'The construction worker was found to have... a noncarcinogenic risk of four in one thousand...The noncarcinogenic risk was calculated to be three in one thousand for the Child Receptor and one in one thousand for the Adult Receptor." PAGE 000007 These seem to be unacceptably high. NOISE p, 3 -71 `...there are no areas for which noise impacts require study..." Evaluate how military noise from Strykers and other vehicles, airplanes, and helicopters, may distract motorists. FIRE The DSEIS appears to underestimate cumulative risks of fire from military activities plus W-7, and impacts on plants, animals, and safety for motorists and residents. include the following information in analysis: Letter from Jeff Mikulina of Sierra Club to Cindy Barger, Stryker EIS Project Manager, 1 -3 -O4 Last year, over 2000 acres burned in Makua Valley on Oahu by a `controlled' fire that... turned into a wildfire... Army responses to Sierra Club comments on DEIS Army response p "The impact to biological resources from wildland fires has been changed to significant. The mitigation measures proposed, including the updated IWFMP, [Integrated Wildland Fire Management Plan] will substantially reduce the severity of the impact on biological resources but not to less than significant levels." [underline added] 4.10.3p 4 -69 "impacts to biological resources from fire could not be mitigated to the less than significant level." "Fire would have a significant impact on... PTA." [Pohakuloa Training Areal 4 1 0.3 ID 4 -7Q "there is a risk that wildfire could result in an irretrievable loss of individuals of sensitive species" "The mitigation measures... will substantially reduce the impact but not to less than significant" Stryker FEES May 2004 Chap "According to the WFMP, in the recent past, the entire Hawaiian ecosystem has experienced an increase in wildfire frequency... Causes for the increase in fire frequency include the spread and intensification of alien grasses. On Army land, technological advances in ammunition and supporting pyrotechnic devices used for training have contributed to the fire frequency increase_ ..ion Oahu] Military live -fire activities start many of the fires within ordnance impact areas..." Stryker DEIS Chapter p 39 "Nonllve -fire exercises use blank ammunition, laser weapons, and simulated artillery and mortar fire with pyrotechnics." Chapter 4 r 25 "Tracers, flares, and pyrotechnics have the potential for starting wildfires on training range areas. The use of such munitions would increase somewhat under the Proposed Action, with a corresponding increase in the potential for wildfires," Chapter 4 p 83 "...no FMAs Mire management areas] and wildland fire SOPs [standard operating procedures] have been completed for installations where Transformation would • o1�11y1ura" +Cory's l f ales are these completed V yet[ Cha pter 8 0190 "Tracer ammunition, which easily starts fires and is one of the most commonly used ammunitions, has started the largest number of fires at PTA." PAGE 000008 Chapter 8 0193 -194 "...under the Proposed Action, the quantity of ammunition rounds fired during Army training on all Army training ranges in Hawaii would increase from 16 million to 20 million rounds per year, a 25 per cent increase Chapter 8 p199 there will be "...a significant increase of ammunition use (an additional four million rounds)... [at PTA but] ...the impact of this increase would not be significant, as management of artillery and ammunition would not change..." Appendix 0 p1-1 "In the past, military-activities on Army lands have burned areas of native vegetation and threatened the habitat of endangered species of plants and animals." Appendix 0 p - 4 "The Hawaiian ecosystem is not resistant to, nor dependent on fire... Wildfire is the single largest impact made by military activities in the Hawaiian ecosystem. The use of Army lands must include fire avoidance efforts." ppendix 0 p1-2, "Prescribed fire will be .considered as -a viable tool to manage fuels and will be utilized under environmentally appropriate conditions." p. 3 -74 "Eleven 80,000- gallon dip tanks are -located on PTA, three of which are under construction to support the Ke`amuku Training .Area..." Is training on kegamuku going forward although three of the dip tanks are not completed? Will the three tanks be completed before W-7 construction begins? If not, evaluate any additional fire hazard. p_ 3-75 "Keamuku was assigned a high pre - suppression priority (only Mauna Kea and Kipuka Kalawamauna were considered to have a greater priority)." We urge that fire risks, impacts, and mitigation measures be thoroughly evaluated. p. 3 -75 ':.data for many fires was incomplete...A detailed analysis of fires -at PTA between 1987 and 1 999 indicated that... The ignition source was generally unknown or associated with tracer firing.. . The larger fires were generally associated with non-military ignition sources_ More than 7,700 acres, or 91 percent of all acres burned, were burned by fires caused by lightning, arson, or carelessly discarded cigarettes, and the largest these started off of Army lands and later burned into PTA (U S. Army 2003: p. 7 -51)," Include this information: "The WFMP jildland Fire Management Plan] for Pohakaloa... acknowledges that most fire history files are incomplete...after five years, following the disposition of records, they were destroyed, in accordance with the Modern Army Recordkeeping system ... " [Stryker FEtS, Chapter 3 p 901 Was the "detailed analysis" funded by the Army, or done by an independent, peer - reviewed research? If the `ignition source was generally unknown" , what is the basis for the statement that "the larger fires were generally associated with non- military ignition sources "? Given that "data for many fires was incomplete" and the "detailed analysis "is 10 years old, evaluate more recent data preferably from non - military sources. Include analysis of impacts from Stryker training, which was projected to "increase the level of training ...seven times over..." [Study: PEA training would rise, Hawaii Tribune-Herald, 10- 14 -03] p. 3 -75 to 3 -76 `Many firebreaks, fuelbreaks, and other fire management improvements that will aid firefighters in containing and suppressing fires have been or will be constructed." PAGE 000009 Will they be completed before W-7 construction begins? If not, evaluate impacts. WATER p• 3 -83 "Water would be consumed in the construction process, much of it for dust control. The specific source of water to be used for construction would be the responsibility of the contractor, but contractors to date on Saddle Road have purchased and trucked water mostly from County Department of Water Supply standpipes in Kaumana, above Hilo. As the W -7 alignment is closer to Waimea, and the construction would involve an outlet on the Mamalahoa Highway, Waimea may prove to be the best source." Estimate • how many trucks a day • times of day, days of week, and approximate dates when trucks will run • effects 017 traffic CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Fig. 1.5.1 include in cumulative impacts--impacts of the Saddle Road extension that wilt be enabled by W-7. p. 3-2 `=A project to lengthen the [PTA] runway from its existing length of 3,700 to 6,000 feet is currently under review by the Army. The longer runway would allow fully loaded C-130 aircraft and c -17 aircraft operating at 80 percent capacity to utilize the airfield." Include this in analysis of cumulative impacts, especially noise and distractions for motorists. For several impacts, the DSOIS says impacts from Saddle Road won't have much additional impact on the already degraded environment. Are cumulative impacts adequately assessed? p. S -19 and 3 -105 Construction and operation of Saddle Road on W -7 are unlikely to lead to the severe spread of alien plant species in the region, because the area is already heavily invaded by those alien plants that thrive in the region. Furthermore, the general area is already subject to and uses such as highways, grazing, military use, and hunting, which contribute in various degrees to the spread of alien species. p. 3409 The relatively poor habitat and relative lack of native bird species within the W -7 corridor indicates that it is unlikely that any negative impacts on native bird species would result from the construction and operation of the roadway. p. 3-112 Road construction in the W -7 route alignment could generate a corridor along which introduced species, both plant and animal, might be able more readily to gain access to native habitat. Numerous species of alien wasps and alien ants (including Argentine ants) exist along portions of the existing Saddle Road. However, the most valuable such habitat currently lies within a disturbed setting adjacent near PIA Ke`eke =e, crossed by Saddle Road and various Army roads, and thus already subject to invasion. p. 3 -120 During the course of the biological surveys conducted along the 500 -foot wide W -7 corridor, no botanical, avian or mammalian species currently listed as endangered, threatened or proposed for listing under either the federal or state of l- #awaiTs endangered species statutes were recorded within or near the corridor itself (see Appendices 0 and D). These findings are riot unexpected given the highly degraded nature of the habitat present within the corridor. p. 3 -124 It was difficult to separate the current adverse effects on Mauna Kea sites that came from then - inadequate State of Hawaii management from those potential adverse effects that would result from the implementation of improvements to Saddle Road. PAGE 000010 Induced demand From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Induced demand is the phenomenon that after supply increases, more of a good is consumed. This is entirely consistent with the economic theory of supply and demand; however, this idea has become important in the debate over the expansion of transportation systems, and is often used as an argument against widening roads, such as major commuter roads. It is considered by some to be a contributing factor to urban sprawl. contents • 1 Effect in transportation systems ■ 1.1 Price of road travel ■ 1.2 Elasticity of traffic demand • 1.3 Induced demand & transport planning ■ 1.4 Mitigating the induction of demand • 1.5 Reduced demand (the inverse effect) ■ 1.6 The debate • 2 See also • 3 References • 4 External inks Effect to transportation systems Latent demand has been recognised by road traffic professionals for many decades. J. J. Leeming, a British road - traffic engineer and county surveyor between 1924 and 1964, described the,phenomenon is his 1969 book:E Motorways and bypasses generate traffic, that is, produce extra traffic, partly by inducing people to travel who would not otherwise have done so by making the new route more convenient than the old, artly by people who go out of their direct route to enjoy the greater convenience of the new P road, and partly by people who use the towns bypassed because they are more convenient for shopping and visits when through traffic has been removed. He went on to give an example of the observed effect following the opening of the Doncaster Bypass section of the Al (M) in 1961. Price of road travel A journey on a road can be considered as having an associated cost or price (the generalised cost, g) which includes the out -of- pocket cost (e.g. fuel costs and tolls) and the opportunity cost of the time PAGE 000011 mhtml:file: //C :\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\ISSUE TRANSP induced ... 12/7/2009 inuu ;eu r r spent travelling, which is usually calculated as the product of travel time and the value of travellers' time. When road capacity is increased, initially there is more road space per vehicle travelling than there was before, so congestion is reduced, and therefore the time spent travelling is reduced - reducing the generalised cost of every joumey (by affecting the second "cost" mentioned in the p revi ous paragraph) . In fact, this is one of the ke y justifications for 'construction of new road capacity (the reduction in journey times) . A change in the cost (or price) of travel results in a change in the quantity consumed. This can be explained using the simple supply and demand theory, illustrated below. For roads or highways, the supply relates to capacity and the quantity consumed refers to vehicle - kilometres travelled. The size of the increase in quantity consumed depends on the elasticity of demand. When supply shifts from Si to S2, the price (explained below) drops from P1 to P2, and quantity consumed increases from Ql to Q2 Elasticity of traffic demand Research indicates that the elasticity of traffic demand with respect to roadway expansion is between 0 and 1, indicating that a 1% increase in roadway expansion will generate less than a 1% increase in traffic demand. However it is greater than 0%, so new roadway construction will result in some additional traffic that would not have occurred but for the new capacity. In the long term, however, traffic demand may increase by more than 1 %, since elasticity of demand is a partial derivative defined in the short term only. In other words, this figure between 0 and 1 assumes that, apart from the increased supply, all else is constant, which is unlikely to be true in the long term. I n the short term, new demand arises from either people making -tii s they wouldn't have =made before e p p g p (because the cost of the tiip has decreased), or from people retiming trips to nearer their preferred time i.e. they can reduce schedule delay). For example, people might travel to work earlier than they would they . i otherwise like, in order to avoid peak period congestion - but if road capacity s expanded, peak congestion is lower and they can travel at the time they prefer. New demand may also come from those who had used public transport before a roadway expansion, now deciding to switch to car use. In the long term, land use patterns. alter - e.g. new development occurs around the road with the new capacity, increasing demand for travel. Peoples' choice of home and workplace locations also alter because of the new road (and although this is to be expected from urban economics, it also constitutes induced travel, usually because people travel farther to get to work as a result of the new road, increasing overall levels of vehicle - kilometres). Increased employment along a road may result in homebuilding along the same road, attract more businesses in a positive feedback loop. Eventually, the induced demand may cause road ,capacity to be reached (again). Induced demand & transport planning Although planners take into account future traffic growth when planning new roads (this often being an apparently reasonable justification for new roads in itself - that traffic growth will mean more road t, +„,1- -�' 1 p - t }r - \nnci im ents and Settin s \O wner ° 1 Y D ocuments\IS SUE TRANSP induced . 12/7/2009 capacity is required), this traffic growth is. calculated from increases in car ownership and economic activity, and does not take into account traffic by the presence of the new road (i.e. it is assumed that traffic will grow, regardless of }whether :a road is built= or not). E- -23 In the UK, the idea of induced traff d = a.s used as a grounds for_protests against government policy of road construction in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, until it became=accepted {.as -a given by the government as a result of their own SACTRA (Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment) s t u d y of . 15 9 .fi T h : / /www. dit. gov .uk/stel l entlgroupsidit econappridocumentsidivi si onhomepage /0315 f & .hcsp) . . However, despite the concept of induced traffic now being accepted, it is not always considered. A classic example of induced demand was the construction of an orbital motorway around London, the M25, in the late 1980s :and ?early 1990s. In the short term (almost from opening), the motorway became extremely 'busy and often ;congested (as :planners underestimated the level of demand, because some was induced,' and-thus-the :r:-oaddid not have high enough levels of capacity to accommodate it). In the long term (overafew;years),new development occurred around the new motorway and people adjusted their home and work locations to depend upon it, further increasing demand. Mitigatingthe induction of demand Induced traffic can be avoided if the generalised cost of travel does not decrease when new road capacity is added (known as "locking in" the benefits (e.g. journey time reductions) of new capacity). p � This may be achieved through: • Road pricing - the user pays . for the j ourney lime reduction ■ p Increasing' the cost of arking, by limiting parking spaces. This has been done with success in Sydney, Australia. a Allocation of the new road space to -particular users, e.g. using HOV lanes - the generalised cost of travel for some users will remain similar, but the cost for particular users will decrease, encouraging a shift to that use. HOV or multiple occupancy lanes are the classic example, an example being the widening of the MI motorway to the north of London, where the extra capacity will be used for an HOV lane during the peaks. However, HOV lanes which are additional to existing capacity do result in an induced rise in overall traffic, because the shift of HOVs to the new lone releases capacity in the existing lanes, reducing the generalised cost of j ourney s in those lanes and thus increasing demand. ■ Zoning to prevent excess development anew areas served by increased road capacity has been proposed as a solution; however, municipalities often lack the power or the will to counter development interests. • Increasin g the cost of travel, for example by increasing fuel excises or car registration costs. • Increasin g the cost of drivers licenses in certain undesirable motor vehicle classes (such as SUVs), while decreasing costs for more desirable modes of transportation (such as buses). Reduced demand (the inverse effect) Just as increasing road capacity reduces the cost of travel and thus increases demand, the reverse is also g true - decreasing road capacity increases the cost of travel, so demand is reduced. This means that theoretically, in the long term, the closure of a road or reduction in its capacity (e.g. reducing the number of available lanes) will result in the adjustment of traveller behaviour to compensate w for example, people might stop making particular trips, retime their trips to less congested times or switch to public p mi g transport, depending upon the values of those trips or of the schedule delay they experience. PAGE 000013 mhtml :file: //C :\Documents and Settings \Owner\My Documents\ISSUE TRANSP induced , .. 12/7/2009 Reduced demand has been demonstrated in a number of studies associated with bridge closings (to be repaired) or major roads rehabilitation projects. These studies have demonstrated that the total :traffic, considering the road or bridge closed and alternative roads where this traffic is diverted, is lower than that of the previous situation. In fact, this is an argument to convert roads previously open to vehicle traffic into pedestrian . areas, with a positive impact on the environment and the congestion., as the example of the central area of Florence, Italy. Similarly, reducing reducin public transit services will reduce to some extent the use of those facilities, where trips again may be avoided or _switch: to :private trap port. The debate Many ei ronm ental i st b el i eve that by encourage ng . Bevel opulent many kilometres away from jobs and services, freeways contribute to increasing traffic flows, and thus the .freeway ends up just as congested as previously, thus - requiring the freeway to be widened (again). The evidence. is that the congestion will not be as bad as p ri or to the new construction, but that traffic congestion will not simply . di sappear. Propononents of road construction will note that the fact that there is additional travel indicates that the roadway construction or expansion is adding value to those users .(consumer. surplus). This argument ignores that consumer surplus of a group of road users does not guarantee an increase in aggregate utility. It also ignores that some negative externalities such as .global pollution .often..go .unvalued in economic analyses of road proje.cts '(some countries ignore these externalities altogether, and others y P evaluate them qualitatively). Some roadway advocates note that because of underlying .factors (e.g. population and income growth), traffic .will ow anyway, whether or not freeways are .expanded (this being the argument mentioned previously in relation to traffic forecasts). Thus, without widening, traffic would be:even worse =than it is, contributing even more: pollution, something .which occurred in..Sydney, Australia, during ,the New South wales state government's " No Freeways" era in the late ,.1970s and early 1980s. Environmentalists g reply that the new induced traffic will. generate_more and exacerbate the greenhouse effect more than leaving the road ,unbuiit, a theory that -is with merit if public transport initiatives are not developed in accordance with the .freeway - construction such -as :the provisioning of a .dedicated bus lane on the Sydney Harbour Bridge when the : Sydney, Harbor Tunnel was built See also ■ Externality ■ Lewis - Mogridge Position ■ Say's law ■ Positive feedback ■ Traffic flow ■ Schedule delay References 1. A T, 1..L-eeming (1969). Road Accidents: Prevent.or Punish. Cassell. SBN 304932132. 2. " Coleman, S B (2001). "Generated Traffic: Implications for Transport Planning (http://www.allbusiness.com/management/8853644 .html) " http :// rw. allbusiness .com/management/885364- 1 .html. mhtml:file: / /C:\Documents and SettingsltW&W/Y TRANSP induced ... 12/7/2009 External links ■ UK Department for Transport guidance on modelling induced demand ( http:// wwwv .webtag.org.uklwebdocuments /2 I roj ect Manager /9 Variable Demand Modellingt2, e A statistical analysis of induced travel effects in the US mid - Atlantic region (http: lwww. cts. cv inrperial.ac. uk /documents vp /iccts00003.pdf) (Fulton et al.), Journal of Transportation and Statistics, April 2004 (PDF) * Generated traffic and induced travel (htp:t/www.vpi.org/genfrq/pdf) , Victoria Policy Institute (PDF) Retrieved from "http :l1 en_wikipedia_orgiwikillnduced demand$' Categories: Transport economics Trans oration lanning 1 Sustainable transport m This page was last modified on 24 October 2009 at 15 :03. ▪ Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non - profit organization. ▪ Contact us PAGE 000015 mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \OwnerllVIy DocumentslISSUE TRANSP induced ... 12/7/2009 • Curriculum Vita �G ic1i PReinler, PhD., Geologist' Consultant and Advisor .` 75 -6081 Ali'i ]rive R 103 Kailua -Kona, Hawaii 9670 Home Phone: (808) 33 *4108 e-mail: mreimer @att net • . G. Michael Reimer roc i ed :a: in Science Education from v'A1fre d University, Alfred, NY in 1967 and his A.D. in Geology from the Urii ersityW'Pehn lvania, 'Philadelphia, PA in 1972. He was'selected as a National Academy of-Seienc r/National Research Council ostdoctcrai``fellvw at the U.S. National Bureau of t i dar- ds (now National p Institute of Standards and Technology) from 1972 to '19744f-the Nuclear Analytical Chemistry Section. He co- developed standards for trace•metal analysisin glass.and established quality controllquality assurance guidelines for use'= ikthe standards. In 1974, he joined the U.S. Geological Survey as a Research Geologist where he pioneered the development of mobile high- resolution analytical equipment and soil -gas sampling methods for energy resource exploration including uranium, oil and gas, and geothermal. He has investigated the application of these techniques to hazard prediction regarding earthquakes and volcanoes. He established a gas monitoring station at Kilauea Volcano in 1981 and deter iined that the release of carbon dioxide from the summit during periods of quiescence were as great as during eruptive episodes. Dr. Reimer was the Director of the Gas Geochemical Laboratory at the U.S. Geological Survey, focusing on environmental studies and risk mapping. He served as chief of the Radon Studies Project within the USGS, and developed techniques to provide a refined radon risk map for the U.S. on a county - -level scale by establishing ground -truth measurements for estimating the radon potential of the soils. He was Principal Investigator on several radon projects funded through interagency agreements and served as Radon Principal Scientist with the U.S. Department of Energy and has received numerous awards and honors for his pioneering work. He wrote the EPA chapter on Hawaii for its national Radon Risk Guide. From 1991 to 2006, he established and chaired the environmental radioactivity section for the special meetings of Methods and Applications of Radioanalytical Chemistry for the American Nuclear Society. In addition to his scientific duties, he has supervised upward mobility opportunity programs and developed guidelines for retraining and outreach activities. Dr. Reimer was appointed Research Professor and Director of the Institute for Resource and Environmental Geosciences at the Colorado School of Mines in 1998. He has sponsored and advised students participating with him through research grants. He was a founding member of the CSM Diversity Committee and he chaired the CSM Geochemistry Graduate School Program. He has participated in various international studies including using gases to delineate seismic- induced faults at volcanoes in Italy, radon risk mapping in Ireland, radiation -site contamination evaluations in Eastern Europe, and environmental applications using gas tracers to determine pathways for toxic material transport including the proposed Yucca Mountain High Level Waste Repository. He has applied the gas sampling techniques he had developed to defining the release of methane from coal as it relates to loss of resource and creating potential hazards for nearby urban development. PAGE 000016 He participated as an international expert with the International Atomic Energy Agency in reviewing and cataloging worldwide radioelement mapping. Currently he participates in independent research attempting to establish a theoretical base for the transport of elemental and particulate matter in the natural environment. He is a member of the Geological Society of America and the American Geophysical Union. He has served as guest editor for Geophysical Research Letters and the Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. He has authored or coauthored over 100 peer reviewed scientific publications and over abstracts with presentations at national and international symposia. -He has consulted for Oil and ,Gas :. .companies and provided technical expertise for modifying gas analytical equipment for specific tasks. He also was a Senior Advisor to the independent ES AR Group concerned with the ethical use of science in support of public policy and regulation. Dr. Reimer retired from the Colorado School of Mines and moved to Hawaii. He now works part time as a private consultant and .advisor to several different companies. PAGE 000017 May 2OD7 Name: Military Rank: tCO3.one1; - Medical Copp ( tire'd) Walter Reed Army of Research Date /Birthplace: Wife's Name: Children /Date of Birth: Education /Training: 1971 -75 . Princet,on Unlyeraity, _ BS . , f ' - Cy# •Laid e 1975 -7 ' '.T Iai a H :.Cal • School., MD• • 1976-79 Tulane School of Public .Health MPH in Tropical - Medicine 1979 --80. "F ifn'iversit.y of . Braz il; .� ^ " _ `Fefe; YFernaiilauct, Pot Graduate Studies in Pathology and InfectioU8 .D.�seases .1 iettermarrArmy Baspital San r. i'i.: Francisco, • CA, 'Medicine' Intern "Walter 'Reed - Army Institute of - Research, - , • Washington 'DC,:. ' Preventive Metictirie •Residency Positions Held; 198 87 :deidl F ` ` og ., t, '�it25 (Walter `Reed Ins. . ' Overseas laboratory) Bangkok; - Thailand 30 M , 1953 • aroh` ' • Hon olulu, Hawaii` Kathleen ' K . Selena T. Pang 8 ,December 1985 L • 1987 -•90 `'Ch:i.ef"' Preventive • - - �_'. • ._, �ed��.cine� '•Service; =_ � l: ; T piers Army .. Metrical Center; ' • : ... .;9t. Honolulu, Hawaii : _ ;. • ' _ • .98'7- 8 : :zn :cal Assodiate 'Pro•fess'ar, School Of!' Pt l is Health, - , CURrtICCLUN VITAE Lorrin Wayie Pane- iS rrr Genevieve 13 September • PAGE 000018 • • • University of Hawaii e'al Officer; 'Malaria Unit; World Health Organization, Genera, Switzerland. 199 -91 ' Clinician /EPiderniologist,. • v Walter Reed Institute of Research • .. Overseas Laboratory, Brazil. 1994-5 Adviser to Pan 'American Health Organization (Meningitis Vaccine) :i'. 1985- Present Adviser to •Wdrltl •Fiea`:th • • : Organization (Tropical. •Research' Unit Chagas ' D isease, Leishinainiasis, Malaria, Clinical Trials) 1997 - 2000 • Chief, Department• � of Bacteriolog :. • - and 'Molecular• Genetics-; • AFRIMS, • Walter• Reed Institute of Research Overseas Bangkok, Thailand. • • W_ • 1997 -2000 Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 2000- present District Health Df f ider, Maui County State of Hawaii • 2001-present Independent Advisor Glaxo Smith .Kline Pharmaceutical i Awards: Army Achievement Medal, 1982, 1996; Army Research and Development • Medal, 1987. Army Meritorious Service Medal, 1990; = `'1997. Selected as on of Hawaii's top (3 %•l - phyiicians for 2006 Selected as on of the Nations .top , (3 %) physicians for 2006.77. • Selected one of 10 Citizens of Hawaii who "Made a Difference" in 2001 for eradication of Dengue on Maui, Hawaii 2002 Discovery Channel documentary on Dengue outbreak and' eradication in Maui 2006-7 Selected as one of Hawaii's top (3 %) physicians 2006-7 & 2007-8 Selected to America's Best Doctors List- (3 % . of` physicians ) Certification: Medical License State of Louisiana, 1980 2000. Hawaii State License, 2000 - present Board Certification in Preventive Medicine 1990. Featured on Discovery Health Documentary for 'Eradication of Dengue on Maui, Hawaii PAGE 000019 Publications (chronologically: nut of order)), 1. Lemon SM, Miller RN, Pang LW, Prier RE, Bernard KW.. Failure to achieve predicted antibody responses with intr;adersl and :. intramuacuffai human diploid cell rabies vaccine. Lancet 1984;19:1098'- 114Q:. 2. Webster HK, Boudreau EF, Childs GE, Yongid'nitchit, Pang LW. Antimalarial drug susceptibility testing of P— falciparum it ..Thailand using .a mi.rodilution radiosotope method, Am J Trop Med Hyg 108;14'(2);2'28 ... ";: 3. Pang LW, Boudreau EF, Childs • GE, Webster _HK, Supernantalerk .C, Somutsakorn P. The failure of large dose, .erythromycin ;in r combination with standard doses of chloroquine or quinine to treat - htitildh falciparum - malar :a� Bull WHO 1985;63(4)1739 4. Tan SG, Green CA, Andre, RG,. ; Baimai . V,, _Pang L Genetics of esterases and .6 phosphogluconate dehydrogeiase�:'in. .the., anopheles .maculatus complex: Acta Tropica ' 1986;43 :113 -23. 5. Childs GE, Pang LW, Wimanwattrawatee . T, Pooyindee N, Nanakorn :.A, • Limchitee S, Webster HK. In vitro mefloquine r'esistance..of Plasmodium .faloiparum .isolated from the Burmese border region of Thailand. SEA J - drop Med Publ Hlth 1987;18(4) :438- -43. ,• 6. Boudreau EF, Pang LW, Chaikummao .S, Witayr:aut .•C, Thiemanum r W.,... : Poakasorn M. Comparison of mefloquine, choroquine plus fansidar and chloroquine'alone as malarial. prophylaxis in eastern Thailand. SEA J Trop Med Publ Hlth ,1991; 22 :183 -9 .... 7. Pang LW, Limsomwong N, Boudreau EE, Singharaj T. • D.pNycycline , pprophylaxis for falciparum malaria. Lancet. . 57,.2311'61 -4. 8. Boudreau EF, Pang LW, Dixon KE, Webster H.K. Pavanand 1, Tosingha L, Somutsakorn P, Canfield C. Treatment efficacy of halpfantrine (WR•172, 669 in initial field trials in Thailand. Bull WHO 1988;66(2):27 S. 9. Limsomwong N, Pang LW, Sing P. . Malaria prtphy].az±s with proguanil in children living in a malaria endemic area ._ .dim J_ _ Trop _Med . yg . 19880g(2):23176., 10. Pang LW, Limsomwong N, Singharaj P. • Falciparum and vivax malaria prophylaxis with low dose doxycycline. J Infect Dis 198,8a58(5):1124-7, 11. Pang LW, Limsomwong N, Webster HK,,K,arwacki JJ.:.Circumsporozoite antibodies and falciparum malaria incidence in children living in , a malaria endemic area . Bull WHO 1988 , 6 6(3):35 9-63 . 12. Webster HK, Boudreau EF, Pang. LW, Permpanich B Sookto P, ..Wirtz RA. Development of immunity in natural Plasmodium,,falciparum malaria . antibodies to the falciparum sporozoite vaccine 1 antigen (R32tet32 ) , _ J Clin . Microbiol. 1987,; 25 (6) :1002 --8 . Y _ 13. Harbach RE, Gingrich JB, Pang LW. Some entomological observations on malaria transmisSioncin.a remoteLvillage. tlorthwestern. Thailand. ',J. Contr :Assn 1987,3(2).:296-301...). _ . 14. Pang LW. DoXyCycline .(letter)'. Lancet.19877249704., • 15. Childs:.GE, AnalySis. of .dose-response,,curves.-for..,the-ifv..vitro_susceptibility of Plasmodium falcparum to antimalarials using a pocket computer. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1988;38:15-8. 16. Pang LW, Limsomwong N, Singharaj P, Canfield CJ. Malaria.prophylaxis" with proguanil and sulfisoxazolef.in children. living in.a malaria•endemic , Bull"WHO.1989;67(1):51-8. .•'.. •-•.* : ' • 1/. Childs GE, Boudreau EF, Milhous WK, Wimonwattratee Ti:'Pooyindee'N, 'Pang LW, : :Davidson :. DE. A comparison of the vitro activities of amadiaquine and desethylamodiaquine against isolates=ofwFIASkodiUm.falciparum:-AMTrop Med Hyg 1989;49:7-11. 18. Shida KK, Lewchalermvongse B, Pang LW. Plasmodium berghei Malaria infection causes increased cardiac output in rats. Experiment Parasito1,1989;68:253-9. , ; • -.1- . 19. Pang LW. Chemoprophylaxis and treatment of malaria (letter).NEUM 1589320:1561;''' 20. Boudreau EF, Fleckenstein L, Pang LW, Childs GE, Schroeder AC, Ratnavotorn B, Phintuyothin"P.. MeflOquine'kinetics in'cuied-and recrUdescent patients with acute falciparum malaria and'inll'eaIthy volithteerin Ther 21. Desowitz R, Shida K, Pang L, Buchbinder G. Plasmodium berghei malaria in the rat: a modelsformalaria in - 1990;41(0:630-4. 22. Sanchez JJ, Hoke CC, McCown J, DeFraites RP, Talcafqji_ET,Diniega_BM, Pang LW. Further experience with Japanese encephalitis vactine: Lancet 199021:972-3. 23. Roscelli 3D, Bass JW, Pang L. Guillain-Barre syndrome and influenza vaccination in • the US Army, 1980-1988. JEpldemiol 1991;133:952-5; . 24. Sasaki D, Pang LW, Minette H,.et Incidence and risk factors of'leptospirosis'in Hawaii. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1993;48(1) :35-43. 25: Shmuklarsky ::MJ, Boudreau'EF,%Panq L, et al. 'Failure of doxycycline'as prophylactic agent again6t farciparum malaria .in healthy non-immune volunteers; Ann Intern Med 1994;120(4):294-9. Am J Trop Med Hyg 19§5;52(4):347-8:' - PAGE 000020 - • • • •' • • • • „.. . • • 26. Withers BJ, Kelley PW, Pang LW, et al. Vaccine-Preventable disease susceptibility in a young adult Micronesian. population. SEA J Trop Med Pabi Hlth-1994;25(3):5692. 27. Kramer KJ, Pang LW, Mitte HP, PerrOneJB. Evaluatibn of'the 46antitatiNire buffy coat ' analysis (QBC) system for the detection of Leptospira in human blood. SEA J Trop Med Publ Hlth 1994:25788-'9;, - 32. Gomes M, Wayling s, Pang LW. Interventions to improve the use o antimalarials in Southeast_Asia: an overview., Bul.4. WHO 1998;76(Sfl. 33.' MG, Pang L Silveira MS, Mi1ho Wirth et al. Characteriza f Plasmodium falciparum isolated from the Amazon region of Brazil: evidence for quinine resistance. Am J TrOp Med Hyg 1998;58(5):630-7, 34. Cerutti-C Jr,..-Durlacher,RR, Segurado AAC, Pang LW ,..lir;Vivo Efficacy of Mefloquine,for the. Treatment of Malaria in J Infect Dis, : • 1999;18012077-80. 28. Andrade AL, et al. High prevalence' of 4symptomatic - malaria in gold mining'aieas of Brazil. Clin Infect Dis 199520:475. 29. Pang LW, Alencar. FEC, Cerutti C, et al. Hepatitis E infection in the-Brazilian Amazon. • 30. Alencar FEC, Cerutti C Jr, Durlacher,RR, et al. Atovaquone and Proguanil for r • • treatment of malaria in Brazil. J'Infect 1997;175:1544-/. ' 31. Berman JD, Hadar() R, Thakur CP, et al. Efficacy and toxicity of liposomal-amphotericin B (AmBisome), forivisceraiLleishmaniasis inldeveloping.nations: review of TDR clinical development program' Bull • 1-998;76(1)-:25-32.!. 35. Dalsgaar&A, Forslund,A,Bodhiddatta L,:Serichantalergsi3O4 Pitarangsi Shimada T, Echeverria P. A high proportion of Vibrio cholerae strains isolatedl children with diarrhoea in Bangkok, Thailand are multiple antibiotic resistant and belong to heterogenous tor-01, non-0139 0. Infett J 36. Fonseca MO, Pan. L, de Avila Sdo L, Arruk VG, Tozetto-Mendoza TR, Ferreira AW Saes- Alquezar lioulos=M;Gross antibodies:anthHIT tests. : _ Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2000 Mar-Apr;94(2):171-2. 37. Sethabutr0 Venkatesan1M,:YamiS Pan. LW Smoak BL„San ,Inr.Echeverria;P Ta DN, Isenbarger-DW.Detectipn 42fPOR,%products of'the:ipaH gene!from7iShigella,,,and, .- enteroinvasive Escherichia call by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. Diagn,Micr.aiol 1:11fct DiS0,2000y;37(1):13.7 - ; : .bd.7 38. Cunha Mt, Piovesan-TAlves F, rPang..LW., „Coraraunity-ba.spro,gm management in the Brazilian Amazon. P411 J Trop MedHyg._2001.Dep1654.6):872-6._ 39. Pang LW, Piovesan-Alves ti.E66nOmic advantage of a coMmuniiy-6asmalaiia management program.in:theBraziliiap7,Amaon.,. • Am J Tr6p Med Hyg. 2001 Dec;65(6):883-6. Epidemiol Infect. 2002 L29 1) 139-45 • PAGE 000021 • • ••1 . .•. 40. Duarte .EC,,Pang_LW,,Ribeiro.LC,,FOntes CJ Association of Subther4putic dosages of ar. _ standard drug:,gegimen40.111rs 41 of viyAX Trop Med Hyg. 2001 Nov;85(5):471-6. . . • - 41. Duarte EC , Gyork66 tW„Ping,L, Avila,S,_Forites a‘.17Inter7fest_re4ability.of RESA indices based on ELISA tests using eluates from wholi biood'Spots dried on • - L ' , • • - . 42. Wongsrichanalai C, Lin K, Pang LW, Faiz MA, No'edl 11,..Wimonwattrawatee T, Laoboonchai,_ A, Kawamoto F.In vitro susceptibility of Plasmodium falciparu fr M:isolates om Myanmar to • antimalarial drugs.A.m.J Trop Med Hyg. 2p01,Now65.(5):45075,. . , , . . : 43. I senbager DW, „Hien iBT,, , Ha. HT, Ha. TT, „Bodhidatta L, .PanT..LW, C PD. Prospective study of the i.-444 diarthoe and prevalence ofjoact,e4ai pwthogens_in a cohort of Vietnamese children along . . Epidemiol Infect. 2001 Oct;127(2) :229-36. 44:11ong6riChauS1i,d,' Siichaisinthp J, Karwacki:JJ, con4puong.K,,milier.R8, Pang Thimasarn K resistant malaria on the Thai-Myanthar and thai-CaMbodian'borderS. Southeast.Apian JTropMedPub1icjea1th.2001. Mar;32(;):41-9view- 45."Roung "Sethabutr 0 Iliidhoy W; Kati DE, tW:Devi8prilent Of a oeUE7based . multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for direct detection and'differentiation of Campylpbacter jejuni.and Cappylobacter.coll-in . Diagn Microbio1 - Infectliis.'2bO1 - MaY-jun,T40(12):11-9. 46. Sanche.z. JL BendetI, Gro 1 g .Lima JB .Pan LW, Guimaraes_MF., Guedes CM, ,Milhous WK, Green MD, - Todd 'GO :Malaria in Brazilian military personnel deployed to,Angola J Travel Med, 2000 Sep-Oct;7(5):275-82. .. • . • t. 47. Cerutti Junior C Mar pes C Alencar FE .Durlacher RR Alween,A, ,Se urado,A.A, Pan LW, Zalis MG.AntiMalarial'drug ssceptibilipy.testing,of falciparum ip razil using a radioisotope method. Mem Int Oswaldo Crai..1§99 Nov:-Dee;94(6):803-9. . • ' . ;- • ' 48-Duarte EC, yorkos..TW, Pang- L, Avila. S, Fontes. Intez reliability of theranti- RESA indices based on ELISA tests using eluates fromlwholeobloodh;spots drilled on filter .paper. Epidemiol Infect 2002 Aug;129(1):139-45 49. Faiz NA, Yunus EB, Rahman MR, Hossain MA, Pang LW, Rahman ME,' Bhuiyan national _guidelines ..p.diagnose uncomplicated malaria in Bangladesh. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2002 oct;67(4)•:3•- • 50. Sanders JW, Isenbarger DW, Walz SE, Pang LW, Scott DA, Tamminga C, Oyofo BA, Hewitson WC, Sanchez J14,Pitarangsd.rC, Echeverria P, Tribble-DR; Anobservationaliclihic-based I .- study of diarrheal illness in deployed United States military personnel in Thailand. - presentation and outcome of Campylobacter infection. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2002 Nov;67(54:533- 8. 51. Noedl H, Faiz MA, Yunus EB, Rahman MR, l3ossain MA, Samad R, Miller RS, Pang LW, Wongsrichanalai C. Drug -- resistant malaria in Bangladesh: an in vitro assessment. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2003 Feb; 68 (2) :190 --2. 52. Murine Typhus - Hawaii 2002, MMWR vol 52/No 50 19 Dec 2003, pp 1224-25. In Press /submitted: FaracoccidiomyCosis: An epidemiologic survey in a pediatric population from the Brazilian Amazon using skin tests. Published, AJTMH Treatment of Falciparum Malaria with Proguanil + sulf in the Brazilian Amazon. Published, SEAJTM The Efficacy of Hepatitis B vaccinations in HIV Infected adults, In Press, Vaccine Dengue in Hawaii 2001 - 2001, In Press EID. PAGE 000022 Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) Aerial Surveys Technical Memorandum Flange: 7' 4 i P RC-KO N . H FA 18 P I j ti 3 K L l L• ;I r. 4s .3 .1E Range 14, • • yi fie :. sti % 4 h N 0 ft A 1( U 1. 0 A A ii F A Range 11 T Range 1 4 R A 1 N 1 N 1 .3 R Y H 1 . ti d F! R :% T i r i 4 Legend Collected Gamma Walkover Data Ranp Locations Tree Lime Areas of Interest 600 0 600 Meters COVERALL WALKOVER COVERAGE PTA 81G ISLAND HAWAII Figure W52F1.1- 07 -D0041 FIGURE 4 -2: PTA GWS WALKOVER COVERAGE MAP CABRERA SERVICES, INC. FINAL 4 -6 US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Cory Harden Box 1137 Hilo, HI 96721 Dear Ms. Harden: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: 1-IFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of fIawai`i Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing for the SEIS in the form of hand written questions, oral testimony, a summary letter, and a detailed letter with attachments. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the sensitivity of the SEIS to a number of concerns and your endorsement of many aspects of the project, including support for the W -7 route. For the issues on which you had concerns or questions, we have attempted to respond by topic in the responses below. Existing Saddle Road The existing Saddle Road will remain open and under County of Hawai` i jurisdiction. DU Air testing for DU Testing of the air has been conducted by both the Army and HDOH. For the Army testing, monthly reports on air quality monitoring that began in February 2009 at Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) (see http:// www. imcom .pac.army.mil /dulReports.htm) have consistently shown that the total uranium mass found on most filters is above the laboratory's latest determined instrument detection level (IDL) but below the practical reporting level (PRL) of 0.00025 microgram (tg). The fact that most total uranium values continue to be less than the PRL remains significant from a public health perspective. At a nominal sampler flow rate of 5 1pm, the laboratory's PRL of 0.00025 microgram (µg) corresponds to an airborne uranium concentration of 0.000035 .tg/m3, a value several orders of magnitude below health effects guidelines. Uranium isotopes 234-U and 235 -U have been undetectable. We would note that if DU were present in the air in the W -7 area, it would likely be deposited over time and would almost certainly be detected in soil samples. This information has been added to the Final SEIS. PAGE 000024 DU comments to Mr. Reiner We have supplied you a copy of our response to Dr. Reimer. Baseline health risk The soil samples provided sufficient data for a baseline health risk assessment per Hawai `i Department of Health accepted scientific methodology. Soil samples were collected at :five distinct locations along the proposed W7 alignment. These samples were not collected using discreet sample collection techniques, but rather were collected using multi - increment sampling methods which significantly reduce the probability of false negative results and provide a better measurement of the true concentration. Each multi- increment sample was composed of approximately 50 individual "increments" across a 10,000 sq ft area. In addition, one of these areas was sampled in triplicate. Please note that a baseline human health risk assessment by definition evaluates the risk of a specific site to hypothetical receptors under reasonably foreseeable exposure scenarios assuming no remedial action is undertaken and that a baseline risk assessment is generally performed only if accepted screening criteria and background concentrations are exceeded. Neither of these criteria existed based on the data collected. In fact the data collected and subsequent analyses provided the following 3 lines of evidence indicating that a baseline human health risk assessment was excessive and was not required: 1) Site total uranium concentrations were orders of magnitude below USEPA Region 9 screening criteria for residential scenarios. 2) The AMEC analysis strongly indicated that uranium levels found were well within the background range for naturally occurring uranium. 3) The isotopic ratios of the U234/238 strongly suggested that the uranium at the site was of natural origin. These lines of evidence notwithstanding, AMEC did perform a baseline human health risk assessment. The rationale for performing additional quantitative risk assessment was to address public concerns and to account for health effects due to radioactivity. Number of spotting rounds The information on the number of spotting rounds has been added to the Final SETS. On the larger issue, we understand that there is uncertainty regarding the quantity of DU that may reside at PTA. Based on results of soil sampling and air monitoring, this does not currently appear to be an important factor for assessing the safety of the use and construction of the realigned highway. FHWA and HDOT will continue to keep apprised of DU monitoring at PTA as construction of the highway progresses. Range of 234U/238U Sansone et al. (2001) report that naturally occurring U234/U238 ratios are in the range of 0.5 to 1.2. The U234/U238 ratio reported in the AMEC study is within this background range. U234/U238 ratios for the Site ranged from 0.74 to 1.79 with an arithmetic average of 1.16. Only a single sample (U23341U238 ratio — 1.79) was outside of the identified Sansone background range. AMEC considers this single value to be completely normal and within the realm of sampling and natural variability. Additionally, the fact that the one sample outside of the identified background range had a higher U234/U238 ratio further supports the notion of a naturally occurring source. U234/238 mass ratios from depleted sources would invariably be lower than mass ratios from natural sources. PAGE 000025 Construction worker risk The risk was misstated in the Draft SEIS (but not in the technical report). The Final SEIS now states that "the construction worker was found to have a carcinogenic risk of one in ten million, and a noncarcinogenic risk of 0.004, compared to the noncarcinogenic Hazard Index regulatory level of concern of 1.0.... The noncarcinogenic risk was calculated to be 0.003 for the Child Receptor and 0.001 for the Adult Receptor, compared to the noncarcinogenic Hazard Index regulatory level of concern of 1.0." Uxo FHWA and HDOT will work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Army to ensure that all UXO found in the corridor or in other areas that poses a hazard is removed. Air quality Dust The wind pattern in Keamuku is usually upslope, downslope, or calm. In the upper section of W -7, where the underpass will likely be located and in which military training activities may occur upslope or downslope of the highway, the Army will need to take special precautions to ensure that dust does not substantially affect the public roadway. Short -term and long -term dust abatement is part of the Army's planning for use of the property, as noted in the sources you quote. This information has been added to the Final SEIS. Water trucks Based on experience in similar portions of the Saddle Road, it estimated that 30,000 to 40,000 Meals will be used for dust control, earthwork compaction, and irrigation. We estimate that a total of 3,000 to 5,000 truck trips will be required to supply the water necessary to construct the new road, depending on the hauling capacity of the equipment used. Assuming a 2 -year construction schedule, this will equate to 7 to 10 trucks per work day each way. Water will be obtained from a contractor - selected source, most likely in Waimea due to its close proximity to the project. Water will be hauled to the construction area via either the existing west side of Saddle Road or on a temporary construction access road pioneered along the new alignment and connecting to SR 190 at milepost 14. This information has been added to the Final SEIS. Wildfires Fire study The wildfire plan is comprehensive, accurate, relatively recent (2003) and it contains all relevant information. Risk of wildfire We do not concur that the risk of wildfire has been underestimated in the Draft SEIS. Although some of your points about Array wildfire risk are valid (however, pyrotechnics, live ammunition, e'tc. are not relevant to this area), the Army is heavily mitigating for such impact. Some of this infrastructure has been completed, including some firebreaks and dip tanks. Comments regarding the need to modify or make demands of military training are not appropriate to this SEIS because it is outside the scope of this project. The realigned highway provides both a firebreak and a means by which to more quickly reach wildfires. PAGE 000026 Traffic and operations Distractions due to military training Saddle Road has passed through/near PTA for decades and we are unaware of any evidence that motorists are distracted by military training activity to the point where it becomes a safety issue. Urban driving tends to offer many more distractions compared to the situation on the proposed realignment. Traffic- calming features All approaches to both intersections will include measures to alert drivers and help calm traffic. Both visual and audible measures will be evaluated during final design. For the remainder of the highway, traffic calming features on such as speed humps, which are designed to slow traffic down in urban and residential areas, would not be suitable for this rural, regional highway. Induced demand The traffic volumes projections presented in the SEIS and reported in Table 1.4.1 include induced traffic, as well as traffic that will utilize the route as an alternative to SR 11 and 19. We note that the sources you photocopied for your letter relate almost exclusively to mega- cities such as London and Sydney and their exurbs, which have transportation and land use issues that are not analogous to the Big Island. Bus service Our discussions to date with Hawaii County Mass Transit Agency officials indicate that although this is a possibility, current demand and that expected in the foreseeable future would not justify it. If and when necessary, Saddle Road would provide an excellent express mass transit route. Military convoys No increase in the number of convoys is expected as a result of building w -7, and the impact of the climbing lane associated with W -7 road will be highly beneficial for other traffic when convoys are present, as pointed out in the Draft SEIS. These questions and requests are relevant to Q.J.S. Army activities at PTA rather than Saddle Road improvements. It is important to recall that the SEIS's charge is to consider realigning the highway from W -3 to W -7. FHWA and HDDT cannot dictate military training and are not privy to detailed planning information beyond that available to the general public. The convoys will use Saddle Road, which will have a climbing lane to accommodate all slow traffic. It is clear that without the proposed realignment and improvements, convoys will induce far more traffic disruption along the existing road. Firing over road The Army has informed FHWA that there will be no firing of weapons over the Saddle Road. Need for highway We do not anticipate that the economic slowdown, which is likely temporary, nor the overseas deployment of troops will lessen the need (which we believe is an accurate word) for improvements to the highway, as evidenced by the steady growth in traffic through the decades up to now. The long term benefits of an improved and more direct cross island route will help aide the local economy and residents by reducing travel costs and greatly improving safety. PAGE 000027 Archaeology Archaeology study and impacts to historic properties The archaeological report was submitted to Section 106 consulted parties along with the entire draft SEIS to provide context. It was thus not possible (nor, we believe, in any way necessary or advisable) for the consultation comments to appear in a Draft SEIS. Funding FHWA and HDOT are investigating a number of potential funding sources to determine the best means of funding the project. Multiple impacts Impacts from tourists East Hawai`i's visitor infrastructure is currently underutilized, with low occupancy rates at all hotels except during special events. Visitor expenditures and the taxes paid directly and indirectly (through business and worker expenditures that benefit from tourism) are highly positive sources of government revenue that can be spent on infrastructure shared by residents. For this reason, the County and State expend considerable funding each year to attract more visitors to various parts of the island, including East Hawai` i. All government agencies we are aware of strongly support the improvements, for this among other reasons. Concerning specifically additional recreational use of Saddle Road, we cannot envision any methodology for determining how much additional use for various categories such as hiking, biking, birding, hunting, etc., would occur, as much of this is done by individuals and families who reside on the Big Island. We would note that these uses would occur within recreational areas that are generally not highly used, including the Volcano to Pu'u `Coo Trail, Mauna Kea State Park, and most of the hunting areas. Biking advocacy organizations such as PATH have expressed concern not about overuse of the Saddle, but rather how the existing Saddle Road was almost unusable for most bicyclists until the recent improvements were completed, and they are strongly supportive of further improvements that can allow more use. A strong theme heard from the public in hearings in both 1998 and 2008 was the desire to have better access to the numerous recreational areas within the Saddle.. Significant caves Significant caves would be those with unique biological, cultural, or geological resources. Non- native vegetation Once the highway has been turned over to the State of Hawai `i, DOT maintenance of vegetation in the clear zone areas will begin. DOT will consult with the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Department of the Army concerning control of noxious weeds. Overpass /underpass options It has not yet been determined whether to use an overpass or underpass, but coordination is ongoing. However, there are several reasons that an underpass for military traffic is more likely: • Building a military overpass would likely require construction of lengthy and possibly paved approaches to /from the bridge that would extend well outside the right of way for the new road. • Given the weight of some military equipment that may to be brought up to PTA, a military overpass would probably have to be more structurally stout than a bridge designed to handle only legal highway weights, including barriers much stouter than guardrails to prevent PAGE 000028 an errant heavy military vehicle from inadvertently running off the overpass onto the roadway below. By going under the new road, the military trail may not need to be asphalt paved. • HDOT would presumably be responsible for maintaining the military overpass given its location within the State R/W. Given the additional length and structural requirements, this could be more costly for HDOT than the opposite of maintaining a normal (and shorter) highway bridge. • A military underpass is likely to be less visible to motorists. • Any future observatory projects that require hauling equipment w/ inordinately high clearance needs would not be restricted. • A military overpass would have to be considerably longer to cross over the new and wider Saddle Road as compared to taking Saddle Road over a military trail. • The natural terrain appears to favor an underpass for military traffic. While there are no perfect locations, one suitable place is shown in Figure 2.2.2d of the Draft SEIS. There will need to be more discussions during design to determine the exact nature, location, size and materials to be used. The volume of military traffic at this time is unknown, but it is not expected to be substantial for any sustained period of times and will easily be accommodated by one-lane crossing. This information has been added to the Final SEIS. Cumulative Impacts Saddle Road extension The Saddle Road Extension was conceived as a connector that could convey traffic from the Marnalahoa Highway, including Saddle Road traffic, towards Waikoloa and along the Queen Ka` ahumanu Highway towards Kona on Kawaihae. As discussed in Section 1.5 of the Draft SEIS, the selection of a western terminus for the Saddle Road project may influence the eastern terminus of the Saddle Road Extension project. In the event that HOOT determines that it is not feasible or prudent to locate the Saddle Road Extension project contiguous with the Saddle Road terminus, another alternative will likely be identified. No other effects on the Saddle Road Extension are foreseen. The cumulative impacts of the Saddle Road with other projects, including the Saddle Road Extension, are discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the EIS. It should be noted that delivering traffic to its ultimate destination more directly via a route that lacks homes, businesses, schools or parks is a positive impact, as it saves fuel, time, and avoids traffic impacts on such facilities. Distractions from planes We do not concur that the occasional landing aircraft provide a substantial distraction warranting evaluation in the context of cumulative impacts, as all motorists on the Big Island are familiar with an airport and what happens there. Cumulative impacts Chapter 6 contains an extensive discussion of this issue. Visual Impacts Insertion of built element While there will be a theoretical visual impact, there will be almost no impact to public views, because the affected areas will not be visible or visible only at a great distance except at the highway intersections. Commenters have noted the fact that the highway will open up new vistas in areas where the "scenery" is currently not visible. PAGE 000029 Scenic pullouts We note your support for scenic pullouts and interpretive signage and we will consider including these in the W -7 alignment during the final design if opportunities permit, as has occurred in other parts of the improved Saddle Road. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 -963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a7dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincer David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000030 2 CD Pla CR t40454-3.;2_ v s .6.4\) op My name is: (Please return to the information desk) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Public Hearing FOR QUESTIONS ONLY ki6 PAGE 000031 'II December 9, 2009 441/4-96,-caA.t o c.:k: �-- 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Patrick Kahawaiola` a 1260 Elama Rd. Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Kahawaiola'a: agencies would agree to such a change given: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawai` i Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing for the SEIS in the form of oral testimony and a question. The Palila Memorandum of Understanding committed the funds in question ($115,500) to DLNR for mowing of the Ka` ohe mitigation site. Therefore, they cannot be given to HDOT without all signatory agencies agreeing to amend the MOU. It is unlikely that the HDOT would be interested in accepting this responsibility, nor is it likely that MOU signatory a. the purpose of these mitigation funds is to enhance bird hunting at Ka`ohe, not for performing roadway maintenance; b. the Ka`ohe mitigation site is within DLNR lands thus HDOT has no jurisdiction; c. taking on off - site /non- highway related mowing by HDOT would stretch their already limited roadway maintenance resources, thus the HDOT is unlikely to willing to take on this additional responsibility. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 - 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, V.--bv, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000032 (Please return to the information desk.) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii My name is: Public Hearing FOR QUESTIONS ONLY PAGE 000033 4u#14 December 9, 2009 0 U.5. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Kale Gumapac HC 2 Box 9607 Keaau, HI 96749 Dear Mr. Gumapac: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 PAGE 000034 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing for the SEIS in the form of oral testimony and a question. In response to your question and comments: Archaeology /cultural concerns a). The primary archaeological inventory survey is contained in the Draft SEIS; other archaeological surveys were performed in 1996 and 2003 for the area. A cultural impact assessment including the Ke`arnuku area was done for the 1999 SEIS. This analysis was supplemented by ethnohistorical work done as part of subsequent archaeological surveys, as well as Kepa Maly's work for Waiki`i and Keamuku. These studies are fully referenced in the SEIS. b) A number of native Hawaiian organizations and individuals have been consulted in the development of the project. In addition, there are many native Hawaiians within the sponsoring agencies, on the consultant teams (including some of the individuals you were addressing in your oral testimony), and in the construction crews. Many native Hawaiians also attended the hearings, including the Hilo one at which you were present. SEIS process: 1999 EIS is too old The only substantial change was the request by the U.S. Army to shift the alignment from W -3 to W 7 in order to better separate military and civilian traffic given the acquisition by the Army of the Ke` amuku parcel for military training. Traditional Cultural Concerns The EIS acknowledges the use of the project area for traditional gathering prior to establishments of the ranches there. The forest has disappeared because of ranching and feral goat browsing. No physical traces of these former uses are present in the corridor area, including the area under the grass, which were examined closely in several archaeological surveys. We acknowledge your position on the sanctity of traditional burials and their iwi. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 - 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard @dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, .„,,(6-14,-, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000035 4 Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi HaN \ DOT, Hwy Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 Re: Saddle Road EIS Aloha! My name is Pete Lindsey and I am a Field Representative for the Hawaii Construction Laborers' Union Local 368. On behalf of our 500 Big Island members and retirees, I am testifying in STRONG SUPPORT of the Saddle Road project. Our members work all over the Big Island on public and private construction projects. An improved Saddle Road \ \ I provide a faster and safer alternative for our members and their construction companies. It will also provide a safer and faster commute for our members. Also., \-v ith so many of our members not working, this project will provide much needed jobs for workers on the Big Island. This project will contribute to getting our Big Island economy going again. Thank von for this opportunity for us to share our support for this important project. Very Truly Yours, Pete Lindsey Field Representative Laborers' Union Local 368 PAGE 000036 0 U.S.Department of Transportonion Federal Highway Administration Pete Lindsey 749 Mililani St. Hilo, HI 96720 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Lindsey: We are in receipt of your comment letter submitted at the 12/9/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views on how the project will provide jobs as well as a faster and safer alternative for your members and their construction companies. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard®dot.gov, or myself at 720963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, ca,,AL, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000037 5 tha Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY bIA-i el4A91, 10 L I & J // 111X u ✓ lU,.! -�. � 1 &tc / e7U /7^� / Atiaea&a ,4-41f4 e Afirlbt • 41t1 YA/V ee ) Tikt 9 ) My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: My email address is: PAGE 000038 DofE:ji Fei,e5r& ;?'10 sfr th /74` fz2o po:w&i, 9U1 eoiy arixe,u -- ;tku Mk! Iy 1 li es, e s �./,u,'- 111,f) ¢�.t1a�ipx. • , Ii I6the"Z 2 it ,.„. Jr l' ()., V Ad G‘_-■ , O Al / I 1 Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 Q US. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Federal Highway Administration Doreen Friberg 270 Kaiulani St. Hilo, HI 96720 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms. Friberg: We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/9/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views on how the project will have a positive effect on many residents on the Big Island in terms of commuting, business and recreation. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard @dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, ,0, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000039 6 If ;AUK Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Y3 O y&r ir` My name is: My mailing address is: My email address is: Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY deA 0 oil bdc ti"u w c it( b(1(' - tr (rk.. c}70;-) UST A Li D \.{, PAGE 000040 u, (:/c tp h L Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, H1 96813 1 N U) (/I A 1 ,i� C ) ttz s 5?,f pinlSley Ai( NT 9('7-,1-0 u5. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Federal Highway Administration David Uhlmann 111 E. Puainako St. SPC 585 PMB 198 ( ?) Hilo, HI 96720 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawvai`i • Dear Mr. Uhlmann: We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/9/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views on how the final section of the project must be completed to realize the full benefit of the improvements. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard a]dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000041 7 Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa. Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii My mailing address is: Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY 4 fl3/ s v 'V7 r f Y �r _cato ("vrtic r 44, s- cad V), ito tdok-t--1 i r wed- a(ex, My name is: My email address is: r 6oLciA0,- :O4fV, tom•. /S7 14 / �- 1-(/o, l-ff %72O Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 PAGE 000042 kt2?/, , COwJ U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Peter Boucher, P.E. 1537 Kalote Place Hilo, HI 96720 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Boucher: We are in receipt of your comment letter submitted at the 12/9/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views on how the project will benefit long -term economic development. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 -963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000043 8 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY Z /I/WE c1//f/M � :J;4f1Y EYL s fJ - a vcE /?t7Ai) �v2 ovL:,2 ^ ,20 vGuns . � )7,44_, 77, nE .T -153 Ev 7L- ,4)7e)/2_ -LC.5 r ‘z, vcro / 2 c, Cks ;L.) CG/ priLiis As .Y.73 411_&/'96g *S u► oI 6) E Ew 74,e517Awd ,. :cv is CL4L ;;/Ar DG TIE J2#D Rom ni,_}L r� /da3 i^S E 5J- . /).>eGc A� A Cx.5i: Ca/liFt 7?f And TO RAilik0:4,4414 J?ccD 0 2 ro /6c. 41 iy44 -7, 4 ) rF 2- 7&'i ciF 672/pLoci< L`/1v55 5 (N.-/J ftz; , 1)ge )21251--- Df Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 My name is: My mailing address is: My email address is: PAGE 000044 v f—Y7' 1 I Aff, it 5 Zo( t'- A45[7 lOnuoe 5 ��vi2onvytez.3nr� cq.)ff /3 F J2L) �Jve/] Owe. vzL Ca:rS /14iss;o.os at-'7E 73' 4357 ii-ozoiletip 5) M/Lt)# - /6).J4 4'2 q67 fp /KO C. v/- /0a . 6, i�-t Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 0 US. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 1 2300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Administration Stephen Troute 73 -43 51 Holoholo St. Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Dear route: Sincerely, 0J , 1 g -/-- David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000045 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawai` i We are in receipt of your comment letter submitted at the 12/9/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views on how the project has already reduced accident rates and will alleviate traffic in Waimea and reduce fuel consumption and emissions. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 -963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. k LDe,z-ck. IV ‘ 6C2- eG:A- 7: S p Le-.‘),Ake Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY .,'. P-azz_ F * My name is: My email address is: Public Hearing L% cS Li,-; A Cg% (AZ viz 4Cv- r , Cam. PAGE 000046 \l'AekicUSC My mailing address is: 0� cvw - FlL"C--- Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Jeffrey Melrose 1405 W ai anuenue Ave. Hilo, HI 96720 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Melrose: We are in receipt of your comment letter submitted at the 12/9/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing for the SEIS in the form of oral and written testimony. We appreciate your expression of support for the project and your views on how the chosen alignment is appropriate and how the project will save millions of dollars in gasoline and vehicle wear and tear. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, aJli,,, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000047 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 10 cx,„1--;\ e 144 ;71 0 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii '‘A-mpr A L tiC _ g A - f -v''"" cry%; L. -1L 4.4.4 r � � r fir_ CN) -- -3,f . ic=y rstk r; rNl E. <4 , p r k 6 1 1 -SP - 1/41 .D• E LoPr\r‘Nz- WA-- ‘ p-p N 4 C- 4 --1 S uE'f0L.T 1 k\S s Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 My name is: My mailing address is: My email address is: Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY cn \tt c Qsr� L -• �c cry Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 PAGE 000048 0 US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Michael Dworsky 108 Railroad Ave. Hilo, HI 96720 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Dworsky: We are in receipt of your comment letter submitted at the 12/9/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views on how the chosen alignment is appropriate and represents a benefit to public health and safety by providing an alternative cross - island route. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Rickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon @dot.gov. Sincerely, .,,/,4,/,,,,, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000049 110 O AAA--k-v--v-rA 1 o 10(e, t 3 :-—. - j . PA,e,),L ( ..:1-Lii-41 s 40 -,,it-Y fi�, g''�� ■ r-4' C v - ice. -....4 1/4-k A) re\A.4."C-C"I Ceie YtA4 y mailing address is: (-Yk.-VNt 0 —3 --\\-- -A1A,-0_ -; V c),-4 A . k 0,ry-t-c-,-\_..t,,,,---- 4 c y\,cy-.e. ,,,,,...;,e_t_ A -r � . . AD c., r, My email address is: Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii z , t Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY R 46. C ( N..) c_e:_ .+5 ez. C.) r � v ±rLC -14. �.s7..�► .. ti k, V1• v k- iNj k.b,,( /Pi -6) 1,11:_ ( E C, v, .v.t7 , tA-.4-0-1.A.Ar et- My name is: i Vb " i ;. i'o gu scicI r ' : r t . r t 9 t - 9 - 41 PAGE 000050 -51,43 .41 4.,k Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 t <iL Yvr c-, --k,11c 2,--A ,g0000 3OVd C744, 0C-1-3 Q \C0 LA-A-7c\ droADI CP-rrk )1Q WI-NV° z \9r 0 "1'N- r AV \v ,) 7 4M , \: \-r2r7c:\ -rocQA. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Simbralynn Kanaka'ole P.O. Box 1599 Keaau, HI 96749 Dear Ms. Kanaka'ole: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 PAGE 000052 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: H`PM -3 S0 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing for the SEIS in the form of oral testimony and a written comment. In response to your written comments: 106 Consultation The Section 106 consultation process involved a letter to a number of native Hawaiian organizations providing the Draft SEIS and archaeological inventory survey inviting comments on the findings related to historic properties. After the hearing, we provided a letter and Draft SEIS to the address you listed. Heirs of Keamuku battleground We have no information regarding a defect in land title. Our research has uncovered no evidence of a Ke`amuku battleground or any other evidence of a battleground in the area of the W -7 alignment. It is our understanding that the Kuamo`o battleground is located near Keauhou in Kona, not in Ke` amuku. Flooding of Waiakea Uka The work on Saddle Road is distant from Waiakea Uka, and there are no plausible hydrologic connections between the two. The flooding in Waiakea Uka in 2008 (similar to that in 2000) was probably caused by heavy rainfall interacting with land within the local watershed whose permeability had been altered by development, grazing, and agriculture. Speeding and Accidents There is indeed a correlation between wider highways and speeds, but the proposed improvements will result in a much safer highway. The Hawaii County Police Department now regularly patrols the area and has assisted in reducing speeding. The accident rate on the sections of improved road have declined dramatically, whereas the unimproved sections continue to have high accident rates. Heavy metals in concrete There are no heavy metals in concrete under normal production methods. If the comment is related to the potential for heavy metals being found in concrete aggregate materials taken from sources within PTA, the field tests that were performed as part of preparation of this SEIS show only natural levels of uranium as would be found in any other quarry on the Big Island. Cost The total cost of construction to date is approximately $157 million. The current estimate to complete all remaining construction is $97 million in 2010 dollars ($58 million for the west side and $38 mil lion for the remaining east side) . Evacuation The information on the EPA and evacuation drills does not appear to be relevant to the action at hand. However, the realigned highway will provide a far superior alternative route to the present route if disasters affect the Hamakua coast. PTA Training The Saddle Road project is not related to and is independent of military training at PTA. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 - 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard ®dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon @dot.gov. Sincerely, zlIA - 1 1---\ David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000053 Or, please FAX to: (808) 587-1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii My name is: My mailing address is: My email address is: Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY J 11 ' d°11111.1111 ; PAGE 000054 Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Sally Miller 282 Kukuau St. Unit C Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Ms. Miller: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Convments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawai`1 . We are in receipt of your comment letter submitted at the 12/9/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your letter of support for the project and your views on how the Army should cease using depleted uranium. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Me1issa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon @dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000055 zatip-1,e-v, doni 4I / 1 or Pv 1 _APP i 1 mow kit I IAAAdeW; r Ai .4 - rAvi, / ,A. Millagla far aa-E. g;11/X&W (Pleasereturn to the information desk) (wc, Lettcr-- 4( SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii My name is: Public Hearing FOR QUESTIONS ONLY • PAGE 000056 w December ' , 2009 Oztd 10 SADDLE ROAD December/ 2009 .\ I Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Mak Ct.. Y " eatM Island of Hawaii 9 tv 1 15 4 A4111 4 4 3q - 5 ' LOCYS T WeL 441 Public Hearing FOR QUESTIONS ONLY 4Q.y v 7 O 5Lc,, U&k w � 1 1 kQ'iv Lltui, res e,wl- oJ 1 4id Pa-ot Pa-% \JJa,K2' "� My name is: fit (Please return to the information desk) 0 / ��1 Ilk ( I PAGE 009057 D ' 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Tammy Harp P.O. Box 437347 Kamuela, HI 96743 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms. Harp: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Thank you for the comment you provided at the Kona hearing for the SEIS. Regarding your concerns: SEIS distribution and process a) Our records show that a copy of the EIS was mailed to the Thelma Parker Library. b) The public hearing notice for the December 10, 2009 Kona hearing was published in the November 18, 2008 West Hawai`i Today, which provided 21 days of notice. Rock - crushing plant location The rock - crushing plant is denoted as the Construction Quarry Site on Figure 3.1.1, and is located on Pohakuloa Training Area about two miles south of Saddle Road near Milepost 39.3. Waikii stretch The existing Saddle Road will remain open and under County of Hawaii jurisdiction. The project has included coordination with the homeowners' association, which did not provide comments on the Draft SEIS. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 -963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 -- 963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000058 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 i 01341 KCIVitutei cttolf_ 15 f IAMAA t‘, �ac.3a�• � � �-r . Co w (Please return to the information desk) I.tu�i S �ur UeT 1 a�ndCS'? 1 &P ti hAwq� : t ter'. Goy (Please return to the information desk) SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii My name is: My name is: Public Hearing FOR QUESTIONS ONLY PAGE 000059 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Public Hearing FOR QUESTIONS ONLY Cteb tO December 2009 tA -- 3 4S- 6 osc tO DecemberA 2009 0 U.S. Deportment of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 1 2300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Isaac Harp P.O. Box 437347 Kamuela, HI 96743 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawai`i Dear Mr. Harp: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing for the SEIS. Regarding your specific questions: .Reason for Supplemental EIS The entire Saddle Road project was considered in the 1999 EIS. Section I is the only section that involves a substantial change of route or other circumstances, and thus it is the only section that is being considered in the SEIS. The cumulative impacts analysis included discussion of all aspects of the project, as well as other projects such as the Saddle Road Extension and military training expansion. Parker Ranch acquisition We are not aware of any readily available published data on this acquisition, although title information is accessible through government records. Possible connection to Waikoloa Road Coordination with Waikoloa residents during the 1999 EIS public involvement process indicated that most did not wish Saddle Road to outlet at Waikoloa Road. Connecting to Waikoloa Road would likely increase through traffic on that road, and in all probability, beyond its original design capacity. It would thus require significant improvements to accommodate the anticipated increased traffic volumes. W-3 would have also have placed the highway close to Waiki` i. Most importantly, the W -3 terminus (which is essentially the same location as the terminus chosen for W -7) was chosen because it shortened the trip between Hilo or Saddle destinations to Kona, the traffic stream for more than half of motorists. Upgrade of current alignment As discussed in Section 2.1 of the Draft EIS, the existing alignment, or EX-1, diverts traffic in a northwesterly direction instead of towards Kona or Waikoloa, the traffic stream for more than 75 PAGE 000060 January 26, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 percent of motorists. The existing west side section of Saddle Road is also about 1.5 miles longer than the proposed W7 alignment, which could add as much as $10 million to the cost of construction. EX-1 has many culverts that would need to be replaced with much larger structures, more than would be necessary along the W7 alignment. There are also many miles of utility lines (electric, telephone, fiber optic) adjacent to the existing road, much of which would likely be impacted by improving the existing road, thus require costly relocation. The existing roadway passes through several miles of private property for which additional and costly right of way would be required if this section were to be improved. Improving the existing section would place the roadway closer to the core population of Palila, thus leading to a greater risk to this endangered species than with the W7 alignment. SEIS map The line we believe you were referring to is from the map at the Kona hearing that illustrated the presumed location of the Saddle Road Extension, another highway project from HDDT that may connect these two highways. The Saddle Road Improvements project is independent of that project. The Draft SEIS discussed this and other relevant projects in Section 1.5. Involvement with State -owned lands The only segment of Section I of Saddle Road that belongs to the State is a 1 -mile section cutting across lands leased by PTA for military training. No loss of public land will occur. Depleted uranium and Kona cancer It is our understanding that testing to date has revealed no evidence for effects from DU to land, air or water in Kona or any other location outside the metal fragments themselves. There appears to be no known risk for those building or using Saddle Road. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard @dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon @dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000061 Ie• SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY lire hieed (7/0 ki0)-( `fie bo es ?L- S'adi sQd CJe dr -� Xht 4i0 /11` /o aFked kit ho-Ai v,--1/1 oikk_d 4.t-eS. a�.so Aa,r. -e Chin 6e Gv4v‘k C'4Z visri ( # 0 ok te174-■ 4/) Or, please FAX to: (808) 587-1787 My name is: My mailing address is: My email address is: 61,K7 G Q a(tie Ln. pve e_p/i/r- y-/Le_ /1,e' Juw-€ p GtP.d -PJ dry‘ V -Pi1, L 7 z 4e_ l,rJ�P�n r.� �✓ d&a- d - s Dque_ -eKGP e ve altve ,b ‘-ird 46 sadd/e / PAGE 000062 M usa n Law 73 -/4l3 ML 17l 6`11NC Jc(i4Yte.e ernic , N 79 4rf t A 4 c � a1 v. Goan Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street; Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 0 U S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Susan Law 73-1093 Mahilani Drive Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawal`i Dear Ms. Law: We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/10/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views on how the western section of the project must be completed to realize the full benefit of the improvements. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, Z David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000063 ,L, January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 17 Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii My name is: My mailing address is: My email address is: Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY j e,9-7t_z_ ,44,rikt )40 PAGE 000064 Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 \*\'' t3 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Tim Law 73-1093 Mahilani Drive Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Dear Mr. Law: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawai` i We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/1 0/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickarddot.gov, or myself at 720 --953 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, le,,iztue4r2,, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000065 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 if3 a � �v Ae 7 5 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY A()h u 2nd. RIA,A616 fA e /(q ::i5fcf7d on / � Of( 'GC o urf' �O � Q f€tre 4e(s, kbnQ /10 w CA-'o kvE he fd Public Hearing or u,a ct b 'e iY y to f Ic �Q r o •rne CJ/7 /pco R4 flex veP No/f4 'rUc el tA, e / cti WeJ '‘c? ve„ r41? Crot,ic 0 NEA' -5A y 1'46r E f goo T 771' 20 V f E4 rC 5 ( 7 G� N HA / 4 Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 errs 7/fr My name is: 17/4 / A m 27 My mailing address is: Po PoK. svl ft iE;e,2ct l � l +Sfi o My email address is: PAGE 000066 Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 \r# 0 US. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Tim Hershman P.D. Box 5644 Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Hershman: We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/10/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views on how the project will improve safety, gas consumption and employment. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a7dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, V,,, Ai, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000067 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 80 Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY Public Hearing My name is: My mailing address is: My email address is: PAGE 000068 Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 [//'L::4 Li $7- 6z3G� �rr2d 7Dy. adie. 6 frvki 96, \rq U,S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Mema Izawa 87 -6236 Hind Drive Captain Cook, HI 96704 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms. Izawa: We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/1 0/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000069 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY � /'-o My name is: My mailing address is: 01 6 1L0146 yr' C,92:7 eevk, j/1_ jp/705( My email address is: Public Hearing 7AP2: b274w/4 PAGE 000070 Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 U.S. Department Of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 1 2300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Takeo Izawa 87 -6236 Hind Drive Captain Cook, HI 96704 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Izawa: We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/10/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 - 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon @dot.gov. Sincerely, AJ4_04,1. David Gedeon, F.E. Project Manager PAGE 000071 Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii My email address is: Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY ,.7141 --/h‘e SQdik, pea � e adeti�� � � ti 5L-'i l ° 0 a ) 5 re f4l8 i4r1 7;2 � e1P PAGE 000072 My name is: .�/..��}ltil /"Ca My mailing address is: pa /gag if,/ /c,"9/L..40-57 r6 74 Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 \f0' U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Adam Jardine P.D. Box 4983 Kailua -Kona, HI 96745 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Dear Mr. Jardine: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/10/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views on how the project will improve gas consumption and the environment. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard @dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon @dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 aeo-4 ) \/ Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: My email address is: Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY r i gsfr(L.4,,___04,(44 I . r d4L.. Atit LAININIM 4,Z44..... I I AY • •r aviL_ w l E fdA,z44..14At_ tu-; ■ V-Ap azniL. - f� l/1 pea, ?aka 1"Th 3 «e1LAffw tlI 9&27L9 Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 PAGE 000074 d4--v ip 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Debbie Baker P.G. Box 390051 Keauhou, HI 96739 Subject: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000075 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 S 0 Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/10/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views on how the project will improve safety, separation of military and civilian traffic, and travel time. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 -963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard a@dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY deber 43 AZ 4 "r 7 43/ •_ .f ��cs /lielGIZ , .Z l ..f et v.c- SLiza x .914 or /it5er te. ;;*- 1;t) AFie_ 7" 7 fjf_ /34 es; Z.Art 1 )417 ,/r a/ti , fri..0 /kJ' UU4 ae_ Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii 1)44-, - - My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: My email address is: J e 'Sates Ku�vi'r, ✓ Lace>/ /, 674.0 1,1, c .3" .J�•� ���ri, rti ve ,r� � Pocal-ho Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 PAGE 000076 i i711 / E�� 0 U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Jon Kunimura P.D. Box 311 Holualoa, HI 96725 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Kunimura: We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/1 0/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 - 963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot,gov, or myself at 720-963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, ,(0,iii, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000077 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 a�+ Aloha, My Name is Peggy M. Ciriako and I reside at 77 -6494 Maile St., Kailua Kona, Hawaii 96740 I would like to testify for the completion of the Western Section of the Saddle Road. I have not paid much attention to Saddle Road because I had no interest in using that road because it was so terrible. Everything changed this year when my Grandson started playing JV football and the games were held in Hilo and Waiakea. Driving to a game, my daughter took the Saddle Road, I could not understand why, the ride was miserable, I was praying all the time for safe journey to our destination. Then, wow, everything changed. The road was smooth and it turned into a nice ride. We hit the new section. Neat! We need an improved road, a nice smooth road from East to West, for the School activities.... for all the sports that are being played on both sides of the Island The completion of the Western Section will enable parents and grandparents to attend more "away games" without the agony of a long drive on bumpy, curvy roads. This road will benefit the East side and the West side allowing both sides to attend games. I hope and pray that all the positive testimonies you hear tonight will bring a favorable vote to complete the Western Section of the Saddle Road. Thank you very much, Peggy M. Ciriako PAGE 000078 US Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Peggy M. Ciriako 77 -6494 Maile Street Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms. Ciriako: We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/1 0/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views based on personal experience on how the project will improve safety and recreation. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot. gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. dot.gov. Sincerely, 4,144, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000079 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 as* SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost_ 41 Island of Hawaii Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY M an ca, lio 1 � W�(( r,+oi K t7)t' r cam/ `7�iclaa� T. 21'i I o!e J4'3 )1 W v ors A •r Wha \rieI ona Iri#1 ;1;trhi& 44 6 I 1 When Wig Mw11n Meooh vi 54/Pr( ah� feltot Oi Siold l� Or, please FAX to: (808) 587 -1787 one �. sQfr(* 6w 7 � Myoameis: 1 e alInill6n+ My mailing address is: ar,�t world likes � /ou 4otoy)4kk nam i rth{ Itih�t Thank you. My email address is: PAGE 000080 twM t e ( Rcf2 4I L ie7 It'IF - Mt* . ►, I iiot' Ht 5i - 4#e' arb 11d5e) Et',t Arlo( {-�aWcill ',J� ly�q rte( of- &16 levALAKFA � 1+1 7W1Q mkn1trn1t et o coi Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 IJ t3 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Margaret K. Masunaga P.D. Box 345 Kealakekua, HI 96750 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms. Masunaga: We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/10/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your suggestion about naming the road. To initiate a change in the name of Saddle Road, a letter may be sent to the Director of the Department of Transportation to request this change. As part of this process other State agencies will research the requested name and other deserving names, and the State legislature will also be consulted before the change is approved by HDOT/Govemor. Please note that this suggestion is beyond the scope and authority of this SEIS process. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, ‘z, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000081 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 tiL,4) Or, please FAX to: (808) 587-1787 SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY Public Hearing b Utery ke My email address is: I 1 /61 IL o g PAGE 000082 le " 1 ?Lev; cyLL ' My mailing address is: 7 -- c M A hi ti /J fr S n to L&J t cid Ameirriorm A-4 ti-ett u . flta La nue-,,,, c?' er--ez If y /26,121.7,4,1- I! a- .5 ii„ Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 1* 0 US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Marsha Boyle 73 -4550 Mamalahoa Hwy. Kailua.Kona, HI 96740 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 80 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Rawai`i Dear Ms. Boyle: We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/10/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views on how the project will benefit the lives of residents on both sides of the island and open up new scenic vistas. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard®dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, Z,,/,(99L, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000083 air SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Public Hearing FOR WRITTEN TESTIMONY AP 4 111fe. Awe ( etierq area, P (w J1t(/P �r✓u;�� qtt lddy l c id AI 9 a,Air , 61/fd My name is: Organization, if any: My mailing address is: My email address is: ATt //'1'/thJ3vr) ;7,-kY016P AtizA4f P/ r// QP3:i Please mail to: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301, Honolulu, HI 96813 Or, please FAX to: (808) 587- 1787 PAGE 000084 latio 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Sheryl Henderson 73-4328 Akaaka Place Kailua- -moona, HI 96740 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms. Henderson: We are in receipt of your comment submitted at the 12/10/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the improved Saddle Road and project planning to date. With regard to the existing Saddle Road, it will remain open and under County of Hawaii jurisdiction. The County has recently been improving the road and its shoulders. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, c06„, Af.d David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000085 TESTIMONY REGARDING THE SADDLE ROAD EIS ON DECEMBER 10, 2009 Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony today in support of the rapid completion of improvements to Saddle Road. Although I have been a current resident of the Big Island for only ten years, my first Saddle Road trip was in 1962 and I have traveled this road frequently since moving here. Let me explain that I do not claim to be an environmental science expert and I admit to not having thoroughly studied the EIS. I think there are experts and an official advisory committee to assist in that area. I am a driver, a consumer and a taxpayer. In my younger years I worked in road construction and I have been driving for 48 years. I have traveled the back roads, local highways and interstate highways of all 50 States. I speak as a frequent traveler of Saddle Road as I travel back and forth in a volunteer capacity between Kona and Hilo. I pay for my own gasoline and vehicle and maintenance costs. No subsidies. Although I am certain that 1 will continue to use both the Northern and Southern routes around the island in addition to Saddle Road, I support the continued improvements for my own personal "quality of life" reasons. An improved Saddle Road means a safer, less hazardous trip, less driving time, less gasoline and therefore less pollution and a cleaner environment, less wear and tear on the vehicle, and the ability to view the distinctly different and beautiful vistas of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. I would like to add that I saw comments to the effect that consideration should be given to improving public accommodations along the Saddle Road route. I endorse that suggestion and strongly recommend that Mauna Kea State Park be properly renovated, managed and maintained to serve that purpose. The citizens of Hawaii already have a valuable and underutilized investment in Mauna Kea State Park and now is an excellent time to plan to optimize the benefits of that wonderful resource. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. John Buckstead 77 -6356 Halawai Place Kailua -Kona, Hawaii 1 PAGE 000086 i 0 US. Department' of Transportation Federal Highway Administration John Buckstead 77-6356 Halawai Place Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Dear Mr. Buckstead: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii We are in receipt of your comment letter submitted at the 12/10/09 Public Meeting. Thank you for your comment of support for the project and your views on how the project will benefit safety, fuel efficiency, pollution reduction, vehicle wear and tear, and new scenic vistas. With regard to public accommodations on Saddle Road and Mauna Kea State Park, your comments will be provided to the Hawaii Division of State Parks. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 - 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.B. Project Manager PAGE 000087 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 ;19 (Please return to the information desk SADDLE ROAD Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Public Hearing FOR OUESTIONS ONLY \4iAr1A.6 /M445 6teadu PAGE 000088 December 9, 2009 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Steve Hurt 17 -124 Pala'ai Street Keaau HI 96745 Dear Mr. Hurt: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for the comment you provided for the SEIS. Regarding your concerns: Hunting areas a) Pu'u Mali hunting: The decision to open up Pu'u Mali to bird hunting rests with the State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW), and no aspect of the Saddle Road project hinders this. Your comments will be provided to DOFAW. b) Kaohe lease area mowing: Due to limited available funding in years past, it was necessary to prioritize which mitigation elements to fund first. This has meant that at times there was insufficient funding available to fund several lower priority mitigation elements. FHWA and DOFAW have recently discussed funding the mower mitigation element and whether this was the best use of such funding. If DOFAW concludes that proceeding with the mower mitigation element is the proper and best course of action, these agencies will enter into an agreement to transfer these funds from the federal government to the State. Palila fencing Fencing of the subject habitat area (Ka'ohe mitigation site) was completed in 2006. SEIS commitments FHWA has lived up to its commitments in the ROD. The Palila Memorandum of Understanding included mitigation commitments valued at an estimated $15 million; to date, the FHWA has expended approximately $20 million toward the mitigation elements committed to in the Palila MOU. The only outstanding item that has not been funded is the mower and mower operator discussed previously. The funding commitment for this item is $115,500. FHWA is currently working with DOFAW to implement this last mitigation item in the near future. PAGE 000089 If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 -963 -3691 or Melissa,Dickard Jdot. gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, 6.2P.z.4,y1 David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000090 3 Phyllis Tarail <ptarail @hawaii.rr.com Aloha, I am a member of the So. Kohala Traffic Safety Committee (SKTSC) and the Hawaii Island Traffic Safety Council. I live in Waimea. Steve Troute of Pohakuloa gave a presentation on the proposed realignment of Saddle Road (Highway #200 from Milepost 41 to Mamalohoa Hwy #190) at our recent November SKTSC meeting. This new alignment appears to take care of a number of important concerns -- frequent fog near Waikii Ranch, topographic issues on the old route, munitions practice area in Pohakuloa. It also appears that it will shorten the drive time from Hilo to Kailua -Kona. Although it would add a few miles for me and others traveling from Waimea to Hilo, it should shorten our driving time. However, it should serve to relieve some of the traffic that currently goes through Waimea to get to the west side of the Island. Consequently I am a supporter of this realignment. I will be off Island most of December, so I am unable to attend your public hearings. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide comments. Phyllis Tarail 67 -1292 Pua'ena St. Kamuela HI 96743 769 -4490 PAGE 000091 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Phyllis Tarail 67 -1292 Pua`ena Street Kamuela, HI 96743 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12308 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms. Tarail: Thank you for your emailed letter of support for the project and your views on how the project will benefit driving time for Waimea residents. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard a@dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, 0,125,4,, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000092 31 TOM GEBALLE 11/24/09 EMAIL ADDRESS: tgeballe @gemini.edu Thanks, Ron. Your email has been circulated to the observatory community. I'll be away on Dec 9, so here are my thoughts. I've always thought it was most natural to put the new intersection close to the Waikoloa Road, perhaps even closer than 3 miles. Clearly it is much better to put it to the south than to the north of the Mamalahoa — Waikoloa intersection. So the plan sounds very good to me. Will anything happen to the old road going toward Waimea? I am sure the astronomy community based in Waimea want it to be improved. Cheers, PAGE 000093 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Tom Geballe tgeballe @gemini.edu Central Federal Lands Highway Division 1 2300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Geballe: Thank you for the email you provided commenting on the project. Coordination with Waikoloa residents during the 1999 EIS public involvement process indicated that most did not wish Saddle Road to outlet at Waikoloa Road, which also would have drawn the highway close to Waiki` i. Most importantly, the W -3 terminus (which is essentially the same location as the terminus chosen for W- 7) was chosen because it shortened the trip between Hilo or Saddle destinations to Kona, the traffic stream for more than half of motorists. The existing Saddle Road will remain open and under County of Hawai `i jurisdiction. The County has recently been improving the road and its shoulders. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Rickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard @dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, Z„, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000094 RHarris @dtnhawaii.net To : Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi, State DOT From : Aloha, Roger Harris , Pu'uiwaiwa Ranch RE: Saddle Road Supplemental EIS Okahara and Associates sent us the DEIS disk for review. We own TMKs 6- 8- 02 :07, 012 AND 013 KNOWN AS Pu'uiwaiwa Ranch and fronting on Mamalahoa Hwy near where the Saddle Road is expected to meet Mamalahoa Hwy . We have reviewed the DEIS and have no objections to it . We are supportive of your efforts to extend the New Saddle Road to Mamalahoa Hwy. Thank you for your work , we appreciate the opportunity to comment . Roger Harris for Pu'uiwaiwa Ranch . PAGE 000095 0 US. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 1 2300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Roger Harris Pu'uiwaiwa Ranch rharris@dtnhawaii.net January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Harris: Thank you for your emailed letter of support for the project. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa. Dickard @dot. gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, (aM,Li, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000096 3?) i " '7 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY \ ; . i ; / ! PRQc REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 -3901 Mr. David Gedeon Project Manager Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, CO 80228 :JAN to (8 Zak Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41, Hawai i County, Hawaii (CEQ # 20090392) Dear Mr. Gedeon: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the document referenced above. Our comments are provided pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEO regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 -1508) and our NEPA review authority under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. In 1999 the FHWA published a Final Environmental Impact Statement (N.IIS) for Saddle Road, from Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 6. Following our review of the PETS, EPA had no objections to proposed improvements on Saddle Road between Mamalahoa Highway and Milepost 41. In 2006, The U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii, acquired the Keamuku parcel which is traversed by the proposed western section of Saddle Road (W -3). The DSEIS evaluates a new western alignment alternative for Saddle Road to maximize army training opportunities on the parcel and minimize conflict with the traveling public. EPA rates the new proposed alignment (w -7) as Lack of Objections (LO) (see enclosed Summary of EPA Rating Definitions). Implementation of the new alignment, combined with proper mitigation, should .not result in significant environmental impacts. Information provided in the DSEIS indicates that Alternative W-7 does not impact any waters of the U.S., including wetlands, lakes or jurisdictional ephemeral streams. Additionally, no surface drainages that connect the W-7 corridor to navigable waterways were identified, and coastal waters are a minimum of nine miles from the project area. As such, EPA does not anticipate any impact to water quality as a result of project implementation. In addition, while the document identifies that there will be no adverse air quality impacts, EPA supports the implementation of stringent dust control and construction equipment emission control measures during construction in order to reduce temporary impacts to air quality. PAGE 000097 Printed on Recycled Paper The DSEIS concludes that there will be little or no growth-related impacts as a result of the proposed project. Residential uses in the area are limited to large (> 700 acres) agricultural parcels, and there is very limited opportunity for commercial or industrial development given the zoning and State and County plans. Should there be any changes to current zoning or development plans prior to the release of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ( FSEIS), EPA recommends that this information, as well as any additional impacts, be discussed in that document. The Saddle Road project area is already heavily invaded by the alien species that flourish in the region, and thus construction and operation of W-7 is not likely to play a large role in the introduction of new invaders. However, as many of the invasive species - found in the project area tend to thrive on disturbance (e.g. Pennisetum setaceum), EPA recommends that the FSEIS address the feasibility of implementing active restoration with native species for all graded areas and cut/ fill slopes that result from project construction. EPA commends the FHWA and the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) on the involvement with communities in the vicinity of the p roject area as summarized in the DSEIS. EPA recommends that coordination between government agencies, Native Hawaiian groups, community associations, land owners, and other individuals continue through the remainder of the project planning process. We appreciate the opportunity to review this DSEIS., When the FSEIS is released, please send one hard copy to the ' address above (Mail Code CED- 2). If you have any questions, please contact me (415 --947 -4161) or Clifton Meek, the lead reviewer for this project. Clifton can be reached at 415-972-3370 or meek.clifton@epa.gov. Enclosed: Summary of EPA Rating Definitions CC: 2 Sincerely, Cekkule, Connell Dunning, Transportation Team Supervisor Environmental Review Office Communities .and Ecosystems Division Robert Deroc he, Army Corps of Engineers Ken Tatsuguchi, Hawaii Department of Transportation Melissa Dickard, Federal Highway Administration Pat Phung, Federal Highway Administration PAGE 000098 SUMMARY OF EPA RATING DEFINITIONS* This rating system was developed as a means to summarize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency' s (EPA) level of concern with a proposed action. The r atings area combination of alphabetical categories for evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposal and numerical categories for evaluation of the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TILE ACTION "LO" (Lack of Objections) The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. "EC" (Environmental Concerns) The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. "E[:! " (Environmental Objections) The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative).. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. "EU" (Environmentally Unsatisfactory) The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). A.DEOUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEMENT "Category I" (Adequate) EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. "Category 2" (Insufficient Information) The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in ,order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA. reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives • that are within the spectrum of alternatives analysed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS. "Category 3" (Inadequate) EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analysed in the Draft EIS, which should be analysed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. - *From EPA Manual 1640, Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment. PAGE 000099 U.S. 0 Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Connell Dunning Transportation Team Supervisor Environmental Review Office Communities and Ecosystems Division J.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 -3901 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 26, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 80 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Dunning: Thank you for your review of the Draft SEIS. In response to your particular comments: a) FHWA will ensure adherence to dust and equipment emission control measures during construction, as it has throughout the project. b) There have been no recent changes in zoning plans or development plans related to growth in the • area, which remains zoned for conservation or extensive agriculture. c) We acknowledge your concern regarding the use of native species. However our previous experience in this area has informed us that native plantings are not successful in establishing due to the proliferation of non- native species in the project area. The FHWA commits to using native species where possible, but will use the best options available for the conditions to ensure soil stability. The plan to allow revegetation with the local pasture grasses is consistent with the Record of Decision and Final EIS from 1999, which also evaluated the potential for utilizing native species. d) Thank you for your commendation for community involvement. FHWA and HDOT will continue their extensive and frequent involvement with the community, who have helped shape the project and have contributed greatly to its success. PAGE 000100 If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Rickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard @dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3647 or Dave.Gedeon @dot.gov. Sincerely, i a - ( —I (L el ) — David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000101 • GOODFELLOW BROS., INC. - GENERAL CONTRACTOR December 22, 2009 Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi Head Planning Engineer HDOT Subject: Construction of the Saddle Road Mile Marker 41 to the Mamalahoa Highway Dear Mr. Tatsugchi: The following letter is to express my support for the construction of the new Saddle Road from mile marker 41 to the Mamalahoa Highway. I am the Regional Manager for Goodfellow Bros., Inc and have been involved in the construction of the past three phases. I believe that the construction of the Saddle road needs to be completed to provide a safe passage from Hilo to Kona. Now that there is nearly 26 miles of reconstructed roadway the traffic has increased. The public is still faced with driving on substandard roadway when they get to mile marker 41 down to the Mamalahoa Highway. The completion of the roadway will help connect the two sides of the island safely. A majority of my current workforce commutes from Hilo to Kona every day. I have had several of my workers involved in car accidents traveling over the Saddle just to get to work. z am in full support for the new Saddle Road and to provide a safe access for the public from Hilo to Kona. Please call if you have any questions —(808) 887 -6511 Sincerely, GOODFELLOW BROS., INC r Ed .k own Regional Manager P.D. Box 383729 • WAIKOLOA, HI 96738 • PHONE: (808) 887 -6511 • FAX: (808) 887 -6522 • WWW.GOODFELLOWBROS.COM PAGE 000102 ABC-7046 U.S Deportment of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Edward Brown Regional Manager Goodfellow Bros., Inc. P.G. Box 383729 Waikoloa, HI 96738 Subject: Dear �wn: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000103 January 29, 2010 In . Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Response to Continents on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii We are in receipt of your letter dated 12/22/09 regarding the Saddle Road Improvement Project. Thank you for your letter of support for the project and your views on how the project will benefit commuters and workers such as those working for your company. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 - 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. �35 William P. Kenos Mayor December 17, 2009 Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation Highways Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, Hawai'i Dear Mr. Tatsuguchi, Fire Chief DO :lc t:ottntp of ibaixiail HA'WAI'I FIRE DEPARTMENT 25 Aupuni Street • Suite 2501 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (808) 932 -2900 • Fax (808) 932 -2928 Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. PAGE 000104 I I° IA r� co n X Z SUBJECT: DRAFT SUPPLEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SADDLE ROAD, MAMALAHOA HIGHWAY TO MILEPOST 41 ISLAND OF HAWAII Darryl J. Oliveira Fine Quef Glen P. I. Honda Deputy Fine C iirf The Hawai'i Fire Department is pleased and encouraged by the consideration of wildfire prevention and mitigation measures identified within the draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment. As the primary fire response agency for all non - Federal properties such measures will support our efforts in controlling or minimizing rare losses. Thank ou for the opportunity to comment. If additional comments or participation by a Hawaii y p representative office Department p artment resentative is desired, please feel free to contact my oce at your convenience. U.S. Deportment of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Darryl J. Oliveira, Fire Chief Hawai `i Fire Department County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 2501 Hilo, HI 96720 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Chief Oliveira: We are in receipt of your letter dated 12/17/09 regarding the Saddle Road Improvement Project. Thank you for your letter of support for the fire-fighting measures outlined in the Draft SEIS for the project. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 - 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@a7dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000105 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 uec. 1UV9 i:4LrM tN I txrK1 t KUNULULU 34a SENT VIA EMAIL AND FACSIMILE December 7, 2009 Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highway Diviaion, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 REF: Ala Mauna Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement - "Saddle Road" Aloha Mr. Tatsuguchi! This letter serves as supporting testimony for the improvements to Ala Mauna - the "Saddle Road'' project and the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared to address the revised western alignment. As a point of reference, Hawaii Island Economic Development Board (HIEDB) has been involved since 1994, when the original EIS process commenced and meet recently as the Secretariat to the Saddle Road Task Force. In addition, HIEDB formed the Ala Mauna Advisory Group to engage, advise and recommend plans to improve and protect the known cultural and archaeological areas of significance. Some of the many stakeholders included; U.S. Department of Transportation -- Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division and the State of Hawaii - Department of Transportation Highways Division and the Saddle Road Task Force. (Personally, I was formerly the Executive Director of HIEDB for nearly four years and have a comprehensive understanding of this important project) . Now, fifteen year since the initial EIS, the final phases are within sight, with the compilation of the SEIS for this most important East -West connector. The improvement to road safety is the greatest benefit to residents and commuters, users of Mauna Kea, contractors, military personnel and visitors alike, The realignments have opened up new view planes and pull outs for the benefits of all who travel, to enjoy the historical elements along Ala Mauna. One can imagine that this new East -West or Feet --East connector road, will greatly improve some of the current workforce issues by introducing expeditious connections via public transportation, it is estimated that once completed this may save approximately thirty minutes of travel time each way between Hilo and Kona. -0= 54 2 you for allowing me to submit testimony in support of the SETS a continued Thank y g y PP �, improvements to Ala Mauna. z zE 07 CP (0 au no - !a .. ` * • ` 03 d 1 1 10 zci) Mark McGte Managing Direct° cc: Katherine P. Kealoha, Director, Office of Environmental Quality Control Jacqui Hoover, Executive Director, HIEDB PAGE 000106 ENTERPRISE 735 Bishop 5tlet, Saute 412, Honolulu, Hawaii 968t3.808- 521 -3611 HONOLULU fax; 808 -536 -2281 • www.enrerprieehoao1u1u.eom THE BUSINESS CLIMATE OF PARADISE ECONOMIC DEVILOPM €NT • - ISLAND ISLAND OP OMW • • J. No. UM r. 1 " I i3 3> PI 7/ c - a 2e o al ru_ r n "o 3> ril Cis •:r ---I c) U.S. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 1 2300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Mark McGuffie Managing Director Enterprise Honolulu 735 Bishop Street, Suite 412 Honolulu, HI 96813 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft # Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr uff.e: January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 80 Thank you for your letter of support for the project and your views, based on a long involvement with Saddle Road, on how the project will benefit the many users of Mauna Kea, including visitors, workers, and commuters, through safety and time - savings improvements as well as the amenities the highway will provide. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact. Melissa Rickard at 720 -963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard a@7dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000107 3 William P. Kenoi Mayor December 23, 2009 Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation Highways Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 Dear Mr. Tatsuguchi: RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41, Island of Hawaii Staff has reviewed the draft supplemental environmental impact statement for, Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41, and noted the following concerns: Consideration be given to creating an intersection similar to the Waikoloa Junction as the Saddle Road abuts Mamalahoa Highway. • Any rock outcroppings be demolished or moved to provide a distinct line of sight for traffic. • Measures be implemented that assist in slowing traffic on the approach to this intersection on Mamalahoa Highway from either direction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions, please contact Captain James Sanborn, the South Kohala District Commander, at 887 -3080. Sincerely, HARRY S. KUBOJIRI POLICE CHIEF County of Hawaii POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapi'olani Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 -3998 (808) 935 -3311 • Fax (808) 961 -2389 "Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer" PAGE 000108 Harry S. Kub o j iri Police Chief Paul K. Ferreira Deputy Police Chief -.= Eg c) = .2 : - xi _ c to rn [) rq 0u) :� _9 XJ c. rr/ cl z .. w w U 5. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration John E. Dawrs Major, Area II Operations Police Department County of Hawai `i 349 Kapi'olani Street Hilo, HI 96720-2389 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Dear Mr. Dawrs: January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 8 0 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for the letter you provided on the SEIS. In response to your specific comments: a) Intersection with Mamalahoa: The new Mamalahoa and existing Saddle Road intersections will be fully channelized in all directions will have standards that will be similar or exceed that of the Waikoloa Road intersection. The intersection of W -7 and Mamalahoa Highway will be an at -grade "T" intersection with a stop sign control on the W-7 approach only. It will use auxiliary speed change lanes, left -turn lanes with the appropriate storage lengths, medians, and paved shoulders. The Mamalahoa Highway will undergo significant widening to accommodate these elements. The use of traffic signals will be evaluated according to the AASHTO warrant standards during the design phase. A W -7 overpass will be considered in the Saddle Road Extension EIS. This information has been added to the Final EIS. b) Line of sight: The design will include modification of the terrain to remove any rock outcrops that hinder line of sight for traffic. c) Slowing traffic: All approaches to both intersections will include measures to alert drivers and help calm traffic. Both visual and audible measures will be evaluated during final design. PAGE 000109 If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard @ dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, PAGE 000110 David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager 3S To Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi, Head Planning Engineer State of Hawai'i, Department of Transportation Highways Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813 From Subject Hartwell Aloha Kaeo, East Hawai'i Resident 222 Ho'ohua Street Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 -5229 Phone (808) 987 -2259 December 10, 2009 Realignment of Saddle Road (State Route 200), from Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 of Saddle Road, County of Hawaii, State of Hawai'i, which passes through the Ke'amuku parcel [TMK (3` 6- 7- 001:041] to be relocated to the southern boundary of this parcel. (preferred alignment W -7) My name is Hartwell A. Kaeo and I am a resident of Hilo. I am in favor of your "completing this Saddle Road Project that connects Hilo to Kona by relocating the realignment of Saddle Road (State Route 200), from Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 of Saddle Road, County of Hawai'i, State of Hawai'i, to the southern boundary of the Ke'amuku parcel, [TMK (P): 6-7-001:041], (preferred all entW -7 . I am in favor of relocating the realignment of Saddle Road (W -7) because: a) it will expedite the final completion of this Saddle Road Project; b) it "minimizes conflict between the traveling public and the PTA military training operations "; c) it now exits on the Kona side of Waikoloa Road, shortening the time and miles to get to Kona; d) the improved roadways would be safer and the ride more enjoyable for commuters; e) the savings in fuel and vehicle upkeep from the shorter trip and better roads will be realized in more frequent travels over Saddle Road for shopping, recreation and visiting friends and family; f) the completed Saddle Road will add another "sightseeing must" for visiting off - island friends/ family. I would like to thank the Saddle Road Task Force Committee for all of the hard work that they have contributed in moving this project forward. Further, I would like to thank you for allowing me to enter my testimony via e -mail and have it become a part of the recorded proceedings of this project. PAGE 000111 0 U.5.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Hartwell Aloha Kaeo 222 Ho ` ohua Street Hilo, HI 96720 -5229 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Aloha Kaeo: We are in receipt of your letter dated 12/10/09. Thank you for your letter of support for the project and your views on how the project will benefit the traveling public through minimizing conflicts between civilian and military traffic, making driving shorter, safer and more enjoyable, and making the Saddle a visitor attraction. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard a�,7dot.gov, or myself at 720 - 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, ca,/,a„,, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000112 3�l January 7, 2010 Department of Transportation, Highways Division Attn: Ken Tatsuguchi 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 Geometrician Associates Attn: Ron Terry PO Box 396 Hilo, HI 96721 Office of Environmental Quality Control Attn: Leiopapa A Kamehameha 235 South Beretania Street, Suite 702 Honolulu, HI 96813 SUBJECT: Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamalahoa Highway (HRS 343 FEA- EISPN) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact statement for the relocation of Saddle Road. I believe that it is necessary to correct the record and to better address the needs of traveling pubic: 1) The shoulders can be used by some bicyclists; however, since almost half the route will exceed a 5- percent gradient, only the most experienced and conditioned cyclists can use it while traveling mauka. 2) Almost half the Big Island population does not or cannot rely on driving a motor vehicle as their primary mode of transportation. Accommodating all users is an essential function of transportation. 3) AASHTO indicates that grades greater than 5- percent are undesirable. Restricting the length of the maximum gradients will accommodate bicyclists within the the broad spectrum of skills and abilities. 4) The shoulders can be utilized by some pedestrians; however, especially considering the higher elevation, grades steeper than 5- percent are not desirable and don't conform to 28CFR Part 36 (ADA). 5) Fog was identified as a potential hazard through this corridor. This could be a problem for vehicles, but, is especially precarious for bicyclists that lack a positive separation from traveling vehicles. 6) Fire is not a threat from bicyclist, pedestrian, or equestrian use and should not be identified as an impediment to accommodating their needs in the design of transportation facilities such as this. PAGE 000113 THEREFORE, the right-of-way must be sufficient to accommodate a "switchback" (5- percent maximum) Shared -Use Path on the Kona side. The project must include the design of a 10 -foot Shared - Use Path that meets the minimum AASHTO requirements. Sufficient right -of -way must be included on the Kohala side of the corridor that can eventually accommodate an off -road motorized route to access recreation and hunting facilities. However no design is currently required and only a fence may be required along the right -of -way boundary. Clearing, grading, and aggregate sub -grade construction of the Shared -Use Path (S -UP) should be included in the base construction bid. An option for paving the S--UP should be included in the bid documents, so paving can be completed if construction funds are sufficient. It should be noted that widening the transportation corridor by providing a paved Shared -Use Path that could also be accessed by emergency equipment, could reduce the need for paved firebreaks adjacent to the shoulder and could provide better fire control at a lower cost. Relocating the point of access to Mamalahoa Highway (Route 190) will require some additional access considerations especially for non - motorized users such as bicyclists of all skill levels and pedestrians of all abilities: 7) The intersection with Mamalahoa Highway should be designed with designated bicycle allocation (bike lane markings and signage) for Kohala bound bicyclists including the adjacent auxiliary lanes. 8) Shoulders along Mamalahoa Highway in the vicinity of the proposed intersection are narrow, and consequently should be widened to 8 -foot from the intersection to the previously widened area. 9) The Old Kailua- Waimea Road is a valuable historic and transportation resource. It should be restored as a Shared -Use Path as a Priority II project as designated in Bike Plan Hawaii. 10) The remainder parcel located at the intersection of Mamalahoa Highway should also be acquired, for future development of transit stop, carpool, scenic overlook, recreational parking, and rest area. Thank you for considering these issues and concerns to better accommodate all modes of travel. Sincerely, ( Robert Ward 77 -6526 Ho'olaupa'i Street Kailua Kona, HI 96740 PAGE 000114 0 us. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Robert Ward 77 -6526 Ho `olaupa` i Street Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Dear Mr. Ward: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for the letter you provided on the SEIS. In response to your specific comments: 1 -5) Use of saddle Road for all cyclists. Bicycling on Saddle Road involves mountainous terrain, challenging weather (in some places very hot and dry, in others cold and foggy or rainy), and no services for over 50 miles. The distances between urban areas serviced by Saddle Road are generally not suitable for most recreational bicyclists, and the highway is unlikely to generate much bicycle usage. Most would consider this route appropriate only for experienced and conditioned cyclists, who will find the improvements make for a safer highway. The proposed grades are achievable for serious bicyclists and perhaps even desirable for a challenging ride as well as training. For recreational bicyclists, Mauna Kea State Park is an ideal destination to drive to; from there, bicyclists can ride Saddle Road for miles in either direction without encountering excessively steep or prolonged grades or severe weather. AASHTO guidelines for rural arterials in mountainous terrain are not intended for bicycles; the longer road and greater required right -of -way would add significant cost to construction and would likely reduce the operational efficiency of the new road. 6) Fire threats from cyclists. FHWA and HDOT do not consider pedestrians and bicyclists significant sources of ignition concern, but they too may start fires through cigarettes, arson, etc. 7-8) Mamalahoa intersection. The Mamalahoa Highway intersection will accommodate bicycles through a signed, shared route with appropriate markings and safety features. 9) Old Waimea-Kona Road. The Old Waimea -Kona Road in Ke` amuku, although slated mostly for preservation, is entirely within an area owed by the U.S. Army that will be used for military training and would not be an appropriate location for pedestrian and bicycle use. Furthermore, it would require considerable modification along most of its 39 -mile route to be effective for use as a bike route, which would substantially alter its historic character. Please note that this suggestion is outside the scope of the project and EIS. PAGE 000115 10) Transit stop. A formal ride -share parking area can be considered during the final design stage. The potential demand for such a facility will need to be taken into consideration in coordination with the Hawai `i County Mass Transit Agency as well as the safety of ingress and egress and the cost of land acquisition. HDOT as probable land owner would have to be agreeable to allowing a parking area to be constructed within their right of way, as well as agree to maintain it. This information has been added to the Final EIS. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 -963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard @dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincer , David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000116 , //a,/,„ Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi State of Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Tatsuguchi: United States Department of the Interior U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Pacific Islands Water Science Center 677 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 415 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: (808) 587- 2400/Fax: (808) 587 -2401 January 6, 2010 Subject: Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41, Island of Hawaii, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) Thank you for forwarding the subject DSEIS for review and comment by the staff of the U.S. Geological Survey Pacific Islands Water Science Center, we regret however, that due to prior commitments and lack of available staff, we are unable to review the report. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the review process. Sincerely, SS � cc: Ms. Katherine P. Kealoha, Director Office of Environmental Quality Control 235 South Beretania St., Suite 702 Honolulu, Hawaii 96 813 Stephen S. Anthony Acting Center Director PAGE 000117 Ei alt z TAKE PRIDE NAM ERICA cn Zer ( rn ` :2 � US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Stephen S. Anthony Acting Center Director Pacific Island Water Science Center U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior 677 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 415 Honolulu, HI 96813 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Anthony: We are in receipt of your letter dated 116110. Thank you for your response on the Draft SETS. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 363 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, /le David Gedeon, F.E. Project Manager PAGE 000118 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 80 41 PATH s ore the Poore/ with cdo Board of Directors Executive Director ? " -If' -F i�+f i� - - - `i III - = {_� Education Director `_ Mission 1 _] Serving Web -site: PATH - PEOPLES ADVOCACY FOR TRAILS HAWAI'I Po Box 62 • KAILUA -KONA, HAWAI ~ 1 96745 • 808 - 936 -4653* sharetheraad @pathhawaii.org January 7, 2010 To: Department of Transportation, Highways Division. Attn: Ken Tatsuguchi, P.E. 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 Geometrician Associates. Attn: Ron Terry, Principal PO Box 396 Hilo, HI 96721 Office of Environmental Quality Control, Attn: Katherine Puana Kealoha, Esq. Director 235 South Beretania Street, Suite 702 Honolulu, HI 96813 SUBJECT: Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamalahoa Highway (HRS 343 FEA EISPN) We applaud the efforts by FHWA's Central Federal Lands Division, State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, County of Hawaii and citizen leaders for working to complete the Supplemental EIS for the relocation of Saddle Road, State Route 200. This road provides a critical connector for local families, businesses and visitors to our island. As such, it's important to clarify and correct the SEIS document so that the project best meets the needs for all public roadway users, including motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. We ask that the following recommendations based on the existing topography, safety concerns, weather patterns, surrounding land uses and using appropriate design guidelines provided by AASHTO, be included in the design and construction of the project. • CREATE A WORLD -CLASS SCENIC CORRIDOR - The SEIS references the outstanding vistas and scenic byways this new road offers. One of the safest and best ways to enjoy these vistas is by a bicycle where one can go at a slower, more contemplative pace. States such as Colorado and Wyoming have successfully built outstanding Shared -Use Pathways (SUP) of considerable length through sparsely populated, scenic areas for resident and visitor enjoyment. Bicycle tourists, Olympic athletes in training and families use these facilities on a regular basis and they are a source of pride and critical revenues for these state budgets. Saddle Road has the opportunity to become this same kind of world -class recreational and bicycle transportation facility that attracts visitors from around the world. This facility should be a minimum 5% switch back design with 10 clear width according to AASHTO guidelines. The facility can be phased in over time but it is critical to consider this facility now and set aside the Right-Of-Way in the SEIS stage. To do this, a 25 -30' minimum corridor should be set aside. The base construction bid should include incremental bids for grading, grubbing and applying a base - course of compact aggregate as funding permits. An option for paving the SUP should be included in the • bid documents, so paving can be completed if construction funds are sufficient. In addition, the SEIS references the steep topography (48% of the road is over 5% grade) and tendency for fog, rain and wind in this area, making use of the shoulder by bicyclists very PAGE 000119 1 dangerous. Climbing cyclists typically need more room to maneuver and fog and rain can make visibility difficult. These factors make it critical to provide a separated SUP facility for cyclists so that the road is available 24 -7 for all roadway users. • MAMALAHOA HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS - The new Saddle road will serve commuters from the East side going to the Kohala Coast resorts, causing increased traffic on Mamalahoa Highway from the new Saddle Road intersection northbound to the Waikoloa Road. It's important to maintain a safe path of travel along this section of Mamalahoa Highway by providing bicycle accommodation at the intersection (bike lanes, signage) as well as minimum six -foot (eight -foot preferred) shoulders from the intersection to Waimea. This shoulder facility will serve to provide bicyclists with safe travel as well as emergency pull off for motorists. • HISTORIC MAMALAHOA ROAD - The historic Mamalahoa Highway is identified in Bike Plan Hawaii as a Priority II project, Shared -Use Pathway. The roadway corridor should be protected at all costs and preserved as a trail or pathway for public use. • FIRE HAZARD MITIGATION - Fire is identified as a significant threat for this corridor but this threat comes primarily from motor vehicles. Therefore, fire should not be identified as an impediment to accommodating the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians or equestrians when designing transportation facilities. These roadway users are actually pose the least fire risk when compared with that of a motor vehicle. It should be noted that widening the transportation corridor by providing a paved Shared -Use Path, that could also be accessed by emergency equipment, could reduce the need for paved firebreaks adjacent to the shoulder and could provide better fire control at a lower cost. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Laura Dierenfield Executive Director PATH Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawaii 808-936-4653 sharetheroad @pathhawaii.org www.pathhawaii.org CC: The Office of Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Attn: Van Luong, Esq. Jiro A. Sumada, Deputy Director, State Highways Dave Gedeon, Central Federal Lands PAGE 000120 2 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Laura Dierenfield Executive Director Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawaii (PATH) P.D. Box 62 Kailua -Kona, HI 96745 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Rawal`i Dear Ms. Dierenfield: Thank you for your letter of support for the project, and your comments at the 12/10/09 public meeting. In response to your specific comments: Highway 190 intersection The intersection of W-7 and Mamalahoa Highway will be an at -grade "T" intersection with a stop sign control on the W -7 approach only. It will use auxiliary speed change lanes, left-turn lanes with the appropriate storage lengths, medians, and paved shoulders. The Mamalahoa Highway will undergo significant widening to accommodate these elements. The use of traffic signals will be evaluated according to the AASHTO warrant standards during the design phase. A W -7 overpass will be considered in the Saddle Road Extension EIS. This information has been added to the Final EIS. As far as bicycling at this intersection, the Mamalahoa Highway intersection will accommodate bicycles through a signed, shared route with appropriate markings and safety features. Ride -share area A formal ride -share parking area can be considered during the final design stage. The potential demand for such a facility will need to be taken into consideration in coordination with the Hawai `i County Mass Transit Agency as well as the safety of ingress and egress and the cost of land acquisition. HDOT as probable land owner would have to be agreeable to allowing a parking area to be constructed within their right of way, as well as agree to maintain it. This information has been added to the Final EIS. PAGE 000121 Shared-use pathways Bicycling on Saddle Road involves mountainous terrain, challenging weather (in places very hot and dry, in others cold and foggy or rainy), and no services for over 50 miles. The distances between urban areas serviced by Saddle Road are generally not suitable for most recreational bicyclists, and the highway is unlikely to generate much bicycle usage. Most would consider this route appropriate only for experienced and conditioned cyclists, who will find the improvements make for a safer highway. The proposed grades are achievable for serious bicyclists and perhaps even desirable for a challenging ride as well as training. For recreational bicyclists, Mauna Kea State Park is an ideal destination to drive to; from there, bicyclists can ride Saddle Road for miles in either direction without encountering excessively steep or prolonged grades or severe weather. AASHTO guidelines for rural arterials in mountainous terrain are not intended for bicycles; the longer road and greater required right-of-way would add significant cost to construction and would likely reduce the operational efficiency of the new road. Old Waimea -Kona Road The Old Waimea -Kona Road in Ke` amuku, although slated mostly for preservation, is entirely within an area owed by the U.S. Army that will be used for military training and would not be an appropriate location for pedestrian and bicycle use. Furthermore, it would require considerable modification along most of its 39 -mile route to be effective for use as a bike route, which would substantially alter its historic character. Please note that this suggestion is outside the scope of the EIS. Fire hazard FHWA and HDOT do not consider pedestrians and bicyclists significant sources of ignition concern, but they too may start fires through cigarettes, arson, etc. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard a@dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, ,._,,,,g,,,z,„ David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000122 ommer o G Japanese Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Hawaii trr V Pe- v.% 51 1 951 January 6, 2010 Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Highways Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Tatsuguchi: RE: Comments to: The Draft SEIS of the Saddle Road Realignment Project -.► c. • �- r �-4 • rn ` — CO x : --4 — I n E5 =x: �= The Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Hawaii ( "JCCIH ") is an organization representing the interests of businesses operating in East Hawaii. The JCCIH presently represents over 200 member companies who employ thousands of East Hawaii residents. On behalf of the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Hawaii, I wish to respectfully express our comments to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Saddle Road Realignment Project covering the proposed W -7 alignment. Following reviews and discussions of the subject Draft SEIS, we have found that there should not be significant increased adverse impacts on the environment from the proposed W -7 alignment over the previously planned W -3 alignment. Additionally, we continue to support the overall Saddle Road Improvement Project. It is expected to provide a safe and efficient cross - island route between East and West Hawaii. In turn, this improvement in access will help to unify Hawaii Island's communities to foster social and economic development for our island. Sincerely, JAPANESE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY OF HAWAII (4;i01144 e H. Nishimura Chair, Government Affairs Committee 714 Kanoelehua Avenue • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 -4565 P.O. Box 7436 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 -8981 Phone: (808) 934 -0177 • Fax: (808) 934 -0178 • E -mail: jocih@locih.org PAGE 000123 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Eugene H. Nishimura Chair, Government Affairs Committee Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Hawai `i 714 Kano el ehua Avenue Hilo, HI 96720 -4565 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Nishimura: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 We are in receipt of your letter dated 01/06/10 regarding the Saddle Road Improvement Project. Thank you for your letter of support for the project and your views on how it will benefit provide a safe and efficient route and will help unify the island's communities. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 - 963.3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, A/4d,, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000124 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 43 January 6, 2010 Dear Mr. Tatsuguchi: Respectfully submitted, Aynu &64 Stephanie Nagata w :ECE1 T ED S M s DEPARTM ?`; .. NSPORTA• 10 MIN -s pil:40 `AY S MI5 PL f ING RR. f k Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation Highways Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 c: Office of Environmental Quality Control PAGE 000125 Stephanie Nagata P.O. Box 1172 Volcano, HI 96785 Subject: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41, hereinafter referred to as SEIS. I find this SESI contains a thorough review and analysis of the affected environment, including existing land uses, resources, including natural and cultural, as well a review of air, water and noise quality. The mitigation measures are well thought, reasonable, and addresses impacts, potential and real, of this project. It appears that the SEIS also evaluated and complied with existing state and county land use policies, statutes and regulations, as well as relevant federal statutes. Improvements to the Saddle Road, whether it is the W -3 or the subject alignment will, as noted in the discussion on social and economic factors, provide a much needed improved thoroughfare for the island and for keeping abreast with changing societal needs. An added benefit of the Mamalahoa- Milepost 41 alignment is that it is a safer route and will avoid traversing through the middle of PTA's lands which poses a health and safety concern during military training exercises. I would like to state my support of the FEIS, its findings and mitigation measures. 0 U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Stephanie Nagata P.G. Box 1172 Volcano, HI 96785 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Rawai` i Dear Ms. Nagata: We are in receipt of your letter dated 01/06/10 regarding the Saddle Road Improvement Project. Thank you for your letter of support for the project and for the adequacy of the SETS, and for your views on how it will provide a safe route that will separate military from civilian traffic. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 - 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeondot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000126 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 44 LINDA L1NCLr; GOVERNOR Of HAWAII January 6, 2010 David Gedeon, P.E., Project Manager US Department of Transportation, PHA Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Dear Mr. Gedeon: Aloha, STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 SUBJECT: National Historic Preservation Act (NI:IPA) Section 106 Review — West Saddle Road Highway Improvement Project Ke'amuku & Waikoloa Ahupua'a, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii TMK: (3) 6 -7- 001 :009 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the aforementioned undertaking, which we received on December 4, 2009. We have reviewed and accepted the archaeological inventory survey (AIS) for this undertaking (Escntt and Keris 2009). No further work is required and the report has been accepted as final (Log No. 2010.0025, Doc No. 1001 004). We do have one issue to raise. In your letter to us you cited the proposed mitigation to site 20855 (the Waimea -Kona Belt Road) which was determined to be eligible under criterion "d" during the assessment of the W -3 alternative; you also note that the W -3 would present an adverse affect to site 20855 and mitigation would include a pullout and sign along the new road. However, the AIS was prepared for alternative W -7, which according to the report would bypass site 20855 and not have an adverse or other affect; in this case, should you choose W-7 then no adverse affect will be caused by this undertaking. We understand that the proposed mitigation to 20855 was part of an MOA between FHWA and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; we are not suggesting a change to agreed upon commitments but are simply raising the issue that it appears choosing alternative W -7 would avoid the adverse impact. Please contact Morgan Davis at (808) 896 -0514 or morgan.e.davis@hawaii.gov if you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter. Nancy McMahon, Deputy SHPOIState Archaeologist and Historic Preservation Manager State Historic Preservation Division Cc: Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 711 Kapiolani Blvd., Honolulu Hawaii 96813 -5278 PAGE 000127 LAURA H. TNI£L£N ciLmRPE'RSON BOARD % LAND AND I:AT[.'M RESDL'RC'E:S COMLISSIOh ON WATER RESOURCE xLANAGDiva RUSSELL V. TSUJI FIRST n:Iurnv KEN C. KAWAIIARA i3 In b1 L iOR -RATER AQUATIC Kum :Et BOAT EEO AND OCEAN RECRFATIUN A uREAV OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 'T CONSERVAT ION A- D3 COASTAL LANDS COMERVA31Oti AND EliOiRCES ENFORCEMENT ENGN IINTORIC PRESERVATION KAIIOOLARE ISLAND RES MT COM 11S51O4 LAND STATE FARES LOG NO: 2009.4195 DOC NO: 1001MD05 Archaeology 4413 LINDA LINGLE GOVER1oRoF IUAWAI January 19, 2010 David Gedeon, P.E., Project Manager US Department of Transportation, FHA Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Dear Mr. Gedeon: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 SUBJECT: National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Review — REVISED West Saddle Road Highway Improvement Project Ke'amuku & Waikoloa Alhupua' a, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii TIM.: (3) 6 -7 -001: 009 This letter is a correction to our earlier comments (Doc No. 1001MD05). We previously reviewed and accepted the archaeological inventory survey (AIS) for this undertaking (Escort and Keris 2009). No further work is required and the report has been accepted as final (Log No. 2010.0025, Doe No. 1 OOIMDO4). One site, SIHP 20855 (the Waimea -Kona Belt Road) was previously determined to be eligible under criterion "d" during the assessment of the W -3 alternative; the W -3 would present an adverse affect to site 20855 and mitigation would include a pullout and sign along the new road. We concur that the new proposed alternative W -7 will have the same adverse affect to this historic property as the previously reviewed W -3 alternative. We concur that this adverse affect will be mitigated as detailed in the MOA. Please contact Morgan Davis at (808) 896 -0514 or mor an.c.c avis hawaii. ov if you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter. Aloha, Nancy McMahon, Deputy SHPO/State Archaeologist and Historic Preservation Manager State Historic Preservation Division Cc: Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 711 Kapiolani Blvd., Honolulu Hawaii 96813 -5278 PAGE 000128 LAURA IT. T]IIELLN nwRxSON BOARD OF LAID AND Al I1RAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON KAT'ERRESUURCE MMAGEMFTT RUSSELL Y. TS WI IBM DEPUTY KEN C. K.tWAI4MU DEPUTY DIRECTOR - WATER AQUATIC RESOUROEs DOMING AND OCEAN RECREA'110N BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES ES CO *R fSTFON ON WATER RESOURCE ELQ AGFME U CM:SERVAL ION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND SOURCES ENFORCEMENT ING MERINO FORLSTRV AND WILDLIFE FFISTORFC PRESERVATION KAI ZOO LAAE ISLAND RESERVE COMtitlTT FON LAND STATE PARKS LOG NO: 2009.4195 DOC ND: 1001MD19 Archaeology C3 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Nancy McMahon Deputy SHPO/State Archaeologist and Historic Preservation Manager State Historic Preservation Div. Department of Land and Natural Resources P.D. Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms McMahon: January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Thank you for the letters you provided dated 01/06/10 and 1/19/10 on the SEIS. Thank you for your review of the Archaeological Inventory Survey and the Draft SEIS. The documents you requested will be made available to the Kapolei Library. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard a@7dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000129 j,/,41,,,, South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee P.O. Box 383375 Waiko loa, HI 96738 January 2, 2009 Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi State of Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 RE: Saddle Road, Mamalahoa to Milepost 41 to Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway Project H1200(00) Draft SEIS Comments Dear Mr. Tatsuguchi; At the January 8, 2008 Meeting of South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee safety and other concerns related to the Saddle Road MP 41 to Mamalahoa MP 14 were discussed by the membership. A major concern is that this new road will be a heavily used connector between East and West Hawaii. As the Island population grows, future traffic on this road will increase substantially. Many of these past comments made by the membership for review and consideration appear to be incorporated in the Draft SETS. The Committee supports this project as an improved major connector between East and West Hawai' i designed to provide a safe route to users. The following items are requested as additions to the final design and SEIS document; 1. We want to emphasize the need for design of an interchange for connecting the existing Saddle Road to the new proposed Saddle Road alignment. The existing Saddle Road alignment will become the connecting spur to the proposed State Kawaihae Bypass Project via Mamalahoa Highway (190). 2. Design of a Park & Ride /Ride Share parking area needs to be incorporated in the design. This parking area should be located at the intersection of Saddle Road and Mamalahoa Highway near MP 14. The parking area needs to be designed for access by County buses (HELON) and a future bus shelter. 3. Funding and construction of the alignment from Mamalahoa Highway (190) to Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway (19) under the Department of Defense funding program. Originally the SEIS included this segment. Military convoy traffic use of the current County Waikoloa Road accelerates surface deterioration historically due to heavy loads. Lack of PAGE 000130 Sincerely, State funding is going to delay this segment of the East West connector otherwise. Use of the out dated current Mamalahoa Highway to connect from MP 14 to the Kona Area will increase congestion and accident risk as cross island traffic increases. The same safety concerns exist for the County Waikoloa Road to Highway 19. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this long awaited project and hope you will keep South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee informed as the project progresses. Again, the Committee strongly supports this project. Hopefully the end result will be a well designed, safe roadway that serves present and future needs. We also appreciate the 15 years of continued dedicated effort of the Saddle Road Task Force. Mahalo for your consideration of these comments. Mike Price -Chair South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee CC: State Representative Cindy Evans William Kenoi- Hawaii County Mayor Pete Hoffmann - Hawaii County District 9 Councilman Stanley Tamura - District Engineer DOT Highways Division Warren Lee- Director County Department of Public Works PAGE 000131 0 US. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 123001 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Mike Price, Chair South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee P.D. Box 383375 Waikoloa, HI 96738 Dear Mr. Price: PAGE 000132 January 29, 2010 hi Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 80 Subject : Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for your letter of support for the project. In response to your specific comments: a) The intersection of W -7 and Mamalahoa Highway will be an at -grade "T" intersection with a stop sign control on the W -7 approach only. It will use auxiliary speed change lanes, left -turn lanes with the appropriate storage lengths, medians, and paved shoulders. The Mamalahoa Highway will undergo significant widening to accommodate these elements. The use of traffic signals will be evaluated according to the AASHTO warrant standards during the design phase. A W -7 overpass will be considered in the Saddle Road Extension EIS. This information has been added to the Final EIS. b) A formal ride -share parking area can be considered during the final design stage. The potential demand for such a facility will need to be taken into consideration in coordination with the Hawaii County Mass Transit Agency as well as the safety of ingress and egress and the cost of land acquisition. HDOT as probable land owner would have to be agreeable to allowing a parking area to be constructed within their right of way, as well as agree to maintain it. This information has been added to the Final EIS. c) HDOT is currently planning the Saddle Road Extension, a new highway to link Mamalahoa Highway and to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, which could accommodate military and commercial traffic among other vehicles. We encourage your organization to stay involved in this planning. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard®dot.gov, dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3 723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. dot.gov. Sincerely, PAGE 000133 David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager Dear Mr. Tatsuguchi: c: OEQC J.Strickler, SID E. Raman, SID DEPARTMENT BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM STRATEGIC INDUSTRIES DIVISION Telephone: (808) 587 -3807 235 South Beretania Street, Leiopapa A Kamehameha Bldg., 5 Floor, Honolulu, Hawaii 98813 Fax: (808) 586 -2536 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2359, Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 Web site: www.hawaii.govtdbedt Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation Highways Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 November 30, 2009 Subject: Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41, Island of Hawaii, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement In response to your recent notice, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41, Island of Hawaii, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. We have no comments on this project relating to energy efficiency and renewable energy. In regard to resource efficiency, we recommend using recycled concrete aggregate as fill material and recycled asphalt pavement for surfacing. For additional information or clarification, please contact Carilyn 0. Shon at telephone number 808 -587- -3810. Sincerely, Theodore A. Peck Administrator PAGE 000134 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR THEODORE E. LIU DIRECTOR MARK K. ANDERSON DEPUTY DIRECTOR 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Theodore A. Peck, Administrator Strategic Industries Division Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism State of Hawaii 235 S. Beretania Street Leiopapa A Kaxnehameha Building, 5 Floor Honolulu, HI 96804 Dear Mr. Peck: Sincerely, al),€,,, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000135 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii We are in receipt of your letter dated 11/30/09 regarding the Saddle Road Improvement Project. Thank you for your review of the Draft SEIS. Regarding your question about recycled materials, FHWA/CFLHD's standard specifications allow for the use of recycled materials. Such materials are normally generated on site with the removal of existing pavements. As the W-7 alignment will result in the removal of only a small amount of existing roadway, it is unlikely that there will be much existing asphalt or concrete pavement materials generated as a result of the W-7 construction. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Rickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720• -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. 47 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII Department of Transportation Highways Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street Room 301 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Attention: Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi Ladies and Gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. The Department of Land and Natural Resources' (DLNR), Land Division distributed or made available a copy of your report pertaining to the subject matter to DLNR Divisions for their review and comment. Other than the comments from Division of Aquatic Resources, Engineering Division, Division of State Parks, Commission on Water Resource Management, Land Division- Hawaii District, the Department of Land and Natural Resources has no other comments to offer on the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call our office at 587 -0433. Thank you. Cc: OEQC STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 January 4, 2010 Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Sincerely, ft, M. Atta Administrator PAGE 000136 LA 8O O TRAiISPORTATION '14 JAN -8 1110 :29 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 LAURA H. TH1ELEN CHAIRPERSON HOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT' November 23, 2009 %) ti t 26M C, • rrtr- ' ' TO: DLNR Agencies: x -nrnr- (-7)r8 Div. of Aquatic Resources oa ng •i ; - • ' ecreation Engineering: Divisio 9 ° rn X ■ . . f F y & Wildlife ( x Div. of State Parks x Commission on Water Resource Management x Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands x Land Division —Hawaii District x Historic Preservation ity legt ‘ va., FROM: orris M. Atta SUBJECT: raft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 LOCATION: Island of Hawaii APPLICANT: Department of Transportation, Highways Division MEMORANDUM Transmitted for your review and comment on the above referenced document. We would appreciate your comments on this document. Please submit any comments by January 4, 2010. Attachments If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact my office at 587-0433. Thank you. ) We have no objections. We have no comments. Comments are attached. Signed: ' Date: PAGE 000137 DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING DIVISION LM/MorrisAtta REF.: DSEIS for Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Hawaii.006 COMMENTS ( X) We confirm that the project site, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), is located in Zone X. The Flood Insurance Program does not have any regulations for developments within Zone X. ) Please take note that the project site, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), is located in Zone. ) Please note that the correct Flood Zone Designation for the project site according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is . ) Please note that the project must comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) presented in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44CFR), whenever development within a Special Flood Hazard Area is undertaken. If there are any questions, please contact the State NFIP Coordinator, Ms. Carol Tyau -Beam, of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Engineering Division at (808) 587 -0267. Please be advised that 44CFR indicates the minimum standards set forth by the NFIP. Your Community's local flood ordinance may prove to be more restrictive and thus take precedence over the minimum NFIP standards. If there are questions regarding the local flood ordinances, please contact the applicable County NFIP Coordinators below: �) Mr. Robert Sumitomo at (808) 768 -8097 or Mr. Mario Siu Li at (808) 768 -8098 of the City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Permitting. } Mr. Frank DeMarco at (808) 961 -8042 of the County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works. } Mr. Francis Cerizo at (808) 270 -7771 of the County of Maui, Department of Planning. �) Mr. Mario Antonio at (808) 241 -6620 of the County of Kauai, Department of Public Works. } The applicant should include water demands and infrastructure required to meet project needs. Please note that projects within State lands requiring water service from the Department of Water Supply system will be required to pay a resource development charge, in addition to Water Facilities Charges for transmission and daily storage. } The applicant should provide the water demands and calculations to the Engineering Division so it can be included in the State Water Projects Plan Update. Additional Comments: ) Other: Should you have any questions, please call Mr. Dennis Imada of the Planning Branch at 587 -0257. Signed CARTY CHANG, ACT CHIEF ENGINEER Date: k. PAGE 000138 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Attachments STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 November 23, 2009 DL Div. of Aquatic Resources Boa Ong cean Recreation x Engineering Division x Div. of Forestry & Wildlife x Div. of State Parks x Commission on Water Resource Management x Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands x Land Division —Hawaii District x Historic Preservation orris M. Atta Acidedite-- raft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways Division 0 4 - Signed: Date: C12- PAGE 000139 Transmitted for your review and comment on the above referenced document. We would appreciate your comments on this document. Please submit any comments byJ.nr ittry 2010 If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact my office at 587 -0433. Thank you. We have no objections. .7 We have no comments. Comm s are attached. 5 23 O‘ =tpvp OP AL t • LAURA H. THIELEN CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEME T AQUATIC RESOURCES: RECToI COMM. FISH E ;EN c . ) crn Vica 4:2 Or toi co LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII MEMORANDUM jfe*.' STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 November 23, 2009 DLNR Agencies: x Div. of Aquatic Resources Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation x Enginee M iv. of Forestry & Wildlife Div. of State Parks Commission on Water Resource Manageme i 1 LAURA H. THIELEN CHAIRPERSON BOARD OP LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT z ri7›.. a q:cr-T1 to c", awn =c0„,, << 1 4::‘.... 13 c7vrv'i aims x•xt 0 is. 41.104. 40 IV x Office of Conservation ; oas a x Land Division —Hawaii District x Historic Preservation "'W e/I/Le__ orris M. Att i raft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 LOCATION: Island of Hawaii APPLICANT: Department of Transportation, Highways Division F SUBJECT: Transmitted for your review and comment on the above referenced document. We would appreciate your comments on this document. Please submit any comments by January 4, 2010. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact my office at 587-0433. Thank you. Attachments ( ) We have no objections. (/5 We have no comments. ( ) Comments are attached. PAGE 000140 an s LINDA LINGLE (;QVERNOR bF HAWAII MEMORANDUM To: Morris Atta, Administrator Land Division From: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF STATE PARKS POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 December 2, 2009 � N Daniel S. Quinn, Administrator LAURA H. THIELEN CHAIRPERSON BOARD OP LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES CESSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RUSSELL Y. TSUJI R ST DEPIfl KEN C. KAWAHARA CITY =SCUM M . WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATERS AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OP CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS SERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION UIDOIJ.WE BLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATE PARKS Subject: Draft Supplemental EIS for the Saddle Road Improvements from Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41, Mauna Kea, Hawaii Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft supplemental EIS for the Saddle Road Improvements from Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41. As the project is implemented, work will occur within the vicinity of Mauna Kea State Recreation Area which may impact the visitors to the park. We would appreciate being notified in advance of such work and ask that Dean Takebayashi, Hawaii Island Parks District Superintendent be contacted at 974 -6206. PAGE 000141 , v IP. 1 0 Z rhra LINDA LXNGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII MEMORANDUM FROM: SUBJECT: Attachments STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 November 23, 2009 TO: DLNR Agencies: x Div. of Aquatic Resources _Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation x Engineering Division x Div. of Forestry & Wildlife x Div. of State Parks x Commission on Water Resource Management x Office of Conservation : . #w 1 Lands x Land Division —Hawaii District oric' Preservation t i\- 4/1 4 . orris r� i rris M. Atta .1- raft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 LOCATION: Island of Hawaii APPLICANT: Department of Transportation, Highways Division Transmitted for your review and comment on the above referenced document. We would appreciate your comments on this document. Please submit any comments by January 4, 2010. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact my office at 587-0433. Thank you. ( ) We have no objections. { ) We have no comments. (k1 Comments are att hed. Signed: Date: PAGE 000142 nn cr ST9 ��r rn U, if LAURA H. THIELEN CHAASON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAOEMESif I OL , LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII MEMORANDUM STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION 75 Aupuni Street, Room 204 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 PHONE: (808) 974 -6203 FAX: (808) 974 -6222 December 4, 2009 TO: Morris M. Atta, Administrator FROM: Kevin E. Moore, Hawaii District Land Agent SUBJECT: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 LOCATION: Keaumuku, South Kohala, Kaohe, Hamakua, Island of Hawaii, TMK: (3) 6 -7- 001 :041 par. 4-4-015:008 por. and 4 -4- 015:014 por. APPLICANT: Department of Transportation, Highways Division Pursuant to your request for comments on the above matter, we offer the following: The proposed Saddle Road realignment crosses two State parcels: TMK (3) 4.4 -015 :008 (Parcel 8) and 4- 4- 015:014 (Parcel 14). Parcel 8 is leased to the United States of America as part of the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) pursuant to General Lease No. S -3849. Parcel 14 is part of the existing Saddle Road right-of-way (ROW). The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) states on the Errata Sheet inserted at the beginning of volume 1 that Parcel 14 is leased to the United States Army. This is incorrect because General Lease No. S -3849, as originally drafted, excluded the existing Saddle Road from the lease premises. PAGE 000143 LAURA H. TH1ELEN CIIAIRVERSCIN !OAR!) R!) O I.ANI) ANI) NATURAL URAI, i u Iltc i s CO MIMI;4.4ION ON WA•IER I{t:.SOI JRC•I MANA(;I .4I fl The SEIS maps indicate that the new Saddle Road alignment will overlap the existing Saddle Road for a distance near the 42 -mile marker, before diverging south across a portion of Parcel 8 toward Kona. To the extent the new road alignment within PTA is outside the existing Saddle Road alignment, a withdrawal of lands from General Lease No. S-3849 with the concurrence of the United States will be necessary. Additionally, the realignment of Saddle Road through Parcels 8 and 14 will require the approval of the Board of Land and Natural Resources for the withdrawal of the new ROW from the lease and the disposition of the ROW to the State Department of Transportation. Consolidation and resubdivision of affected parcels may f * Morris M. Atta Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 December 4, 2009 Page 2 be necessary through a Department Permit or Land Board Permit since the lands are in a conservation district Please contact me should you have any questions. PAGE 000144 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII Department of Transportation Highways Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street Room 301 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Attention: Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi Ladies and Gentlemen: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 January 5, 2010 LAURA H. TNIELEN CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMM M reMbURCE MANAGEMENT STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 10 JAN -B A10 :29 HIGHWAYS JJ' /ISIO PLANNING BRANCH Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. The Department of Land and Natural Resources' (DLNR), Land Division distributed or made available a copy of your report pertaining to the subject matter to Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands for their review and comment. The Department of Land and Natural Resources has no other comments to offer on the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call our office at 587-0433. Thank you. Cc: OEQC Sincerely, b t___Morris M. Atta Administrator PAGE 000145 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII MEMORANDUM TO: DLNR Agencies: x Div. of Aquatic Resources Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation x Engineering Division x Div. of Forestry & Wildlife x Div. of State Parks omumission on Water Resource x Office of Conservation & Coastal Lan I� !1st 'ict _ x Historic Preservation t orris M. Atta :;: / : .: Wf raft Supplemental Environmental Impact Manalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 LOCATION: Island of Hawaii APPLICANT: Department of Transportation, Highways Division FROM: SUBJECT: Attachments STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 November 23, 2009 Si Date: PAGE 000146 ent Statement We have no objections. ) We have no comments. Co are attac . ed LAURA H. THIEL.?N CHAIRPERSON BOARD OP LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES c sJSSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT tkpi 7, 7 2 ! rcl r 6.1 7-, for Saddle Road, Transmitted for your review and comment on the above referenced document. We would appreciate your comments on this document. Please submit any comments by January 4, 2010. • r If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact my office at 587-0433. Thank you. F LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII REF :OCCL:TM MEMORANDUM TO: Morris M. Atta, Administrator Land Division FROM: Samuel J. Lerntno, Administra Office of Conservation and Co STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 PAGE 000147 LAURA IL THIELEN cHA tPERSoN B ARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES cOMMLSS WATER RESOURCE MANAOMENT RUSSELL V. TSUII FIRST DEPUTY KEN C. KAWAHARA DEPUTY DHtECTOR • WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN R C EAT ION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES CaOMNESsION ON WATER RESOURCE Immolation' CONSERVATION AND COASTAL Laps os CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENOINEERIM FURFSIRYAND WILDLIFE HIS'roROC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWB ISLAM RESERVE comm/SsION LAND STATE PAILS SUBJECT: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Stateme . ad h le Road The Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) has reviewed the subject information and note that the applicant believes a Conservation District Use Permit has been approved for the new proposed alignment. However, within the vicinity of Puu Ke'e Ke'e, a portion of the new proposed W -7 alignment within the Conservation District appears to deviate from the permitted W -3 alignment (Exhibit 1 -area in highlighted pink circle). It appears that the new alignment may not be within the permitted W -3 alignment and may require further review. As such, pursuant to the Hawaii Administrative Rules, §13-522, Operations, repair, maintenance, or renovation of existing structures facilities, equipment, or topographical features which are different from the original permit or which are different from the department- approved construction plans, a departmental permit may be required for this deviation. Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum, contact Tiger Mills of our Office at (808) 587-0382. • i Mitre & uses Map 12,10108 ! i! i A A= A am* moo 7rown i i NMI i r� M A A v ow -! A wN ern r mom r_ 4wr■ ! A MO A A ! A ! i ! ! ! i i i arm AIM ■ O ! i ! - I MN. MOM .mm mom ! - ! ! ! OM M ! MD i r 5000' 2500' SCALE: 5000' aNO i 1111 i i i A A A- i rrs an■r #r= \■I i i i. O i i A! i ■ i NOM •6 i■m i[ 411116 i i i r�r■ I A - ! A A A # = A A • i i Min IMO Orr ■ am WINO i i s i i i i i i ■ O= • i i i i A gob i i A A A M ! i A - A 1 4 GIRL SCOUT P - 2 \ A PI T ._ter•. .. • �lii".l=A` - -= � . • ti K . d E.XHIBIT 1 PAGE 000148 I _ - i gory d■w IMMW i i i A O i w ig mirf o �rrrr ! •_ A O -■■f - rim - .m r• A A A MO A MN i A N EN. i r1. 41100 i i i i i i i rrrrr i i i i was E i i A A A A A M i i- saoo' 11111 11111 1111=11111111111111111111 MIN IMO 10000 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Charlene 0, Unoki, Assistant Administrator Land Division Department of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawai `i P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms. Unoki: Thank you for coordinating the DLNR review of the Draft SEIS. In response to the specific comments. • Engineering Division: Thank you for confirming that the project is within FIRM Zone X. • Division of Aquatic Resources: We acknowledge the no objections comment. January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 8 0 • Commission on Water Resource Management: We acknowledge the statement of no comments. • Division of State Parks: Work in the vicinity of Mauka Kea State Recreation Area is essentially done, but FHWA will notify State Parks in advance of any remaining work. The section of new Saddle Road that passes by Mauna Kea State Park (MKSP) was completed several years ago. These improvements included constructing a new and much safer access to MKSP, including left and right turn lanes from and onto Saddle Road. The former 90- degree bend in existing Saddle Road was removed, thereby providing a much safer access to the park. • Land Division- -Hawai `i District: a) Thank you for this correction, which will be added to the Final SEIS. Our understanding is that Saddle Road is owned by the State but is being maintained by the County of Hawaii under an agreement executed in the 1960s. It is also under the County's jurisdiction for law enforcement. b) We acknowledge your statement that the portion of new road alignment outside of the existing Saddle Road alignment will require withdrawal of lands from Lease S -3849, and the realignment of Saddle Road through parcels 8 and 14 will require BLNR approval for withdrawal of the new ROW from lease and assignment to HDOT. This information will be added to the Final SEIS. We PAGE 000149 understand that consolidation and resubdivision may require Department or Land Board permit since they are in Conservation District. This information has been added to the Final EIS. * Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands: Thank you for your determination on this matter. The information that the CDUP granted in 2003 for the proposed realignment may not cover the portion of the W -7 alignment near Puu Kee Kee and that realignment may require a departmental permit will be added to the Final SEIS. FHWA now intends to apply for a CDUP. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard ®dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3647 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. dot.gov. Sincerely, ,,,I David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000150 4$ Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi Head Planning Engineer Hawaii Department of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street, #301 Honolulu, HI 96813 Aloha Mr. Tatsuguchi: We live in Waimea and use the Saddle Road (State Route 200) to go back and forth to Hilo on a regular basis. We support the proposed re- alignment of Saddle Road on the western end to the south of the U.S. Army's newly - acquired Keamuku parcel. It will help separate military training and civilian transportation, and provide a wider, straighter roadway which will be safer to drive and improve traffic flow. This will complete the overall improvements to Saddle Road, which will make the cross - island commute that many people make shorter, easier, safer, and less expensive because of the decreased fuel consumption. The new portions of Saddle Road are a pleasure to drive, and we look forward to the completion of the full project. Sincerely, David A. Tarnas David A. Tarnas M. Carolyn Stewart P.O. Box 6882 Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 24 December 2009 PAGE 000151 M. Carolyn Stewart 0 US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration David Tarnas and M. Carolyn Stewart P.G. Box 6882 Kamuela, HI 96743 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Tarnas and Ms. Stewart: We are in receipt of your letter dated 12/24/09 regarding the Saddle Road Improvement Project. . Thank you for your letter of support for the project and your views on how it will provide a safe and efficient route by separating civilian from military traffic, and make the cross - island commute shorter, safer and less expensive. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Rickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@7a dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, A.1/6 David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000152 TO: Department of Transportation. RE: Saddle Road Re- alignment. Thank you for your consideration, With regards, Verne Wood President, CEO Puna Water Services. Inc dba: Waterworks. WATE PAGE 000153 WORKS Pools Watertanks Hot-Tubs January 7 2010 To whom it may concern, I would like to submit my input in regard to the proposed realignment of the Saddle Road. As a business owner with retail locations in both Hilo and Kona I have trucks and crews crossing the Island several times a week. The improved safety and convenience that would be provided by the proposed re- alignment provokes me to express my support for this project. 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Verne Wood President and CEO Puna Water Services, Inc. dba Water Works 741 Kanoelehua Avenue Hilo, HI 96720 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Wood: We are in receipt of your letter dated 01/07/10 regarding the Saddle Road Improvement Project. Thank you for your letter of support for the project and your views on how the improved safety and convenience will help businesses such as yours and their workers. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard @dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@a7dot.gov. Sincerely, (a<_/ Aie,,,,, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000154 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM --3 8 0 50 SATE: 1 /12/10 HAWAI I SEA GRANT FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET ENVHLONMENTAL CENTER University of Hawaii 2500 Dole Street, Krauss Annex 19, Honolulu, HE 96822 Telephone (808) 96 -7361 Fax: (808) 956 -3980 FROM: Peter Rappa Environmental Review coordinator TO: Dina U. Lau ($0$ 587-2340) Department of Transportation, Highways Division Ron Terry ($6G 316-6988) Geometrician OEQC (808 586 -4186) SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT SIJPPLEMETNAL EIS FOR THE SADDLE ROAD, MJ4ALA1IOA IJIGHWAY TO MILEPOST 41 No of Pages including cover sheet: CO PAGE 000155 E ooi moo; z6 FAX 808 956 3014 EAWA I I SEA GRANT Due to circumstances beyond our control we were not able to send you our reviews comments until today, January 12, 210. We realize that you will receive theme after the deadline for the 45 day review period and that you are not obligated to respond. However, many of our comments are editorial in nature and would enhance the readability of the document. The rest, we feel, merit your attention. We hope you will include our comments with your response in the final SEIS. Thank you for your consideration. Peter Rappa Environmental Review Coordinator PAGE 000156 1j002 .",.r MV.Lv 1o; zu FAX 808 956 3014 UNIVECLSITY of HAWAII° MANOA January 12, 2010 RE: 0797 Ms. Dina U. Lau Department of Transportation, Highways Division 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HIS 96813 Dear Ms. Lau: General Comments HAWAII SEA GRANT Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statem.ent Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 South .l ohala, Hawaii The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement EIS) for the Saddle Road Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 project evaluates a new preferred route (W7) for the alignment and improvement of Saddle Road at and near its western taus (Section I of the Saddle Road Improvement project). Alignment W-7 was developed as a result of the United States Army's 2006 purchase of Keamuku lands and the desire to provide a safe separation between military training and civilian transportation. The alignment discussed in the 1999 Record of Decision for the project identified a different preferred aliment (W..3) - an alignment that would bisect the Army's training lands. This document compares the environmental, historical, and social impacts of the current W -7 preferred alignment and the 1 999 W-3 alignment. This review was conducted with the assistance of Ryan Riddle, Environmental Center. This DSEIS frequently references the text of the 1 999 final EIS in order to avoid repeating the analysis of the effects of the completion of the road as a whole and issues that were previously covered in the 1 999 text. While these references typically inel ude section number references, it would be more helpful to the reader if the section and page numbers being referred to were consistently included. In addition to our general comments we also have several specific comments. PAGE 000157 1J003 Water Resources Research Center Environmental Center 2500 Dole Street, Krauss Annex 19 Honolulu, Havwi'i 96822 Telephone: (808) 956 -7361 Fax; (808) 956 -3980 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action lnstiitutior 01/12/2010 16 :29 FAX 808 956 3014 January 8, 2010 Page 2 HAWA I I SEA GRANT 2004 Capacity (pp. 1 — 1 In the first paragraph of this section there is an estimate that traffic volumes are expected to increase by ten -fold by 2014. The expected increase in volume to 14,000 ADT is nearly a fifteen -fold increase in volume over the average daily traffic of 900 vehicles reported in 1994. The paragraph at the top of page 1-16 points out the existing Saddle Road's severely limited passing opportunities. The paragraph concludes with the sentence "Construction of the road will provide a safe modern highway with sufficient capacity for expected growth ?' Will it do anything to address the problem of severely limited passing opportunities which will be made worse by an increase in traffic that the improvements will bring? How will it address this problem? W - 3 Alignment Alternative (p. 2 Figure 1.1. 2 does not show MP 41 nor does it show where the slopes of Pu' u .e' eke a are located, although both of these are used for directional purpose in the text both here and elsewhere. We can assume that MP 41 lies close to MP 42 on Figure 1.1.2 but we have little idea where the slopes of Pu'u Ike; eke a are We recommend that these land marks be included on Figure 1.1.2 in the final SEIS. Transportation System Management (TM) Alternatives and Mass Transit (p. 2--7) At the top of page 2-7 the DSEIS states, "Regardless of improvements to Saddle Road, the buses would continue using the Hamal ua coast route, as this is where a large portion of the major users the resort workers, reside." Is it possible that future increases in the resident population of Hilo and Kailua- ona and/or Waikoloa would support a direct/express bus route between the destinations -- an express route that would travel the Saddle Road? Design Criteria. (p. 2 This section briefly mentions the intersection of military traffic traveling between Keamuku and the main section of Pohalculoa `graining Area with the highway route, stating "This would occur at one point, the location of which is not yet specified which would be a wade - •separated crossing. It is likely that military traffic would pass under Saddle Road." What factors will be considered in this decision? At what point in time is the decision expected? Social p. 3-16 - 3-17) The last sentence in this section is unclear. Are there pedestrian and bicycle pathways within the Waikis i Ranch that are open to use by the public or are they only available for recreational use on the ranch? PAGE 000158 ib: 9 FAX 808 956 3014 January 8, 2010 Page 3 Affected Environment (p. 3 -39) Tourism (p. 3-51) Environmental Consequences (pp. 3-52 — 3 -53) Affected Environment (p. 3 -121) HAWAII SEA GRANT PAGE 000159 The DSEIS mentions that Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) allows hunting when and where it does not conflict with training and that PTA expects to open Keamuku to hunting under the same State regulations as other areas within the training area. What are these regulations and do they vary monthly or seasonally? How does PTA communicate notices of closure? Will hunting access points be located off of W-7? Flow would hunting access vary between the two routes (W-3 and W-7)? Table 33.9 referenced in the second sentence of the first paragraph in this section as being "above" is actually found on page 3-25, 26 pages previously. The table should either be reproduced here or the page number on which it can be found. How accurate is the Average Daily Traffic increase predicted at the top of page 53? It is predicted that it will increase from the 1992 level of between 5000 and 9000 to between 14,000 and 20,000 by the year 2020. in light of earlier estimates being so far off in the section on Capacity reported on page 1 -14 should the range be reconsidered? There should be data available on the ADT measured recently. Does it look like that ADT will increase to the predicted levels by 2020? In this section the DSEIS discusses the general location of management units for endangered species within and around PTA and Keamuku. It would help to have a map included of these locations and the nearby boundary of palila critical habitat. This visual representation would allow the reader to obtain a better understanding of the proximity of important land units with regard to potential sources of fire associated with alignment W -3 and w -7. Environmental Consequences (pp. 3 -57 — 3 -58) `here is a reference to developing the Saddle Road as a "complete street" in the paragraph in the middle of the page. The state legislature passed a "complete streets" bill in the past legislative session (Act 54, 2009). Perhaps this section may be updated to reflect what the legislators passed. Wildfire Threat at Keamaku (pp. 3-73 — 3-74) On the next to the last paragraph on page 3-74 there is a mention of six classes mapped by Castillo et al. of wild and fire Rid l types found at PTA. The next sentence says that "Two of the three types are common on the W-7 alignment." What happened to the other three types or are types and classes somehow different? 01/12/2010 16 :30 FAX 808 956 3014 cc: OEQC Ron Terry, Geometrician Chittaranj an Ray, Ryan Riddle HAWAII SEA GRANT ar$1, . ,„,,adY age 4 10 Environmental Consequences i �.. Array T s coris'r�=ing th age 3.41 'r _ i �. tO � the f uku ace t Provide ; # � ftiz, wildfires that may region. What viould � d be the capaci Thank you for the opportunity PAGE 000160 Sincerely, 11006 -eter Rappa - c i r Environmental Review Co U.S. Deportment of Tronsportation • Federal Highway Administration Peter Rappa Environmental Review Coordinator Environmental Center University of Hawaii 2500 Dole Street Kraus Annex 19 Honolulu, HI 96822 Dear Mr. Rappa: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 PAGE 000161 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for your review of the Draft SEIS, and the late date of your comments has not prevented us from being able to consider them. Regarding your specific comments: General comments Readers who require the page number of a particular section may refer to the Table of Contents in the 1999 Final EIS . Section numbers are better guides to general discussions. Traffic The word "existing" in this context meant 2008 -2009, and therefore the tenfold increase is accurate. The wording in the Final SEIS has been clarified. Passing opportunities To gain an idea of the project, the Environmental Center may be interested in reviewing not only the purpose and need section of the document that you cite, which outlines problems in the existing road, but also the project description, contained in Chapter 2, which explains how the project addresses these deficiencies. The new W -7 alignment will replace the two -lane, narrow, and winding conditions on the existing Section I of Saddle Road with .a wide, safe modem highway with climbing lanes and a posted speed of 55 MPH most of its length, as discussed in Section 2.2 (p. 241). The Level of Service, which reflects passing opportunities among other factors, will increase dramatically, even with more traffic. Figure 1.1.2 Your deduction about MP 41 being a mile away from MP 42 was correct, but to meet your concerns, labels for this mile marker and the summit of Pu`u Ke`ekee have been added to this figure. Transit alternatives Our discussions to date with Hawaii County Mass Transit Agency officials indicate that although this is a possibility, current demand and that expected in the foreseeable future would not justify it. If and when necessary, Saddle Road would provide an excellent express mass transit route. Overpass/underpass options It has not yet been determined whether to use an overpass or underpass, but coordination is ongoing. However, there are several reasons that an underpass for military traffic is more likely: • Building a military overpass would likely require construction of lengthy and possibly paved approaches to /from the bridge that would extend well outside the right of way for the new road. • Given the weight of some military equipment that may to be brought up to PTA, a military overpass would probably have to be more structurally stout than a bridge designed to handle only legal highway weights, including barriers much stouter than guardrails to prevent an errant heavy military vehicle from inadvertently running off the overpass onto the roadway below. By going under the new road, the military trail may not need to be asphalt paved. • HDOT would presumably be responsible for maintaining the military overpass given its location within the State R/W. Given the additional length and structural requirements, this could be more costly for HDOT than the opposite of maintaining a normal (and shorter) highway bridge. • A military underpass is likely to be less visible to motorists. • Any future observatory projects that require hauling equipment w/ inordinately high clearance needs would not be restricted. • A military overpass would have to be considerably longer to cross over the new and wider Saddle Road as compared to taking Saddle Road over a military trail. • The natural terrain appears to favor an underpass for military traffic. While there are no perfect locations, one suitable place is shown in Figure 2.2.2d of the Draft SEIS. There will need to be more discussions during design to determine the exact nature, location, size and materials to be used. The volume of military traffic at this time is unknown, but it is not expected to be substantial for any sustained period of times and will easily be accommodated by one -lane crossing. This information has been added to the Final SEIS. Waiki'i pathways The pathways within waiki`i are only available to residents and are only useful for travel within the subdivision or for exercise. Hunting at PTA Hunting regulations at PTA are currently undergoing changes and the Final SETS will not be able to report on any details. FHWA will coordinate with PTA if PTA requests access at one or more points for hunting. In any case, the proposed realignment of the western section of Saddle Road from W-3 to W-7 has no effect on hunting access. PAGE 000162 Pal ila critical habitat A new figure with a map of the Endangered Species Habitats and Paula Critical Habitat Area, Figure 3.18.1, has been added to the Final EIS. Table 3.3.9 reference The Final SEIS now provides a page number for this reference. Hamakua traffic counts HDOT's traffic counts in the non-urban portions of Highway 19 between Hilo and Waimea show ADT in the range of 7,100 to 1 1,400 for 2009, depending on location. This is slightly less than what would have been expected based on the factors that were operative at the time of the 1999 Saddle Road EIS (source: unpublished HDOT traffic counts). This is probably due to the worldwide economic slowdown that has reduced visitor counts, which has noticeably decreased traffic in most locations in Hawaii. Preliminary forecasts that we obtained from HDOT for this same portion of Highway 19 account for the full construction of Saddle Road, along with economic trends (some level of tourism rebound) and land use trends, namely development of a portion of existing entitled properties in the region along with steady growth in DHHL and other affordable government housing projects. ADT is currently forecasted to be between 8,200 to 14,700 by 2019, a substantial increase over current levels, but less than the 14,000 to 20,000 that the 1999 EIS foresaw for this same stretch of highway for 2020. Forecasts of this nature are general, but the steady rise in ADT on all of the Big Island's highways over the last 50 years is undisputed and does not seem likely to reverse. It is clear that drive -by traffic in Hamakua and Waimea will continue to grow. Some of this information has been added to the Final EIS. Act 34 As foreseen in Act 54, the Complete Streets Act, certain highways are not suited for the complete street concept when the costs would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use of the particular highway, or when the sparseness of population indicates an absence of a future need. For these reasons, Saddle Road is not suitable. The Final SEIS contains a discussion of Act 54. Dip tank capacity The specifications call for 80,000 gallons dip tanks. This information has been added to the Final SEIS. Typo The wording has been changed in the Final EIS to "two of the six types ". Thank you for catching this error. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000163 51 January 5, 2010 Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi Hawaii DOT, Hwy Division, Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 Aloha Mr. Tatsuguchi, Happy New Year wishes to you and yours. I am writing to voice my strong support for the project to finish paving Saddle Road for many reasons -- personal and professional. I live and work in Hilo and have been here since 1983. As you are well aware many of us, especially residents, drive quite often to /from the west side of the Big Island for meetings, social engagements and travel purposes (since many mainland flights land there). In the past, I only used the Hamakua Coast route to travel to the west side because of the unpaved Saddle Road which made it unsafe and uncomfortable to drive on. Since the partial paving of Saddle Road, I have taken that route a little more and am pleased to say that my ride to the west side is made slightly more delightful, safer and has saved me time and gas money: However, I still dread driving on the last portion of the Saddle Road that has not been paved mainly because the unpaved portion is narrow and rough and still poses great danger when reckless and inconsiderate drivers decide to speed. It is critical to complete the improvements on Saddle Road to further enhance safety and ensure time efficiency and cost - savings for all, especially those of us who are working hard to sustain the economy and having to do more with less in today's weakened economy. This new alignment of the Saddle Road will also reap great benefits for those who are in need of urgent health care or those who have to drive to/from either side of the island to seek regular medical care. I once overheard a complaint from a patient while waiting for my doctor whereby the complainer commented on the traffic encountered in Waimea while enroute to Hilo for her child's doctor appointment. When this next improvement project for Saddle Road is complete, many drivers to /from the west side will be more enticed to utilize the Saddle Road and this will definitely lessen the bottleneck traffic jam in Waimea...and perhaps save more lives. In conclusion, I want to reinforce my strong support for the new alignment of Saddle Road. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Mahalo, Yu Yok Pearring Director, Marketing and Alumni 0 UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII HILO University Relations 200 W. KAWILI STREET HILO, HAWAII 96720-4091 PHONE: (808) 974 -7567 FAX: (808) 974-7622 www.uhh.hawaii.edu An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution PAGE 000164 RECEIVED STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 10 JAN8 410.28 HIGHWAYS DIVISION PLANNING BRANCH 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Yu Yok Pearring, Director Marketing and Alumni University of Hawai` i at Hilo 200 Kawili Street Hilo, HI 06720 -4091 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Ilawai'i Dear Ms. Pearring: We are in receipt of your letter dated 01/05/10 regarding the Saddle Road Improvement Project. Thank you for your letter of support for the project and your views on how it will provide benefits for both emergency medical care and regular doctor visits, and will reduce traffic bottleneck in Waimea. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@3a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, (0,,J,LL., David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000165 Dated: December 07, 2009 LAWFUL NOTICE Attention: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al Robert Gates and its `public citizens" UNITED STATES ARMY GARRISON - HAWAII, et al Colonel Matthew T. Margotta and its "public citizens" Mark Katkow, Laurie Lucking UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS YnGHWAY DIVISION, et al David Gedeon and its "public citizens" Stephen Hallisy STATE OF HAWAII, et al Linda Lingle and its `public citizens" Laura Thielen, Pua Aiu, Brennon T. Morioka, Michael D. Formby, Francis Paul Deena, Brian H. Sekiguchi, Jiro A. Sumada, Ken Tatsuguchi, Katherine P. Kealoha, Paul K. Neves, Hawaii Maoli, Council on Native Hawaiian Advancement, Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, Hawaii Island Burial Council, Haunani Apoliona, OHA Board of Trustees, Clyde Namu'o, Ruby McDonald, Lukella Ruddle L{1) -Lb Regarding: IIFPD -16 and HWY -PA 2.3866 NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST unlawful conduct, harm, intentional impacts and damages to our Hawaiian National Treasures at Pohakuloa, Ke'amuku... and other related historic traditional cultural properties on Hawaii Island and throughout Igo Hawaii Pae Aina by the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES ARMY GARRISON - HAWAII undertaking. Lawful Notice: Said "public citizens" violating the law shall be held accountable to the law by we "Private National Citizens" who possess the land, and for and damages incurred. There is no statute of limitations on "intentional fraud "... and continued action shall incur personal liabilities to those "public citizens" acting without law. PAGE 000166 `ano'ai kakou We, Hawaiian Nationals of Ike Aupuni 0 Hawaii Nei, Ko Hawaiia Pae Aina , hereby, issue LAWFUL NOTICE to the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES ARMY GARRISON - HAWAII, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF HAWAII and its "public citizens" of the following: 1. The lawful ownership of the land, i.e., "exclusive territorial jurisdiction" is still that of Ike Aupuni 0 Hawaii Nei and we National Citizens of the Kingdom, as confirmed by the United States Court for the Hawaii District. The land has never transferred to the United States nor any other sovereign entity. 2. The STATE OF HAWAII is "de facto" in standing as openly admitted to by President Grover Cleveland and other United States government entities. 3. The "de facto" STATE OF HAWAII Constitution reveals that the STATE OF HAWAII does not have Jurisdictional holdings to the lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom. 4. Section 19 of the "de facto" STATE OF HAWAII Constitution reveals that the "national" citizenship of Hawaiians was not changed when Hawaii became a "Fake State" within a non - existent Union. 5. The "de facto" STATE OF HAWAII cannot prove jurisdiction over the land in question in this issue. 6. The title to Pohakuloa, Ke'amuku... and all contained within, are the soul possession of Ke Aupuni 0 Hawaii Nei, and the "common -law" rights that belong to Hawaiian Nationals domiciled on their own Aina, 7, The "de facto" STATE OF HAWAII has as its primary, basic law, the Common Law of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which under Hawaii Court Rules must honor. 8. The UNTTED STATES ARMY GARRISON - HAWAII and its failure to comply with Field Manual (FM) 27 -10 "The Law of the Land Warfare" and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 "Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) " study and assessment for and by the lineal descendants whom are directly affected by the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES ARMY GARRISON - HAWAII undertaking throughout Ko Hawaii Pae Aina. PAGE 000167 LAWFUL NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST Let it be known that this is an immediate and lawful notice to the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES ARMY GARRISON HAWAII, et a! and its "public citizens" Robert Gates, Matthew T. Margotta, Mark Katkow, Laurie Lucking; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRAS POR TA TIDN. et a! and its "public citizens" David Gedeon, Stephen Hallisy; STATE OF HAWAII, eta! and its "public citizens" Linda Lingle, Laura Thielen, Pun Aiu, Brennon T. Morioka, Michael D. Formby, Francis Paul Keeno, Brian H. Sekiguchi, Jiro A. Sumada, Ken Tatsuguchi, Katherine P. Kealoha, Paul K. Neves, Hawaii Maoli, Council on Native Hawaiian Advancement, Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, Hawaii Island Burial Council, Haunani Apoliona, OHA Board of Trustees, Clyde Namu'o, Ruby McDonald, Lukella Ruddle to cease and desist their unlawful conduct, harm to our cultural. sites, desecration of our grave sites and cultural indifference to our Hawaiian culture and traditions, while damaging and eradicating our Hawaiian National Treasures at Pohakuloa, Ke'amuku... and other related historic traditional cultural properties on Hawaii Island and throughout Ko Hawaii Pae Aina, ` owau no me ka ha'aha'a � f %/47 Tom Lenchanko, Hawaiian National kahuaka' i ola ko 1 aila waha olelo `Aha KukanilokofKoa Mana mea ola kanaka mauli 808- 349 -9949 Mika Poe Silva, Hawaiian National Kahu Kulaiwi, Koa Mana, Kupukaaina O Wai'anae Wahipana, Oahu cc: Office of the Attorney General Aran Alton Ardaiz, Attorney Gemeral Ke Aupuni 0 Hawaii Nei Ko Hawaii Pae Aina 'aina PAGE 000168 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Tom Lenchanko and Alika Poe Silva P.D. Box 4192 Honolulu HI 96812 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Lenchanko and Ms. Silva: Thank you for the letter on the SETS. In response to your specific comments: January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Sovereignty We have no information regarding a defect in land title, and we believe that we are following the appropriate laws of the appropriate jurisdictional authorities, the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii and the United States of America. Section 106 We believe that the Section 106 consultation process, which involved a letter to a number of native Hawaiian organizations providing the SEIS and archaeological inventory survey inviting comments on the findings related to historic properties, was correctly conducted. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard a@7dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, A.-7/44„ David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000169 Ref. No. P -12889 Ron Terry, Ph.D., Principal Geometrician Associates, LLC P.O. Box 396 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Dear Dr. Terry: DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM OFFICE OF PLANNING 235 South Beretania Street, 6th Floor, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2359, Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 January 12, 2010 Subject: Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program Federal Consistency Review for Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41, South Kohala, Hawaii The proposal by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to construct a new alternative alignment for the improvement of Section I of Saddle Road, has been reviewed for consistency with the Hawaii CZM Program. We concur with the FHWA determination that the activity is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Hawaii CZM Program, based on the following conditions: The mitigation measures proposed in the Supplemental EIS (SETS) shall be fully implemented. In particular, the following mitigation measures, as proposed in the SETS and identified below by section number, are required for CZM consistency. 1. Outdoor Recreation Access, Section 3.3.4.3 (p. 3-40) 2. Native Hawaiian Culture and Values, Section 3.3.7.3 (p. 3-46) 3. Fire Hazard, Section 3.9.3 (p. 3 -81) 4. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Section 3.10.3 (p. 3 -85) 5. Soil Erosion, and Cave and Lava Tube Mitigation, Section 3.12.3 (p. 3 -97) 6. Botanical Resources, Section 3.13.3 (p. 3 -105) 7. Threatened and Endangered Species, Section 3.18.3 (pp. 3 -123 - 3 -125) 8. Archaeological, Historic, and Traditional Cultural Resources, Section 3.19.2.3 (P• 3 -130 9. Traditional Hawaiian Cultural Sites, Section 3.19.3.4 (p. 3 -135) 10. Hazardous Materials and Toxic Substances, Section 3.20.1.3 (p. 3 -137) 11. Unexploded Ordnance, Section 3.20.2.3 (p. 3 -139) 12. Visual, Section 3.21.3 (pp. 3 -144 - 3 -145) 13. Construction Impacts, Section 3.23.2 (pp. 3 -146 - 3 -148) PAGE 000170 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR THEODORE E. LIU DIRECTOR MARK K. ANDERSON DEPUTY DIRECTOR ABBEY SETH MAYER DIRECTOR OFFICE OF PLANNING Telephone: (808) 587 -2846 Fax: (808) 587 -2824 Ron Terry, Ph.D. Page 2 January 12, 2010 CZM consistency concurrence is not an endorsement of the project nor does it convey approval with any other regulations administered by any State or County agency. Thank you for your cooperation in complying with the Hawaii CZM Program. If you have any questions, please call John Nakagawa of our CZM Program at (808) 587 -2878. c: Mr. Pat Phung, FHWA Planning Department, County of Hawaii Abbey Seth Mayer Director PAGE 000171 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Abbey Seth Mayer, Director Office of Planning Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism P.D. Box 2359 Honolulu HI 96804-2359 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Mayer: We are in receipt of your letter regarding the Saddle Road Improvement Project. Thank you for your review of the project's consistency with the policies of the Hawai` i CZM program. The mitigation measures specified in your letter will be refined and formalized as a part of the Record of Decision (ROD), which will be made available on the Saddle Road website. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard®dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon @dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000172 54 Aaron Stene Kailua-Kona Ken TatsuguchiIHWYIHDDOT @Hi DOT 12/13/2009 08:49 PM Original Message From: Aaron Stene [ aaron @hawaiiantel. net ] Sent: 12/12/2009 03:21 PM HST To: oeqc@doh.hawaii.gov; Ken Tatsuguchi Cc: Ron Terry <rterry @hawaii.rr.com >; Dave <dave.gedeon @fhwa.dot.gov >; Brennon Morioka; "Bruce K. Meyers" <bmeyers @okahara.corn> Subject: Saddle Road Draft EIS Comments I want to express my support of the re- alignment of Kona side of Saddle Road. The existing roadway is woefully inadequate. There is numerous safety issues with this roadway segment due to design deficiencies. However, the new W-7 alignment would address these issues along with complementing the rest of Saddle Road improvements. Nonetheless, I hope a better job is done regarding the introduction of invasive plants during the construction of this new phase (along with the current phase under construction on the Hilo side). The shoulders of the newly realigned Saddle Road between m.m 19- m.m 28 are being taken over by these plants. This is very concerning due to the potential impact on native plants and an increased fire hazard. I hope the funding can be secured for this phase in a timely manner. It will help improve roadway safety on this important cross island link, along with bridging the deep political divide separating both East and West Hawaii. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Aaron Stene Kailua-Kona, HI http : / /thekonablog.wordpress.com/ Twitter @konablog * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** To "Dina Lau" <Dina.Lau @hawaii.gava cc bcc Subject Fw: Saddle Road Draft EIS Comments PAGE 000173 Q Dear Mr. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Aaron Stene aaron @hawaiiantel.net Subject: one: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000174 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 80 Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii We are in receipt of your letter regarding the Saddle Road Improvement Project. Thank you for your letter of support for the project and your views on how it will improve safety. In regard to weeds, once the highway has been turned over to the State of Hawaii (which has not yet occurred with the existing sections), DOT maintenance of vegetation in the clear zone areas will begin. DOT will consult with the Department of Land and Natural Resources acid the Department of the Army concerning control of noxious weeds. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard a@dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon @doLgov. 55 Ms. Katherine P. Kealoha Office of Environmental Quality Control 235 Beretania St. Suite 702 Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Ken Tasuguchi Highway Division Planning Branch Room 301 869 Punchbowl St. Honolulu, HI 96813 Dear Ms Kealoha and Mr. Tasuguchi: Michael Reimer 75 -6081 Ali'i Drive RR-103 Kailua-Kona, HI December 30, 2009 PAGE 000175 V . CD CD cn -tom ,' < > -�, A) rri `0 v Thank you for the opportunity to review and report on the SETS for the saddle road realignment project. My review is limited to the Section 3.7.1.3 (pp. 3 -60, 3.69) of the main report and Appendix E of the addendum; these are the sections dealing with interpretation and conclusions from the additional analysis of soil samples collected for depleted uranium (DU). Unfortunately, the additional study did nothing to improve the uncertainty already at hand regarding the presence of depleted uranium (DU). In effect, the amount of DU present in the PTA area is still unknown and therefore, it is speculative at best. However, this shortcoming should not prevent progress on the Saddle Road Planning and development. It is possible to take adequate precautions at minimal cost during construction to reduce the possible risk of exposure to DU. Some suggestions are made in the Summary of the report. Unlike previous studies conducted by Cabrera at PTA for 10 soil samples, this study did reflect some attempt at improvement in that there were two types of analytical procedures used and the report contains information regarding blank and replicate analyses. ICP -MS and alpha spectrometry were used in an attempt on 5 soil samples to determine the uranium isotopic composition of the collected samples. However, the knowledge gained from the previous sampling regarding the need for higher precision in analyses was not applied to the Saddle Road Bypass study and the results remain inconclusive. The most unfortunate part of the issue is that there exists the technology and methodology to obtain results that would answer the issue of the amount of DU present or carried by air transport along the proposed bypass route for the Saddle Road. These have been available since 2002 and have been used p Yp in other reports on DU. As it stands, what is being reported is an analysis of uranium and not DU, if present. One could plausibly argue from the data provided that significant - amounts of DU are present. But this would be as questionable as attempting to argue the contrary. It is not necessary to present a simulated projection when analytical methods are available to answer the question whether or not DU is part of the measurement. In addition, in the last few years, recent studies have become available to indicate that natural uranium and DU present significantly different health effects. The basis is the form of the element and includes the presence of oxides of uranium that have a very different residence time in the human body compared to the element uranium. Further, risk to humans involving DU is an evolving field of study with such indications now that DU is transported through the nervous system and that the DU alloy may participate in tumor growth and metastasis. In summary, the DU studies for the PTA area conducted for the Hawaii Department of Transportation provide no substantive information that clarifies the concerns previously posed and certainly add no value to any computed risk analysis. This conclusion is supported by the U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Environmental from Depleted Uranium M -101 Spotting Round For Pohakaloa Training. In that document they state, "A Baseline Human Risk Assessment (BHHRA) has not been performed for Pohakuloa Training Area. Only a few fragments were found as discussed above, and p presented little evidence of oxidation. The only measurements above natural background were in the immediate vicinity of these fragments." One can reasonably conclude that in the subsequent 40 years since the M -101 DU Spotting Rounds were used, continual disturbance to the site through live fire exercises has dispersed the DU into small fragments over a large area and probably partially buried those fragments. This contributes to the oxidation of the DU, a form that is readily mobile as an aerosol. In view of this information as presented in the SEIS, it would be prudent as the relocation road is being constructed, that the workers should be appropriately protected and at a minimum should be wearing dust masks or even respirators. One should consider that even the clothing could be disposable and on- site showers made available so no dust is carried to the workers' residences. Continued and adequate air particulate monitoring should occur throughout the construction. Keeping in mind that the precautionary steps are not only for any DU that may have been transported to p g the relocation sites but from any DU that may become airborne from the PTA firing range sites, full precautionary measures would require that no live fire training exercises take place in the Pohakuloa area during the construction of the Saddle Road bypass. Sincerely yours, qie,cdo t zet io,-*-4-=Ar - Michael Reimer, Ph.D. retired geologist PAGE 000176 SUPPORT COMMENTARY Uranium is a naturally occurring element; its chemical symbol is U. It has the largest nucleus of naturally occurring elements. It is also radioactive, meaning it releases energy as changes to its atomic structure occur, mostly in the nucleus. In the classical sense, the nucleus is composed of protons and neutrons. It is the number of protons in an atom that define it as an element. Uranium has 92 protons. For most elements, the number of neutrons in the nucleus can vary. When an element has a different number of neutrons, those forms are called isotopes. Natural uranium has 3 isotopic configurations; these three have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. Adding the number of protons and neutrons gives the atomic mass. For uranium, these masses are usually written 234 -U, 235 - U, and 238-U. Each of these isotopes decays radioactively. They decay at different rates and the rate at which they decay is referred to as the half life, meaning half of the amount present will decay in a certain time. Energy is given off as the element decays and, again, the classical decay energy is represented by three forms of energy release, the alpha particle, the beta particle, and the gamma ray. For the most part, the element when found has all isotopes occurring together. Isotopes do not equally make up an element but occur in different proportions. There are some physical processes that can separate the isotopes into different proportional fractions. This does occur to a minor extent with U in the natural environment, particularly between 234 -U and 238-U. The table below shows the different percent of natural occurrence, half lives and the primary energy release of the U isotopes. ISOTOPE PERCENT HALF LIFE RADIATION OF OCCURRENCE 234 -U 0.0054 240,000 years alpha 235-U 0.72 704 million years alpha 238-U 99.27 4.5 billion years alpha TABLE I These half lives are very long, measured in hundreds of thousands to billions of years. All decay with the release of an alpha particle. An alpha particle consists of 2 neutrons and 2 protons and is essentially the nucleus of a helium atom. An alpha particle is very energetic and massive as far as ionizing radiation is concerned. Alpha particles emitted from natural isotopes have about 5 million electron volts energy it can transfer to atoms along is ejection pathway. It does not travel very far, around 5 centimeters in air and only 5 -10 micrometers in cellular tissue, about the size human lung cells, and in the range of the 7 micrometer human red blood cell. Its energy transfer is very efficient and it ionizes atoms along its path and can beak chemical DNA and RNA bonds in cells. When an atom decays with the loss or gain of protons, it becomes a different element. For the uranium isotopes, all the following elements are also radioactive emitting energy and nuclear particles until they become lead, chemically abbreviated Pb (after the Latin name for lead, plumbum). Lead has 82 protons and also has isotopes, that is, differing numbers of neutrons in its nucleus. It is a stable element. PAGE 000177 3 Uranium exists everywhere in minor and trace amounts. The crust of the earth has an average concentration of 1 part U per a million parts of other elements. It is higher in continental rocks and lower in oceanic rocks. For example, it is about 4 parts per million in the California granites but only one-half part per million in Hawaiian basalts that make up the island chain. Uranium also exists in food we eat, the water we drink, and to a minimal extent, as particle in the air we breathe. It occurs in our own bodies, averaging about 90 micrograms, mostly in the bone and liver. A 160 pound person weighs 73 billion g micrograms so you can see the human concentration of uranium is much less than the crustal abundance, by nearly a factor of 1,000. When an element is concentrated in an area much greater than its average occurrence and can be collected and separated economically, it is called an ore deposit. One isotope of uranium, 235-U has certain physical properties that make it particularly applicable to uses in nuclear physics. Its nucleus can capture a neutron at a higher rate than either of the other two naturally occurring U isotopes. When this happens, 235-U goes through a different radioactive decay process called fission. That is, it splits into two or more fragments containing all the neutrons and protons and emits a great amount of energy, including some unattached neutrons that could be captured by other 235-U atoms if nearby. If the released neutron energy is controlled to a high degree, the nuclear reaction is controlled so that a nuclear reactor can be constructed. If it is controlled to a lesser degree, nuclear weapons can be constructed. In order to construct those devices, the amount of 235 -U must be concentrated to a level higher than its natural occurring percentage. In order to do this, uranium ore is processed in special factories to extract 235-U. What remains is very pure U that is depleted in 235-U and on a percentage basis, concentrated in 238 -U. That remainder after processing is called depleted uranium. During the cold war, literally hundreds of thousands of tons were produced. It found both civilian and military applications. The military application most commonly used was to manufacture munitions, typically alloyed with other metals because pure uranium, if fine enough, can burn spontaneously in contact with air. As a bullet or artillery shell, it is denser and harder than lead (Pb) and could penetrate the armor of battlefield vehicles easier than the lighter, softer lead. Some of those munitions were used at Pohakuloa Training Area in the 1960s. What wa used was a spotting round or marker round for a larger nuclear weapon that went out about 2 miles and landed on the surface giving off' a puff of smoke. The exact amount of DU used is not known but could exceed 700 or pounds of depleted uranium. Now seven hundred pounds does not seem like a lot; an average sized pickup truck can hold more than that. But in the basaltic rocks at Pohakuloa, with its average uranium concentration of only 0.5 ppm uranium, it is an enormous addition. It is as much uranium that exists naturally over 3 square miles to a half -foot depth. In other words, your cancer risk from exposure on those three square miles are doubled according to the U.S. EPA's approach of defining risk to radiation on a linear no- threshold basis. Uranium is considered to present two types of health concerns. It is both a toxic metal and it emits radiation. As a toxic metal, it is highly unlikely to be ingested in quantities sufficient to be a heavy metal poison as the common concern of ingestion of lead by children. As a radioactive substance, the half life is very long and alpha particle emission is quite slow. It takes a lot, on the order of pounds, of uranium alloy metal to present a radiation hazard if it is sitting a few feet from you. But there is a means in which a uranium hazard can be brought to you from those few contaminated areas at PTA. If the PAGE 000178 4 remnants of the spotting rounds oxidize or are blasted into finer fragments either by live fire or vehicles running over them, those particles can become aerosols and be carried in the air. Although the larger particles (10 micrometers) will settle more quickly than finer ones (less than 1 micrometers), they can again become aerosolized by mechanical action and carried to a new location by movement of the air. The finer particle can be carried for miles and reports have been made of finding those up to 26 miles from the source. The inhalation of uranium as aerosols into the lungs provides a radiation hazard as the uranium is sitting among lung cells and is irradiating them with the very energetic alpha particle. Depending on the size of the aerosol (nanoparticle), it could contain millions or billions of uranium atoms. This is very unlike inhaling the same size particle with only 1 part per million U embedded in some crystalline rock matrix made mostly of silicon and oxygen. Aerosols are very small particles that can become airborne and remain airborne for quite some time They typically range in size from 0.001 to 10 micrometers. Ten micrometers is 4 ten thousands of an inch. As is typically used in comparison, the diameter of a human hair is about one thousandths of an inch. So ten micrometers is about half the diameter of a human hair. Without getting into the health physics aspect, such as what size particle gets deposited where in the respiratory tract, it is reasonable to say that it is inhalation that presents the greatest health risk. In addition, it is likely that both radiation and metal toxicity are probable risk factors. What this means is that if a particle of depleted uranium becomes airborne, it can be carried quite some distance from where the depleted uranium is located. Although there are some arguments that the particles cannot move very far, on the order of a few hundred feet, this applies only to certain aerodynamic conditions such as with the largest particles. You have probably heard that massive amounts of dust particles (larger than aerosols) are carried by strong winds from Asia to Hawaii. From your own personal experience, think of the sea salt and some minuscule sea organisms (algae) that deposit themselves on your car windshield even though you may have been far from the sea. It is therefore highly likely that the smaller aerosols are carried from the PTA source across any land mass presented by the Big Island, again dependent on the aerodynamic conditions. This leads to the question of whether or not depleted uranium can become airborne. Depleted uranium has been detected in aerosol samples collected at other sites where depleted uranium has been used on the mainland and certainly in Kosovo and Iraq. On Hawaii Island., spotter rounds weighing about 6 ounces of DU were used. Upon impact, these were supposed to explode and release a cloud of some material in order to determine where the spotter round had landed. This type of explosion is very different from the anti -armor rounds fired by the military. The military rounds were designed to burn upon impact that would immediately create aerosols. In contrast, the spotter rounds would release very little aerosol upon impact and explosion. Certainly the large metal fragments are not going to be blown about in the wind but as the fragments remain in the open, they do oxidize as has been seen by a yellow coating on the fragments. They oxidize more quickly in Oahu than Hawaii because of the higher moisture concentration where they were used. Oxidization is like rust. Run your hand over a rusty car fender and look at your hand. It is covered in fine particles of iron oxide rust. One major unknown is how many times the area where the spotting rounds were used was engaged in live fire exercises. Airborne bombing, artillery shells, vehicular traffic all would contribute to making the spotting round fragments smaller and burying them under rock or soil where they would oxidize PAGE 000179 faster. More live fire and these fragments and oxides are churned again and again with the potential of releasing the oxides to the atmosphere. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCESS Five soil samples were collected from the proposed realignment route of the Saddle Road. The collection methodology was developed by AMEC and reported as a protocol in the SEIS report. This document was not included in the SEIS and I contacted AMEC by telephone to determine the salient points of the protocol. To the best knowledge of AMEC, the sample was sieved so no particles larger than 2 millimeters were included and they do not know if any organic material was excluded (grasses, etc.). Two analytical methods were used, the ICP-MS and alpha spectrometry. That is a good selection but did not provide analysis of all uranium isotopes. The amount of sample is unknown as is any dilution process for the ICP and procedures for the alpha spectrometry. "Fingerprinting" is a term used in this study for seeking clues that may indicate if depleted uranium is present in a sample. Analyzing for uranium will not reveal the difference between natural and depleted uranium unless there is an inordinate amount of uranium found that is not associated with some ore forming process. Complete isotopic analysis will reveal the difference. As a brief review, all isotopes of uranium are radioactive and primarily decay with the emission of an alpha particle. Natural uranium contains three isotopes that are the same chemically but have a different number of neutrons in the nucleus that gives them different nuclear characteristics. The isotopes are written as 234 -U, 235-U and 238-U. The nuclei contain 142, 143, and 146 neutrons respectively. There are different concentrations of these isotopes in nature, as well. The previous Table 1 shows these differences. The simplified Table 2 below shows the symbols, primary radiation energy release, half life and the decay product (modified from NY Department of Health). Symbol Element Radiation Half -Life i 1U-238 T h -234 Pa -234 U -234 Uranium -234 Th -230 Ra -226 Rn -222 Radon-222 Uranium -238 Thorium -234 Protactinium -234 Thorium -230 alpha Radium -226 alpha 1,602 years Rn -222 alpha I beta 24.1 days 4.5 billion years P0-218 alpha 3.82 days Po-218 Polonium -218 alpha 3.05 minutes PAGE 000180 Decay Product Th -234 Pa -234 beta j 1.17 minutes U -234 � 3 alpha 247,000 years Th -230 ye .N. 80, 0 0 0 years Ra -226 ............,,.......,,,,,,,,,,........-...v.,.,.,..-.., - ..,,,.....„,....._..........._ .. .................,„..„,...........„,..............._,....,.............._,..,4....„.....,.........,..........._......„,,.,_ ars Pb -214 ,; � ?i'1.` iii:_ i�It ;:`.'Y.y,'5 ;.�T,�S���},�:�t�5 �:Y�.�`. <�% lit' �a`-`::.' ��= • \lcti�.<ti'.'.',l•5�:��� "'-% Pb -214 Lead -214 beta 1 27 minutes : Bi -214 i ... - ..... w....... w+..« w....+..... w,.. .....w«.•.w..w.w+r...r.- e... .....o...,.+wu»r..- -- aw.».- ..,.- a+ -•-�w Bi -214 Bismuth -214 I beta Po -214 rPotonium-214 Bi -210 Po-210 { Pb -206 TABLE 2. Polonium -210 Lead -206 p 1 microsecond Pb-210 19.7 minutes PAGE 000181 none stable (none) Po-214 Pb-210 i Lead -210 beta 122.3 years t Bi -210 Bismuth 210 I beta t 5.01 days Po -210 i alpha .u...w,. 138.4 days Pb -206 p Y An alpha particle decay results in a different element with a lower atomic number and atomic mass, while a beta decay results in an isotope of the same atomic mass but a different atomic number. Interestingly, 234 -U is part of the decay chain of 238-U. 235 -U is an isotope with nuclear characteristics that are of interest in building reactors or bombs. It has the affinity to easily capture a neutron and then fission. Fission is a decay process where the nucleus splits into two or more large pieces and releases energy and neutrons, and other radiation in the process. When the rate of the released neutron capture is slowed for the amount of fissionable isotope present as controlled in a reactor, it generates heat. When the rate of capture is less moderated and more fissionable isotope is present, it can react explosively and is the basis of an atomic bomb. The amount of 235 -U in natural uranium today is insufficient to generate these fission reactions *. Therefore, 235 -U is concentrated so it can be used in nuclear reactions. When it is separated from natural uranium, the remainder is called depleted uranium. *Interestingly, there is a documented case in geologic history when the 235-U isotope was in greater concentration where there was a natural atomic reactor. For those interested, more information about this unique natural phenomenon can be found at http :Ilen.wikipedia.orglwiki/Olda That isotopic manipulation gives an opportunity to determine whether the uranium is natural or depleted. By analyzing the isotopes, if the percentage of 235-U is lower than its naturally occurring counterpart, it is likely depleted uranium. The separation process gives another fingerprint clue. In separating out 235 - U, some 234 -U is removed as well. Ideally then, if the ratio of 234 -U to 238 -U is lower than its natural counterpart; it too may be a clue to determining whether the uranium is natural or depleted. That is typical of separation from purified uranium ore but that isn't all the possibilities. Depleted uranium can also be separated from reactor fuel rods. The once enriched rods have burned up most of the 235-U. In effect, the fuel rods are now depleted uranium plus a lot of other isotopes created when the nucleus of those other atoms capture a neutron. For example, in the uranium family, the fuel rod can 7 contain 236 -U and even after separation of uranium, some traces of other radioactive isotopes are found, such as 237 - neptunium and even 239- plutonium, both man -made isotopes as they do not occur naturally. It is not known whether the DU projectiles used at PTA are from the first purification of uranium ore or reprocessed fuel rods but it is a relatively straight forward process to determine that unknown. Pieces of the spotting rounds have been found; simply analyze the found rounds to answer this question. Still another means is possible. The spotting rounds are reported to be an alloy of uranium and molybdenum. Analyses of materials looking for DU should include molybdenum and any other material that might have been used in alloy process, again determined from analyzing the spotting rounds. The current air monitoring program is not capable of finding DU or any surrogate simply because it is not looking for any. This is true for soil analysis as well. Depleted uranium is defined as uranium from which 235-U has been selectively removed, often about half or two- thirds removal. As previously mentioned, the 234 -U isotope during the process of concentrating 235 -U is often depleted as well. The analytical methods employed often do not analyze specifically for 235 -U (it is below the detection limit). Quite often then 234 -U is used as a surrogate for interpreting whether a sample is DU or natural uranium. If 234 -U is not lower than its natural abundance concentration, it is often and erroneously concluded that the uranium is natural uranium. This is wrong because even in the natural environment, 234 -U is quite variable due to several physical and chemical factors. For a time, 238 -U decays by alpha emission into 234 -Th. Thorium has different chemical affinities than uranium and the two elements may not move together. Eventually, 234 -Th decays by beta emission to 234 -U. Thus, there is a range of g ratios of 234 -Th to 238-U. This range is 0.5 to 1.2 as determined by Sansone and others, 2001 and quoted in an incomplete reference in the SEIS, Appendix II. This is an important point as it is being improperly applied in interpreting the results of soil analysis for depleted uranium. Table 3 below compares percentages of uranium isotopes by weight and activity in natural and depleted uranium. Isotope Relative isotopic abundance Natural Uranium Depleted Uranium B wei t B activit B wei ht B activit U-238 U -235 U -234 TABLE 3 99.28% 0.72% 0.0057% 48.8% 2.4% 48.8% 99.8% 83.7% 0.2% 1.1% 0.001% 15.2% In Table 3, the activity ratio of natural 234 -U to 238 -U is 1. They have the same activity as would be expected from an undisturbed physical process. In reality, the range in soils is variable because some natural processes can separate 234 -U from 238-U. Soils are derived from rocks by physical and chemical processes that break down the rock into finer F primary The rimary processes are largely dependent on the local climate zone. If it rains a lot, the PAGE 000182 water can interact with the elements in the rock, dissolving some and carrying away some. You are familiar with how acid rains can rapidly dissolve some rocks or even leach elements from building roof materials and create problems with impurities in catchment systems. In colder climate zones, such as found in Hawaii on the higher regions of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, freezing and thawing help break up rocks. Wind can take finer grains and they can impact larger particles and mechanically break them just as sand blasting can erode away the paint on buildings or the unsightly weathering of stone buildings to expose a fresh surface. Moving water can do the same thing as it carries sediment along erosion pathways, including streams, rivers, and even intermittent flows in gullies or surface swales. Plant growth with the root systems can help create soils and leaves organic materials behind that can also interact with rocks to generate soils. Soil generation takes time. You can see this on Hawaii as there is more soil on older lava flows and more in regions with greater rainfall. As mentioned before, thorium can separate chemically from uranium or be more easily leached from the mineral grains in which it is contained. Most commonly, the activity ratio can be less than one, because it has been removed. Therefore the 234 -Th to 238-U ratio in soils is disturbed and is not the equilibrium perfect one to one ratio. 234 - thorium is also removed during a uranium isotope extraction process and the ratio would also be less than one. Here is where the misinterpretation of soil analyses come into being. Much of the PTA area is barren of soils. The lava flows are recent. The soil samples at PTA were collected from gullies or swales where water had moved some soil. The soil at these locations is a mix or combination of all soils from different areas over which water carrying it had flowed. The 234/238 isotopic uranium activity ratios vary within the natural range found in soils with an occasional lower value or two. The question arises is how do you know the lower value is not reflecting a mixture of depleted uranium with lower 234 -U and natural uranium also with lower 234 -U. The answer is, you can't. So to interpret the low 234 -U ratios as not being from depleted uranium is incorrect. If the ratio were that freshly processed 234/238 (0.18 from table 1), then it would be clear that it is from depleted uranium. But the sample may contain a fraction of DU and Natural uranium because it is a mix of sediment or soil brought together by flowing water from vast drainage areas. You will notice from the report that the ratios are averaged to diminish the impact of the lower samples. An average is an improper application as it tends to hide the anomalies that can be outliers from the normal data range. Here is an example to demonstrate the problem with averaging. Suppose the playgrounds of 5 schools were tested for arsenic. In Hawaii, arsenic in soils ranges from about 1 to 5 parts per million. EPA would g enerally say any contaminated area should be cleaned up to the normal. background. The results of the school yard analysis are: 1.1, 0.9, 1.2, 1.1, 10.2 parts per million. Yes, one analysis is 10.2 ppm, over 2 times the highest natural background found in Hawaii. Why might it be so high? Let's presume the school site was a former lumber treatment yard for applying termite resistant materials to lumber that contained arsenic. Is it a problem? Simply average the 5 analyses and you get 2.9, well within the normal range of arsenic on the island. So, it is easy for some authority to claim the average is within normal limits and there is no need for concern; yet children are exposed nearly daily to twice the arsenic limit normall y found in Hawaii. Clearly, the individual children at all schools do not have the same risk. PAGE 000183 This is the same result that can occur when you mix soils, one or more that can come from an area contaminated with depleted uranium and the others from areas with only natural uranium. The 234/238 ratio of one sample taken along the saddle road proposed bypass was 0.74 that individually is quite lower than the average of 1.16. It could easily be a mix of DU at 0.18 and the average provided by natural variability. The situation with the Saddle Road Bypass sampling is further complicated by the fact that DU is probably not transported in by water movement but by air transport. The DU contaminated aerosols would then have to drop and realistically the likelihood of it being in one of the sites from which the 5 samples collected is miniscule but probable. From the analyses that were performed, it cannot be discounted. Aerosols can be remobilized with mechanical disturbance. This discussion would not be complete without stating that the isotopic analysis of uranium at these concentration levels is very difficult. Techniques to accomplish this have been available since 2002 but do not appear to have been used here. It is unfortunate in that the refinement to risk analysis could be greatly improved but that is not possible here. The risk determination is based on too many assumptions and presumptions to have any meaningful application. If one selects to err on the side of caution, it must be assumed that DU is present. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS The State of Hawaii is to be commended in attempting to resolve the DU risk to workers participating in the realignment of the Saddle Road. The results unfortunately do nothing to assist in that risk determination. The information provided by the additional DU studies addressed in the SEIS should not be used to provide a false impression that there is no potential hazard from DU. However, that issue should not prevent the planning and construction from going forward. In view of this information as presented in the SEIS, it would be prudent as the relocation road is being constructed, that the workers should be appropriately protected and at a minimum should be wearing dust masks or even respirators. One should consider that even the clothing could be disposable and on- site showers made available so no dust is carried to the workers' residences. Continued and adequate air particulate monitoring should occur through out the construction. Keeping in mind that the precautionary steps are not only for any DU that may have been transported to the relocation sites but from any DU that may become airborne from the PTA firing range sites, full precautionary measures would require that no live fire training exercises take place in the Pohakuloa area during the construction of the Saddle Road bypass. REFERENCES Pertinent references will be provided upon request PAGE 000184 10 U.S. Department of tansportation Federal Highway Administration Michael Reimer 75-6081 Alii Drive RR -103 Kailua -Kona, HI 96739 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawai`i Dear Mr. Reimer: Thank you for the letter on the SEIS. In response to your specific comments: Report shortcomings FHWA and HDOT disagree that there are shortcomings regarding the human health risk assessment report prepared by AMEC. However, we appreciate that your evaluation has led you to the conclusion that the project should not be delayed. We surmise that you do not feel that a significant health risk from DU exists from either road construction or use of the road. Need for higher precision in analysis We disagree with this statement. Precision is defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as "a measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the same property usually under prescribed similar conditions." AMEC utilized HDOH and ASTM guidance documents and accepted scientific principles and practices in designing its sampling protocol. Soil samples were collected at five distinct locations along the proposed W7 alignment. These samples were collected using multi- increment sampling methods, which significantly reduces the probability of obtaining false negative results and provide a better measurement of the true concentration. Each multi - increment sample was comprised of approximately 50 individual soil "increments" collected across a 10,000 sq ft area (defined as decision units) using a systematic random sampling approach. The relatively large multi - increment samples were thoroughly homogenized and subsampled in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard C999-05, Standard Practice for Soil Sample Preparation for the Determination of Radionuclides. Implementation of the described sampling procedure minimizes the effects of soil heterogeneity and provides a more accurate representation of average concentration within a decision unit. Additionally, one of five decision units evaluated (Decision Unit 2) was sampled in triplicate. Sampling and analyzing replicate samples allows for the specific evaluation of precision, which indicates sampling representativeness. It is a measure of reproducibility and can be completed PAGE 000185 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 without comparison to an assumed or known value and is traditionally expressed as a relative standard deviation (RSD) for field triplicate samples. The three replicate samples collected from Decision Unit 2 contained 238U at 130 tglkg, 100 gg/kg, and 110 jig/kg and lead at 2.8 mg/kg, 2.0 mg/kg, and 2.4 mg/kg. The calculated RSD for this sample set is 13.5% for 238U and 16.7% for lead, which is well below the data quality objective goal of 30 %. According to Section 4.2.5.3 (Evaluation of Replicates and Data Representativeness) of the Technical Guidance Manual for the Implementation of the Hawaii State Contingency Plan, "...an RSD% of approximately 35% or less indicates the amount of estimated total error is within a reasonable range for decision- making." Therefore, we are confident that the sampling program carried out by AMEC resulted in analytical results with a high degree of precision. There exists the technology and methodology to obtain results that would answer the issue of the amount of DU present or carried by air transport along the proposed bypass route for Saddle Road These have been available since 2002 and have been used in other reports on DU. As it stands, what is being reported is an analysis of uranium and not DU. Unfortunately, you did not provide reference to the technologies and methodologies you are referring to. AMEC has provided significant backup to its sampling and analytical procedures. Uranium isotope analysis was conducted by Test America, St. Louis, which has the reputation as being the best in the industry in radionuclide testing. As you have indicated, AMEC utilized multiple laboratory techniques to measure uranium isotopes. The first method utilized Inductively Coupled Plasma -Mass Spectrometry (ICP -MS), which is theoretically more sensitive and provides lower detection limits for 235 and 238U The second analytical method utilized was alpha spectrometry. Al ha s spectrometry P P ry results were expected to provide greater precision and lower detection limits for the 234U isotope in comparison to the ICP-MS method. Your statement that what was being reported was an analysis of uranium and not DU is erroneous. The analysis for DU must originate from the analysis of individual isotopes of uranium, specifically from the analysis of the three 2 34 predominant and relatively stable isotopes, U , 23 U , and 238 U. Determination of DU presence is enerally made from the relative abundance of the three isotopes in �34 relation to each other. Generally, 234 and 235 activity ratios are significantly reduced in DU relative to natural U. Conversely, 234U1238 an 2 activity ratios are substantially elevated in enriched uranium (EU) relative to natural U. According to the reference document cited in AMEC's report (Sansone et. al., 2001), 234 activity ratios for natural U in soil icall range y e g from 0.5 to 1.2. The range of 234U activity ratios measured in soil samples collected by AMEC ranged from 0.74 to 1.79. Consequently, we conclude that negligible amounts of DU (if any) are present in surface soil at the Site. Furthermore, the absolute concentration of total U in surface soil at the Site is well within the accepted range of background (or naturally occurring) concentrations. Recent studies indicate that natural uranium and DU present significantly different health effects. We cannot respond to this comment as you do not provide these studies or references to these studies. In any case, there is no evidence of DU in the study area. Support commentary on pages 3 -5 of letter. We will not respond to these comments as they are informative or speculative in nature. PAGE 000186 Potential sample problems because of organic material, and use of ICP -MS and alpha spectrometry methods. The samples were sieved in the laboratory through a 2 mm sieve. This is standard procedure for any chemical analyses in the soil matrix and especially relevant when analyzing for metals. The reason samples are sieved to 2 mm is multifactoral: 1) Provides a more homogenous soil matrix 2) Provide a more conservative estimate of metal concentrations as the sieved matrix has a higher surface area to mass ratio than an unsieved sample. This is highly relevant to the analysis of uranium and other metals as it is well known that metals are generally particulate bound. 3) Removes unwanted debris, like grasses, rocks, etc. You do not provide reference to any other technique or laboratory method that would be more effective at uranium isotope analysis other than that provided by AMEC. Therefore, we cannot respond to the portion of the comment regarding technique or method. Specific laboratory standard operating procedures for the ICP -MS and Alpha Spectrometry methods are provided in AMEC's Sampling and .Analysis Plan, Depleted Uranium Risk Assessment, dated March 2008. Additionally, dilution factors are provided in the laboratory analytical reports provided in Appendix A (Analytical Sampling Results) of the Saddle Road Uranium Soils Investigation and Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Report (AMEC, October 2009). AMEC provided the laboratory with approximately one kilogram of soil for each sample. The samples were provided in resealable plastic Ziplock bags (double- bagged) and maintained at 0 -6 degrees Centigrade from the time of sample collection until analysis. The laboratory dilution process is defined in the laboratory SOPs provided in the AMEC Sampling and Analysis Plan. According to the laboratory reports included in Appendix A of the Risk Assessment Report, soil sample extracts were not diluted for any of the alpha spectrometry analyses or any of the isotopic uranium analyses via ICP -MS. Soil sample extracts were diluted 2.5 times for lead analyses via ICP -MS. Range of activity ratios of 234 Th to 238 is being improperly applied in interpreting the results of soil analysis for depleted uranium. We do not agree with your evaluation. The reference document cited by you (and AMEC) specifically states: "The natural composition of uranium is characterized by 2341238 and 23 5 ' 23 8U activity ratios of about 1 and 0.046 respectively. In particular, 234U/238U activity ratios in soil typically range from 0.5 to 1.2. Depleted uranium has lower 23 4 U / 23$ U and 235U/238U activity ratios; considering an isotopic abundance of 0.2% for 235 U, these ratios become 0.18 and 0.013 respectively." Contrary to your comment, 234Th is not discussed anywhere in this reference document. Instead, the author is referring to 234 U. AMEC has used this reference document to identify the typical range of 234U/238U activity ratios in soil that are representative of natural uranium. DU is icall �p Y characterized by 23 activity ratios of approximately 0.1 8, which is well below the ratios measured from soil samples collected at the Site. PAGE 000187 234- thorium is also removed during a uranium isotope extraction process and the ratio would also be less than one ....leading to misinterpretation of soil analyses. We do does not agree with this comment. Activity ratios presented in AMEC's risk assessment report are calculated by dividing the alpha radiation activity in 234U by the alpha radiation activity in 235 U. U. activity is not considered in this calculation and does not have any bearing in differentiating natural and depleted uranium sources. Soil samples collected from gullies or swales where water had moved some soil. This is an inaccurate and unfounded statement. None of the five soil sampling locations were situated in areas that appeared to be surface water drainage pathways. AMEC identified soil sampling locations based on the proposed alignment of the new roadway. Five separate sample locations were evenly distributed (spatially) along the proposed roadway alignment, which is in a predominantly downwind direction from PTA. The primary mode of DU contamination (if any) is assumed to result from aerial deposition of wind -blown dust particles. Consequently, AMEC restricted soil sample collection from only the top two inches of surface soil, in accordance with ASTM Method C998 -05 (Surface Soil Sampling for Radionuclides). AMEC risk assessment using an average of the 234 U /238 U activity ratios is an improper application as it tends to hide the anomalies that can be outliers from the normal data range. This comment is invalid for the application of the sample results to evaluate human health risk at the site. The risk to humans is evaluated based on contaminant concentrations and assumed exposure to the contamination. Construction workers and recreational users of the future roadway will not be exposed to a single sample area for any significant period of time. Instead, it is reasonable to assume that receptors will be exposed to the contaminants along the entire roadway for approximately even durations. Therefore, when evaluating human health risk, it is a valid assumption that receptors will be exposed to the average contaminant concentrations along the entire roadway. Furthermore, the example you provided is not relevant. The maximum concentration presented in your example is nearly 10 times greater than the rest of the sample set, which is not at all representative of the of the actual data set obtained by AMEC. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Rickard at 720 - 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard adot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000188 JAN-08 -2010 14:45 FROM: REP HANOHANO 5(0 January 6, 2010 Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi State of Hawaii, Dept. of Transportation Highways Div., Planning Branch 869 Punchbowl St. #301 Honolulu, HI 96813 Re: Saddle Road, Mamalahea Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii, Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Tat5uguchl, Mahalo for allowing me to provide comments on the Draft SETS. At this time, I have no comment to provide. Sincerely, Repre = tative Faye P. Hanohano House Representative, District 4 8085866531 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STATE OP HAWAII STATE CAPITOL HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 PAGE 000189 TO:8O8 587 1787 P.1'i 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Representative Faye Hanohano, District 4 State Capitol Honolulu HI 96813 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Representative Hanohano: We are in receipt of your letter regarding the Saddle Road Improvement Project. Thank you for your review of the Draft SEIS and the statement that you have no comments at this time. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard a@dot.gov, or myself at 720 - 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, 4,iii,,,, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000190 LINDA UNCLE GOVERNOR MEMORANDUM STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND GENERAL. SERVICES P.O. BOX 119, HONOLULU, HAWAII 96810 -0119 JAN - 5 2010 TO: Mr. Ken Tatsuguehi Department of Transportation Highways Division FROM: Ernest Y.W. Lau Public Works Administrator Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 41 Island of Hawaii DD: inn c: Ms. Katheri ne Kealoha, DOH OEQC DAGS-HDO PAGE 000191 RUSS K. SAITO COM PTROLER SANDRA L YAHIRO DEPUTY COMPTROLLER Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments for the subject project. The proposed project does not impact any of the Department of Accounting and General Services' projects or existing facilities, and we have no comments to offer at this time. If you have any questions regarding the above, please have your staff call Mr. David DePonte of the Planning Branch at 586 -0492. (P1000.0) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Ernest Lau Public Works Administrator State of Hawaii Department of Accounting and General Services PO Box 119 Honolulu HI 95810 -0119 Dear Mr. Lau: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii We are in receipt of your letter regarding the Saddle Road Improvement Project. Thank you for your review of the Draft SEIS and the statement that you have no comments at this time. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 953 -3723. or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, PAGE 000192 c.VaJAL).) David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager 0 US. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Joel Tuck Hawaiian Beaches Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of I3awai`i Dear Mr. Tuck: January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing in support of construction of the project. Regarding your comments on the rental agencies, some rental agencies have already lifted restrictions and it is expected that most will after completion of Section I. Please note that although we could not locate a mailing address for you, this letter will be reproduced in the Final EIS. If this letter comes to your attention, , please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963 - 3691 or g . Melissa.Dickard dot ov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov dot.gov if you have � any any questions regarding this project. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000193 0 US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Hugh Ono hono@ssfm.com -, Dear no: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing in support of construction of the project. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 - 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, c David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000194 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 U.S. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Adminis#ralion Claudia Wilcox Boucher, Instructor Hawai'i Community College 200 W. Kawili Street Hilo HI 96720 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawai`i Dear Ms. Boucher: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing in support of construction of the project. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 - 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard @dot.gov, or myself at 720 - 963.3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000195 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Kaulana H.R. Park Chairman, Hawaiian Homes Commission Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands P.D. Box 1879 Honolulu, HI 96805 Dear Mr. Park: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing, read by Mr. Bill Davis, in support of construction of the project, and also for the information regarding the potential of the improved Saddle Road to assist in the DHHL's Aina Mauka Legacy Program at Hurnu`ula and Pi`ihonua Mauka. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. dot.gov. Sincerely, /0,Zed David Dedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000196 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 80 0 US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Emily Naeole - Beason Vice - chairwoman, Hawai`I County Council 15-2237 Kaohuwalu Street Pahoa, HI 96778 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Ilawai`i Dear Ms. Naeole- Beason: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing in support of construction of the project, including the information on how the project will save time and wear and tear on your car during your professional travel. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 -963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard @dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, • David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000197 Z3 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 f3 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Shalan Crysdale The Nature Conservancy P.D. Box 11 Naalehu, HI 96772 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawai `i Dear Ms. Crysdale: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing in which you stated that the W -7 avoids the deepest gulches in the area. Concerning the travel of feral animals across Ke`amuku and their potential impact on highway safety, FHWA and HDOT are working with the Army and DLNR to determine potential solutions to help minimize this, in the location, type and finding for potential fencing of the area for training and environmental remediation. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 -953 -3591 or Melissa.Dickard®a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, 4L2 David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000198 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Sharon Hettema 360 Kauila St., Apt. 110 Hilo, HI 96720 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 8 0 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms. Hettema: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing. Regarding your specific question on depleted uranium : (DU), testing of the air has been conducted by both the Army and DOH. For the Army testing, monthly reports on air quality monitoring that began in February 2009 at Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) (see http:ll vsrww. imcom .pac.arrny.milldulReports.htm) have consistently shown that the total uranium mass found on most filters in above the laboratory's latest determined instrument detection level (IDL) but below the practical reporting level (PRL) of 0.00025 microgram 0}1g). The fact that most total uranium values continue to be less than the PRL remains significant from a public health perspective. At a nominal sampler flow rate of 5 1pm, the laboratory's PRL of 0.00025 microgram (µg) corresponds to an airborne uranium concentration of 0.000035 I,glm3, a value several orders of magnitude below health effects guidelines. Uranium isotopes 234 -U and 235 -U have been undetectable. If DU were present in the air in the W -7 area, it would likely be deposited over time and would almost certainly be detected in soil samples. This information has been added to the Final SEIS. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, F.E. Project Manager PAGE 000199 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Dear Ms. Kelly: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Galen Kelly P.G. Box 6121 Hilo, HI 96720 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing. Regarding your specific questions: High readings from Geiger counters Our experts on radiation do not concur that handheld Geiger counters are usually reliable monitors of the presence or absence of DU without considerable training and rigorous methods. DU on returning Stiykers PTA officials have informed us that all vehicles are steam cleaned prior to departing the overseas deployment areas and are then shipped to Ft. Lewis in Washington where they are stripped of all running gear (engine, transmission, wheels, suspension, etc.) and weapons systems, sandblasted and repainted in and out, then reassembled. During that process they are "frisked" with radiac meters to make sure no radiation is being transported. They are essentially new when they return to Hawaii. Also, please note that since W -7 better separates civilian traffic from military training, this alignment will minimize any potential conflicts with military vehicles. Too few Native Hawiians in attendance We acknowledge your concern. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000200 US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Jim Albertini P.D. Box AB Kurtistown, HI 96760 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Albertini: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing. FHWA and HDOT agree that a multimodal transportation approach is important. In the case of cross - island transportation in Hawai `i County, highways will continue to provide the best service to the most people at the lowest prices for the foreseeable future, even with rising energy prices. We would note that motor vehicles do not necessarily require fossil fuels, and that advances in hydrogen, biomass, electric cars and as- yet unknown technologies may completely transform the energy source for motor vehicles in the future. Construction of the new Saddle Road will not prevent the implementation of other modes of transportation in the future, and may in fact assist toward that end by setting aside a cross - island transportation corridor now rather than trying to do so at a future point in time when it might be more difficult for political, social, environmental or economic reasons. Regarding handheld Geiger counters, our experts on radiation do not concur that handheld Geiger counters are usually reliable monitors of the presence or absence of DU without considerable training and rigorous methods. Systematic tests of air and soil have not shown the contamination you indicate. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 - 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.B. Project Manager PAGE 000201 t� US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Dean Au Hawai `i Carpenters Union Local 745 525 Kilauea Ave., Room 205 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Au: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement', Island of Hawaii Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing in support of construction of the project, including the information on how the project will allow carpenters and construction companies to better access work around the island, as well as spend more time with their families. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard a@dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000202 U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Mary Begier Hawai` i Island Chamber of Commerce 101 Aupuni St., Suite 315 Hilo, HI 96720 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms. Begier: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing in support of construction of the project, including the information that it will assist in both reducing accidents and increasing safety when citizens assist other motorists. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Rickard at 720. 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard a�7dot. gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, /7,,.J1,0L1 David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000203 US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Michael Cadaoas P.D. Box 908 Kurtistown, HI 96760 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 80 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Cadaoas: Thank• you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing in support of construction of the project, including the assessment that the project is long overdue. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickarddot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000204 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Deborah Ward P.O. Box 918 Kurtistovvn, HI 96760 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms. Ward: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing. The clearing of broad areas is necessary to provide clear zones for safety when errant vehicles leave the roadway during accidents. We acknowledge the weed problem and share your concerns. Once the highway has been turned over to the State of Hawai `i, DOT maintenance of vegetation in the clear zone areas will begin. DOT will consult with the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Department of the Army concerning control of noxious weeds. We acknowledge your statement about potential health risks for some PTA workers and contractors possibly exposed to DU. It is our understanding that the Army is working to determine whether there is a current or future risk of exposure and to minimize or eliminate this risk. We do not currently see any radiation risk from traveling or working on Saddle Road. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000205 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Joseph Kuali'i Camara 192 Kualua Place Hilo, HI 96720 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Camara: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing stating that the project will be good for working people who need to travel from one side of the island to the other. Regarding your concerns: Wide road and large embankments inundated with weeds. The clearing of broad areas is necessary to provide to provide adequate clear zones for safety when errant vehicles leave the roadway during accidents. We would note that there are various military, hunting, and ranching roads that traverse the general area and already contain most of the weeds that have become a problem on the side of the road. However, we acknowledge the weed problem and share your concerns. Once the highway has been turned over to the State of Hawai` i, DOT maintenance of vegetation in the clear zone areas will begin. DOT will consult with the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Department of the Army concerning control of noxious weeds. Returning Stryker vehicles Regarding the Stryker vehicles, the Army reports that they along with all other equipment are thoroughly cleaned before returning to the United States. PTA officials have informed us that all vehicles are steam cleaned prior to departing the overseas deployment areas and are then shipped to Ft. Lewis in Washington where they are stripped of all running gear (engine, transmission, wheels, suspension, etc.) and weapons systems, sandblasted and repainted in and out, then reassembled. They are essentially new when they return to Hawai` i, and there is very little chance for them to be vectors for new weeds. PAGE 000206 If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard jdot. gov, or myself at 720-963-3647 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, 4._4 David Gedeon, F.E. Project Manager PAGE 000207 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Christian Rygh P.D. Box 10922 Hilo HI 96721 Dear Mr. Rygh: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 PAGE 000208 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for the comments you provided at the Hilo hearing, including your views on the relative risk of DU exposure. Regarding your concerns about invasive species, the clearing of broad areas is necessary to provide adequate clear zones for safety when errant vehicles leave the roadway during accidents. We acknowledge the weed problem and share your concerns. Once the highway has been turned over to the State of Hawaii, DOT maintenance of vegetation in the clear zone areas will begin. DOT will consult with the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Department of the Army concerning control of noxious weeds. With regard to the concerns you later shared with one of our consultants about the spread into more pristine areas such as Kipuka Kalawamau.na, Pu`u Anahulu, and Pu` u Wa`awa` a, we would note that there are various military, hunting, and ranching roads that traverse these areas and already contain most of the weeds that have become a problem on the side of the road. Nevertheless, we take the problem seriously and are working to address it. Regarding wildfires, the highway will indeed present an additional area for potential ignition of wildfires. The project has involved coordination among highway agencies and firefighters at PTA, and DOFAW to determine the best design and mitigation measures for preventing and fighting fire. This coordination will continue as the road becomes operational. Thank you for your assessment based on personal experience on the lands that the road will be a great new firefighting tool. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Rickard at 720 - 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 - 963 -3647 or Dave.Gedeon@a dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000209 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Rodney Watanabe 13 -5611 Olowa lu Street Kailua Kona, HI 06740 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-3 80 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Watanabe: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing in support of the project stating that the project will benefit the economy and will provide a safe route for people to visit family on the other side of the island. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard @dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon @dot.gov. Sincerely, /0,J,41..., David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000210 t3 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Mel Ventura P.G. Box 2045 Kailua-Kona, HI 96745 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Ventura: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing in support of the project stating that the road in its current state is not utilized fully and that the project will help integrate the island community. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 -963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard a®dot. gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000211 0 US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Arnold Kanai 73 -5611 Olowa lu Street Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Kanai: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing in support of the project stating from personal experience that the road in its current state is difficult to travel for the elderly and sickly from Kona who need to seek medical attention in Hilo. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard a@dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon @dot.gov. Sincerely, .(0,, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000212 C U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Ken Melrose P.O. Box 109 Kealakekua, HI 96750 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Dear Mr. Melrose: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing in support of the project stating that the project has made the road safe and scenic, along with your hope that all rental cars may soon be allowed on Saddle Road. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 724 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, 6.,„-)21,- David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000213 f� U.S. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration John Parazette P.G. Box 9021 Kailua -Kona, HI 96745 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Parazette: Thank you fog the comments you provided at the Kona hearing in support of the project. Regarding your concern about the double- yellow line, centerline striping is based on national guidelines contained in the AASHTO green book which sets standards and guidelines for highway design, including pass and no pass zones. While it may appear to the motoring public that double yellow lines (i.e., no pass zones) are excessive in some locations, they are determined on the basis of an engineering analysis that takes into account the roadway design speed, horizontal and vertical alignments, roadside obstacles, and stopping sight distances. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@dot.gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000214 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM --3 80 U.S. 0 Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Diane Quitiquit 75-5591 Hienalali Road #11 Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms, Quitiquit: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing in support of the project stating that the project will improve the economy, increase safety, and help build the island community. If Y ou have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963-3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000215 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 �i U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Representative Denny Coffman Hawai `i House of Representatives 77 -258 Ho`oka`ana Street Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawai` i Dear Representative Coffman: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing in support of the project stating that you and your constituents see the road as a great benefit to safety and the economy. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, 7 ) ,65 1 ,-L, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000216 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 8 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue • Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Michael Matsukawa 75 -5751 Kuakini Highway Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawai` i Dear Mr. Matsukawa: January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing expressing your support for the project and referencing a decision by Judge King on the State of Hawai `i versus The Nature Conservancy, Yee Hop, Limited, The United States of America; et al., Defendants, and Steve's Ag Services, Ltd., et al., Defendants- Intervenors case (Civil No. 07 -00516 SPK -LEK) 2009 Westlaw 3415303 (D.Hawai'i). We reviewed the decision in the case, and after having determined that it applies to title involving certain historic land awards in the State of Hawaii, we have forwarded the decision to the Army for their information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720- 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000217 0 US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Walter Kunitake Saddle Road Task Force 76 -5861A Mamalahoa Hwy. Holualoa, HI 96725 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 1 2300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -3 80 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear e: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing in support of the project and providing information for the record on the Saddle Road Task Force involvement with the project. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Rickard at 720 - 963.3691 or Melissa.Dickard®dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon�7a dot.gov. Sincerely, 06,..i&L, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000218 U.S. Department of `transportation Central . Federal Lands Highway Division 1 2300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Administration Norman Kaimuloa Hawai = i Carpenters Union 78-7108B Kamehameha III Rd. Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Kaimuloa: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing in support of the project recalling the condition of the road thirty years ago and stating that the project will be a benefit to the carpenters union and its members. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 - 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000219 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 �i U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Vivian Landrum Kona- Kohala Chamber of Commerce 75 -5737 Kuakini Highway Suite 208 Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Dear Ms. Landrum: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing in support of the project stating that the project will benefit tourism and other businesses and expand the opportunities to buy local and take advantage of educational opportunities on both sides of the island. Thank you also for illustrating the need for increased safety based on your personal experience of the road in its present condition. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 -963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard a@dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000220 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 D US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Robert Mei erdi ercks Hawai `i Carpenters Union 75 -126 Lunapule Road Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Dear Mr. Meierdiercks: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing in support of the project stating that the project will be a benefit to union carpenters by allowing more opportunities to safely travel for work on both sides of the island. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Rickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720- 963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@dot.gov. Sincerely, ..,/ii_..,„ David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager PAGE 000221 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Federal Highway Administration James Boyle 73 -4550 Mamalahoa Hwy. Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -380 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawal`1 Dear Mr. Boyle: Thank you for the comments you provided at the Kona hearing in support of the project and comparing the benefits of the improved portions to the unimproved portions. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Dickard at 720 - 963 -3691 or Melissa.Dickard a@dot. gov, or myself at 720-963-3723 or Dave. Gedeon a@dot. gov. Sincerely, VJi,"_,L,) David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager tx : ,..;•••:: x xx • x k :ry InfReply Refer To _noun United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE x Pacific Islands Fish and wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3 -1: ,, iiox 50088 Honolulu, Hawaii 9685( kick Suarez, P.E Engineer Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 340 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject {: - the �_ ' . I Side W-7 Alignment, Saddle em ation of Section 7 Conndtat on for R • ' � :: Road (State �? —Ai 200) Improvement . • t Pro3 ect 1 veen Mamalahoa Highway ( State Rout_ i _ 0) to Milepost 6, Hawaii jAN292O1O Dear Mr_ Suarez' ' responds to your request for reinitial �� yf the 1998 Biological Opinion This a�o,�c�� Opinion respa�nd y �1 ° wr (1998 Saddle vernent Project ec ( �B-F � }} for um Saddle Road Realignment and Impro � � t to the f • U.S. ish and Wildlife Sce (Service) pursuan Road Biological Opinion) with the U S .. • • �, with the ded (Act). Consultation was reinitxat S ecies Act of 1973, as amen tndgered p Ito address modifications to the • stration (F}IWA) on January 8, 2010, . Federal Highway Adn:nni • ;,/,ice n, address impacts from this • . In this Biological Op we addr p 1 ^ ^° Saddle Road Biological Opinion � r � lostac� a (honoliOnOl - � lant �a l c •: Sys dap y ' that may adversely .... ,�t the endangered plant p , project th y , 1 improving Saddle Road on the ' cal in ddressed impacts of realignin p 98 Biological Op ' • } � and the threatened plant species bird bailleui }, palila critical had endangered bird palila 2 'iensis in accLL--Ice with section 7(a)( ) of the �tlene hawaa 1 } . k J � pursuant to 50 CFR §402.16, as new enitiation of the 19� 8 Biological Opinion is necessary, ..: , , er or to an R. • • ons of the ro ect may afect lip ,pecies in a mann Information reveals rnodificati P � Impact Statement (EIS} • • nal opinion. A Final EnvirG , ital . extent not considered in the ongi P • � were completed in 1999. As for the Saddle Road improvei1—s p and Record of Decision (ROD) f of the existing alignment and x process, twelve action alternatives incorporate � use c! i, of the EIS p � was ( , ed into four different sections new alignments were considered. The project • potential n develo �t and selection, as well as 1, II III and IV) for purposes of 1 , (Stions , � f alternative in years since u. 1 elease of the EIS, the r� � * _� � �heduling (Figure 1 } . In the intervening y P .- f land in the Keamuku area from Parker .' ` • � ..,at of the Army has purchased a large section o uku Dep • roughly asses though the middle of the Ream P � The W-3 alignment (Section I) rou Y p xx _ xx x• xx i • • • • •fir _ 1 f • ' •• 1 r. • �. f• it '. S':;.: • • a , ' J Y +•_ 1 • 1 r J �' 1'1 , .. - ' �i L � 1 £ I • 1 #r } rj •L . • 'al �• I — r r a 1. x r , . 1. : J , yr 1 ;'a t I • . . • .ry . F+1 a F•. • F • • • • • f i • • , 1 Y - • • k • 1 •i. 1 •r • 1 — '1 • 1 - • 1 • • } } } } } } } } } } Mr Rick Suarez, P E. This alignment does not fulfill one of the key purposes and ni project, namely separation of military training activity from C1 i le Road. Another alignment, W-7, has been proposed rate civilian traffic from military training activities (Fig E • )flmental Im pact Statement (SEIS) was prepared to ad reimtiation covers FHWA actions associated with the const Saddle Road between Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 19u All other information within the 1998 Biological Opinion and the 2009 Reinitiation (Service file 26694:0314) remains in effect, except for the new actions described above. The findings and recommendations in this reinitiation are based on the followii A complete administrative record of this consultation is on - ffl° 7 the Service's Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office. The overall Saddle Road Realignment and Improvement Proj " extends rrom Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to MP 6 (see Figure 1). The limi the W-7 alignment extend from MP 42 located just to the east of the Department of the v's Pohakuloa Training Area's (PTA) Keamuku Parcel eastern boundary to the project's weL. terminus along Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) (see Figure 1). The alignment is roughly 10.3 miles (mi) (16.( kilometers (km) lon€ 11. approximately 8.9 mi (14.3 km) of the route located within TMK: 6- )01:041(the Keamumi Parcel) and.the remaining 1,4 miles of the alignment going through a port nf the main PTA traininp (see Figure 2) CONSULTATION HISTORY August 27, 2009: Steve Hallisy (FHWA), Dave Gedeon (FHWA), Melissa Dickard (FHWA), Reginald David (FHWA consultant), Patrice Ashfield (Service) and Jeff Zimpfer (Service) met to ss the new W-7 alignment, view maps, discuss the findings of the biological surveys that were completed as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for this new alignment 5 - s of the proposed improvement general driving public using the tudied to fulfill the need to !). A Supplement ; this new alignmci. This )n of the realigned and improved Milepost (MP) 6 1. The above refere---4 19 \\ iological Opinion, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Saddle Road ( Road 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to MP 6, County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, FHWA Project No. A-AD-6(1) (1999); 3 U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Hig" r Administration, Record of Decision, Saddle Road (State Road 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to MP County of Hawai Lte of Hawaii (1999); 4 The FHWA request for reinitiation of section 1 consultation for the West Side W-7 Alignment (2009) 4 Meetings, a site visit, reports, electronic mail (email), phone calls (see Consultation History); and 6 • Other information in our files. 3 .X.X.X.X.X.X.X.:. .X.X.X.X.X.X.X.:. ........ .X.:. .X.X.X.:. • tx: tx: �. tx: x x • r •- fi L'+ I •• t _ { 4 : ' Ir • '.1 k ' •x* Y 1 M1 . ,rf F• r� r� . 1 1' L - r � f• •;;: r _+ 1 •: • 1 .• 1t kl 1• • _ i, r •` 1, r Fa. +. .. t• - • %tv • • • 1 + } 1 i• • 'y. • 4 .: • 1� • 1.? • M1 �' , F S •1 " f . I • • • • • +11 " ti Mr Rick Suarez, P,E. September 11, 2009: The Service completed our .consultation titled Reinitiation Saddle I Realignment and Improvement Project Section 7 Consultation fdr Saddle Road (State Route 200) implovement Project. the East Side, M v. 2, Hawaii 0C•ber 15, 2009: Melissa Dickard (FHWA), Reginald Day" [TWA consultant) and Jeff Zimpfer (Service) met again to discuss the section 7 consultation. The FHWA informed the Service that based the conservation measures in this document, they had determined that the nrnnosed action is not likely to adversely dffem Illackbunes sphinx's moth (Manduca burn°, Hawaiian goose (Bram 14vic !), Hawaiian' hawk (Buteo solitarius), Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwidiensis), Newell's shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli), Hawaiian hoary bat (Lash 7inereus semotr ind Haplosta chys haplostachya. FHWA informed the Service they .1d be requestin concurrence with their determination. November 4, 2009: The Service received a request from trINV, ' that the proposed West side W-7 alignment w; es. Noyember 13, 2009: Jeff Zimpfer (Service) and Lena Sc] Natural Resource Coordinator for Pohakuloa Training Area), participated in a site visit to the J 2stachys haplostachy pup in the Army's Keamuku Parcel that occurs near 7oposed W-7 alignment. The site visit resultex.....inding seven plants along a 300-foot (ft, (i00-meter (m)) transect through a portion of the H. haplostaeliva population. The site is heavily dominated by fountain gxasE E(Pennisetum setaceum). Based on the findings during the si the Service recommenced FHWA enter into formal consultation for potentiai adverse fulis to the plant from wildfire. Jaminry 8, 2010: FHWA requested formal consultation on the West Side Saddle Road Ir iement Project for potential impacts to Hap7ostachys haplostachya. SPECIES CONCURRENCE STATEMENT ____,cribtx1 in the above consultation history, FHWA has determined that the above proposed project is not likely to adverseikaffect Blackburn's sphinx's moth, Hawaiian goose, Hawaiian hawk, % Hawaiian petrel, Newell's shearwater, and Hawaiian hoary bat. Biological surveys for the of the Blackburn's sphinx moth were not detected e proposed right-of-way for the ct Based on the lack of available habitat or the presi_. _ of Blackburn's sphinx moth in the action area, we concur with your determination that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely'to adversely affect, the Blackburn's sphinx moth. Although if. do+0 during the course (Attie biological sun Hawaiian g9ese.have been recorded within the K earnuku Parc - 1chne11 personal co nication 2009). Hawaiian gee! nd at Puuwaav - ,vhich are located 7 and 10 mi (1 1 ai of 'western term vi the W-7 alignment. Since Hawaiiai . le action area, we concur w our determination that 4 but is notlikely to adversely affect, the Hawaiian goose concurrence on 'aim nut likely to adversely affect listed se are not known to occi the proposed project may for this project, a few the recent past (David 1996. st at the Big Island Countr km) respectively south c ................ '' ' A Mr Rick Suarez, P E. Hawaiian hawks are not known to occur in the Keam d uku ar � no suitable nest trees are or close to, the W -7 alignment. Based on the lack o able nesting trees for Hawaiian .ks, the Service concurs with your determination this proposed project may affect, but is not likely ....lversely affect the Hawaiian hawk because the known aistribution or nesting colonies of listed vanan petrels on the island of Ha is on the southwest flanks of Mauna Loa, and know ;eding colonies of Newell's waters occur in East Hawaii, it is unlikely large numb( 'listed seabirds will transit the prnieC t area. This, combined with the implementation of th __ervation measures listed below, we' concur with your determination that this proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Hawaiian petrel or Newell's shearwater As described in the Action Area Description above, habitat — the right -of -way consists of law- statured vegetation and is not suitable Hawaiian hoary bat roosting habitat. Based on the Lick of suitable habitat, the Service concurs with your determination this proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Hawaiian hoary bat Biological opinion Summary of the 1998 Project Description Saddle Road, which was 11t in 942, is a narrow, winding, tv o -lane road with steep grades, Qham curves, poor pavement, and substandard drainage. This is the only paved road serving PT the Mauna Kea telescope complex, Waikii Ranch, upper Kaumana, Mauna Kea State Rex ation Area, Kilohana Girl Scout Camp and several maj( nting areas. It is also an important cross- island link for business travel, the transport of goods and servir° tourism, recreation, shcp and commuting. Military traffic on Saddle Road going to and from PTA jpvnlves transportation of Ammunition, water, training equipment and troop ri ne rHWA Saddle Road improvements include upgrading and modernizing approximately 48 ` mi (78 km) of the road, from the Mamalahoa Highway (State 'wad 190) to MP 6, near Hilo, Hawaii (see Figure 1). The purpose of the Saddle Road Improvement Project is to provide a safe and efficient route for travel between east: and west Hawaii. The proposed improvements will address five general types of needs: roadway deficiencies, conflicts with and hazards of military training operations, capacity, safety, social demand and economic development. Upon c the improved 48 -mile long Saddle Road will meet the Arr :an Association of State h1vi acid Transportation Officials design standards for rural arta... and provide adequate capacity to handle anticipated traffic volumes for the next 20 years. The FHWA estimates that the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Saddle Road in 1994 was 900 vehicles. By the year 2014, in its present condition, Saddle Road is expected to accommodate an ADT of 4,400 vehicles. Projected figures, based . on increased usage associated with commuter traffic, residential development at both ends of the road, tourism and recreation, agriculture, military operations, the Mauna Kea telescope complex, and increasing congestion along alternative cross- island routes, estimate that Saddle Road will need to accommodate an ADT of 14,000 vehicl the year 2014 v :: Mr • Rick Suarez, P.E. • 2009 Project Description • Site'Description An EIS and ROD for the Saddle Road improvements were i Meted in 1999. Construction of the ‘e.- 48 mi (77 km) project is be- - - thased; the first pliab from MP 19 to 42 (Section II phis' rtion of Section III (see Figi1, A)) is nearing complcitnn. The next construction project will improve Saddle Road between MP 11 and 49. The sch ng of the remaining construction phases is dependent on the future appropriation of Federal f rig. A full description of di( project's background, purpose and nee Ld specific desigi • racteristics is contained in the Executive e Summary of the Final EIS (FHWA 1999). The S.. 1998 Biological Opinion also contains a complete description of the project and evabintinn of impacts to listed species and critical habitat. For the portion of the project addressed in th onsultation, we evaluate the impacts to listed species that will result from the proposed changes from the original alignment roposed roadway engineering and construction activities remain the same as do the rvation measures developed in our 1998 Biological Opinion. In addition to direct actions rc_ _J. to the actual construction of the road, FHWA committed to conservation measures as part f Leir project description in the 1998 Saddle Road Biological. Opinion. These measures include :ing restrictions, minimization of increased fire threat, eit ement activities for endangered a reatened plants, minimizing the spread of invasive a1iei 4,,cies, offsetting loss of palila critical hohitnt Ind avoiding impacts to the Hawaiian hawk Since the Service issued its original Biological Opinion for the Road projek....zi 1998, the Dermrtment of the Army has purchased a large section of land in the Keamuku area from Parker Ranch. The originally selected alignment (W-3, in Section I) bisected this parcel and thus no lotiger one of the key needs of the proposed improvement project, namely the separation or military training activity from the general driving public usin Saddle Road. The W-7 alignment has been proposed as the preferred alignment (see L. re 2). FHWA Proposed Road Improvemeni The.W-7 alignment gently slopes from east to west, from an lion of approximately 5,800 ft (1,800m) above mean sea level (MSL) along the existing Sa • Road down slope to where it will intersect the existing Mamalahoa Highway at approximately 2,500 ft (750 m) MSL. The alignment is roughly 10.3 mi (16.6 km) long, with approximately 8.9 mi (14.3 km) of the route 1- within TMK. 6-7-001:041, and the remaining 1 A mi km) of the alignment going ti ugh a portion of the main PTA training area (see Figure 2) FHWA is proposing to build a two-lane hot asphalt concrete paved roadbed, two 12-ft (3.66-m) travel Imes with two 8-ft (2.4-m) paved shoulders, and a 6-ft (1.8-m) wide ditch in locations where the new roadway will be cut. Because of the grades, a- 7hill passing lane will bk, provided for most of the length of W-7, as it passes thmught eamuku. Parcel and i$. illustrated as Typical Section A (Figure 3). The road will be pied to accommodate IMPH traffic speeds with a minimum curve radius of 2: (754 ft), an 8 percen maximum super elevation, simple curves with 67 percent of runoff on tangent, and an 8 percent maxiinum gradt... Mr Rick Suarez, P.E. elevation and the eastern terminus of the project, the substri,._ ' is markedly different than that found lower on the alignment; this area is made up of a11uvia ind colluvial sand and gravel deposited by the erosion of Mauna Kea by the melting of the list ice cap On this substrate the dominate plant is the vnuemic shrub Chenopodium oahuense (aheahea). The population of Haplostachys haplostachya tht occurs within the project site is in an area dominated by fountain grass and other alien vegetation. 1 Fire Minimization T1 e i,iposed W-7 alignment will be entirely located within the U.S. Army training facilities These training facilities h in extensive fire minimiz,atiot - mitigation program in place in accorda vith the Service's 2003 (2003-F-002) and 2008 (2008-F-278) Biological Opinions for Army actions at PTA and the Keamuku Parcel. The proposed W-7 alignment will create an additional firebreak within the Army's Keamuku Parcel, which will be between 40 and 52 ft (12 ..., 16 m) wide. This road will also allow very rapid respow PTA and County of Hawaii firetfghting personnel in the event that a fire does occur withi • general project area. The center of the W-7 alignment is approximately‘lb mi (16 km) . the PTA fire station, an approximately the same distance from the County of Hawaii Waikoloa fire station. As the new road will be designed to .9 60 MPH (100 KPH) ti both fire stations could resnond . in a very short pi of time to any wildfire that migh t occur within the general project area.: These areas would wise be extremely difficult to access from the existing Saddle Road, thus result in extreinviy long response times. Additionally, the Army is currently tructing five firefighting dip tanks within the Keamuku Pa 1 provide onsite water to be used to fight any wildfires that may ignite within the general ai Conservation Measures following conservation measures are designed to id. a iinimize effects to Blackburn's sphinx's moth, Hawaiian goose, Hawaiian hawk, Hawaiian petrel, Newell's shearwater, Hawaiian hoary bat and Haplo sta haplostachya and are considered part ()fettle proje( descritption. When used in the context of the Act, "conservation measures" represent acutnis pro by the Federal action agency that are intended to fu • the recovery of and/or minimize or compensate for prOject effects on the species under review. Because conservation measures are pledged in the Project Description by the action agency, their implementation is required under the terms of ' consultation. The act proposes to implement the following measures to ensure that the Alustruction and opera,I1U11 of the proposed W-7 alignment does not result in adverse impact isted specit, . o reduce the construction related project footprint, FHWA has agreed to measures and or prohibitions that will be included as part of special contract requirements that will be incorporated in the construction contract document • 1 To minimize damage to natural resources in areas outside of the right of way (ROW), special contract requirements will mandate that all construction E wty shall be restricted to within`the clearly delineated ROW and that entry and . exit into the ROW by all Mr Rick , PE. of construction personnel and equipment shall Ix ,rev._ __sly identified and marked non- sensitive areas Special contract requirements will be incorporated into the construction documents directing the contractor's work to be consistent with specific minimization commitments that are outlined here and in the 1998 Biological Opinion for the project. The Contract Officer will have the authority to shut down construction should violations of special ract require Is be detectek furthermore, the project engineer will be responsible for ensuring compliance with all environmental restrictions and minimization measures. 3 A comprehensive manual outlining and discussing the environmental commitments contained in the original ROD, 1998 Biological Opinion and special contract requirements will be prepared. This document will be prepared by the FHWA rn accordance with their environmental team policy, which ensures that the environmental team closely follows the entire project to its completion. To avoid impacts to Hawaiian petrels Newell's shearwater (listed se l s), FHWA has agreed to the following. If nighttime wort Dquired, ail lights will be shielded or directed at the ground to reduce the potential for interactions of noctumally-flying listed seabirds with lights and man-made structures. 2 No nighttime construction will occur during the peak seabird fallout period, namely between September 15 and December 15, annually 3 Any streetlights that may be installed as part of this action will be E led. This minimization measure would serve the dual purpose Limmizing the threat of disorientation and downing of listed seabirds, while at the same time complying with the Hawaii County Code §14 — 50 et seq, which requires the shielding of exterjrwl;ghts so as to lower the ambient glare caused by unshielded lighting to the astronomic observatories located on Mauna Kea. 1 To reduce the threat of wildfires FHWA has agreed to the following: No smoking will be permitted during construction within the construction site, nor will _my fires be permitted within the project corridor 2 To reduce the - dal threat of wildfires beirfg started:by careless smokers or drivers driving or parkin vn grassy verges on the north side of the roadway between mile marker 41 and the eastern boundary of the Keamuku Parcel, an expanded and modified typical section for the roadway will both reduce the likelihood of accidental ignition from unintentional road sources (car fires, catalytic converteis, cigarettes, etc.) and assist in creating a firebreak and fuelbreak on the north side or 1,9.e roadway. This section is illustrated as Typical Section B (Figure 4). This expanded Typical Section will consist 10 " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i • } • . • . •r. • •.. r. • . . 1• • • •1 • Mr Rick Suarez, P.E. ZOOg, island o f Hawaii (U.S. y 00 individuals areas in.atel 1 ? �0 iduals on the i cur on Army training occurrences totaling approximately . s o f this species, occur accurr - occurring population (apprOXifl1atelY 97 atorall uals of this species p. 11 . All known, n Y majority of individ ' ns p } cel .The vast J e d an d maintai the Keainuku F ar } has consnuct ols (P:TA and fenced units the Army ere the Army contr are in ungulate-free f cies are in areas wh A percent) ax individuals of this species re the in 2004 co t ' atel 30 percent of the of this species at Puu weed . im Y anted 26 individuals Arm weeds, The y has also outpl S .. Army 2009, p• 15) stony, veneered lava, very' osed areas on ash . an d an stack a grows in dry exp cracks on rocky ridges a losta oils haplo y establishes in large o d .� outcro s� It often � arrsaeSyc treeland, p alto con and lava ... p h a is found in Ch naea shallow i island IL haplvstac y ea Shrubland, Dodonaea c � cones. On .Hawas, dersto , open Dodr�na vegetation types. .... • y �th dense shrub un � aea Shrubland veg Mixed deros treeland M o yarn -; oaor� n Mauna Metrosideros Shrubland, and y �' one population o • d Shrubland, lVyaF° a Kea fl with p Mixed ��,�_ exclusively on old Maim e taxon occurs � st The pahoehoe lavL. wand moderate intensity lams can serve low to drought. F species following ha lastachya may be sensitive .T s uccess of the sp _ ns stachys to b f ire resistant} n rocky slopes, Fire (i.e., t he plants appear fr e cent location o Y fire i s p fires t resprout an d its q e fire coupled is be due t�. its ability p w f load. How fire is presumed to sities beCause of l0 there is tends to occur at low inter ce. From year to year? in rocky areas t eccies annu abund s ecie that are with ears to affect the sp the o u latian� of this p with drought appears , o f individuals in th p P • variability in the number considerable v ctivel goats; rooting a y monitored � feral sheep and g 1 os tachya are browsing y other nonnative threats to ,�aplvstachys hap ass and a primary thre . , d nutrients by fountai grass i . b The p fork t, space, an • competition � _ � vegetation common feral igs, compete bitat to a fire based g and the by p and conversion of ha training. Aphids plants; and invasion by PTA are impacted by Army lams in p � . •' populations that occur at PT � u ku parcel and on p dltlon, some popula .. the � its in the Keam ad • • mildew have been noted on � introduction of meld Ise conditions. v • • • • • 13 Environmental Baseline x . • n Area for this project. This ° th Species in the Action n within the action area Status stack a populatio grit and could be is ,t tostachys ha�1v Y ro osed w-� alit There i S one 700 ft (200 m) from the p p o ad. The area is roximatey 70 li ed Saddle Road. is approximately originating from the rea observations, Army ' acted by a wildfire gi Based an personal indirectly imp 5, 6 and 7 ) • unfair grass • by fountain grass (Figures . \ to an area, the fountain heavily Invaded y fountain grass moves in nervations, Army staff believe as four gr' Based on personal ob . Natural Resource . ture and nutrients. area of this project s �: ha plostachya for moss a lvstachya in the action ar outc the abundance of H. h . Resource staff believe th al Resou r Peshut ,010. r►ers• comm.). Natural more than 80 percent it etc has been reduced by m .. .. individuals in the fie counts of thi population and r o that may be no recent surveys of p 1? c , ... population Y There have been n We estimate the size p even plants in a • provided by FHWA. ' st .-. ;observation of s affected were p . Based on our i population 10 ac (4 ha). biologist affected is approximately <x: Mr Rick Suarez, P.E. 300 (100 m) I ran 14 � sect and the fact • grass, we estimate c t that the entire area has been co ate the population in 1ete1 200 pla t hat may be impacted P y Invaded b f ount P � by wildfire to be ain approximately 100 to Effects of the Action The w -7 alignment will bring Saddle Road � h 7 alignment o ula ad within 700 f (200 .P p ion (see Fi re T) of the .�Ia to hapl stac /jy 3 2), whereas the current a le Road y . (5 km) away from ent ►merit o f Saddl • d �y affect H. h the . . haplostach a Road is . aplostachya because �' p -- r..�ation. The road will o f wildfires to no plants occur withi Il not • IL haplostach a FH n the road ali en ri the vicinity of y ' WA has agreed to the To reduce the � haplostachya (easten a roitowing conservation High�,ya • n boun d a ion measu Y) boundary f the R, - --� Parcel to Mamalohoa 1 2 ( wide paved • A P surface that will four -inch (lOc serve as a firebreak. high-extruded as �:� south side of th r phalt curb at th side will prevent � de of the shoulder o grass and other vegetation cigarette bi ro n the getation material Th c m coming in contact with of the roadway onto curb will a1s,� Lev y grassy areas. .r ent motorists from dri • Ong off The entire proposed -7 alignment will • • extensive fire ill be located w _ _ 1, airun minimization and, • • � ' Arn facilities, ext _rise b p mitigation pr a.m. g r which has an { . � by PTA and County a f .. �` This roan � (1 also th tY Hawaii firefi ti allow very rapid general project g personnel in p p � ��• The 1�a los the event that a fire proximity a the to the w_7 p tachys haplostach does occur- fire station. is locat .� � population that win be e station. The new approximately 6 mi in close fire . i.ations road will be desi �' (10 �.� by road fro s could respond designed to accommodate from the PTA spend in a sham � MPH (10{} KPH) project period of time t w H) traffic, both J area. This area would ildfire that might oc existing uld otherwise ' cur wig the g Saddle Road, and be ex�"ernelY diffic�.l thus result in extremely t to access from. th is currently constructing emely lon response • ct�ng five firefighting g pone times. Addition water to be used g dip tanks wi ally, the Arm Y ed to fight wildfire thin the .I�earnuk p . s that may ignite within t he ax'cel to provide onsite n °reneral ar In addition, rtiwA has agreed to contribute $50,000 to (Pa add Division of tri na Resources Mara wasi Volcanoes Naha population of H. ha Management. The Park will use ab l Park's plostachya in areas se these funds to establish e u latio l range o of the Park which n 1 t sh three g f the species and are believed to be within suitable habitat (Pri within the ce and Jacobi unpublished). published). ................ hiapiostacliys ;,. ;,. ;,. Mr Rick Suarez, P E. All of these actions will reduce and minimize the impacts from :wildfires. In addition, FHWA will )onsor an outplanting program of H. haplostachya at HaNiaii Volcanoes National Park. Presently, this species has a very limited range, only occurrin • hin the Saddle area of Hawaii isli" Outplanting this species in an area wl 1 does not! • ritly occur, but within the pre ted former range of the species, increases likelihood this species will persist in the elm • the populations in the Saddle area of Hawaii island are dec nated by a catastrophic event. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 2 While the road increases access and proximity to the listed plants which may increase the threni of fire, it also provides a more rapid response by firefighting perso' ..5 ine proposed project witi be located lin Army training facilities which also have an extensive fire minimization and mitigation program which includes constructing fire 4 i2-ft (10-m) wide paved surface will serve as a firebreak and the 4-in (10-cm) curb • .. The population of H. haplostachya that may potentially be impacted by this project, represents less than one percent of the lcilown total number ofH haplostachya. No plants occur within the road alignment itself will provide a bather against cigarette butts. (Tilting dip tanks that will provide onsite water 17 ion 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to ier the 4' p •oses of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and thfeatened species. Conservation recomrnende - 3 are discretionary agency activities tc minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposeu adOfl on listed species or critical habita., . help implement recovery plans, or to develop information 1. Fountain grass has become a threat to this population of Haplostachys haplostachya that occurs within the action ---- FHWA should fund the long-term eradication and management of alien gra the benefit of H haplostachya 2.- Fountain grass is a threat to native ecosystems across vast areas of West Hawaii. FHWA should fund researcn rocusing on developing bio-control agents for controlling fountain' In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benen ing listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any L.uilservation recommendations grass. REINITIATION STATEMENT This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in the re-initiation request. As d in 50 CFR §' 402.16, reinitiation of consultation is required where discretionary Federal a involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if ;,. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ''''''' ''' ''''''' ''' ''' " nap iiostacnya St:tem era n �. ' 1 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Loyal Mehrhoff, PhD. Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Room 3-122 Honolulu HI 96813 Dear Mr. Mehrhoff: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject: Response to Comments on Saddle Road Improvement Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Island of Hawaii Thank you for providing a Biological Opinion for the Saddle Road Improvement Project. We appreciate the opportunity to coordinate with your office, and we appreciate your response to our tight timeframes. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Melissa Rickard at 720-963-3691 or Melissa.Dickard@a dot.gov, or myself at 720 -963 -3723 or Dave.Gedeon@a7dot.gov. Sincerely, David Gedeon, P,E. Project Manager PAGE 000242 January 29, 2010 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-380 SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix B Waters of U.S. Report and Correspondence [This page intentionally left blank] REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: Mr. Glenn M. Yasui Administrator, Highways Division State of Hawaii Department of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813-5097 Dear Mr. Yasui: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, HONOLULU DISTRICT FORT SHAFTER, HAWAII 96858 -5440 September 10, 2009 Regulatory Branch File No. PDH -2008 -00021 This is in response to your March 18, 2009 letter requesting a Department of the Army (DA) Jurisdictional Determination (JD) for the Saddle Road realignment and improvement project. Your request is specifically for Section I of the project between Mileposts (MP) 42 to MP 53, the westernmost portion of Saddle Road, ending at the Mamalahoa Highway (SR 190). Based on our review of the information you furnished, our staff visit to the site, and other resources available to our office, we have determined that your proposed project would not involve the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. under our regulatory jurisdiction. Therefore, a DA permit is not required. Your proposed project was reviewed pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Section 10) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Section 404). Section 10 requires that a DA permit be obtained for certain structures or work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States (U.S.), prior to conducting the work (33 U.S.C. 403). Navigable waters of the U.S. are those waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high water mark in waters determined to be navigable by the Honolulu District. Your project is not within Section 10 jurisdiction. Section 404 requires that a DA permit be obtained for the placement or discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, prior to conducting the work (33 U.S.C. 1344). The three crossings proposed between MP 42 and MP 53 do not impact any water of the U.S. (see attached JD). This determination is valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this letter. You have the opportunity to submit a formal Administrative Appeal of this Approved JD. Your Request for Appeal (RFA) must be submitted within 60 days of this letter. Should you wish to submit a RFA, please contact this office and we will provide you with the appropriate form detailing the Appeal process. Enclosure Copy Furnished (w /encl): -2 Thank you for your cooperation with our regulatory program. Please be advised you can provide comments on your experience with the Honolulu District Regulatory Branch by accessing our web -based customer survey form at http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html. If you have questions, please contact Mr. Robert Deroche of my staff at 808- 348 -2039 (FAX: 808- 438 -4060) or by email at robert.d.deroche2@usace.army.mil. Please refer to File No. POH-2008-21 in all future correspondence with this office regarding this project. Sincerely, George P. Young, P.E. Chief, Regulatory Branch Mr. Ron Terry, Ph.D., Geometrician Associates, LLC., P.D. Box 396, Hilo, HI 96721 Mr. Donald K. Okahara, P.E., Okahara & Associates, Inc., 677 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 703, Honolulu, HI 96813-5419 Mr. Dave Gedeon, U.S. Department of Transportation, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 280, Lakewood, CO 80228 -2583 APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): September 9, 2009 B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: CEPOH -EC -R SADDLE ROAD REALIGNMENT 2008 -21 C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Mile Posts 42 thru 53 State: Hawaii County /parish/borough: Hawaii City: Center coordinates of site (latllong in degree decimal format): Lat. 19.8020 ° N, Long. -1 55.6894 ° n. Universal Transverse Mercator: 5 Name of nearest waterbody: None Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Pacific Ocean Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 20010000 Check if map /diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): III Office (Desk) Determination. Date: September 9, 2009 III Field Determination. Date(s): August 10, 2009 SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There a N' "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required] Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There r`> h{ "waters of the U.S " within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1 TNWs, including territorial seas Wetlands adjacent to TNWs +cta:i Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Impoundments of jurisdictional waters a Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non - wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: 6.0 acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Elevation of established OHWM (if known): 2. Non - regulated waters /wetlands (check if applicable) : Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: . ' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. 2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally" (e.g., typically 3 months). 3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent ": B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non - navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year -round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the waterbody is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below. 1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Drainage area: Average annual rainfall: Average annual snowfall: inches inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: ❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW. ❑ Tributary flows through = tributaries before entering TNW. river miles from TNW. river miles from RPW. aerial (straight) miles from TNW. aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters are Project waters are Project waters are Project waters are Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to TNW Tributary stream order, if known: 4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid West. 5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply): Tributary is: ❑ Natural ❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain: ❑ Manipulated (man - altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: ``, � �,gri :moo. • ❑ Silts ❑ Cobbles ❑ Bedrock ❑ Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of run/riffle/ • ool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): % Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): ❑ Sands ❑ Gravel ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover: (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: . Characteristics: Subsurface flow: ` ` ` Explain findings: ❑ Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): ❑ Bed and banks ❑ OHWM (check all indicators that apply): ❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ❑ changes in the character of soil ❑ shelving ❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ❑ sediment deposition ❑ water staining ❑ other (list): 0 Discontinuous OHWM. Explain: High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings /characteristics ❑ tidal gauges ❑ other (list): ❑ Concrete ❑ Muck the presence of litter and debris destruction of terrestrial vegetation the presence of wrack line sediment sorting scour multiple observed or predicted flow events abrupt change in plant community If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ❑ survey to available datum; ❑ physical markings; ❑ vegetation lines /changes in vegetation types. (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: 6 A natural or man - made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 7lbid. (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): ❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): ❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: ❑ Habitat for: ❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings: ❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as sta te boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow with Non -TNW: Flow is: " "` Explain: Surface flow is: Characteristics: ``` Subsurface flow: � _ � � � � �_ � _ . Explain findings: ❑ Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non -TNW: ❑ Directly abutting ❑ Not directly abutting O Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: O Ecological connection. Explain: O Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: (d) Proximity ( Relationshi s to TNW Project wetlands are - river miles from TNW. :...;, : (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are ? � °������- aerial stra t es Flow is from: Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: ❑ Habitat for: ❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings: ❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if an All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. floodplain. For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: 1. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: 2. Significant nexus findings for non - RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non - RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: 3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. • Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: • Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non - wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 3. Non that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. • Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non - wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. • Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. • Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year- round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: • Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. • Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW arejurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non - RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. • Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters? As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA - STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain: . Other factors. Explain: . Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: 8 See Footnote # 3. 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non - wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: • Wetlands: acres. F. NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. • Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. ❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). I Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Other: (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional 'udgment (check all that apply): Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): Non- wetland waters (i. e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft). Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): I Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Geometrician Associates LLC. Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ® Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report. ❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. I Data sheets prepared by the Corps: . Corps navigable waters' study: . U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ❑ USGS NHD data. ® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: . USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: NRCS, Web Soil Survey. National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Wetlands Online Mapper (Scale: 1:36,710). State/Local wetland inventory map(s): . FEMA/FIRM maps: . 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Google Earth Copy 2007; USACE GIS DOQQ 1977. or ® Other (Name & Date): Site photographs contained in "Report on Waters of the U.S. Within Proposed Saddle Road Corridor, Section I (MP 42 -53) Island of Hawaili ", State of Hawaii, submitted by Geometrician Associates, Hilo, Hawaii dated February 2009. Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: Applicable/supporting case law: Applicable/supporting scientific literature: Other information (please specify): -USACE personnel site visit of 10 August, 2009 -Atlas of Hawaii, 2nd Edition, Department of Geography, University of Hawaii, 1983. [This page intentionally left blank] Report on Waters of the U.S. Within Proposed Saddle Road Corridor, Section I (MP 42 -53) Island of Hawai'i, State of Hawai'i Project Overview Geometrician Associates, Hilo, Hawai `i February 2009 This report summarizes an evaluation by Geometrician Associates of Waters of the U.S. potentially present on a highway improvement project on the island of Hawai'i. The project title is Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 6 Project (FHWA Project No. A- AD -6(1). The work was conducted under a 2008 contract amendment with DMT Consultant Engineers and on behalf of the Hawai'i Department of Transportation (HDOT). A Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Saddle Road Improvements project (as it is commonly known) was released in September 1999, followed by the issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Saddle Road improvements on October 30, 1999. The EIS process included consideration of twelve action alternatives incorporating use of the existing alignment and potential new alignments between Mamalahoa Highway (SR 190) to Milepost (MP) 6. The project was divided into four different sections (Sections I, II, Ill and IV, from west to east) to consider and select various alternative routes and to assist in project scheduling. These sections and the Selected Alternative are illustrated in Figure 1. Construction of the entire 48 miles is being done in phases. After receiving appropriate permits and approvals, including a jurisdictional determination finding no Waters of the U.S. in the portions between Milepost 14 and 53 as part of the EIS process in 1999, construction began in 2004 on a 6.5 -mile part of Section II from Milepost 28 to 35. This segment was opened to public traffic in May 2007. The remainder of Section II between MP 35 and 42 is expected to be finished by fall 2009. A subsequent project that opened to public traffic in October 2008 is the section in Section III from Milepost 19 to 28. The western portion of the project, Section I, from the "Seven Steps" near MP 42 to Mamalahoa Highway, has not yet been scheduled for final design or construction. HDOT is working with the Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA- CFLHD) to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Section I, the western section of the Saddle Road Improvements Project. The SEIS is necessary because the U.S. Department of the Army Garrison Hawaii purchased property from Parker Ranch known as the Keamuku parcel (State of Hawaii TMK (3 6- 7- 001:041) through which the Section I Saddle Road Improvements is proposed to pass (Figure 2). The U.S. Army has incorporated this property into the Pohakuloa Training Area and use it for military training. Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 1 0: \oproj \joe1 \9901 1A— Saddle West Side SETS \JD Letter \to ron terry 12- 10- 08 \Fig.1 — select.alt.dw 9 O H A K U L O A TRAINING A R E vvvvvvvvvvv�v vvvv�vvvvvvv v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v WAIMEA/� - `� KAMUELA AIRPORT \ - Mana\ MAN A (414 (4Wp).� S E C T I O N I I _ E--Q T I O N 1I- Honoka • I f ( \ , MP I 42 �, �, �'■ MAUNA KE "' � 1 BRADSHAW ARMY; ( / _ ® AIRFIELD _ I Puaakala t' MAUNA KEA — STATE TE PARK �- '' ' 1� , n v / A = == M:8 K, EX E XIST s . D D E Mauna Kea Beach Hotel Hapuna Beach Park* N Mauna Lani Resort Hilton Waikoloa Kaholo By Puakb ZONAL Kola() Kawaihae Pu'uanahulu Ke'omuku O OCEAN PACIFIC HAWAII 0 5 10 20 GRAPHIC SCALE IN MILES ( 7 oala Mountains 19 Q 7 G 7 Pa'auilo 1 Kul ni Lau'pahoehoe E -3 ) 0 N 0 ui 0 U S E C T I O N I V Hakalau Kolekole Park Honomu HILO AIRPORT Pepe'ekec Papai'kou HARBO ,Kea'au Kurtistown Mountain View / Hawaiian Acres Report of Waters of the U.S. Saddle Road, MP 42-53 Island of Hawai'i, State of Hawai'i Figure 1: Selected Saddle Road Alternative 12/10/08 This property included the area in which the western section of the Saddle Road was planned to pass, along the alignment termed W -3, which was selected in the Record of Decision. In 2006, the U.S. Army requested that HDOT and FHWA -CFLHD relocate the road as close as practical to the southern boundary of the Keamuku property. In response to that request, HDOT has developed a new alternative called W -7, the location of which is approximate until further design is completed (see Figure 2). Both alternatives, the 9.7 -mile long W -3 and the 10.3 -mile W -7, are under consideration in the SEIS for Section I. Note that the common connection point of both W -3 and W -7 to existing the Saddle Road near MP 42 is outside the Keamuku property; both alignments include approximately 0.6 mile within the Ke`eke`e area. This report is intended for use as background for a letter requesting jurisdictional determination (JD) for potential Waters of the U.S. from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Honolulu District, for Section I of the Saddle Road. It is understood that as more than five years have passed since the original jurisdictional determinations were made as part of the 1999 EIS, a new JD will be required for this section of the Saddle Road between milepost 42 and SR 190. The JD is requested to cover both of the SEIS alternatives under consideration, W -3 and W -7. Regulatory Background Waters of the United States (U.S.) is a regulatory term referring to surface waters that are under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Surface waters may include streams, streambeds, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, arroyos, washes, other ephemeral watercourses and wetlands. Any actions that result in effects on Waters of the U.S. require compliance with the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) made jurisdictional determinations for the original study routes in Section I (W -2 and W -3, the latter of which was selected in the Record of Decision for the proposed Saddle Road project in the 1990s. No Waters of the U.S. were identified within this section of the study corridor (USACE letter dated August 22, 1997, reproduced in FEIS - Part II, 1.4.4, and EPA letter dated August 12, 1998, FEIS - Part II, 1.4.5) (Exhibit A). The EIS reported that although the proposed road corridor crossed several major intermittent drainages, many of which were formed by glacial meltwater at the end of the Pleistocene Era 10,000 years ago, it contained no Waters of the U.S. Since 1999, when the original Saddle Road EIS was being developed, the USACE has substantially revised its practical definition of Waters of the U.S. and also its methods for assessing them. The latest guidance is contained in JD Form Instructional Guidebook and the Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form; these digital files are available on the Honolulu District website (http://www. poh. usace.army. mil/EC-R/EC-R. htm). This report utilizes the methodology and forms referenced above. Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 3 0: \oproj\ joel \9901 1 A— Saddle West Side SETS \JD Letter \to ron terry 12- 10- 08 \Fiq.2— keamuku.dw q Report of Waters of the U.S. Saddle Road, MP 42-53 Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii Figure 2: Keamuku Map 12/10/08 In particular, the methodology utilized in this analysis has been consistent with the latest guidance, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook (Rev. 5/23/07). In this guidance, which is available on USACE websites, the USACE has reaffirmed that all traditional navigable waters (TNW) are jurisdictional, and that any stream that generally flowed three continuous months of the year or more — called a relatively permanent water (RPW) — is also jurisdictional. It is understood that any wetlands adjacent to RPW, as well as non -RPW streams and wetlands adjacent to them, need to be evaluated to see if they have a significant nexus to a TNW. The USACE, interpreting a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, defines this as follows: "A significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or an insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical, and /or biological, integrity of a TNW. Principal considerations when evaluating significant nexus include the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and the proximity of the tributary to a TNW, plus the hydrologic, ecologic, and other functions performed by the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands." Therefore, the first task of our work in Section I of the Saddle Road has been to identify within the affected W -3 and W -7 corridors all TNWs, tributary RPWs, and tributary non - RPW streams, along with any wetlands or other special aquatic sites. After these are identified and mapped, certain waters will be by definition jurisdictional, and for others, the issue of a significant nexus must then be examined, and then a jurisdictional determination should be made. Geological Setting As shown on the attached USGS maps (Figure 3), no blue -line streams are crossed by either the W -3 or W -7 corridors within the Keamuku property or the Ke`eke`e section There is a distinct geomorphological difference between the central and northern parts of the Keamuku parcel that contain deep, blue -line gulches and the southern part that lacks them. This roughly corresponds to a geological difference between older and younger Mauna Kea flows, as shown in the attached geologic map (Figure 4). The very youngest flows — where there are no blue -line streams whatsoever — are found on the southern margin of the Keamuku property, where W -7 and a portion of W -3 pass. The Ke`eke`e section consists of rough lava flows as well as cinder cone and Holocene surficial deposits. The topography of the area strongly reflects the geology. The Saddle Road area near Pu`u Ke`eke`e at the base of Mauna Kea is fairly flat, reflecting alluvial Pleistocene and later deposits over old lava flow and ash deposits from cones such as Puu Ke`eke`e, which exhibits typical cinder cone topography. The far southern portion of the Keamuku property, which contains most of W -7 and the western (makai) segment of W -3, has a surface in which the lobes of the lava flows that flowed downslope are clearly visible, with little erosion or sediment build -up. Soil is not strongly developed and few erosional or alluvial features are evident. Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 5 0: \oproj \joel \99011A — Saddle West Side SETS \JD Letter \to ron terry 12- 10- 08 \Figs.3 (Sc 4 — USGS & Geology.dwg LEGEND 5000' 2500' 0 W - 3 ALIGNMENT rw DRAINAGE CROSSINGS . APPROXIMATE SCALE: W - 7 ALIGNMENT 1" = 5000' 5000' 10000' Report of Waters of the U.S. Saddle Road, MP 42-53 Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii Figure 3: USGS Map 12/10/08 0: \oproj \joel \99011A— Saddle West Side SEIS \JD Letter \to ron terry 12- 10- 08 \Figs.3 8c 4 — USGS 8c Geology.dwg LEGENDz ac — e — I — Ic — hm — hmc — k2 — k3 — k4 — Holocene surficial deposits Pleistocene surficial deposits Later Pleistocene Mauna Kea lava flows Later Pleistocene Mauna Kea cinder cones Earlier Pleistocene Mauna Kea lava flows Earlier Pleistocene Mauna Kea cinder cones 1500 -3000 year old Mauna Loa lava flows 750 -1500 year old Mauna Loa lava flows (Keamuku) 400 -750 year old Mauna Loa lava flows LEGEND W -3 ALIGNMENT W -7 ALIGNMENT 5000' 2500' 0 APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 5000' 5000' 10000' Report of Waters of the U.S. Saddle Road, MP 42-53 Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii Figure 4: Geology Map 12/10/08 In the middle southern part of Keamuku, which contains the eastern (mauka) portion of W -7 and most of W -3, the topography generally has a smoother appearance, reflecting a cover of ash, cinders and sand of variable thickness on top of the bedrock lava flows. A satellite -based aerial image of the eastern portion of the study area draped over a digital terrain model and rotated to provide an oblique view reveals these differences in the topography (Figure 5). Note the complete lack of apparent drainages in the southern portion (where the main portion of W -7 lies), the hummocky terrain with small, discontinuous drainages between some of the hummocks in the southern part of the central area, and the true intermittent gulch in the northernmost part (neither the W -3 nor W -7 alignment crosses such a gulch). Soil patterns are highly complex, but some generalizations can be made. Soil in the southern parts of Keamuku varies from non - existent, on rough lava land, to minimal, on rough stony land, to thin organic soils over `a`a ( Kaimu Series), to stony soils about 20 -30 inches deep formed in ash (Pu`u Pa Series). Some inclusions of deeper soils formed in ash are also present (Waikaloa Series). Minimal erosion and deposition is evident on most of the areas covered by these soils. Soils on the middle and northern parts of Keamuku include both the Kaimu and Pu`u Pa Series, but are dominated by soils of the Waikaloa and Waimea Series, the latter of which is the thickest (and possibly oldest) of all these soils and is heavily dissected by intermittent or ephemeral streams in places. In the Ke`eke`e area near Saddle Road there are a number of soil types, but in general the soil is thin and highly stony. Where W -7 and W -3 diverge as they proceed east, W -7 lies well south of W -3 and lies atop the rockiest soils with little erosion or deposition evident. Where W -3 is farthest from W -7, in the middle section of Keamuku, the thickest and least stony soils occur. FIELD METHODOLOGY On five separate days during August and September of 2008, a team of two to four scientists and technicians led by Ron Terry, Ph. D., systematically walked and closely examined both the W -3 and W -7 corridors from their common terminus with the Saddle Road near MP 42 to the Mamalahoa Highway, a distance of about 11 miles. The width of the W -3 corridor was 200 feet (the study corridor for the 1999 EIS), and the width of the W -7 corridor was 500 feet, which is the refined corridor width for all environmental studies being conducted for the current SEIS. For all sites within the right -of -way of a drainage that appeared to have any potential to be considered as a Water of the U.S., the site was first located using a handheld global positioning system (GPS) device, then photographed and evaluated using the criteria in the USACE data sheets referenced above. FINDINGS We encountered nine crossings of drainage features during the field surveys described in the previous section that merited measurement and study, six on W -3 and three on W -7. They are detailed in Table 1, mapped on Figure 6, illustrated by representative photos in Figures 7a -f, and discussed below. The full records for each site are contained in the data sheets and photographs attached as Exhibit B to this report. Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 8 Figure 5 Aerial Imagery of Eastern Part of Study Area from Microsoft Virtual Earth © Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 9 Figure 6a Drainage Crossings on W -3 and W-7, Mauka Section Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 10 Figure 6b Drainage Crossings on W -3 and W-7, Makai Section Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 11 Name of crossing Lat /Long (Decimal Degrees)* Average width /depth (feet) Substrate /Geometry W3 -1 19.7941 155.6393 15/3 Grass shrubs and bedrock, meandering W3 -2 19.7996 155.6522 30/3 Grass meandering W3 -3 19.8172 155.6798 27/6 Grass and bedrock, straight W3 -4 19.8195 155.6843 11/2 Grass meandering W3 -5 19.7938 155.6366 20/3 Grass meandering W3 -6 19.8372 155.7335 10/2 Grass meandering W7 -1 19.7940 155.6401 28/6 Veg, meandering W7 -2 19.7935 155.6413 20/3 Grass meandering W7 -3 19.7935 155.6691 20/4 Grass and bedrock, meandering Table 1 Drainage Crossing Details *Derived by handheld GPS. No high water indicators present at any sites, and all drainages were highly ephemeral. Channel slopes were the same as regional slopes. Individual drainage crossings are described below: • Crossing W3 -1 is typical of most of the other drainages, in that it has a bed that is a combination of bedrock and kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) exhibiting no obvious signs of systematic erosion or deposition or high -water marks, although water clearly flows through on rare occasions. The sideslopes have kikuyu grass, fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), the common native shrub a`ali`i (Dodonea viscosa), and the herb fireweed (Senecio madagascarensis). Although only one of these plants is listed in the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands (Region H), (kikuyu grass, listed as FACU — a plant species that are likely to occur in uplands, but may occasionally be found in wetlands), none of the plants are associated with wetlands. All but a`ali`i are alien introductions. The drainage outlets in a flat area dominated by kikuyu grass and disappears. • Crossings W3 -2, W3 -3, and W3 -4 are very similar to Crossing W3 -1. • Crossing W3 -5 is similar to Crossing W3 -1 in most respects but is on the footslope of the steep cinder cone Pu`u Ke`eke`e and has slightly higher sideslopes. This drainage outlets into the same channel crossed at W3 -1 and W7 -1. • Crossing W3 -6 is in the drier, lower, western half of Keamuku and has only kikuyu grass and fountain grass. In other respects it is similar to the other crossings. This small swale drains into a small flat depression that outlets into an ephemeral gulch that has a number of tributaries and is mapped as a blue -line (but unnamed) stream on USGS maps. This gulch eventually disappears about two miles downhill, approximately eight miles from the Pacific Ocean and any other TNW or RPW. W3 -6 is the only crossing over a swale that is tributary to another drainage. • Crossing W7 -1 is almost identical to W3 -1 and in fact is in a different location on this same short channel. • Crossing W7 -2 is similar to W7 -1 but in an adjacent crease between lava flow hummocks. Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 12 Figure 7a "Channel" in V- shaped contact between linear lava flow hummocks at Crossing W3 -03. Figure 7b Typical "bed' of drainage shows no evidence of flow at Crossing W3 -03. Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 13 Figure 7c As hummock contrast varies, "channels" may disappear and any ephemeral flows widen out and percolate, as here at W3 -02. Figure 7d Downslope view of basin at Crossing W3 -02, below drainage shown in Figure 7c. No channel is present in this basin, which contains alluvial, colluvial and aeolian deposits. Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 14 Figure 7e Typical meandering swale in minor hummock contact zone. Figure 7f Relatively deep incising has occurred in spots on a V- shaped contact zone between a prominent younger' a `a flow type on the south and the ash - covered surface of the central area, at Crossing W7 -03. Cattle and goats erode banks with trails and utilize caves seeking shade. Despite apparent prominence, this "drainage" disappears shortly downhill. Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 15 • Crossing W7 -3 crosses the one drainage that had a length of more than about 600 feet (see Figure 7f). This drainage runs approximately a mile along the clear contact between a young, rocky lava flow (the most northern lobe of the younger flows on the southern end of Keamuku) that runs parallel to and about ten to twenty feet higher than an adjacent older lava flow mantled with ash. As the slope tilts slightly sideways towards the younger lava flow, runoff from occasional storms is channeled down and along this contact zone, where it has eroded some areas as deep as 15 feet. When the cross -slope topography no longer favors sheet flow in extreme rainfall events in the direction of the contact zone, the drainage disappears. None of the nine crossings appear to meet the definition of a Water of the U.S. All are extremely ephemeral, and the channels of all but one (W3 -6) essentially disappear into basins between hills after running for distances of dozens to hundreds of feet. Thus, eight of the drainages are not tributary in any way to any relatively permanent waters (RPWs), such as an intermittent stream, and thereby to potential traditional navigable waters (TNWs). The only exception, the swale crossed in W3 -6, drains into a small flat depression that outlets into an ephemeral gulch that has a number of tributaries and is mapped as a blue -line (but unnamed) stream on USGS maps, but which eventually disappears approximately eight miles from the Pacific Ocean and any other TNW or RPW. Rather than intermittent streams, these drainage features are essentially the V- shaped contacts between hummocky lava flows. Figures 7a -f illustrate essential elements of these drainage features. Almost all rainwater immediately sinks in youthful lava flows, but where ash has mantled the lava flows, a soil forms that is a little less permeable and some runoff occurs in heavy rains. This naturally gets funneled into these Vs, slightly eroding out the soil and ash and in places exposing the bedrock that lies one to four feet beneath the surface. Where the Vs are naturally steep, the erosion is more intense, and where the Vs are gentle, deposition occurs rather than erosion, and the V tends to fill in. At some point along the contact the V will flatten out and disappear, and finally no channel at all is evident, as this runoff simply spreads and percolates. Typically, in between the sets of hummocky lava flows are plains or basins with minor quantities of alluvium, colluvium, and aeolian deposits. The basins generally have no real outlet channel. Even if these drainages were tributary to RPWS, which all but one is not, it would be doubtful that they would have a significant nexus to a TNW. The amount and frequency of flows in such features is minor, and it is doubtful that sediment or water generated in these areas makes its way overland for any significant distance. The ground surface is highly permeable, and where overland runoff is generated, it percolates in natural basins. No habitat for native reptiles or amphibians (none of which exist in Hawai`i), aquatic birds, fish, or invertebrates is present. No wetlands or riparian plants or vegetation are present. In sum, there would appear to be insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical, and /or biological, integrity of the Pacific Ocean, the nearest TNW, which lies a minimum of ten miles from this area. The reasoning for this lack of a significant nexus is also true for W3- 6, the one drainage that is tributary to any other drainage, as it does not connect directly or indirectly to a TNW. Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 16 It is important to note that there are drainages to the north of the area traversed by W -3 and W -7 that vary between highly ephemeral, with flows occurring during a few hours a year, to intermittent, flowing for several days a year. Even there, however, no RPW is present, as no drainage with a flow more than three months per year (or in fact, more than a few days per year) exists in that area. The largest such drainage is Auwaikeakua Gulch, which may have short- duration but impressive flows during heavy rains and has caused floods downstream in Waikoloa Village. None of the tiny drainages intersected by W -3 or W -7 flow into Auwaikeakua Stream or similar gulches. No springs, wetlands or special aquatic sites were observed within the entire study area covered during these field investigations, and none are known to exist in the general area. SUMMARY In summary, no jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. appear to be present, as no wetlands or special aquatic sites are present, and none of the highly ephemeral and poorly developed drainage features meets the criteria of a Water of the U.S. for streams. Specifically, there are no traditional navigable waters (TNWs), relatively permanent waters (RPWs), or non - RPW streams that are tributary to RPWs and /or have a significant nexus to a TNW. Saddle Road Section I Waters of U.S. Report Page 17 [This page intentionally left blank] SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix C Botanical Report [This page intentionally left blank] Botanical Study for Proposed Alignment W -7 for the Realignment of Saddle Road (State Route 200) Prepared for: Hawai`i Department of Transportation Highways Division and U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division Prepared by: Grant Gerrish, Ph.D Laupahoehoe, HI and DMT Associates Honolulu, HI May 28, 2009 Botanical Study for Proposed Alignment W -7 for the Realignment of Saddle Road (State Route 200) Executive Summary This botanical study covers a proposed alternative alignment, identified as Alignment W7, of the portion of the Saddle Road 7 that extends from Mamalahoa Highway eastward to a point on the existing Saddle Road, within the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). The project area is on the leeward (dry) slope of Mauna Kea on open land between about 2600 and 5800 feet above sea level. The annual rainfall is around 20 inches. Approximately 8.9 miles is within Ke`amuku and 1.4 miles is within PTA. After years of military training activities, many of the plant communities of PTA are still dominated by native plants and numerous endangered plants are known from various parts of PTA. In contrast, decades of cattle - grazing in Ke`amuku have profoundly changed the composition and appearance of the vegetation. Three endangered plant species (Haplostachys haplostachya, Stenogyne angustifolia, and Vigna o- wahuensis) were discovered in near the southern border of the Ke`amuku property. The proposed W -7 alignment was carefully positioned to avoid all of the known locations of these endangered species. No endangered plants were found within the proposed project area during the current botanical survey. No other plants or plant communities with significant value for conservation were found within the study area. The vegetation within the Ke ` amuku parcel has been extensively altered by years of cattle - grazing and is now largely pasture land The general appearance is of rolling grasslands on the rugged slope of Mauna Kea with some extensive stands of the indigenous shrub `a `al i `i . The dominant pasture grasses are two widely- spread introduced species, fountaingrass and kikuyugrass. A small number of mostly common, native shrubs and trees are scattered within these grasslands. The vegetation within PTA is only somewhat more intact. Human activity has altered the vegetation, introducing numerous weedy introduced plants but leaving a couple of native species as still dominant plants. Three Endangered Plants Habitats protecting endangered species are near the proposed W -7 Alignment. It is recommended that, if selected, the roadway should be built and managed to reduce the risk of fire spreading from the roadway to these protected areas. Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report Botanical Study for Proposed Alignment W -7 for the Realignment of Saddle Road (State Route 200) Introduction This botanical study has been conducted in conjunction with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed realignment of a portion of Saddle Road (State Route 200). Specifically, this botanical study covers a proposed alternative, identified as Alignment W -7, that extends from Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) eastward to a point between mileposts 41 and 42 of the existing Saddle Road (State Route 200), within the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). Approximately 8.9 miles of this 10.3 mile -long route traverses TMK parcel 6-7-001:041, within the 23,977 acre land known as Ke`amuku, within the ahupua'a of Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii County. The remaining 1.4 miles is within the Pohakuloa Training Area. The purposes of this botanical study are to provide a baseline description of the plants and vegetation of the study area and to locate and identify endangered plant species (if any), other rare species, and other valuable botanical resources within the study area. Numerous endangered and rare plants are known from PTA (USACH 1977; Shaw 1997, and many others). After many years of military training activities, many of the plant communities of PTA are still dominated by native plants and largely native in character. The Ke`amuku parcel has a significantly different land -use history than PTA. Within Ke`amuku, decades of cattle - grazing have profoundly changed the composition and appearance of the vegetation. A recent survey of the Ke`amuku parcel (Arnett 2002) found three endangered species near the southern border of the Ke`amuku property. These are Haplostachys haplostachya, (common name: honohono) a perennial mint with showy white flowers; Stenogyne angustifolia (no common name) a twining mint, and Vigna o- wahuensis (no common name) a very rare legume vine. Prior to 2002, Haplostachys and Stenogyne were only known to exist within PTA and nowhere else. Arnett (2002) recorded and mapped the location of over 8,000 Haplostachys, 11 Stenogyne, and 74 Vigna within Ke`amuku. The proposed W -7 alignment was carefully positioned to avoid all of the known locations of these endangered species. Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report General Description of the Project Area The project area is on the west - facing slope of Mauna Kea. This is the leeward and, therefore, dry slope. This proposed road project traverses open land between about 2600 feet and 5800 feet above sea level. The annual rainfall is around 20 inches, perhaps somewhat dryer at the upper elevation and wetter at the lower. The great majority of the site is on lava flows erupted from Mauna Kea more than 10,000 years ago. A few slivers are on the Ke`amuku flow which came from Mauna Loa 200 to 750 years ago (Wolfe and Morris 1996). The indigenous vegetation would probably have been classified as montane dry shrublands, montane dry grasslands and subalpine dry shrublands. However, the vegetation within the Ke`amuku parcel has been extensively altered by years of cattle - grazing and is now largely a pasture of introduced grasses with scattered shrubs and a very few trees. The indigenous vegetation within PTA is only somewhat more intact. Study Corridor Field Survey Methods The study corridor follows the proposed W -7 Alignment a distance of 54,400 feet from its origin at Mamalahoa Highway to a terminus on the existing Saddle Road within PTA. The study corridor traverses 46,800 linear feet through Ke`amuku and another 7500 linear feet through PTA. The centerline of the proposed right -of -way and the outer limits of the 500 foot - wide study corridor were surveyed and staked by land surveyors before the commencement of this botanical survey. Numbered stakes were placed every 300 feet along the centerline and limits. All vascular plant species observed within the study corridor were identified and recorded. Taxonomy of flowering plants follows Wagner et al. (1990), for the most part, and ferns are named according to Palmer (2003). Estimates of the abundance of each species and vegetation descriptions were also recorded allowing the study corridor to be subdivided into a number of vegetation zones. The abundance estimates integrated observations within each zone. Abundance was recorded as "common," meaning dominant in all or most of the zone; "frequent," meaning occurring in most parts of the zone but usually with relatively little biomass; "infrequent," meaning individuals were seen in only a few parts of the zone or were sparsely scattered within the zone; and "rare," meaning only one or a few individual plants were seen in only one location. An "index of importance" was calculated by arbitrarily assigning the value of 5 to each common species, 3 to frequent species, 1 to infrequent species, and 0 to rare species. These values were totaled and partitioned between native and introduced species in order to give an index of the relative importance, based on abundance. These values are used as a general -3- Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report indicator of the importance of native species in each zone, but cannot be used as quantitative measures of abundance or biomass. Level of Effort The initial botanical survey of the entire alignment was conducted on the 5 6th, 10 and 12 of September, 2008. The field team was led by botanist, Grant Gerrish, who accompanied the technicians on the alignment at all times during the survey. The technicians for the September, 2008, survey were J. Johansen, J. Schulten, and E. Hansen, all graduates or students of the Biology Department, University of Hawaii at Hilo. All have had previous field experience with Hawaiian vegetation. Prior to beginning the survey, all the technicians examined living specimen of the rare plants in the greenhouse at PTA. The botanical survey consisted of a 100% visual, walking survey. This means that the botanists walked along the entire alignment in an orderly manner that ensured visual observation of all parts of the study corridor. Surveys were conducted with three or four team members evenly spaced within one -half the width of the study corridor. That is, the team members were spaced between the staked centerline and the staked outer limit, walking roughly in parallel along the alignment. The team then covered the rest of the corridor by reversing direction and spacing themselves between the centerline and the other outer limit. With a team of three, spacing was approximately 83 feet between workers, requiring each to survey a swath 42 feet wide on either side of him/herself. With a four - member team, spacing was 62 feet between workers and each responsible for 31 foot -wide swaths on either side. The four member team was used on September 6 when surveying vegetation similar to nearby habitat known to support the endangered plants, Haplostachys and Stenogyne. The leader and technicians spent a total of 88 hours in the study corridor. Total area of the study area is calculated as 54,400 linear feet multiplied by 500 foot width or 624.4 acres. This area was surveyed at the rate of 56.8 acres per person day (624.4 acres /88 person hours X 8 person hours per person day = 56.8 acres /person day.) This level of effort and intensity of coverage provided a good probability that a shrub or tree extending above the prevailing grasses would be seen and identified. The probability that a small, solitary plant would be seen if it were lower in height than the prevailing grasses is lower. An additional survey was conducted on May 9, 2009. This survey was timed to follow the seasonal winter and spring rains to increase the probability that any rare plants that might be in the study corridor would be actively growing and more readily found. This survey was conducted along the proposed alignment within the "Native Shrubs Amidst Fountaingrass" vegetation zone (Table 1). Two endangered plants, Haplostachys and Stenogyne, occur within this vegetation type not far from the study corridor. For this survey, the team consisted of Grant Gerrish and four technicians who are employed with the Natural Resources Division at Pohakuloa Training Area. All four technicians have field experience searching for and working with Haplostachys and other endangered plants at PTA. This survey covered approximately 6,000 feet of the study corridor with team members spaced 50 feet apart. -4 Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report Rare and Endangered Plants Results No plants listed as endangered or threatened by the State of Hawaii or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were found within the study area. A small population that appears to be Chamaesyce olowaluana was found in the study corridor at 3600 feet above sea level (24,900 feet from the origin). This is a species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has unofficially named as a "species of concern," meaning that it may be declining. The population consisted of four small individuals that have been grazed and one large, near -dead specimen. The large individual was 6 feet high and approximately 5 inches in diameter at the base, with only a few living leaves present. These plants are tentatively identified as C. olowaluana based on leaf form and the large size of the near -dead, mature specimen. However, the poor condition of all the plants precludes positive identification; the plants could possibly be C. multiformis, a native species that is somewhat more common and not a species of concern. Plant Species of the Proposed W -7 Alignment Study Area A total of 91 species of vascular plants were recorded within the study corridor during the field survey (Appendix). Of these, 15 are endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and 15 are indigenous, meaning they are native to Hawaii and they occur naturally in other places, too. Sixty -one species are introduced, meaning they were brought to Hawaii by people, including one of Polynesian introduction, `ihi `ai (Oxalis corniculata). Only two of the endemic species, `aweoweo (Chenopodium oahuense) and hard - stemmed lovegrass (Eragrostis atropiodes), are common or dominant anywhere in the study area. These two are dominant only where the study corridor leaves Ke`amuku and enters PTA as it approaches the existing Saddle Road. Seven of the fifteen endemic species were recorded as rare within the study area, meaning only one or very few individuals were observed. These findings show that endemic plants have been nearly extirpated from Ke`amuku during years of cattle - grazing. Vegetation of the Proposed W -7 Alignment Study Area Overview of the Vegetation Nearly all of the Ke`amuku parcel has been used for cattle production for many years. Thus, the vegetation of most of the area is pasture, made up of introduced grasses with varying numbers of scattered native shrubs, many introduced forbs (weeds) and a few introduced shrubs and trees. The general appearance is of rolling grasslands on the rugged slope of Mauna Kea with some extensive stands of the indigenous shrub `a 'all' `i (Dodonaea viscosa). From Mamalahoa Highway up to about 4600 feet above sea level, fountaingrass (Pennisetum -5 Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report setaceum) is the single dominant pasture grass. Above this elevation, kikuyugrass (P. clandestinum) becomes the dominant pasture species. Seven different vegetation zones were recognized (Table 1, Figure 1). These are similar to the vegetation zones reported by Arnett (2002). The zones generally correspond primarily to differences in human land -use patterns and secondarily to differences in the substrate. Four of the five zones within Ke`amuku (Fountaingrass with A `ali `i, Native Shrubs Amidst Fountaingrass, Rangeland and `A `ali `i, and Moderate to Dense A `ali `i) differ mainly in the balance between the two introduced pasture grasses (fountaingrass and kikuyugrass) and the abundance of native shrubs. In general, native shrubs are more numerous and diverse where grazing has been less intense. Often, these areas are those with very rocky surface and rugged terrain that may impede access by cattle. The fifth vegetation zone within Ke`amuku is the Ke`amuku Lava Flow, a young, near - barren `a `a flow. A `ali `i, an indigenous shrub, is common in much of the study area and is a dominant species in several vegetation zones in Ke`amuku. It is probable that this abundance is in response to disturbance of the natural vegetation by human actions and does not represent the foundation of a healthy native plant community. A `ali `i is tolerant of the wildfires that are frequent in this environment and it is relatively unpalatable to cattle. Overgrazing may increase the abundance of this native shrub. In contrast, nearly all other native plants in this region decline in response to wildfire and cattle grazing. The two vegetation zones outside of the Ke`amuku parcel near Saddle Road (Eragrostis Grassland and Aheahea Shrubland) are somewhat different having a native grass and native shrubs among the dominant plants. Even here, however, introduced plan species outnumber the natives. Description of the Vegetation Along the Proposed W7 Alignment 2600 -4200 Ft. Elevation: Fountaingrass with `A `ali `i and Sparse Native Shrubs This vegetation type prevails over the lower half of the proposed alignment, extending from the origin at Mamalahoa Highway for 27,400 feet. The overall appearance is of a vast grassland with a small and inconspicuous component of shrubs and small trees. This area is now used for cattle pasture and has been for many decades. The vegetation is introduced grasses and forbs, with widely scattered native shrubs and a few introduced shrubs and trees. This vegetation type is underlain by very stony land partially covered by shallow, fine textured soil. In the lower elevation portion, this covering soil is a fine sandy, mineral soil (Puu Pa soil series) but at higher elevation it is derived mostly from organic matter (Kaimu soil series) (Sato et al. 1973). Community Location Extent (linear feet) Elevation (feet above sea level) % Native Species % Native Importance Index Fountaingrass with Ke`amuku 0- 27,400 2,600 -4,200 34 22 Aal i `i (27,400) Ke`amuku Flow Ke`amuku 27,400- 28,700 4,200-4,300 70 62 (1,300) Native Shrubs Ke`amuku 28,700— 34,600 4,300 -4,600 28 25 Amidst Fountaingrass (5,900) Rangeland and `a 'all `i Ke`amuku 34,600— 44,700 4,600 -5,100 39 26 (10,100) Moderate to Dense Ke`amuku 44,700— 46,800 5,100 -5,200 37 30 `a 'all `i (2,100) Eragrostis Grassland PTA 46,800 — 51,000 5,200 -5,600 37 38 (4,200) Aheahea Shrubland PTA 51,000— 54,400 5,600 -5,800 21 27 (3,300) Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report Table 1. Plant Communities recognized along the W7 Alignment; their location and extent beginning at Mamalahoa Highway; elevation, percentage of total community species that are endemic or indigenous (native), and an index weighted by plant abundance of the importance of native species within the community. Throughout this zone, fountaingrass is the ever - present dominant plant, usually covering 90% or more of the surface. In swales where the surface has been covered by silt, other grasses dominate. At lower elevations, these swales are marked by buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris) and guinea grass (Panicum maximum), at higher elevations within this zone, kikuyugrass dominates these small areas. Natal redtop (Rhynchelytrum repens) and barbwire grass (Cymbopogon refractus) are two other introduced grasses that are relatively wide spread. The most common of the introduced forbs are the ubiquitous and toxic yellow- flowered fire weed (Senecio madagascarensis), Tinaroo glycine (Neonotonia wightii), and black medick (Medicago lupulina) the latter two of which were probably intentionally seeded to improve the quality of the pasture. The most common shrubs are the indigenous `a 'all' `i and, somewhat less common, `ilima. A 'all' `i is variable in cover, ranging from widely scattered to approaching 50% cover in a few places at higher elevation in this zone. Other native shrubs or trees include pukiawe (Leptecophylla tameiameiae), naio (Myoporum sandwicense), `ulei (Osteomeles anthyllidifolia) , and na `ena `e (Dubautia cilliolata), all of which are very widely scattered. One individual, or one small population, was found of 'akia (Wikstroemia pulcherrima) and `akoko (Chamaesyce olowaluana), both endemic large shrubs. The introduced European olive (Olea europaea) is frequently seen in the middle reaches of this zone. It is conspicuous amidst the sea of fountaingrass because its foliage is dense and dark in -7- Q 0 FOUNTAINGRASS WITH A'ALI'I W - 7 ALIGNMENT KEAMUKU FLOW NATIVE SHRUBS AMIDST FOUNTAINGRAS RANGELAND AND A'ALI' I 5000' 2500' 0 RAGROSTI RASSLAN PU' KE 'E KE'E PU'U KAPELE AND KIPUKA KALAWAMAUNA ENDANGERED PLANT HABITATS FIGURE 1. VEGETATION ZONES ALONG THE PROPOSED W7 ALIGNMENT 5000' MODERATE TO DENSE A ALI I 10000' IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 'AHEAHEA SHRUBLAND Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report color. Introduced haole koa (Leucaena leucocephala), although less visible, is frequent at least in some areas, as is indigo (Indigofera suffruticosa) a much smaller shrub. Nineteen of the fifty -six plant species (34 %) recorded in this zone are native species; the rest are introduced, including one of Polynesian introduction. However, the "index of importance," calculated using the estimated frequency values, is only 22% for native species (Table 1). This indicates that the nineteen native species have disproportionately low cover and play a minor roll in the ecology of the vegetation of this zone. 4200 -4300 Ft. Elevation: Ke`amuku Lava Flow A 1300-foot section of the centerline of the study area traverses the sparsely vegetated Ke`amuku Lava Flow. Somewhat more of the southern edge of the study area is also on this flow. This is the only part of the study corridor that is situated on lava from Mauna Loa. The Ke`amuku Flow is very rugged `a `a lava dated to between 200 and 750 years before the present time (Wolfe and Morris 1996). The Ke`amuku Flow is very visible because the nearly- barren, brown lava contrasts with the surrounding pastures and grasslands. The most conspicuous plant species on the Ke`amuku Flow is `ohi `a lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha), however only one individual of this native tree actually falls within the study corridor. Other native trees and shrubs include, naio (Myoporum sandwicense) and pukiawe (Leptecophylla tarneiarneiae) , both of which are common. Many of the introduced plants that are dominant in the surroundings, especially fountaingrass, fireweed and barbwire grass, are also found on the Ke`amuku Flow, however, in much lower densities. Seven of the ten plant species (70 %) within the study corridor on the Ke`amuku Flow are native species. This is the highest percent native species of all the vegetation zones along the proposed alignment. Similarly, the index of importance for native species is the highest here, at 62% (Table 1). These high values for native plants point out that this young lava flow is not easily invaded by introduced plants and the native plants may be more tolerant of the harsh conditions of the barren lava. 4300 -4600 Ft. Elevation: Native Shrubs Amidst Fountaingrass The vegetation of this zone differs from the fountaingrass pastures below the Ke`amuku Flow in that the native shrubs and trees are more dominant and conspicuous here. In places, the `a `ali `i forms about 50% cover and is up to 5 feet high. The other native shrubs, especially `ilima, pukiawe, and na `ena `e, are much more common than at the lower elevation. In certain locations, especially silt -laden swales, the ground cover of fountaingrass is replaced by kikuyugrass, fireweed, black medick, and scarlet sage (Salvia coccinea), all introduced plants. The surface in this zone is much more rocky and rugged than in the fountaingrass grasslands at lower elevation and is mapped in the soil survey as Very Stony Land (Sato et al. 1973). This ruggedness probably accounts for the presence of more species of native plants here. This is the habitat type that supports two endangered native species, Haplostachys haplostachya and -9- Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report Stenogyne angustifolia, a short distance south of the proposed alignment. About 5900 feet of the proposed alignment is within this vegetation type. Although native shrubs are an important component of the vegetation in this zone, there is a large number of introduced plants, including fountaingrass, kikuyugrass and fireweed that rank among the dominants. Thirteen of the 46 (28 %) plant species in this zone are native. The index of importance of native species is even lower at 25 %. Thirteen of the twenty -nine (45 %) plant species found in this vegetation zone are native. The index of importance of native species is somewhat lower at 33% (Table 1). The difference between these two indices reflects the findings that even though there are a substantial number of native species, more introduced plants are among the dominants. These 4600 -5100 Ft. Elevation: Rangeland and `Aa`ali`i An extent of 10,100 feet of the study corridor passes through this heavily degraded rangeland. This zone has the potential for good pasture because the soil here, mapped as Kilohana Loamy Fine Sand (Sato et al. 1973) is much less stony than at lower elevations along the study corridor. This zone includes two subtypes with very different appearances: heavily grazed kikuyugrass pasture and dense stands of `a 'all `i, that is four to five feet high and difficult to pass through. These two subtypes are included together because it appears that they both are the product of heavy cattle grazing over a period of time. A 'all' `i is one of the few native plant species that is relatively tolerant of both cattle grazing and fire. In this zone, the grass is currently cropped very short and appears overgrazed. Even in the grassy areas, shrubs of `a 'all' `i are present, indicating that it is at least as tolerant as the introduced grasses of heavy grazing and the fires that occur in this zone. In fact, it appears that the dense stands of `a 'all' `i are the product of years of overgrazing and probably frequent fire. These extensive areas are no longer of any value for grazing. If intensive grazing continues in the grassy areas, they may be converted to dense `a 'all' `i stands. In these areas, the indigenous `a 'all' `i behaves as a successional species and this vegetation type should not be considered a remnant of the original vegetation. Seven of the eighteen (39 %) plant species found in this zone are native. However, only one of these, `a 'all' `i has a high importance value. The trend noted above of native plant species having disproportionately low cover, and therefore importance values, is strongest in this vegetation zone, resulting in an index of importance for native plants of just 26% (Table 1). 5100 -5200 Ft. Elevation: Moderate to Dense 'A' ali `i At this elevation, the vegetation is somewhat less degraded in that a few other species of native trees and shrubs are sparsely represented. These appear to be remnants of the original vegetation rather that reinvasion following degradation, as in the previous vegetation type. These native plants include mamane (Sophora chrysophylla), ilima (Sida fallax), naio and a single specimen ofpilo (Coprosma montana) seen during the survey. - 10 - Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report A 'all' `i is the dominant species in much of this zone; however, it also includes extensive areas of heavily gazed kikuyugrass with many introduced weeds, including fireweed, black mustard (Brassica nigra) , stinkweed (Tagetes minuta) and crown -beard (Verbesina encelioides). Thirty -seven percent of the plant species recorded are native species; the index of importance for native species is somewhat lower at thirty percent (Table 1). An extent of 2100 linear feet of the study corridor passes through this vegetation type. The underlying soil is mapped as Kilohana Loamy Fine Sand (Sato et al. 1973). 5200 -5600 Ft. Elevation: Eragrostis Grassland At 46,800 linear feet from the origin on Mamalahoa Highway, the study corridor crosses Ke `eke `e Road and leaves the Ke`amuku parcel. This zone east of Ke `eke `e Road has not been grazed, at least in recent years. Here, the dominant grass is the endemic hard - stemmed lovegrass ( Eragrostis atropioides) which forms a near - complete cover in most areas. The terrain is very rugged in the lower half of this zone and native shrubs are common, as are some introduced weedy species. A 'all `i is common and mamane, naio, and `ilima are frequent. Kikuyugrass is the most common of the introduced plants, but orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), stinkweed and fireweed are also abundant. The upper part of the zone, nearing the existing Saddle Road, is a leveler and smoother surface and also more disturbed and degraded by human activities. Here, the native shrubs are less frequent and the weedy introduced species become more prevalent. In this zone, thirty -seven percent of the 38 species recorded are native, and the index of importance for native species is 38% (Table 1). The soil in this zone is mapped as Keekee Loamy Sand, derived from cinder material erupted from nearby Puu Ke`eke`e and other nearby cinder cones (Sato et al. 1973). 5600 -5800 Ft. Elevation: `Aheahea Shrublands At this elevation, the study corridor rejoins the existing Saddle Road and is superimposed over it for an extent of 3300 linear feet before terminating. This zone has an unusual substrate and a unique set of forces of disturbance that support a unique combination of native and introduced plant species. The surface is mapped as a deposit of alluvial and colluvial sand and gravel deposited by gravity and running water (Wolfe and Morris 1996). The dominant plant is the endemic shrub `aweoweo forming a stand about five feet high. The native hard - stemmed lovegrass is also common. Research shows that both of these endemic species are tolerant of disturbance and resprout after fire (Lamb 1981, Sherry et al. 1999). It is probable that this community does not represent the original indigenous plant community but is itself a product of disturbance. Other than those two hardy native species, the vegetation contains a large collection of introduced grasses and weeds, probably associated with continuing human disturbance near Saddle Road. One of the more conspicuous is Russian thistle (or tumbleweed) (Salsola kali). Between the shrubs and other plants, much of the surface is barren and dusty and there is much evidence of human activity. Twenty -one percent of the twenty-four species present are native and the index of importance for native species is only slightly higher at twenty -seven percent (Table 1). Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report Discussion of Potential Adverse Impacts of Proposed Action and Recommendations No endangered plant species or unique, sensitive native plant communities were found within the study corridor. Endangered Plant Habitats have been established within PTA at Kipuka Kalawamauna and Puu Ka Pele. These are the primary sites where honohono (Haplostachys) survives within the Hawaiian Islands (and on Earth) today. Puu Kapele is about 6770 feet southeast and Kipuka Kalawamauna is about 4700 feet south of the proposed W -7 alignment. A third Endangered Plants Habitat has been designated within Ke`amuku to protect and manage Haplostachys and Stenogyne angustifolia. This site is approximately 500 feet west of the proposed W -7 alignment. These sites are managed by the U.S. Army to protect and recover endangered plant species. All three sites have been fenced to exclude feral ungulates. Recommendation These three Endangered Plants Habitats should be protected from any increased risk of wildfire that may originate from the proposed road. Protection should include constructing features in the roadway that minimize the probability that fire will spread from the road, management of roadside vegetation to reduce available fuel, if needed, and a well- designed and well - supported fire suppression plan specifically for the Endangered Plants Habitats. Specific fire protection plans are discussed in the Supplemental EIS. Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report References Arnett, M. 2002. Report of survey for rare plants on the Ke`amuku parcel, Island of Hawaii. Prep. for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado. Lamb, S. H. 1981. Native trees and shrubs of the Hawaiian Islands. The Sunstone Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 158 p. Palmer, D. D. 2003 Hawai`i's Ferns and Fern Allies. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu, HI. 324 p. Sato, H. H., W. Ideda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro, Jr. 1973. Soil Survey of the Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D . C Shaw, Robert. 1997. Rare Plants of Pohakuloa Training Area. Technical Publication Series 97- 24, CEMML, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO. Sherry, K., J. M. Castillo, R. B. Shaw. 1999. Effects of wildfire on vegetation and rare plants in arid montane shrublands. Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii. 1999 Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu, HI. Wagner W. L., D. R. Herbst and S. H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai'i. University of Hawai'i Press /Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu, HI. Wolfe, E. W., and J. Morris. 1996. Geologic Map of the Island of Hawaii. U.S. Geological Survey. 3 sheets + booklet. USACH 1977. Environmental Impact Statement for Pohakuloa Training Area. Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report Vascular plant species found within the Proposed W7 Alignment, Saddle Road. Estimated abundance given for each Vegetation Zone traversed by the study corridor. ORGN = Origin (E = endemic, I = indigenous, P= Polynesian introduction, A = introduced); LF = Life Form (T = tree, S = shrub, H = herb, G = grass or grass -like, F = fern, L = liana or vine). VEGETATION ZONES 1 - Fountaingrass with Audi `i 2 - Ke `amuku Flow 3 - Native Shrubs Amidst Fountaingrass 4 - Rangeland and A 'all' `i 5 - Moderate to Dense A 'all' `i 6 - Eragrostis Grassland 7 - Aheahea Shrubland BOTANICAL NAME VEGETATION ZONES ORGN LF COMMON NAME A F Adianturn hispidulurn Sw. I rough maidenhair fern A S Ageratina riparia (Regel) R R. King & H. Robinson Hamakua pamakani A H Anagalis arvensis L. I pimpernel I F Aspleniurn adianturn- nigrurn L. I twa iwa E F Aspleniurn trichornanes L. subsp. densurn R maidenhair spleenwort E H Argernone glauca Pope pua -kala A G Avena fatua L. wild oat APPENDIX ABUNDANCE WITHIN ZONES C - Common F - Frequent I - Infrequent R - Rare I R I I I I F Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report Vascular plant species found within the Proposed W7 Alignment. (Continued) BOTANICAL NAME VEGETATION ZONES ORGN LF COMMON NAME A H Bidens alba (L.) DC beggar's tick E S Bidens menziesii (Gray) Sherff subsp. filiformis ko'oko'olau A H Bidens pilosa L. R ki nehe, Spanish needle A H Brassica nigra (L.) W.Koch black mustard A G Brornus rigidus Roth ripgut grass A G Brornus willdenowii Kunth rescue grass E G Carex wahuensis C. A. Mey. R no common name A G Cenchrus ciliaris L. C buffelgrass A H Centaurea rnelitensis L. yellow star thistle A H Centaureurn erythraea Rafn. I bitter herb A H Chamaecrista nicitans (L.) Moench F partridge pea E T Chamaesyce olowaluana (Sherff) R Croizat & Degener `akoko A H Chenopodium arnbrosioides L. Mexican tea E S Chenopodium oahuense (Meyen) Aellen 'aheahea - 15 - 2 3 4 I I 5 I I I I F C Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report Vascular plant species found within the Proposed W7 Alignment. (Continued) BOTANICAL NAME VEGETATION ZONES ORGN LF COMMON NAME A H Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. I bull thistle I L Coculus trilobus (Thunb.) DC I huehu A H Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronq. I hairy horseweed A H Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. I horseweed E T Coprosrna rnontana Hbd. pilo A H Crotolaria pallida Aiton R smooth rattlepod 2 A G Cymbopogon refractus (R. Br.) A. Camus F F barbwire grass A G Dactylis glornerata L. I orchardgrass A H Desrnodiurn sandwicense E. Mey. R Spanish clover I S Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. C `a `ali `i E S Dubautia cilliolata (DC) Keck R na'ena'e E G Eragrostis atropioides Hillebr. hard - stemmed lovegrass A T Eucalyptus cf. citridora Hook. lemon - scented gum A H Galiurn divaricaturn Pourr. ex Lam. bedstraw A H Geranium horneanurn Turcz. I cranesbill - 16 - 3 4 F I I 5 I F I F R I C C F I C Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report Vascular plant species found within the Proposed W7 Alignment. (Continued) BOTANICAL NAME VEGETATION ZONES ORGN LF COMMON NAME A H Helichrysum foetidum (L.) Cass. stinking everlasting A H Heterotheca gi^andiflora Nutt. telegraph plant A G Holcus lanatus L. velvetgrass A S Indigofera suffruticosa Mill. F indigo I V Ipomoea indica (J. Burm.) Merr. I morning glory A H Lepidiurn virginicurn L. I pepperwort I S Leptecophylla tameiameiae I (Cham. & Schltdl.) C.M. Weiller pukiawe A S Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit F koa haole I H Lythrurn rnaritirnurn Kunth R pukarnole A H Marrubiurn vulgare L. common horehound A H Medicago lupulina L. I black medick A H Medicago polyrnorpha bur clover A H Melilotus alba Medik. R white sweet clover A G Melinis minutiflora Beauv. I molassesgrass - 17- 2 3 4 I F 5 I I F F I I F I I Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report Vascular plant species found within the Proposed W7 Alignment. (Continued) BOTANICAL NAME VEGETATION ZONES ORGN LF COMMON NAME E T Metrosideros polyrnorpha Gaud. var. incana 'ohi'a -lehua I T Myoporurn sandwicense A. Gray I F naio A H Neonotonia wightii (Am.) Lackey C Tinaroo glycine A T Olea europaea L. I 'oliw, olive I S Osteomeles anthyllidifolia (Sm) Lindl. I `ulei A T Oppuntia ficus- indica(L.) Mill. I panini P H Oxalis corniculata L. I 'ihi'ai, yellow wood sorrel A G Panicurn maximum Jacq. C Guinea grass A L Passiflora suberosa L. R huehue haole 1 2 I I F Pellaea ternifolia (Cap.) Link R F cliffbrake A G Pennisetum clandestinurn Hochst. ex Chiov. F kikuyugrass A G Pennisetum setaceum (Forsk.) Chiov. C C fountaingrass I H Peperornia leptostachya Hook & Arnott R `ala `ala wai nui A H Petrorhagia velutina (Gaus.) Ball &Heyw. childing pink - 18 - 3 4 5 6 R R I I R I I I I I C C C CI CF F I I 7 Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report Vascular plant species found within the Proposed W7 Alignment. (Continued) BOTANICAL NAME VEGETATION ZONES ORGN LF COMMON NAME A H Picris hieracioides L. hawkweed I F Psilotum nudum (L.) Griseb. R moa 3 4 5 6 1 2 I A H Plantago lanceolata L. I I I I narrow- leaved plantain I F Pleopeltis thunbergiana Kaulf. F I F pakahakaha E F Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn I I var. decompositum (Gaud.) Tryon bracken A G Rhynchelytrum repens (Willd.) Hubb. F F F F Natal redtop A H Rurnex acetosella L. I sheep sorrel E S Rurnex giganteus W. T. Aiton I pawale A H Salsola kali L. I I Russian thistle A H Salvia coccinea B.Juss ex Murray F scarlet sage E T Santalurn paniculaturn Hook. & Arnott R 'iliahi A H Senecio rnadagascariensis Poiret F C C C C F Madagascar ragwort, fireweed I S Sida fallax Walp. I I C I I F ?lima A H Silene gallica L. I small - flowered catchfly - 19- I I 7 C F I Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Botanical Report Vascular plant species found within the Proposed W7 Alignment. (Continued) BOTANICAL NAME VEGETATION ZONES ORGN LF COMMON NAME I H Solanurn arnericanurn Mill. popolo, nightshade A H Sonchus oleraceus L. pualele E T Sophora chrysophylla (Salisb.) Seem mamane A G Sporobolus indicus (L.) R. Br. I West Indian dropseed A H Tagetes rninuta L. stinkweed A H Verbascurn thapsus L. common mullein A H Verbena litoralis Kunth I vervain A H Verbesina encelioides (Cay.) Benth. &Hook I crown -beard A H Vicia villosa Roth I hairy vetch A G Vulpia bromoides (L.) S.F. Gray brome fescue A H Wahlenbergia gracillis no common name I S Waltheria indica L. I uhaloa E S Wikstroernia pulcherrirna Skottsb. R 'akia 3 4 5 6 1 2 R I F F I I I F F I I F F F I 7 F I F [This page intentionally left blank] SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix D Vertebrate Fauna Report Avian and Terrestrial Mammalian Species Surveys Conducted on the W -7 Alignment of the Hawaii State Route 200 - Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 6 Saddle Road Realignment Project North Kona District, Island Of Hawaii. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division Project No. A -AD -6 (1) Prepared by: Reginald E. David Rana Biological Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 1371 Kailua -Kona, Hawai `i 96745 Prepared for: DMT Associates 677 Ala Moana Blvd, Suite 703 Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813 September 22, 2009 Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 General Site and Project Description 6 Mammalian Survey Methods 6 Mammalian Survey Results 8 Avian Survey Methods 10 Avian Survey Results 10 Discussion 12 Mammalian Resources 12 Avian Resources 13 Potential Impacts to Protected Vertebrate Species 15 Hawaiian Hoary Bat 15 Nene 13 Hawaiian Petrel and Newell's Shearwater 15 Recommendations 15 Glossary 16 Literature Cited 17 Figures & Tables Figure S -1. Saddle Road overall map 4 Figure 1. W -7 Alignment 5 Figure 3. Fountain grass dominated western end of W -7 7 Figure 4. `A `ali `i and grass shrubland W -7 7 Figure 5. Heavily grazed grass land with Madagascar ragwort upper third of W -7 8 Figure 6. Goats (Capra h. hirca) Mid level W -7 10 Table 1. Mammalian Species Detected Saddle Road W -7 Alignment 9 Table 2. Avian Species Detected Saddle Road W -7 Alignment 11 Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 2 Introduction The State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division (HDOT), in consultation with the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), Central Federal Lands Highway Division is proposing to realign and improve the Saddle Road (State Route 200), from Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 6 on the Hilo side of the island, (hereinafter Saddle Road Improvement Project) (Figure S -1). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision for the Saddle Road improvements were completed in 1999 (FHWA, et al. 1999). As part of the EIS process, twelve action alternatives incorporating use of the existing alignment and potential new alignments were considered. The project was divided into four different sections (Sections I, II, III, and IV) for purposes of alternative development and selection, as well as project scheduling (Figure 1). In the intervening years since the release of the EIS, the Department of the Army has purchased a large section of land in the Ke`amuku area from Parker Ranch. This development has rendered the selected alignment, W -3, in Section I to no longer fulfill one of the key purposes and needs of the proposed improvement project, namely the separation of military training activity from the general driving public using the Saddle Road. Another alignment, W -7, has been proposed and studied to fulfill the need to separate civilian traffic from military training activities. This report documents the avian and mammalian studies that were conducted as part of the revised project and will be included in the supplemental EIS that is currently being prepared. The primary purpose of the survey that I report on in this document was to determine if there were any avian or mammalian species currently listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing under either the federal or the State of Hawai`i's endangered species programs on, or within the immediate vicinity of the proposed W -7 alignment. Federal and State of Hawai`i listed species status follows species identified in the following referenced documents (Division of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) 1998, Federal Register 2005, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2005, 2009). Fieldwork was conducted in June 2009. Avian phylogenetic order and nomenclature follows The American Ornithologists ' Union Check- list of North American Birds 7 Edition (American Ornithologists' Union 1998), and the 42 through the 49 supplements to Check -list of North American Birds (American Ornithologists' Union 2000; Banks et al. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008). Mammal scientific names follow Mammals in Hawaii (Tomich 1986). Place names follow Place Names of Hawaii (Pukui et al. 1974). Hawaiian and scientific names are italicized in the text. A glossary of technical terms and acronyms used in the document, which may be unfamiliar to the reader, are included at the end of the narrative text on Page 16. Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 3 NORTH KONA 0 2.5 5 10 GRAPHIC SCALE IN MILES PU'UANAHULU GAME MANAGEMENT AREA O O OCEAN PACIFIC HAWAII 000000000 PTA 000000000° O H A K U L O A T R A I N I N G A R E A ° vv vvvvvvvvv IMPACT 000000v vvvvvvvvvv - _ - vvv vvvv v v v v AREA '00000000vo �===== � = = = == vvvvvvv- - vvvvvvvvvvvvv vv vvvvv• vvvvvvvvvvvvv vvvvv vvvvvvvvvvvvv == _ vvvvv vvvvvvvvvvvv ---- vvv -vvvvv v,vvvvv _��`°�� vvvvvvvvvvvv = v °6vv vvvvvvv vvv - vvvvvvvv -- - vv vv vvvvvvvv ROAD RECONST 0 Kawaihae Mauna Kea Beach Hotel Hapuna Beach Park * Puak Mauna Lani Resort In Hilton Waikoloa XEholo By O +5380 Kohala Mountains Waikoloa Village SECiTI0 Waiko, Honoka a ODD Pa'auilo Wai'aka l _, - WAI M EA' �� KAMUELA' AIRPORT i°�. MOnO\ --___, d - , ROAD (4WD) SECTION I MANA I '�.. _ E Q T I 0 N I I I Keanakolu i T HE SADDLE O ROAD PROJEC1 r l ', � 1 � 1 / I S p I l GIRL SCOUT CAMP ) + 13,796 MP 42 '-A MAUNA KEA t(' A BRADSHAW ARM ® AIRFIELD 1 Puaakala MAUNA KEA m _ �" / STATE PARK �J f ' n ; o , C / � )z 2D MP 8 J UCTION COMPLETED r oc-ss Kulani Lau'pahoehoe MP 11 _ M KAUMANA CITY HI HI SR 200(W7) STATE SADDLE ROAD PROJECT SHEET TOTAL NO. SHEETS S E C T I O N I V Hakalau Kolekole Park Honomu Pepe'ekeo Papai'kou HARBO , Kea'au Kurtistown U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION FIGURE S -1 SADDLE ROAD PROJECT Scale: As Noted Date: Sept. 2009 SHEET No. 1 OF 1 KAWAIHAE NORTH KONA PRdJE SITE • HONOKAA .5 5 10 GRAPHIC SCALE IN MILES NORTH HILO SOUTH HILO Waiki'i Ranch PU'UANAHULU GAME MANAGEMENT AREA 0 0 PACIFIC Hilton Waikoloa Waikoloa Village W aikoloa Rd IMP_AC_fi SECTON I AREA GIRL SCOUT CAMP MP 42 CDder /- - — PTA — 7 §-iCTION STAT! HI SADDLE ROAD PROJECT HI SR 200(W7) SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEkTS MAUNA KEA r U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION FIGURE 1 W-7 ALIGNMENT Scale: As Noted Date: Sept. 2009 SHEET No. 1 OF 1 General Site and Project Description The W -7 alignment gently slopes from east to west, from an elevation of — 1765 meters (5800 - feet), above mean sea level (ASL), along the existing Saddle Road, down slope to where it will intersect the existing Mamalahoa Highway at — 760 meters (2493 -feet) ASL. The alignment is roughly 10.3 miles long, with approximately 8.9 miles within TMK: 6 -7- 001:041: the remaining 1.4 miles of the alignment goes through a portion of the main Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) (Figure 1). The project area is on the west - facing slope of Mauna Kea, on the leeward side of the island. Annual rainfall is in the neighborhood of 50 centimeters (20- inches) a year, with the upper reaches somewhat drier. The terrain present along the alignment is composed of a mix of `a `a and pahoehoe lava flows disgorged from Mauna Kea more than 14,000 and 65,000 years ago during the Pleistocene Age. Additionally there are surficial alluvial deposits in many areas, which were washed down from Mauna Kea at the end of the last ice age. Along the southern boundary of the area several small fingers of `a `a from the Ke`amuku flow, deposited by Mauna Loa between 200 and 750 years ago overlay portions of the older Mauna Kea flows (Wolfe and Morris 1996). The vast majority of the site has been extensively altered by decades of cattle grazing and is now largely a pasture of introduced grasses with scattered shrubs and very few trees. The vegetation between the eastern terminus of the project and approximately the 4200 foot level is dominated by fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), with sparse amounts of `a `alil `i (Dodenea viscose), and numerous other alien grasses and Madagascar ragwort (Senecio madagascariensis) (Figure 2). At the lower elevations in this section there are also pockets buffelgrasss (Cenchrus ciliaris), Guinea grass (Panicum maximum), and Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum). Between the 4300 foot and 4600 foot elevation the makeup of the vegetation is similar to that found in the lower section, except that in this zone the native species are dominate, with large dense stands of `a `ali `i making up to 50% of the ground cover (Figure 3). Between the 4300 -foot elevation and the boundary of the Ke`amuku parcel and PTA proper the habitat is similar to the previously described ones, but with varying densities of the component species, as is to be expected in pastureland that is grazed on a rotational basis (Figure 4). Between approximately 5200 -feet ASL and the eastern terminus of the project the substrate is markedly different than that found lower on the alignment, in this area is made up of alluvial and colluvial sand and gravel deposited by the erosion of Mauna Kea by the melting of the last ice cap. On this substrate the dominate plant is the endemic shrub `aheahea (Chenopodium oahuense). Mammalian Survey Methods With the exception of the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), or `ope `ape `a as it is known locally, all terrestrial mammals currently found on the Island of Hawai`i are alien species. Most are ubiquitous. The survey of mammals was limited to visual and auditory detection, coupled with visual observation of scat, tracks, and other animal sign. A running tally was kept of all vertebrate species observed and heard within the project area. Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 6 Figure — 3 Fountain grass dominated western end of W -7 Figure — 4 `A `ali `i and grass shrubland W -7 Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 7 Figure - 5 Heavily grazed grass land with Madagascar ragwort upper third of W -7 Mammalian Survey Results A total of nine mammalian species were detected during the course of this survey (Table 1). Several European house mice (Mus musculus domesticus) were seen at various locations within the site. Small Indian mongooses (Herpestes a. auropunctatus) were seen at several locations, predominantly on the western third of the alignment. Several horses (Equus c. caballus) were seen within the Ke`amuku parcel. Pigs (Sus s. scrofa), domestic cattle (Bos taurus), and feral goats (Capra h. hirca), and feral sheep (Ovis aries) were seen in numbers along the whole length of the Ke`amuku parcel. Additionally, tracks, scat and sign of dog (Canis f. familiaris), small Indian mongoose, cat (Fells c. catus), horse, pig, cattle, goat and sheep were encountered throughout the Ke`amuku parcel. Of particular note were the numerous very large flocks of goats seen in the mid -to -upper elevation areas of the alignment; over 400 animals were seen a day (Figure 6). All nine of the mammals recorded are considered to be alien to the Hawaiian Islands. Hawai `i `s sole endemic terrestrial mammalian species, the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, was not detected during the course of this survey. Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 8 Table 1 - Mammalian Species Detected Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Common name Scientific name Det /Type European house mouse Domestic horse Key To Table 1 Saddle Road W - 7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 9 RODENTIA - Gnawers Muridae - Old World Rats & Mice Mus musculus domesticus V CARNIVORA- Flesh Eaters Canidae - Wolves, Jackals & Allies Domestic dog Canis f. familiaris Si Viverridae - Civets & Allies Small Indian mongoose Herpestes a. auropunctatus V, Si, Skel Felidae- Cats House cat Felis catus Si PERISSODACTYLA - Odd -Toed Ungulates Equidae - Horses, Asses & Zebras Equus c. caballus V, Si ATRIODACTYLA - Even -Toed Ungulates Suicidae - Old World Swine Pig Sus s. scrofa V, Si Bovidae- Hollow - horned Ruminants Domestic cattle Bos taurus V, Si, Skel Goat Capra h. hircus V, Si, Skel Domestic sheep Ovis aries V, Si, Det /Type Detection type V Visual — animals that were seen Skel Skeleton — animals that were detected through observation of skeletal remains A Audio — animals that were detected by sound Si Sign — animals that were detected by seeing tracks, scat and other sign Avian Survey Methods Forty -five avian count stations were sited along the W -7 alignment. Count stations were placed at approximately 350 -meter intervals equally spaced along the proposed right -of -way. Six - minute point counts were made at each of the 45 -count stations. Each station was counted once. Field observations were made with the aid of Leitz 10 X 42 binoculars and by listening for vocalizations. Counts were concentrated between 06:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., the peak of daily bird activity. Avian Survey Results Figure — 6 Goats (Capra h. hirca) Mid level W -7 A total of 749 individual birds of 27 different species, representing 18 separate families, were recorded during station counts (Table 2). Three of the species recorded, Pacific Golden - Plover (Pluvialis fulva), Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres), and Short -eared Owl (Asio flammeus sandwichensis) are native species. The Pacific Golden - Plover, and Ruddy Turnstone are indigenous migratory shorebird species that nests in the high Arctic during the late spring and summer months, returning to Hawai`i and the Tropical Pacific to spend the fall and winter months each year. They usually leave Hawai`i for their trip back to the Arctic in late April or the very early part of May each year, though as evidenced by this surveys results small numbers of both of these species over - summer in Hawai`i. The Hawaiian endemic sub - species of the Short -eared Owl, or Pueo is a diurnal bird of prey, regularly seen within the grassland areas in North and Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 10 South Kohala. The remaining 24 avian species detected are all considered to be alien to the Hawaiian Islands. Avian diversity and densities were low, though in keeping with the habitat present within the project area. I recorded no birds at one of the 45 -count station. Two species, Sky Lark (Alauda arvensis), and House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), accounted for slightly less than 54% of the total number of birds recorded during station counts. The most common avian species recorded was Sky Lark, which accounted for slightly less than 40% of the total number of individual birds recorded. An average of 17 individual birds were recorded per station count. Table 2 - Avian Species Detected Saddle Road W -7 Alignment Common Name Gray Francolin Francolinus pondicerianus A 0.31 Black Francolin Francolinus francolinus A 0.51 Erckel's Francolin Francolinus erckelii A 1.20 Japanese Quail Coturnix japonica A 0.11 Ring - necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus A 0.20 Meleagridinae - Turkeys Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo A 0.42 ODONTOPHORIDAE - New World Quail California Quail Callipepla californica A 0.22 CHARADRIIFORMES CHARADRIIDAE - Lapwings & Plovers Charadriinae - Plovers Pacific Golden - Plover Pluvialis fulva IM 0.11 SCOLOPACIDAE - Sandpipers, Phalaropes & Allies Scolopacinae - Sandpipers & Allies Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres IM 0.24 PTEROCLIDIDAE - Sandgrouse Chestnut - bellied Sandgrouse Pterocles exustus A 0.31 Rock Pigeon Spotted Dove Zebra Dove Barn Owl Table 2 continued Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 11 Scientific Name GALLIFORMES PHASIANIDAE - Pheasants & Partridges Phasianinae - Pheasants & Allies COLUMBIFORMES COLUMBIDAE - Pigeons & Doves Columba livia Streptopelia chinensis Geopelia striata ST RA A 0.71 A 0.11 A 0.38 STRIGIFORMES TYTONIDAE - Barn Owls Tyto alba A 0.04 Common Name Scientific Name ST RA STRIGIDAE - Typical Owls Short -eared Owl Asio flammeus sandwichensis ES 0.09 PASSERIFORMES ALAUDIDAE - Larks Sky Lark Alauda arvensis A 6.58 ZOSTEROPIDAE - White -Eyes Japanese White -eye Zosterops japonicus A 0.16 MIMIDAE - Mockingbirds & Thrushes Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos A 0.18 STURNIDAE - Starlings Common Myna Acridotheres tristis A 0.29 EMBERIZIDAE - Emberizids Saffron Finch Sicalis flaveola A 0.27 CARDINALIDAE - Cardinals Saltators & Allies Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis A 0.20 FRINGILLIDAE - Fringilline And Cardueline Finches & Allies Carduelinae - Carduline Finches House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus A 2.36 Yellow - fronted Canary Serinus mozambicus A 0.27 PASSERIDAE - Old World Sparrows House Sparrow Passer domesticus A 0.04 ESTRILDIDAE - Estrildid Finches Estrildinae - Estrildine Finches Red Avadavat Amandava amandava A 0.16 African Silverbill Lonchura cancans A 0.87 Nutmeg Mannikin Lonchura punctulata A 0.31 KEY TO TABLE 1 ST Status A Alien Species IM Indigenous Migratory Species ES Endemic Sub - species RA Relative Abundance — number of individual birds detected divided by the number of stations (45) Discussion Mammalian Resources The findings of the mammalian survey are consistent with at least one other faunal survey conducted on portions of the W -7 alignment (David 1996a), as well as with several other surveys conducted within similar habitat in the South Kohala District, or on lands that are adjacent to portions of the project alignments within the recent past (David 1999b, 2002, 2004, David and Guinther 2006). Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 12 Although not detected during the course of this survey, it is likely that Hawaiian hoary bats over- fly portions of the proposed right -of -way on a seasonal basis, as bats have been documented within mauka portions of the PTA facility, and south of the western terminus in Waikoloa Village on a seasonal basis (Jacobs 1994, Cooper et al., 1992, David 2009). There is no suitable Hawaiian hoary bat roosting habitat present within, or close to the W -7 alignment. Several European house mice were detected at several locations along the corridors surveyed. Additionally, it is likely that roof rats (Rattus r. rattus), Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), and possibly Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans hawaiiensis) utilize resources within the general project site on a seasonal basis within the project area. All of the other mammalian species recorded during the course of this survey are commonly occurring species present on farmland, pasturage and the grasslands present in the general project area. All of these mammals are considered alien to the Hawaiian Islands, and none are protected under either state or the federal endangered species statutes. Avian Resources The findings of this survey are consistent with at least one other avian surveys conducted on portions of the W -7 alignment (David 1996a), as well as with several other surveys conducted within similar habitat in the South Kohala District, or on lands that are adjacent to portions of the project alignments within the recent past (David 1999b, 2002, 2004, David and Guinther 2006). During the course of this survey I recorded a slightly higher number of avian species and numbers than I did during the 1996 survey of the same general area. These findings are not surprising as the habitat present on the site during 1996 was even more depauperate than encountered during this survey; many areas within the Ke`amuku parcel were bare ground in 1996, due to a multi- year drought. The vegetation present on the site during the course of this survey was verdant when compared to that found in 1996. The Ke`amuku parcel is as green as I have seen it in the 35 years that I have lived on the island. A total of 27- different avian species were recorded during the time spend within the project area (Table 2). Three of the species recorded, Pacific Golden - Plover, Ruddy Turnstone, and the Hawaiian endemic sub - species of the Short -eared Owl are considered to be native to the Hawaiian Islands. As previously stated Pacific Golden - Plover and Rudy Turnstone are regularly seen throughout Hawai`i between the months of July and early May, though as evidenced by this surveys results small numbers of both of these species over - summer in Hawai`i. Short -eared Owls are an uncommon, irruptive diurnal owl species that are still found in goodly numbers on the Big Island, where it is most frequently encountered in open grassland areas, though usually in somewhat less xeric conditions that present within most of this project area. The remaining 24 avian species detected are all considered to be alien to the Hawaiian Islands. No species currently listed, or proposed for listing under either the US Federal or the State of Hawai`i endangered species programs was detected during the course of this survey. Although not detected during the course of this survey the endangered Nene (Branta sandwichensis) has been recorded in low numbers within the Ke`amuku parcel. During the 1996 Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 13 survey of two alignments (W -3 and W -4) that were located parallel to the W -7 alignment, one to the north and the other to the south, I saw one Nene in an area close to the current alignment. Since the Army purchased the Ke'amoku parcel their biologists have reported seeing < 2 Nene on several occasions close to the western terminus of this alignment, including one apparent nesting attempt north of the W -7 alignment in 2008. The repeated sightings of Nene within the general area have apparently involved three separate individual birds (Lena Schnell 2009, personnel communication). Although not detected during this survey, it is possible that small numbers of the endangered endemic Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), and the threatened Newell's Shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli), over -fly the project area between the months of May and November (Banko 1980a, 1980b, Harrison 1990, Cooper et al., 1992, Day et al., 2003a). Hawaiian Petrels were formerly common on the Island of Hawai`i (Wilson and Evans 1890- 1899). This pelagic seabird reportedly nested in large numbers on the slopes of Mauna Loa and in the saddle area between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea (Henshaw 1902), as well as at the mid -to- high elevations of Mount Hualalai. It has, within recent historic times, been reduced to relict breeding colonies located at high elevations on Mauna Loa and, possibly, Mount Hualalai (Banko 1980a, Banko et al. 2001, Cooper and David 1995, Cooper et al. 1995, Day et al. 2003a, Harrison 1990, Simons and Hodges 1998). Hawaiian Petrels were first listed as an endangered species by the USFWS) in 1967 and by the State of Hawai`i in 1973 (Federal Register 1967, DLNR 1998) Newell's Shearwaters were formerly common on the Island of Hawai`i (Wilson and Evans 1890- 1899). This species breeds on Kaua`i, Hawai`i, and Moloka`i. Newell's Shearwater populations have dropped precipitously since the 1880s (Banko 1980b, Day et al., 2003b). This pelagic species nests high in the mountains in burrows excavated under thick vegetation, especially uluhe (Dicranopteris linearis) fern. Newell's Shearwater was listed as a threatened species by the USFWS in 1975 and by the State of Hawai`i in 1973 (Federal Register 1975, DLNR 1998). The primary cause of mortality in both Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters is thought to be predation by alien mammalian species at the nesting colonies (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1983, Simons and Hodges 1998, Ainley et al. 2001, Hue et al., 2001). Collision with man -made structures is considered to be the second most significant cause of mortality of these seabird species in Hawai`i. Nocturnally flying seabirds, especially fledglings on their way to sea in the summer and fall, can become disoriented by exterior lighting. When disoriented, seabirds often collide with manmade structures, and if they are not killed outright, the dazed or injured birds are easy targets of opportunity for feral mammals (Hadley 1961, Telfer 1979, Sincock 1981, Reed et al. 1985, Telfer et al. 1987, Cooper and Day 1998, Podolsky et al. 1998, Ainley et al. 2001). There is no suitable nesting habitat within or close to the proposed project site for either of these pelagic seabird species. Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 14 Potential Impacts to Protected Vertebrate Species Hawaiian Hoary Bat As previously discussed, it is likely that Hawaiian hoary bats overfly portions of the alignment on a seasonal basis. They may also forage for volant insects over portions of the project area on a seasonal basis, though the xeric nature of the habitat present and the lack of dense vegetation within the site likely means that there is little in the way of food resources that might attract a bat to the area. Currently there is no suitable bat roosting habitat along the entire length of the project corridor, so it is unlikely that the clearing, grubbing construction and operation of a roadway through the area will result in deleterious impacts to this listed species. Nene The principal potential risk that the operation of the proposed roadway poses to Nene is that birds may be attracted to the roadway following build out in search of water, heat and gravel along the roadbed. Motorists on several of the Big Islands roadways have hit Nene over the past few years. Hawaiian Petrel and Newell's Shearwater The principal potential impact that construction and operation of the proposed alignment poses to Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters is the increased threat that birds will be downed after becoming disoriented by lights associated with the project. The two main project specific actions that pose a potential threat to these nocturnally flying seabirds are: 1) during construction if it is deemed expedient, or necessary to conduct nighttime construction activities, 2) if streetlights are required for traffic safety reasons following build -out of the roadway. Recommendations If nighttime construction activity, be it actual construction activity or equipment maintenance is proposed during the construction phase of the project, all associated lights should be shielded, and when large flood /work lights are used they should be placed on poles that are high enough to allow the lights to be pointed directly at the ground. If streetlights are installed in conjunction with the new road, it is recommended that lights be shielded to reduce the potential for interactions of nocturnally flying Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters with external lights and man -made structures (Reed et al. 1985, Telfer et al. 1987). This minimization measure would serve the dual purpose of minimizing the threat of disorientation and downing of Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters, while at the same time complying with the Hawaii County Code § 14 — 50 et seq. which requires the shielding of exterior lights so as to lower the ambient glare caused by unshielded lighting to the astronomical observatories located on Mauna Kea. Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 15 Since there are potential issues associated with Nene, Hawaiian Petrel and Newell's Shearwaters it is recommend that the project consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the endangered species act, to ensure compliance with that statute. Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 16 Glossary: `A `a - Clinker lava formed by slow moving lava flows Alien — Introduced to Hawai`i by humans Commensal - Animals that share humans' food and shelter, such as rats and mice Crepuscular — Twilight hours Diurnal — Daytime Endangered — Listed and protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended as an endangered species. Endemic — Native and unique to the Hawaiian Islands Indigenous — Native to the Hawaiian Islands, but also found elsewhere naturally Mauka — Upslope, towards the mountains Makai — Down - slope, towards the ocean Nocturnal — Night -time, after dark Pahoehoe — Sheet lava formed by relatively fast moving lava flows `Ope `ape `a — Hawaiian hoary bat Pelagic — An animal that spends its life at sea — in this case seabirds that only return to land to nest and rear their young Phylogenetic — The evolutionary order that organisms are arranged by Pueo — Hawaiian endemic sub - species of the Short -eared Owl Sign — Biological term referring tracks, scat, rubbing, odor, marks, nests, and other signs created by animals by which their presence may be detected Threatened — Listed and protected under the ESA as a threatened species Volant — Flying, capable of flight, as in flying insect Xeric - Extremely dry conditions or habitat ASL — Above mean sea level DLNR — Hawaii State Department of Land & Natural Resources TMK — Tax Map Key USFWS — United State Fish & Wildlife Service Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 17 Literature Cited: Ainley, D. G, R. Podolsky, L. Deforest, G. Spencer, and N. Nur. 2001. The Status and Population Trends of the Newell's Shearwater on Kaua'i: Insights from Modeling, In: Scott, J. M, S. Conant, and C. Van Riper III (editors) Evolution, Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Hawaiian Birds: A Vanishing Avifauna. Studies in Avian Biology No. 22:. Cooper's Ornithological Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. (Pg. 108 -123) American Ornithologist's Union. 1998. Check -list of North American Birds. 7th edition. AOU. Washington D.C. 829pp. .2000. Forty - second supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Check -list of North American Birds. Auk 117:847 -858. Banks, R. C., C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J. D. Rising, and D. F. Stotz. 2002. Forty -third supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Check -list of North American Birds. Auk 119:897 -906. . 2003 Forty -fourth supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Check -list of North American Birds. Auk 120:923 -931. .2004 Forty -fifth supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Check -list of North American Birds. Auk 121:985 -995. . 2005 Forty -sixth supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Check -list of North American Birds. Auk 122:1031 -1031. .2006 Forty- seventh supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Check -list of North American Birds. Auk 123:926 -936. Banks, R. C., C. R. Terry Chesser, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J. D. Rising, and D. F. Stotz. 2007 Forty- eighth supplement to the American Ornithologist Union Check -list of North American Birds. Auk 124:1109-1115. Banks, R. C., C. R. Terry Chesser, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J. D. Rising, and D. F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2008 Forty - ninth supplement to the American Ornithologist Union Check -list of North American Birds. Auk 125:758 -768. Banko, W. E. 1980a. Population Histories- Species Accounts Seabirds: Hawaiian Dark - rumped Petrel ('Ua'u). Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Botany, Technical Report #5B. . 1980b. Population Histories- Species Accounts Seabirds: Newell's Shearwater ('A'o). Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Botany, Technical Report #5A. Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 18 Banko, P. C., R. E. David, J. D. Jacobi, and W. E. Banko. 2001. Conservation Status and Recovery Strategies for Endemic Hawaiian Birds, In: : Scott, J. M, S. Conant, and C. Van Riper III (editors) Evolution, Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Hawaiian Birds: A Vanishing Avifauna. Studies in Avian Biology No. 22. Cooper's Ornithological Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas (Pg. 359 -376). Cooper, B.A., R.E. David, and R.J. Blaha. 1995. Radar and Visual Surveys of Endangered Seabirds and Bats in the Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawai`i, During Summer 1995. Prepared for R.M. Towill Corporation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Division (POD). Cooper, B. A and R. H. Day. 1998. Summer Behavior and Mortality of Dark - rumped Petrels and Newells' Shearwaters at Power Lines on Kauai. Colonial Waterbirds, 21 (1): 11 -19. David, R. E. 1990. Ornithological and Mammalian Survey of the Proposed Extension of the Multi- Purpose Range Complex, Pohakuloa Training Area, Hamakua, Hawaii. Prepared for: Wilson Okamoto & Associates & U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division (POD). David, R. E. 1996. Ornithological and Mammalian Surveys of the Proposed Improvement and Realignment Corridors of the Saddle Road (State of Hawaii Route 200), Island of Hawai`i, Hawaii. Prepared for: Rust E &I & The Federal Highways Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division. 99pp. . 1999. A Survey of Terrestrial Vertebrate Species Associated with the Waikoloa Maneuver Area, Phase II: Waikoloa Village and Surrounding Areas, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai`i. Prepared for: Edward K. Noda & Associates and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division. . 2002. A Survey of Avian and Terrestrial Mammalian Species for the Saddle Road Extension Project : Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to Mamalahoa Highway South Kohala & North Kona Districts, Hawai`i. Prepared for: Okahara & Associates, and Hawai`i Department of Transportation, Highways Division. . 2004. A Survey of Terrestrial Vertebrate Species Associated with the Ordnance Avoidance and Environmental Survey of Sector 15 of the former Waikoloa Maneuver Area, Phase III. South Kohala and Hamakua Districts, Island of Hawai`i. Prepared for: Donaldson Enterprises Inc. & the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division. . 2009b. Unpublished Field Notes — Island of Hawai`i: 1985 -2009. David, R., and E. B. Guinther 2006a. A Survey of Botanical, Avian and Terrestrial Mammalian Species for the Waikoloa Highlands Subdivision, South Kohala District, Island of Hawai`i. Prepared for: R. M. Towill Corporation, and the Vitoil Corporation. Day, R. H., B. Cooper, and R. J. Blaha. 2003a. Movement Patterns of Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters on the Island of Hawai`i. Pacific Science, 57, 2:147 -159. Day, R. H., B. Cooper, and T. C. Telfer. 2003b. Decline of Townsend's (Newell's Shearwaters Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 19 (Puffinus auricularis newelli) on Kauai, Hawaii. The Auk 120: 669 -679. Department of Land and Natural Resources. (DLNR). 1998. Indigenous Wildlife, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and Introduced Wild Birds. Department of Land and Natural Resources. State of Hawaii. Administrative Rule §13-134-1 through §13-134-10, dated March 02, 1998. Federal Register. 1967. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Appendix D — United States List of Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife; Federal Register, 32 (March 11, 1967) : 4001. . 1975. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, List of Endangered and Threatened Fauna. Federal Register, 40 No. 205 (September 25, 1975): 44149- 44151. . 2005. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Review of Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petition; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register, 70 No. 90 (Wednesday, May 11, 2005): 24870 - 24934. Hadley, T. H. 1961. Shearwater calamity on Kauai. Elepaio 21:60. Harrison, C. S. 1990. Seabirds of Hawaii: Natural History and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithica, N.Y. 249 pp. Henshaw, H.W. 1902. Complete list of birds of the Hawaiian Possessions with notes on their habits. Thrum, Honolulu. 146 pp. Hue, D., C. Glidden, J. Lippert, L. Schnell, J. Maclvor and J. Meisler. 2001. Habitat Use and Limiting Factors in a Population of Hawaiian Dark - rumped Petrels on Mauna Loa, Hawai`i. , in: : Scott, J. M, S. Conant, and C. Van Riper III (editors) Evolution, Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Hawaiian Birds: A Vanishing Avifauna. Studies in Avian Biology No. 22. Cooper's Ornithological Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas (Pg. 234 -242). Jacobs, D. S. 1994. Distribution and Abundance of the Endangered Hawaiian Hoary Bat, Lasiurus cinereus semotus, on the Island of Hawai`i. Pacific Science, Vol. 48, No. 2: 193 -200. Podolsky, R., D.G. Ainley, G. Spencer, L. de Forest, and N. Nur. 1998. "Mortality of Newell's Shearwaters Caused by Collisions with Urban Structures on Kaua` i ". Colonial Waterbirds 21:20 -34. Pukui , M. K., S. H. Elbert, and E. T. Mookini. 1976. Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu, Hawai`i. 289 pp. Reed, J. R., J. L Sincock, and J. P. Hailman 1985. Light Attraction in Endangered Procellariform Birds: Reduction by Shielding Upward Radiation. Auk 102: 377 -383. Simons, T. R., and C. N. Hodges. 1998. Dark- rumped Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia). In A. Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 20 Poole and F. Gill (editors). The Birds of North America, No. 345. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. and the American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C. Sincock, J. L. 1981. Saving the Newell ' s Shearwater. Pages 76 -78 in Proceedings of the Hawaii Forestry and Wildlife Conference, 2 -4 October 1980. Department of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawaii, Honolulu. Telfer, T. C. 1979. Successful Newell's Shearwater Salvage on Kauai. `Elepaio 39:71 Telfer, T. C. , J. L. Sincock, G. V. Byrd, and J. R. Reed. 1987. Attraction of Hawaiian seabirds to lights: Conservation efforts and effects of moon phase. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:406 -413. Tomich, P.Q. 1986. Mammals in Hawaii. Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu, Hawaii. 37 pp. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1983. Hawaiian Dark - Rumped Petrel & Newell's Manx Shearwater Recovery Plan. USFWS, Portland, Oregon. February 1983. . 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 50CFR 17:11 and 17:12 (Tuesday, November 1, 2005). .2009. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS), online at http: / /ecos. fws. gov /tessi;oublic /StartTES S. do Wagner, W.L., D.R Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai V. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii 1854 pp. Wagner, W.L. and D.R. Herbst. 1999. Supplement to the Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai `i, pp. 1855 -1918. In: Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer, Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai`i. Revised edition. 2 vols. University of Hawaii Press and Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Wilson, S. B., and A. H. Evans. 1890 -1899. Ayes Hawaiiensis: The birds of the Sandwich Islands. R. H. Porter, London. Wolfe, E. W., and J. Morris. 1996. Geological Map of the Island of Hawaii. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Saddle Road W -7 - Faunal Surveys — 2009 - 21 SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix E Depleted Uranium Report [This page intentionally left blank] Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1 -1 1.1 General Site Setting 1 -1 1.2 Description of Problem 1 -1 SECTION 2 SITE DESCRIPTION 2 -1 2.1 Site History 2 -1 2.2 Geology and Soils 2 -1 2.3 Hydrogeology 2 -2 2.4 Hydrology 2 -2 2.5 Climate 2 -3 SECTION 3 SOIL SAMPLING PROGRAM AND RESULTS 3 -1 SECTION 4 BACKGROUND EVALUATION 4 -1 4.1 Sources of Radiation in the Environment 4 -1 4.2 Natural, Depleted, and Enriched Uranium 4 -2 4.3 U Mass Concentration 4 -3 4.4 Isotopic Fingerprinting 4 -3 4.5 Site Specific U Source Identification 4 -4 4.5.1 U Mass Concentration 4 -4 4.5.2 Isotopic Fingerprinting 4 -4 SECTION 5 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 5 -1 5.1 Hazard Identification 5 -1 5.1.1 Summary of Available Site Data 5 -1 5.1.2 Selection of COPCs 5 -1 5.1.3 Analysis of Lead 5 -2 5.1.4 Analysis of Uranium 5 -2 5.2 Dose - Response Assessment 5 -3 5.2.1 Noncarcinogenic Dose - Response 5 -3 5.2.2 Carcinogenic Dose - Response 5 -5 5.3 Exposure Assessment 5 -6 5.3.1 Potential Exposure Scenarios 5 -6 5.3.2 Current and Future Exposure Scenarios 5 -6 5.3.3 Identification of Potential Exposure Pathways 5 -7 5.3.4 Conceptual Site Model 5 -7 5.4 Exposure Point Concentrations 5 -7 5.5 Exposure Factors 5 -12 5.5.1 Body Weight 5 -12 5.5.2 Duration of Exposure 5 -12 5.5.3 Exposure Frequency 5 -14 5.5.4 Amount of Soil and Sediment Ingested 5 -14 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment i Saddle Road October 2009 5.5.5 Body Surface Area Exposed to Soil /Groundwater 5 -14 5.5.6 Lifetime 5 -14 5.5.7 Soil Adherence Rate 5 -14 5.6 Relative Absorption Factors 5 -15 5.7 Method to Estimate Average Daily Dose 5 -15 SECTION 6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 6 -1 6.1 Noncarcinogenic Risk Assessment 6 -1 6.2 Carcinogenic Risk 6 -2 SECTION 7 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS 7 -1 7.1 Hazard Identification 7 -1 7.2 Dose - Response Assessment 7 -1 7.3 Exposure Assessment 7 -2 7.4 Risk Characterization 7 -3 SECTION 8 CONCLUSIONS 8 -1 SECTION 9 REFERENCES 9 -1 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 ii List of Figures Figure 1: Site Location Map 1 -3 Figure 2: Sample Location Map 3-3 Figure 3: Conceptual Site Model 5 -8 List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Analytical Results 3 -2 Table 2: Noncarcinogenic and Carcinogenic Dose Response 5 -4 Table 3: Exposure Point Concentrations 5 -11 Table 4: Exposure Factors 5 -12 Table 5: Summary of Potential Hazard Indices 6 -2 Table 6: Summary of RESRAD Analysis 6 -4 Table 7: Final Summary 6 -4 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 List of Appendices APPENDIX A: Analytical Sampling Results APPENDIX B: Chemical Assessment Risk Characterization Spreadsheets APPENDIX C: Radiological Assessment Risk Characterization Reports iii GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS, TECHNICAL TERMS AND MEASUREMENTS µg /m - Micrograms of compound per cubic meter of air. 234 Th - Thorium-234 234 - Uranium -234 235 - Uranium -23 5 238 - Uranium -23 8 ADD - Average Daily Dose. A compound- and facility - specific value generated by an equation designed to estimate a receptor's potential daily intake from exposure to compound with potential noncarcinogenic effects. ANL - Argonne National Laboratory ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BHHRA - Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment C - Carbon CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 COPC - Compounds of Potential Concern - Those site - related compounds examined in detail in the quantitative risk assessment. cm - centimeter iv CSF - Cancer Slope Factor - A numerical estimate of the carcinogenic potency of a compound. CSFs are developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Human Health Assessment Group for both oral and inhalation routes of exposure. CSM - Conceptual Site Model d - day Dose - Concentration of a compound to which a receptor may be exposed. Dose is usually expressed in units of milligrams of compound per kilogram of body weight per day. Dose - Response Evaluation - The process of quantitatively evaluating toxicity information and characterizing the relationship between the dose of the compound and the likelihood and magnitude of adverse health effects in the exposed population. From the quantitative dose - response relationship, toxicity values are identified and used in the risk characterization step to estimate the potential for adverse effects occurring in the receptors evaluated in the risk assessment. DU - Depleted Uranium EPC - Exposure Point Concentration EU - Enriched Uranium F - Temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit HEAST - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables HI - Hazard Index - The sum of the compound - specific hazard quotients for a particular exposure pathway. HQ - Hazard Quotient - The ratio of the calculated Chronic Average Daily Dose to the Reference Dose for a particular compound. A Hazard Quotient of less than one indicates that the Reference Dose for that compound has not been exceeded. Therefore, it can be assumed with a high degree of certainty that no adverse noncarcinogenic health effects are expected to occur as a result of exposure to that particular compound via that particular route. Because the reference dose is derived using multiple safety factors, a Hazard Quotient greater than one does not indicate that health effects are expected but rather that further analysis is warranted. IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System - A computerized database of toxicological information maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. K - Potassium LADD - Lifetime Average Daily Dose - A compound- and facility - specific value generated by an equation designed to estimate a receptor's potential daily intake from exposure to potentially carcinogenic compounds. LOAEL - Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level - The lowest experimental dose above the NOAEL at which a statistically significant difference in response between the control and exposed group is discernable. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 v mg /kg - Milligrams of compound per kilogram of medium. mg /kg -day - Milligrams of compound per kilogram of body weight per day. mg/1 - Milligrams of compound per liter of water. NCP - National Contingency Plan NOAEL - No Observed Adverse Effect Level - An experimental dose greater than zero at which no statistically significant difference in response can be detected between the control and exposed groups. Noncarcinogenic Effects - Category of adverse health effects that does not include cancers (e.g., liver effects, changes in blood enzyme levels, variances in body weight). NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission NTP - National Toxicology Program pCi /g - picocuries per gram ppm - part per million PELCR - Potential Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk - An estimate of the increased probability of developing cancer given exposure to particular doses of particular compounds via specific exposure scenarios. The likelihood, over and above the background cancer rate, that a receptor will develop cancer in his or her lifetime as a result of facility- related exposures to compounds in various environmental media. PRG - Preliminary Remediation Goal PTA - Pohakuloa Training Area Quantitative Risk Assessment - The mathematical and scientific procedure by which compounds present in environmental media are evaluated for their potential to adversely impact the health of individuals who may contact them. Ra - Radium Rn - Radon RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RESRAD - Residual Radioactivity Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment vi Saddle Road October 2009 Response - Carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic health effect associated with exposure to a compound RfC - Reference Concentration - An experimentally derived level of a compound in air modified by multiple safety factors of ten. It is the air concentration at which no statistical difference in response is expected to occur for an exposed population. The RfC is a toxicity value for compounds with noncarcinogenic effects via the inhalation route of exposure, and is usually expressed in units of milligrams of compound per cubic meter of air. RfD - Reference Dose - An experimentally derived level of exposure, modified by multiple safety factors. The RfD is the dose predicted to produce no statistical difference in response for an exposed population. The RfD is a toxicity value for compounds with noncarcinogenic effects via the oral and inhalation routes of exposure, and is expressed in units of milligrams of compound per kilogram of body weight per day. RME - Reasonable Maximum Exposure SEIS - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Th - Thorium Threshold - The level of exposure below which no adverse noncarcinogenic health effects are known or expected to occur. Total Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk - The sum of all pathway - specific Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks for a given receptor. Total Hazard Index - The sum of all pathway - specific Hazard Indices for a given receptor. Uncertainty Factor - An empirically- derived factor that is applied to a NOAEL or LOAEL in order to derive an RfD. Uncertainty factors account for some of the uncertainties associated with extrapolating information in a dose - response study to the general population. U - Uranium UCL - Upper Confidence Limit USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 vii Site Description EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of a surface soil sampling event, a source determination and background evaluation and Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA) for uranium (U) isotopes along the proposed Saddle Road alignment (State Route 200) bordering Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). The assessment addresses the public's concern that depleted uranium originating from military operations at PTA may impact the health of those that may be involved in the construction of the proposed alignment as well as those that may use the road in the future. The risk assessment considers both chemical and radiological toxicity from uranium. This document has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Saddle Road is a narrow, winding, two -lane road with steep grades, sharp curves, poor pavement, and substandard drainage. Parts of the easternmost portion have been widened and repaved by the County of Hawai`i, but until the current effort dating from 1996, no attempt had been made to correct deficiencies in vertical or horizontal curves, which reflected the original path built during World War II. Saddle Road has become increasingly important for access to the U.S. Department of the Army's PTA, Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea State Park, outdoor recreation areas used for hunting and gathering, ranch lands, and the communities of Waiki`i Ranch and Kaumana. Its role is increasing as a cross - island transportation route linking East and West Hawai`i for business travel, the transport of goods and services, tourism /recreation, shopping, and to some extent for commuting. Currently, about six miles of the improved Saddle Road have been completed, and another nine -mile section is nearly complete. A roughly five -mile section has been graded and is expected to be complete by the end of 2009, at which time another eight -mile section that is currently being designed and undergoing permit review is expected to begin construction. All of these segments are east of the roughly 12 -mile section mauka of Mamalahoa Highway that is the subject of the Supplemental EIS to which this analysis pertains. Project Background In August 2007, US Army contractors discovered one intact M101 spotting round during a screening survey of the remote Impact Area at PTA. The recovered fragment consisting of depleted uranium (DU) was nearly completely unoxidized and found lying on a bare rock lava Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 ES -1 surface. Subsequent surveys uncovered aluminum firing tubes for the spotting round, but no additional spotting rounds themselves. Recently, ten soil samples were collected by the US Army from sites where sediment had collected from past runoff /erosion events around the perimeter of PTA. Radiometric analysis of those samples found only natural U abundances and 234 isotopic composition (Rubin 2008). Irrespective, a portion of the proposed Saddle Road alignment is proposed to transverse the Ke' amuku Parcel, a former Parker Ranch property recently deeded to the U.S. Army, which is downwind during times when the prevailing regional tradewinds are in effect, particularly at night or in the early morning before daytime heating causes a convectional sea breeze that blows from the west across Keamuku towards the saddle. The Hawai`i State Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Saddle Road Task Force (a citizen group appointed by U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye to guide development of the project), determined that it would be prudent to examine the presence and risk of depleted uranium to human receptors who may construct or traverse Saddle Road, as part of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) being prepared to address a modified route across this property. Analytical Methods and Results In June 2008, concentrations of 234 235U and 238 isotopes in surface soil along the proposed Saddle Road alignment were collected by AMEC and analyzed via two analytical methods. The first method to evaluate uranium isotope concentrations, Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP -MS), was utilized to provide precision and low detection limits for the 235U and 238 isotopes. Results for the ICP -MS method verify the presence of 238 U, but resulted in non - detects for the 234 and 235 isotopes indicating that they were either not present or below their respective minimum detection limits. The ICP -MS data was considered but not used in the background analysis and risk assessment as the assessments require data input by activity and /or mass concentration. The second analytical method utilized in this study was Alpha Spectrometry. The alpha spectrometry results were expected to provide the greatest precision and lowest detection limit for the 234 isotope. Results of the alpha spectrometry analysis indicate the presence of all three isotopes in site soils. 235 was detected in only one of the five (5) locations sampled. Given that data for all three isotopes were available for the alpha spectrometry method, data obtained from this method comprised the data set utilized for both the background analyses and human health risk assessment. Background Analysis Uranium occurs naturally in trace amounts in Hawaiian rocks, soils and waters at or below Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 ES -2 concentrations of 1 to 3 parts per million (ppm) by weight (Rubin 2008). Uranium may also occur in soils due to anthropogenic action, such as from military use or as a byproduct of nuclear energy generation. Determining the source of any uranium isotopes detected along the proposed Saddle Road alignment was one objective of this study. Two methods were employed to evaluate uranium isotope source. The first method compared site - specific total U mass concentrations to naturally occurring U mass concentrations in Hawaii. Total U was determined by summing the isotopic concentrations of 234U 235 and 238 detected at each of the 5 independent sites along the proposed Saddle Road alignment. Results of this analysis indicate that total uranium along the proposed Saddle Road alignment are at or below levels occurring naturally in native Hawaiian soils. Total U based on alpha spectrometry analyses ranged from 0.4 parts per million (ppm) at location DU003 to 1.3 ppm at DU001. The average at all five locations was 0.8 ppm. The second method used to determine whether detected U originates from natural or DU sources was the evaluation of isotope abundance. Except in extremely rare circumstances (not found in Hawai`i), natural U dispersed in rocks and soils have a comparatively greater 234 and 235 ratio than those originating from DU. Although use of the 235 is considered a more precise measurement than the 234 U ratio in isotopic fingerprinting of U contamination, the utility of the 234U/238U ratio is significant when 235 data are not available or when concentrations of the 235 isotope are too low to detect. This is the case here and as such, the 234 ratio was used as the second method to fingerprint the U source. The naturally occurring 234 ratio in soil has been determined to be in the range of 0.5 to 1.2 (Sansone et al. 2001). 234 ratios at the Saddle Road alignment ranged from 0.74 to 1.79, with an average ratio across all five (5) locations of 1.16. Assuming the average ratio across the 5 sites is representative of the proposed alignment; these results indicate that the 234 isotopic ratio is within the background range. Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment A baseline human health risk assessment (BHHRA) was performed to evaluate the potential risk posed by uranium isotopes detected at the proposed Saddle Road alignment. The alignment was evaluated as a single decision unit represented by five (5) distinct sampling locations. Receptors were assumed to be exposed to the lesser of the maximum concentration of each isotope detected or the 95% UCL of the mean. Risks were evaluated for the following receptors: • A construction worker scenario assumed to be on site for 8 hours a day for 250 days in 1 year and assumed to contact surface and subsurface soil. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 ES -3 Construction worker Recreational /Commuter Lead Analysis Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 ES -4 • A recreational user of the road assumed to frequent the Site 350 days a year for 2 hours a day, as child for 6 years and as an adult for 24 years, totaling a 30 year recreational tenure. Recreational receptors were assumed to contact just the surface soil Potential estimated lifetime cancer risks were calculated using the RESidual RADioactivity (RESRAD) computer code, Version 6.4, developed by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL 2007). Carcinogenic risks were compared to the USEPA regulatory level of concern of 10 -6 and 10 Estimated noncarcinogenic risks posed from the chemical toxicity of Uranium are presented as total site Hazard Indices and were calculated by summing the pathway specific Hazard Quotients. A total Hazard Index of 1 was considered to be the regulatory level of concern. The results for each receptor are presented below. Of the receptors analyzed, none were found to exceed the most conservative USEPA lifetime cancer risk regulatory level of concern of 10 -6 or the noncarcinogenic Hazard Index regulatory level of concern of 1. The Construction Worker scenario is assumed to be on site for 8 hours a day for 250 days in 1 year and contact surface and subsurface soil. The construction worker was found to have a carcinogenic risk of 1E-06, and a noncarcinogenic risk of 4E-03. This receptor is a user of the road on a daily basis. The recreational receptor is assumed to frequent the Site 350 days a year for 2 hours a day, as child for 6 years and as an adult for 24 years, totaling a 30 year recreational tenure. Recreational receptors were assumed to contact just the surface soil. The carcinogenic risk associated with this receptor were found to be 3E -07 for the Child Receptor and 9E -07 for the Adult Receptor. These carcinogenic risks can be summed for a total carcinogenic risk of a 1E-06 for the full 30 year tenure. The noncarcinogenic risk was calculated to be 3E -03 for the Child Receptor and 1E -03 for the Adult Receptor. In addition to the Uranium investigation and risk assessment, surface soils at all five (5) sample locations were analyzed for lead. Laboratory results can be found in Appendix A. Results were compared to the USEPA Region 9 residential Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for lead in soil of 400 mg/kg. The maximum lead concentration detected at any site was 3.3 mg/kg at Conclusions Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 ES -5 sampling location DU004. All lead values were well below the screening level criteria and was excluded from further analysis. Based on the available surface soil data collected in June 2008 at five (5) locations along the proposed alignment, it has been determined that uranium detected at the site originates from natural sources. Potential noncancer health risks from the ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact of soil along the proposed alignment are below USEPA's acceptable risk level of concern. Potential cancer risks from radiological activity of the detected U isotopes are below the most conservative regulatory criteria. 1.1 General Site Setting SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a surface soil sampling event, a source determination and background evaluation, and a Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for uranium (U) isotopes along the proposed Saddle Road alignment (State Route 200) bordering Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). The assessment addresses the public's concern that depleted uranium originating from military operations at PTA may impact the health of those that may be involved in the construction of the proposed alignment as well as those that may use the road in the future. The risk assessment considers both chemical and radiological toxicity from uranium. This evaluation was prepared for the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways Division and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division. The Site is contained within or directly adjacent to the Ke`amuku parcel, a 23,977 -acre property (tax map key [TMK] : 3rd Div., 6-7-001:003) purchased in 2006 from Parker Ranch by the U.S. Army as an addition to its Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) (Figure 1 taken from Geometrician 2007). Although planned for military use, the Army currently allows grazing on the parcel as a fire mitigation measure. The parcel is bordered by the existing Saddle Road, the Waiki`i Ranch subdivision and nearby homes and farms on the north, by the remainder of PTA on the east, by the Pu'uanahulu Game Management Area on the south, and by private, undeveloped lands across Mamalahoa Highway on the west (Geometrician 2007). 1.2 Description of Problem A surface soils assessment, source analysis and baseline human health risk assessment was requested to support a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) that is being prepared for the Saddle Road extension and realignment, which will eventually bisect a portion of the PTA northwest of MP42 (proposed W -3 route) or possibly south of the W -3 route (proposed W -7 route. Note: W -7 is in the conceptual stage). These two areas (W -3 and W -7) are in proximity to Ke'amuku on the western side of PTA. In August, 2007, U.S. Army contractors discovered depleted uranium (DU) fragments at PTA. Although the Army acknowledges that DU material is considered a chemical hazard, the Army maintains that DU does not pose a risk to public health and that insufficient quantities have been detected to pose a risk to human health. Sampling and analytical data for DU are not available in Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 1 -1 Saddle Road October 2009 areas where the proposed Saddle Road extension is to be constructed. In the absence of analytical data, the source of U as well as the potential risks to human receptors (construction workers that will be involved in the construction of the Saddle Road extension or occupants of vehicles that may use the road in the future) cannot be determined. The objective of this study was therefore to gather analytical data of sufficient quality and quantity necessary to support a background source evaluation and human health risk assessment. The background evaluation is designed to determine whether the source of uranium at the site was naturally occurring or if anthropogenic depleted uranium sources also contribute to uranium presence. The human health risk assessment determines the degree of risk, if any, that uranium and poses for construction workers and users /commuters who may use Saddle Road in the future. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 1 -2 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 2.1 Site History 2.2 Geology and Soils SECTION 2 SITE DESCRIPTION This section presents background information relevant to the project including site history, descriptions of geology and soils, hydrogeology, hydrology, and climate. A portion of the proposed Saddle Road alignment is proposed to transverse the Ke'amuku Parcel, a former Parker Ranch property recently deeded to the U.S. Army, which is downwind from PTA. The Site is currently zoned for agricultural use and it is assumed to have been used for agricultural use throughout most of its recent history. The US Army conducted training at PTA during the mid -1960s using the M101 spotting round of the Davy Crockett Weapon System. The M101 spotting round was a small (20mm) low speed (velocity) projectile that weighed approximately 1 pound. Each round contained approximately one half pound D38 U Alloy (92% DU and 8% molybdenum) (Rubin 2008). This spotting round was designed to mirror the flight characteristics of larger caliber rounds and was fired to identify the correct range and bearing for those larger caliber rounds. These rounds typically broke into large fragments after use. In August 2007, U.S. Army contractors discovered one intact M101 spotting round during a screening survey of the remote Impact Area at PTA. The recovered fragment consisting of depleted uranium (DU) was nearly completely unoxidized and found lying on a bare rock lava surface. Subsequent surveys uncovered aluminum firing tubes for the spotting round, but no additional spotting rounds themselves. Recently, ten soil samples were collected from sites where sediment had collected from past runoff /erosion events around the perimeter of PTA. Radiometric analysis of those samples found only natural U abundances and 234 isotopic composition (Rubin 2008). No sampling has been performed along the proposed alignment. The Site is situated on late Pleistocene and Holocene lava flows from Mauna Kea covered with volcanic ash deposits (MacDonald 1983; Wolfe 1996). The topography reflects the hummocky character of lava flows. The only major relief features are found in a few gulches and at several 100 -foot plus high cinder cones, both of which are concentrated in the northern part of Ke`amuku. The surface has weathered through time to produce deep, well - drained soils (Geometrician 2007). Soil types anticipated to be encountered during this sampling effort include: Kilohana loamy fine sand, Pu`u Pa extremely stony very fine sandy loam, very stony Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 2 -1 Saddle Road October 2009 land, and Kaimu extremely stony peat. In general, these soils exhibit fairly rapid permeability, slow runoff, and slight erosion potential (USDA 1973). 2.3 Hydrogeology According to Mink and Lau (1990), the area of concern overlies two different aquifers, the Anaeho`omalu aquifer system (Northwest Mauna Loa aquifer sector) and the Waimea aquifer system (West Mauna Kea aquifer sector). The aquifers are both classified as unconfined, high level aquifers in dike compartments and /or flank lava deposits. They are considered irreplaceable, fresh water aquifers (< 250 milligrams per liter [mg/L] chloride content) with high vulnerability to contamination due to its proximity to the surface. Groundwater from portions of these aquifers is currently used as a drinking water source. 2.4 Hydrology According to maps in the Atlas of Hawai`i, 3rd ed. (Juvik 1998), annual rainfall averages approximately 25 inches in Ke`amuku overall, being slightly greater at higher elevations and less at lower elevations. Although no perennial streams, lakes, springs, or wetlands are present, the Ke`amuku property includes a number of ephemeral drainages mapped on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps. These originate on the steep slopes of Mauna Kea and cross the existing Saddle Road at various bridges, culverts and dips in the road. There is a distinct shift in the amount of dissection in the Ke`amuku property from north to south, as the terrain changes from highly- dissected, older Mauna Kea lava flows with many ephemeral streams in the north to younger, lightly- dissected flows with few ephemeral streams in the south. The very youngest Mauna Kea flows are found on the southern margin of the Ke`amuku property, where the W -7 alignment is located. South of this are Mauna Loa lava flows, which also lack any stream dissection (Geometrician 2007). Since there are no perennial stream channels within the Ke`amuku area, no baseline data on surface water quality are available. All of the drainages within the study corridor ultimately discharge to the ocean or to littoral springs through subsurface flow (Geometrician 2007). The only baseline water quality data available for Ke`amuku are from required water sampling of a 2,500 -foot deep well that supplies water for the Waiki`i Ranch subdivision. The well is located within 200 feet of the existing Saddle Road and has been consistently found to meet all of the federal standards for safe drinking water. There is no recorded contamination associated with this well (Geometrician 2007). A second well which goes to a depth of 4,300 feet is also located in Waiki`i. No further information is provided for this well. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 2 -2 2.5 Climate Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 2 -3 The average maximum daily temperature in the Ke`amuku area varies from about 70 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit, with an average minimum of 60 to 70 degrees. Ke`amuku on average receives about 25 inches of rainfall annually, with greater totals at higher elevations and less at lower ones, according to maps in the Atlas of Hawai`i, 3rd ed. (Juvik 1998). Winds vary between northeast trades funneled through the saddle between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea and upslope winds generated by heating of the land surface. Light and variable "kona" winds occasionally replace this pattern, most often in winter. According to site data, Morning winds are easterly at 15 to 25 knots (17-1/4 to 28 -3/4 mph) and afternoon winds are westerly at 15 to 20 knots (17 -1/4 to 23 mph). The entire Ke`amuku parcel is subject to fog, which above 4,000 feet in elevation is frequent (Geometrician 2007). Results Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 3 -1 SECTION 3 SOIL SAMPLING PROGRAM AND RESULTS The surface soil sampling program is described in its entirety in Final Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), Depleted Uranium Risk Assessment (AMEC 2008). The Final SAP describes sample locations, sampling methods, data quality objectives, data quality indicators, desired levels of detection and analytical laboratory Standard Operating Procedures. Briefly, in June 2008, five (5) surface soil samples were collected, during a single environmental site investigation along the proposed Saddle Road alignment per the AMEC 2008 protocol (Figure 2). The soil samples were analyzed for Uranium by Alpha Spectrometry by USEPA Method EML A-0 1-R MOD, by ICP -MS by USEPA method SW846 6020, and for Percent Moisture by USEPA method MCAWW 160.3 MOD. Soil samples were also analyzed for Lead by USEPA method SW846 6020. Analytical laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix A. Lead and Uranium were analyzed for and detected in surface soil at the Site. Summary analytical results are provided in Table 1. The first method to evaluate uranium isotope concentrations, Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP -MS) was utilized to provide precision and low detection limits for the 235U and 238 isotopes. Results for the ICP -MS method verify the presence of 238 U, but resulted in non - detects for the 234 and 235 isotopes indicating that they were either not present or below their respective minimum detection limits. These data were considered but not used in the background analysis and risk assessment because the assessments require data input by activity and /or mass concentration. The second analytical method utilized in this study was Alpha Spectrometry. The alpha spectrometry results were expected to provide the greatest precision and lowest detection limit for the 234 isotope. Results of the alpha spectrometry analysis indicate the presence of all three isotopes in site soils. 235 was detected in only one of the 5 locations sampled. Given that data for all three isotopes were available for the alpha spectrometry method, data obtained from this method comprised the data set utilized for both the background analyses and human health risk assessment. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 Table 1: Summary of Analytical Results *Samples DU0006 and DU0007 are replicate samples of DU0002. **Natural 234/238 Uranium Activity Ratio Ranges from 0.5 to 1.2 3-2 ICP-MS Radiochemistry Lead Sample ID Isotope Concentration (PPLI) Isotope Result (pCi/g) Mass Concentration (PPb) 234u/238u . Activity Ratio** Concentration (/k mg g) DU0001 234 ND 234 0.436 0.0701 1.184783 3.0 235 ND 235/236 ND NA 238 160 238 0.368 1094.66 DU0002 234 ND 234 0.157 0.0252 1.180451 2.8 235 ND 235/236 ND NA 238 130 238 0.133 395.62 DU0003 234 ND 234 0.118 0.019 1.787879 1.8 235 ND 235/236 ND NA 238 64 238 0 0. (J) 196.32 DU0004 234 ND 234 0.144 0.0231 1.107692 3.3 235 ND 235/236 ND NA 238 100 238 0.13 386.7 DU0005 234 ND 234 0.199 0.032 0.739777 3.0 235 ND 235/236 ND NA 238 140 238 0.269 800.17 DU0006* 234 ND 234 0.123 0.0198 1.008197 2.0 235 ND 235/236 0 0. (J) 8.29 238 100 238 0.122 362.9 DU0007* 234 ND 234 0.127 0.0204 0.824675 2.4 235 ND 235/236 ND NA 238 110 238 0.154 458.09 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 Table 1: Summary of Analytical Results *Samples DU0006 and DU0007 are replicate samples of DU0002. **Natural 234/238 Uranium Activity Ratio Ranges from 0.5 to 1.2 3-2 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 Figure 2: Sample Location Map 3 -3 p }— �a. SECTION 4 BACKGROUND EVALUATION Two methods can be utilized to determine whether detected U originates from natural or DU or enriched U (EU) sources. The first method involves a simple comparison of site U concentrations to U concentrations found in typical unimpacted environmental media. The second method compares isotopic abundance (isotope ratios) from site - specific media to the isotope abundance in typical unimpacted environmental media. This study utilized both methods of evaluation. The following sections provide detailed information regarding sources of radiation in the environment, a description of depleted and enriched uranium (DU and EU), and a site- specific source analysis of U at the proposed Saddle Road alignment. Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 have been taken from Rubin (2008) and are consistent with Sansone et al. (2001), Stegnar and Benedik (2001), and ATSDR (1999). 4.1 Sources of Radiation in the Environment U is a naturally occurring heavy metal. Rocks, soil, coral, water, air, plants and animals all contain varying amounts of U. Natural U is a mixture of three types (or isotopes) of U, written as 234 U, 235 U, and 238 U. Although these isotopes are different radioactive materials with differing radioactive properties, they are the same chemically. Because U normally occurs at very low concentration in natural materials at Earth's surface, (less than 5 parts per million by weight, ppm), geochemists refer to it as a "trace element ". U ores and U rich minerals do not occur in Hawai`i, but U is dispersed at low abundance in normal rock forming minerals. There are many sources of radioactivity in the environment besides U — some are natural and some are manmade. An environmental assessment typically considers both natural and contaminant sources of radioactivity. There are multiple natural radiation sources that humans come in contact with every day. Those most relevant to this assessment include the chemical elements thorium, radium, radon, potassium and carbon, which have the chemical symbols Th, Ra, Rn, K and C. Th is a heavy metal like U that occurs in rocks and soils at similar concentration to U. Th has one major isotope ( and several minor ones, all of which are radioactive. Ra is a natural radioactive byproduct from the decay of U (and to a much lesser extent, Th). It is in the same chemical family as the element calcium (Ca), and occurs at low levels in many materials at Earth's surface. Radon is a radioactive gas formed from Ra that continually seeps out of rocks, soils and waters. All of the atoms of U, Th, Ra, and Rn on Earth are radioactive. K and C are slightly different: Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 4 -1 4.2 Natural, Depleted, and Enriched Uranium these two elements are very common in materials found at Earth's surface, including the human body, yet they are only mildly radioactive because just a small fraction of the K and C atoms are radioactive (these radioactive isotopes are written as 40 K and 14 C). Both elements are mostly made up of stable (non - radioactive) isotopes; some forms of carbon (such as coal and petroleum) have no 14 C in them. The atomic age brought many new sources of radioactivity into our world. For instance, atmospheric atomic bomb tests in the 20th century produced radioactive isotopes of plutonium, strontium, cesium, and iodine (to name just a few) that were previously extremely rare or not found on Earth. Many of these bomb -test isotopes have since decayed away, although the longest -lived isotopes can still be found at shallow depths in soils, lake sediments, and glaciers around the world. Other modern activities also occasionally release artificial radio - isotopes into the environment, including everything from the nuclear power industry to nuclear medicine to the manufacture and disposal of household smoke detectors. A person exposed to high levels of radioactivity close to the source can suffer numerous possible toxic effects that depend on the type of radioactive material. This is why users of radioactive materials follow strict protocols (based on time, distance, and shielding) to minimize negative impacts on themselves or the general public, and why, for instance, highly radioactive patients undergoing nuclear medicine therapy are kept away from the general public. New forms of U with isotopic compositions that differ greatly from natural U are another development of the atomic age. An industrial process called enrichment is used to concentrate 234 and 235 producing enriched uranium (EU) used for nuclear fuel. The material leftover from the enrichment process is called DU because it has lower concentrations of these two isotopes than natural uranium. DU is thus a modified form of U from which these lighter and more radioactive isotopes have been partially removed, creating a substance that has more 238 than natural U. The resultant change in the isotopic composition makes it possible to distinguish naturally occurring U from enriched and depleted forms. EU is more radioactive than natural U, with more highly enriched forms being more radioactive than less enriched forms. Depending on the percent enrichment, EU can be used as nuclear fuel for power plants (less enriched, sometimes called "low EU ") or atomic weapons (more enriched, sometimes called "high EU "). DU has numerous civilian and military uses that on occasion cause it to be introduced into the environment. Civilian uses include radiation shielding, gyroscopes, and stabilizers in aircraft. Past and present military uses include spotting rounds, Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 4 -2 munitions and as shielding in armored vehicles. 4.3 U Mass Concentration Uranium occurs naturally in trace amounts in Hawaiian rocks, soils and waters at or below concentrations of 1 to 3 parts per million (ppm) by weight (Rubin 2008). The sum of the 3 most prevalent isotopes ( 235 and 238 U) can be used as to estimate total U concentrations. If site- specific U concentrations are significantly greater than representative background U concentrations, one can surmise that additional sources of U exist. 4.4 Isotopic Fingerprinting The proportions of U isotopes in a substance can be used to determine the source of the U it contains. If environmental U contamination is suspected, isotopic tests can determine if the U came from natural U ore or from non - natural DU or EU. Except in extremely rare cases (not found in Hawai`i), natural U dispersed in rocks, soils and waters at earth's surface today have the same 235 radioactivity ratio, even if the U concentration (by weight) is different between them. This fact provides a fingerprint of natural U isotopic composition. DU has comparatively less 235 and EU has more, giving this material non - natural 235U/238U ratio. There have been slight variations in the 235 depletion level in DU manufactured in different places and times, but normally 235 has been reduced by at least 70 from its natural value. 234 is affected even more by depletion and enrichment than 235 U. However, unlike 235 U, the amount of 234 in a natural material can vary relative to the amount of 238 due to natural processes, making the 234U/238U ratio less precise but still useful for isotopic fingerprinting of U contamination. The reason 234 varies in nature and 235U/238U does not is that most 234 in a rock has been produced there from decay of 238 and its immediate daughters, causing slight radiation damage to the place in a mineral where it resides. 235 and 238 are not decay products of other isotopes on Earth so there is no radiation damage to their mineral residence sites. The radiation damage from 234 production increases with the age of the rock, causing that 234U atom to be more easily leached from the rock during rock weathering. The water that does the leaching usually ends up with elevated 234 U and the rock and soil residues usually have lower ratios, although secondary mineral formation can affect rock and water ratios as well. Recoil of 234 atoms as they are produced can also push "extra" 234 into soil water. The changes in 234U/238U from natural processes are usually smaller than the changes caused by the manufacture of DU and EU, so 234 is still useful for fingerprinting of U contamination in nature. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 4 -3 Contamination generally results in elevated U concentrations, although if U is leaching from the environment almost as fast as the contaminant is added, the isotopic composition is affected but the overall U concentration may not change as dramatically. If the contamination is from natural U (e.g., some phosphorous fertilizers or U ores) the U concentration will change but the isotopic composition will not. The isotopic composition will change if contamination is from DU or EU. If DU or EU contamination is present, U in environmental samples will be mixtures of natural and contaminant U, with intermediate isotopic composition, except in extremely contaminated cases. Mixing follows predictable trajectories. Laboratory measurements of U concentration and isotopic composition are used to determine the type and amount of contamination. 4.5 Site Specific U Source Identification Section 4.5.1 describes the site specific analysis of U mass concentration while sections 4.5.2 describes the use of isotopic fingerprinting to determine whether U at the site is from natural or anthropogenic sources. 4.5.1 U Mass Concentration Uranium occurs naturally in trace amounts in Hawaiian rocks, soils and waters at or below concentrations of 1 to 3 parts per million (ppm) by weight (Rubin 2008). Total U at the site was determined by summing the isotopic concentrations of 234U 235 and 238 detected at each of the 5 independent sites along the proposed Saddle Road alignment. Results of this analysis indicate that total uranium along the proposed Saddle Road alignment are at or below levels occurring naturally in native Hawaiian soils. Total U based on alpha spectometry analyses ranged from 0.4 parts per million (ppm) at location DU003 to 1.3 ppm at DU001. The average at all five (5) locations was 0.8 ppm. 4.5.2 Isotopic Fingerprinting The second method used to determine whether detected U originates from natural or DU sources was the evaluation of isotope abundance. Except in extremely rare circumstances (not found in Hawai`i), natural U dispersed in rocks and soils have a comparatively greater 234 and 235 ratio than those originating from DU. Although use of the 235U/238U is considered a more precise measurement than the 234U/238U ratio in isotopic fingerprinting of U contamination, the utility of the 234U/238U ratio is significant when 235 data are not available or when concentrations of the 235 isotope are too low to detect. This is the case here and as such, the 234 ratio was used as the second method to fingerprint U source. Naturally occurring 234 ratio in soil has been determined to be in the range of 0.5 to 1.2 (Sansone et al. 2001). Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 4 - Saddle Road October 2009 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 4 -5 234 ratios at the Saddle Road alignment ranged from 0.74 to 1.79, with an average ratio across all five (5) locations of 1.16. Assuming the average ratio across the five (5) sites is representative of the proposed alignment, these results indicate that the 234 isotopic ratio is within the background range. This section describes the HHRA processes and methodologies used to identify the hazards associated with potential uranium exposures for identified receptors. Information available regarding depleted uranium use was evaluated, a site characterization plan was formulated and implemented, constituents of potential concern (COPCs) were selected for quantitative risk assessment, receptors identified, and risk quantified. Additionally, a screening level lead assessment was performed to determine potential human health risk from lead detected at the site. 5.1 Hazard Identification In the Hazard Identification step, analytical data are evaluated and constituents of potential concern (COPC) are selected for quantitative risk assessment. Data have been collected during a single phase of investigation. Samples assessed include on -Site surface soil data only. In this risk assessment, subsurface soil concentrations were assumed to be equal to surface soil concentrations. This assumption was considered conservative (protective of human health) because the mobility of U in soils is considered low and it likely that subsurface soil concentrations would be reduced in comparison to surface soils at the same location (Rubin 2008). 5.1.1 Summary of Available Site Data Data were collected during a single post - remedial phase of investigation in June 2008. Environmental surface soil samples were collected from 10,000 square foot areas at five (5) distinct locations along the proposed alignment. Sampling locations can be found on Figure 2. The soil samples were analyzed for Uranium by Alpha Spectrometry by USEPA Method EML A -01 -R MOD, by ICP -MS by USEPA method SW846 6020, and for Percent Moisture by USEPA method MCAWW 160.3 MOD. Soil samples were also analyzed for Lead by USEPA method SW846 6020. 5.1.2 Selection of COPCs 5 -1 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 SECTION 5 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Based on the nature of the site, problem and need to address public concerns two chemicals were analyzed and considered for evaluation. They included lead and three U isotopes (234U 235 and 238 U). Other chemicals may be present at the Site but were not included in this assessment. 5.1.3 Analysis of Lead All five (5) soil sample locations were analyzed for lead. Results of the Analysis can be found in Appendix A. Results were compared to the USEPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for lead in soil of 400 mg/kg. Of the five (5) soil sample locations, the maximum detected was 33 mg /kg at sampling location DU004 falling well below the PRG. Due to these low levels, lead was excluded from any further additional analysis. 5.1.4 Analysis of Uranium Five (5) soil samples were analyzed for uranium by both Alpha Spectrometry and Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP -MS). ICP -MS analysis is generally considered to have the greatest precision and lowest detection limits for detecting the 235 and 238 isotopes. The ICP -MS results provided Non Detects for all the samples for the 234 and 235 isotopes. The highest reading for the 238 isotope was 0.16 mg /kg at sampling location DU001. Soil samples were also analyzed by Alpha Spectrometry to determine radiological activity. Alpha Spectrometry is considered to have greater precision and lower detection limits for the 234 U. The highest detected 234 isotope was 0.436 pCi /g at sampling location DU001. The Alpha Spectrometry also has readings as high as 0.018 for 235 at sampling location DU002, and 0.368 pCi /g for 235 at sampling location DU001. It should be noted though that all 235 results were still below the reporting limit. Activity determined in the alpha spectrometry analysis was converted to a mass concentration by via the following formula: U Total where: 234 U + 235 U + UTotal = Total mass concentration of uranium (mg /kg) 238 U 6,250pCi / fig o 2.16pCi / 1 ug i 3.36pCi /,ug 234 235 U, and 238 = Isotopic radioactivity concentration (pCi /g) Based on conversion above, the highest mass concentration detected using Alpha Spectrometry analysis was 1.095 ppm at sampling location DU001. Because the results from the Alpha Spectrometry analysis provide evaluation of the progeny Uranium, and overall recorded higher Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5 -2 activity and resulting mass concentrations, in order to be conservative, these results were used in lieu of ICP -MS results in the BHHRA. 5.2 Dose - Response Assessment The purpose of the Dose - Response Assessment is to identify both the types of adverse health effects a COPC may potentially cause, as well as the relationship between the amount of COPCs to which receptors may be exposed (dose) and the likelihood of an adverse health effect (response). The USEPA characterizes adverse health effects as either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic and dose - response relationships are defined for oral and inhalation routes of exposure. The results of the toxicity assessment, when combined with the results of the exposure assessment (Section 5.3), provide an estimate of potential risk. This section provides dose - response information for COPCs evaluated in the risk assessment for the Site. Section 5.2.1 describes the USEPA approach for developing noncarcinogenic dose - response values. The carcinogenic dose - response relationships developed by USEPA are discussed in Section 5.2.2. Noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic dose - response values used in this risk assessment are presented in Table 2. Dose - response information used in this risk assessment was obtained from the following sources: • USEPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (USEPA 2008); • Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry's Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances (ATSDR 2007); • USEPA Region IX's Preliminary Remediation Goals (USEPA 2004). 5.2.1 Noncarcinogenic Dose - Response Constituents with known or potential noncarcinogenic effects are assumed to have a dose below which no adverse effect occurs or, conversely, above which an effect may be seen. This dose is called the "threshold dose ". In laboratory experiments, this dose is known as the "no observed adverse effects level" (NOAEL). The lowest dose at which an adverse effect is seen is called the lowest observed adverse effects level (LOAEL). By applying uncertainty factors to the NOAEL or the LOAEL, the USEPA (and other regulatory agencies from which toxicity values used in this assessment were acquired) have developed reference doses (RfDs) for chronic exposures to constituents with potential noncarcinogenic effects. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5 -3 Uncertainty factors account for unknowns associated with the dose - response value, such as the effect of using an animal study to derive a human dose - response value, extrapolating from the high doses used in the laboratory experiment to the low doses typically encountered in environmental settings, and evaluating sensitive subpopulations. For constituents with potential noncarcinogenic effects, the RfD provides reasonable certainty that if the specified exposure dose is below the RfD, then no noncarcinogenic health effects are expected to occur even if daily exposure were to occur for a lifetime. RfDs are expressed in terms of milligrams of constituent per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg -day). The oral RfD for Uranium is 3E -03 mg/kg- day (IRIS 2008) and is used for oral and dermal routes of exposure. The inhalation RfD used was 8.6E -05 mg /kg -day and was derived from the ATSDR MRL inhalation reference concentration. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 Table 2: Noncarcinogenic and Carcinogenic Dose Response NA - Not Applicable (a) U.S. EPA (2008). IRIS. (b) ATSDR MRLs (2008) (c) Derived from Inhalation RfC. 5 -4 Constituent Uranium Oral CSF (mg/kg NA a Inhalation CSF (mg/kg NA a Inhalation URF (ug /m " - 1 NA a Oral TDI /RfD (mg /kg - d) 3.00E - 03 a Inhalation TC /RfC (ug /m 3.00E - 01 b Inhalation RFDi (mg /kg /day) 8,60E - 05 c Uncertainty factors account for unknowns associated with the dose - response value, such as the effect of using an animal study to derive a human dose - response value, extrapolating from the high doses used in the laboratory experiment to the low doses typically encountered in environmental settings, and evaluating sensitive subpopulations. For constituents with potential noncarcinogenic effects, the RfD provides reasonable certainty that if the specified exposure dose is below the RfD, then no noncarcinogenic health effects are expected to occur even if daily exposure were to occur for a lifetime. RfDs are expressed in terms of milligrams of constituent per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg -day). The oral RfD for Uranium is 3E -03 mg/kg- day (IRIS 2008) and is used for oral and dermal routes of exposure. The inhalation RfD used was 8.6E -05 mg /kg -day and was derived from the ATSDR MRL inhalation reference concentration. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 Table 2: Noncarcinogenic and Carcinogenic Dose Response NA - Not Applicable (a) U.S. EPA (2008). IRIS. (b) ATSDR MRLs (2008) (c) Derived from Inhalation RfC. 5 -4 5.2.2 Carcinogenic Dose - Response The underlying assumption of regulatory risk assessment for constituents with known or assumed potential carcinogenic effects is that no threshold dose exists. In other words, it is assumed that a finite level of risk is associated with any dose above zero. For carcinogenic effects, the USEPA uses a two -step evaluation in which the constituent is assigned a weight -of- evidence classification, and then a cancer slope factor (CSF) is calculated. The weight -of- evidence classification summarizes the evidence about the likelihood of the constituent being a human carcinogen. Group A constituents are classified as human carcinogens, Group B constituents are probable human carcinogens, Group C constituents are possible human carcinogens, Group D constituents are not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, and, for Group E constituents, there is evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans. In the second part of the evaluation, CSFs are calculated for constituents that are known or probable human carcinogens. The USEPA has developed computerized models that extrapolate observed responses at high doses used in animal studies to predicted responses in humans at the low doses encountered in environmental situations. The models developed by the USEPA assume no threshold and use animal or human data to develop an estimate of the carcinogenic potency of a constituent. The USEPA refers to this numerical estimate as the CSF. The computerized models used by USEPA assume that carcinogenic dose - response is linear at low doses. Uranium itself is not considered to be carcinogenic when inhaled ingested or contacted dermally. However, its radiological activity is assumed to have carcinogenic effects. Potential carcinogenic risks are therefore addressed using Argonne National Laboratory (ANL 2007) RESidual RADioactivity (RESRAD) computer code, Version 6.4. This software was developed in coordination with the Department of Energy (DOE), USEPA, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), as a tool for predicting human health risks due to residual radioactivity in soils. The code uses radionuclide CSFs presented in Federal Guidance Report (FGR) No. 13 (USEPA 2002), which incorporate HEAST 2001 risk coefficient values. RESRAD's computer code was developed to provide site - specific residual radioactive material guidelines as well as radiation dose and excess lifetime cancer risk to a chronic exposure. RESRAD uses a pathway analysis method in which the relation between radionuclide concentrations in soil and the does to a member of a critical population group is expressed as a pathway sum, which is the sum of products of "pathway factors." Pathway factors correspond to Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 5 -5 Saddle Road October 2009 pathway segments connecting compartments in the environment between which radionuclides can be transported or radiation emitted. Radiation doses, health risks, soil guidelines and media concentrations are calculated over user - specified time intervals. The source is adjusted over time to account for radioactive decay and ingrowth, leaching, erosion, and mixing. With few exceptions, all RESRAD default parameters were used without site - specific modification. Site - specific exposure factors used in the RESRAD assessment are described in Section 5.5. 5.3 Exposure Assessment The risk assessment process requires the creation of exposure scenarios to assess the potential for adverse health effects from constituents at or near the Site. While these scenarios represent hypothetical people and activities, they reflect the physical description of the Site and the surrounding residential, industrial and commercial areas, as well as the activities that may typically occur in these areas. Both current and reasonably foreseeable future potential exposures are evaluated. In this assessment, past and current uses of the subject site were analyzed in order to determine the potential exposure scenarios relevant for the site. The exposure assessment is divided into seven subsections. Section 5.3.1 describes the potential receptors and exposure scenarios selected for evaluation in the risk assessment. Section 5.3.3 presents the potential exposure pathways evaluated for the Site. Section 5.3.4 describes the conceptual site model. Section 5.4 describes the statistical methods used to estimate exposure -point concentrations. Section 5.5 describes exposure factors used in the risk assessment. Absorption adjustment factors are discussed in Section 5.6 and dermal permeability constants are discussed in Section 5.7. Section 5.8 describes the methods used to estimate potential exposure doses. 5.3.1 Potential Exposure Scenarios 5.3.2 Current and Future Exposure Scenarios Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5 -6 In creating potential exposure scenarios for evaluation in the risk assessment, the likelihood of potential exposure to Site - related constituents via many pathways was considered. Some pathways were excluded from further analysis because the route of exposure was physically impossible or highly unlikely given the conditions of the Site. Based on information about land use, topography, and current Site conditions, current and future exposure scenarios were developed for the Site. As described in Section 1.1 the Site is located in and around the PTA (Figure 1). A general 5.3.3 Identification of Potential Exposure Pathways 5.3.4 Conceptual Site Model 5.4 Exposure Point Concentrations Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5 -7 description of the property and an account of its history are provided. Likely current and future exposure scenarios evaluated include adult construction workers, working on the road, and a commuter, who uses the road on a daily basis. Construction workers were assumed to work on the site and excavate a large area for construction for 8 hours a day, 250 days a year for 1 year. Construction workers are expected to be exposed to both surface and subsurface soils, inhalation of soil derived dust, and any external gamma radiation. Recreational users are commuters assumed to contact surficial soils, breath soil derived dust, and are exposed to external radiation for 2 hours a day for 350 days per year for 30 years, 6 as a child and 24 as an adult. As described in Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (USEPA 1989), four elements must be present in order for a potential human exposure pathway to be complete: 1. a source and mechanism of constituent release to the environment; 2. an environmental transport medium (e.g., soil, water or soil vapor); 3. an exposure point, or point of potential contact with the potentially affected medium; and 4. a receptor (e.g., human) with a route of exposure at the point of contact. Potential exposure pathways are the mechanisms by which potential receptors may be exposed to constituents. The potential exposure pathways included in this assessment were selected based on the most likely mechanisms of exposure and observations at the Site. The most likely potential exposure pathways at the Site are ingestion of and dermal contact with soil, exposure via inhalation of soil - derived dust, and exposure to external gamma radiation. A Conceptual Site Model summarizing exposure pathways is provided in Figure 3 The CSM presents potential sources, release mechanisms, transport media, routes of migration through the environment, exposure media, and potential human receptors. The Conceptual Site Model also presents the possible human receptors evaluated in this assessment, and the potential exposure pathways available to these receptors. Exposure point concentrations for constituents detected in media at the Site were estimated using soil only. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5 -8 all relevant analytical data collected (as representative of current site conditions) from the single site investigation described in Section 3. As described, samples were collected from the surface Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 Surface soil samples were used to estimate exposure point concentrations for direct contact exposure, inhalation of soil derived dust, and external radiation for these scenarios. For direct contact to construction workers, surface soil samples were conservatively used to estimate subsurface soil concentrations assuming the highest concentration of contaminants would be found at the surface as potential contamination was a result of deposition. In calculating exposure point concentrations, all replicate samples were averaged. Summary statistics (minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation, frequency of detection, and 95% upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean concentration [95% UCL]) were calculated for each U isotope detected in soil from the Site. The 95% UCL was calculated using USEPA's ProUCL software Version 4.0 (USEPA 2007). The USEPA has determined that the average concentration of a COPC represents a reasonable estimate of the concentration in an environmental medium that a receptor may potentially contact when that contact occurs at random over an extended period of time. For estimating exposures to COPCs in environmental media, USEPA has proposed various ways of estimating the exposure point concentration to account for the uncertainty due to incomplete sampling and /or analytical data variability. These range from using the maximum concentration when few samples have been collected from a potential exposure area to various methods of estimating a 95% UCL on the mean concentration. For data with a normal distribution, the 95% UCL of the mean is calculated using the t- distribution (Student's t- statistic) in the following algorithm: A 564 LiCL [ppm) , x ,-+. s t VW where: x = arithmetic mean concentration (mg/Kg) s = standard deviation (mg /Kg) t = Student's t distribution statistic n = number of data points Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5 -10 For data that are log- normally distributed, USEPA recommends the use of the Land method based on the H- statistic for determining the 95% UCL of the mean. The algorithm supplied by USEPA for determining the 95% UCL when data are log- normally distributed is: where: x = arithmetic mean concentration (mg/Kg) s = standard deviation of log transformed data (mg/Kg) H = Land distribution statistic n = number of data points The H- statistic frequently estimates a 95% UCL of the mean that is greater than the maximum concentration observed at a site when the input data are highly variable (i.e., when the relative standard deviation (RSD) exceeds 100 %) and, in some cases, estimates concentrations in excess of one part per part. In these cases, the biased estimates of the "average" concentration are likely reflecting datasets that include many samples collected from areas of higher concentrations and fewer samples collected from areas of lower concentrations. This is the case at most sites where sampling efforts have intentionally been focused in areas of expected contamination and their immediate vicinity, but often not in other portions of a site where concentrations are likely to be lower but where potential exposure may occur at equal or even higher frequency. In this case, the data distribution is controlled by the sampling strategy rather than any distribution in nature. That is, areas of high concentration are more frequently represented than areas of lower concentration, even though both may be equally likely to represent a contact point by a hypothetical receptor. Therefore, the estimated exposure point concentration is biased high and does not represent the actual concentration that the receptor "encounters." The "distribution" observed in the biased dataset similarly does not represent the actual distribution of concentrations across the entire site or exposure area. Furthermore, a large part of the error in applying the H statistic lies in the inability of the algorithm to properly calculate the arithmetic mean when the data are not lognormally distributed. If the data were non - parametric in distribution (i.e., not normal or lognormal in distribution), the data were further evaluated to determine if the sample results represent highly skewed distributions. For datasets that are neither normal nor lognormal or are highly skewed in distribution, the 95% UCL on the mean was based on the higher of the values from the percentile or standard bootstrapping techniques. In cases where sufficient data to calculate a 95% UCL of the mean were not available, the exposure point concentration was based on the maximum detected concentration. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5 -11 Appendix A presents the analytical results and summary statistics for each constituent detected in soil samples collected from the site. The 95% UCL was calculated for each isotope from the Alpha Spectrometry analysis. For 235 and 238 the calculated UCL exceeded the maximum value detected so the maximum detected activity was used as the EPC. For 234 U, the data was found to be normally distributed and the EPC was based on the calculated t- statistic. Table 3 provides a summary of estimated exposure point concentrations used in the quantitative risk assessment for each sampling location. Table 3: Exposure Point Concentrations 5.5 Exposure Factors The exposure factors used in the quantitative risk assessment are summarized in Table 4. Individual exposure factors are discussed below. 5.5.1 Body Weight Body weights were derived from USEPA Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 1997) by averaging the male and female data for mean body weight. The average adult body weight used in this risk assessment was 71.8 kg. The average child body weight used in this risk assessment was 16 kg. 5.5.2 Duration of Exposure Exposure durations were taken from USEPA Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 1997). It is important to note that USEPA (1997) states that the average occupation job tenure is 6.6 years, which contrasts significantly from the standard default worker duration of 25 years. This value is the upper bound occupation job tenure, which is consistent with a Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) scenario. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5 -12 EPC for Soil (mg /kg) EPCs for Soil (pCi /g) EPC Mass Conversion (mg /kg) Chemical Total 234 U 235 U 238 U 234 U 235 U 238 U Uranium 0.925 0.436 0.006 0.310 0.0001 0.0028 0.9226 Mass Percentage Activity Ratio 234 U 235 U 238 U 234/238 235/238 7.54E -05 3.00E -03 9.97E -01 1.41E +00 1.94E -02 Appendix A presents the analytical results and summary statistics for each constituent detected in soil samples collected from the site. The 95% UCL was calculated for each isotope from the Alpha Spectrometry analysis. For 235 and 238 the calculated UCL exceeded the maximum value detected so the maximum detected activity was used as the EPC. For 234 U, the data was found to be normally distributed and the EPC was based on the calculated t- statistic. Table 3 provides a summary of estimated exposure point concentrations used in the quantitative risk assessment for each sampling location. Table 3: Exposure Point Concentrations 5.5 Exposure Factors The exposure factors used in the quantitative risk assessment are summarized in Table 4. Individual exposure factors are discussed below. 5.5.1 Body Weight Body weights were derived from USEPA Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 1997) by averaging the male and female data for mean body weight. The average adult body weight used in this risk assessment was 71.8 kg. The average child body weight used in this risk assessment was 16 kg. 5.5.2 Duration of Exposure Exposure durations were taken from USEPA Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 1997). It is important to note that USEPA (1997) states that the average occupation job tenure is 6.6 years, which contrasts significantly from the standard default worker duration of 25 years. This value is the upper bound occupation job tenure, which is consistent with a Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) scenario. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5 -12 Table 4: Exposure Factors Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5-13 Parameter (units) Soil/ Deposited Dust Rationale Exposure Time - vapor (hr/d) 2 Activity Specific Value Exposure Time - dust (hr/d) 2 Activity Specific Value Exposure Time - dermal-water (hr/d) NA Activity Specific Value Exposure Frequency - dermal (event/d) 1 AMEC Assumption Exposure Frequency (d/y) 52 Activity Specific Value Exposure Duration (y) 6 Activity Specific Value Body Weight (kg) 16 USEPA - Exposure Factors (1997) all Averaging Period - Cancer (d) 25550 USEPA - 70 years Averaging Period - Noncancer (d) 2190 Based on Exposure Duration Ingestion Rate (mg/d) or (Lid) 200 USEPA - Exposure Factors (1997) Inhalation Rate (m 0.417 USEPA - Exposure Factors (1997) Fraction from Site (unitless) 1 Activity Specific Value Surface Area Exposed (cm 2800 USEPA - Region IX PRG Soil-to-Skin Adherence Factor (mg/cm 0.29 USEPA - Exposure Factors (1997) Exposure Time - vapor (hr/d) 2 Activity Specific Value Exposure Time - dust (hr/d) 2 Activity Specific Value Exposure Time - dermal-water (hr/d) NA Activity Specific Value Exposure Frequency - dermal (event/d) 1 AMEC Assumption Exposure Frequency (d/y) 52 Activity Specific Value Exposure Duration (y) 24 Activity Specific Value Body Weight (kg) 71.8 USEPA - Exposure Factors (1997) ac' Averaging Period - Cancer (d) 25550 USEPA - 70 years Averaging Period - Noncancer (d) 8760 Based on Exposure Duration Ingestion Rate (mg/d) or (Lid) 100 USEPA - Exposure Factors (1997) Inhalation Rate (m 0.833 USEPA - Exposure Factors (1997) Fraction from Site (unitless) 1 Activity Specific Value Surface Area Exposed (cm 5700 USEPA - Region IX PRG Soil-to-Skin Adherence Factor (mg/cm 0.29 USEPA - Exposure Factors (1997) ____ Construction Worker Exposure Time - vapor (hr/d) 8 Activity Specific Value Exposure Time - dust (hr/d) 8 Activity Specific Value Exposure Time - dermal-water (hr/d) NA Activity Specific Value Exposure Frequency - dermal (event/d) 1 AMEC Assumption Exposure Frequency (d/y) 250 Activity Specific Value Exposure Duration (y) 1 Activity Specific Value Body Weight (kg) 71.8 USEPA - Exposure Factors (1997) Averaging Period - Cancer (d) 25550 USEPA - 70 years Averaging Period - Noncancer (d) 365 Based on Exposure Duration Ingestion Rate (mg/d) or (Lid) 330 USEPA - Exposure Factors (1997) Inhalation Rate (m 0.833 USEPA - Exposure Factors (1997) Fraction from Site (unitless) 1 Activity Specific Value Surface Area Exposed (cm 3300 USEPA - Region IX PRG Soil-to-Skin Adherence Factor (mg/cm 0.29 USEPA - Exposure Factors (1997) Table 4: Exposure Factors Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5-13 5.5.5 Body Surface Area Exposed to Soil /Groundwater The construction worker scenario assumes an exposure duration for a single year. For the recreational user scenario, it is assumed that a visitor would be exposed to the environmental media for multiple years. The recreational scenario is split, assuming 6 years as a child and 24 years as an adult totaling a 30-year tenure. 5.5.3 Exposure Frequency The exposure frequency for the on -site worker is a standard Human Health Evaluation Manual: Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default Exposure Factors (USEPA 1991a) and Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 1997). The Construction worker it is assumed a 250 day exposure frequency for the year they are on site. For the recreational scenario, an exposure frequency of 350 days per year is assumed. 5.5.4 Amount of Soil and Sediment Ingested In the interest of health protectiveness, AMEC has assumed that the typical adult soil ingestion rate for all workers to be 330 mg /day, recreational adults to be 100 mg/day, and 200 mg/day for recreational children. USEPA Region 9 PRG Guidance for Dermal Exposure Pathway (2004) recommends that the skin surface area for recreational adults be set as 5,700 cm This guidance also recommends a surface area for contact for recreational children of 2,900 cm and a surface area for construction workers of 3,300 cm 5.5.6 Lifetime For carcinogenic risk assessment, the lifetime average daily dose must be calculated. Based on recent studies, the Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 1997) recommends that risk assessors use the default value of 70 years. 5.5.7 Soil Adherence Rate The mean adherence value from USEPA (1997) (0.29 mg/cm is assumed in this risk assessment. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5 -14 5.6 Relative Absorption Factors To estimate the potential risk to human health that may be posed by the presence of COPC in soil, it is necessary first to estimate the potential exposure dose of each COPC. The potential exposure dose is similar to the administered dose or applied dose in a laboratory experiment. The animal- derived cancer slope factors (CSFs) and reference doses (RfDs) used in quantitative risk assessment are based on applied doses in most cases. However, the efficiency of COPC absorption via a particular route and from a particular matrix (e.g., soil, water) at the Site may differ from the absorption efficiency for the exposure route and matrix used in the experimental study that serves as the basis for the CSF or RfD. As recommended by USEPA (1989), Relative Absorption Factors (RAFs) for Site - related COPCs have been derived and used in the calculation of potential exposure doses presented above. RAFs allow risk assessors to make appropriate adjustments if the efficiency of absorption is known to or expected to differ because of physiological effects and /or matrix or vehicle effects. RAFs can be less than one or greater than one, depending on the COPC and potential routes of exposure at a site. When RfDs and CSFs are based on administered doses, the RAF is calculated as the ratio of the estimated absorption for the site - specific medium and route of potential exposure, to the known or estimated absorption for the laboratory study from which the RfD or CSF was derived. When absorption from the site - specific exposure is assumed to be the same as absorption in the laboratory study, then the RAF is 1.0. This assessment conservatively assumes absorption from all pathways (oral, inhalation and dermal) are equal to the oral absorption from the toxicity study in which the RFD was derived. All RAFs in this assessment were therefore conservatively set at 1.0 including the RAF for the dermal pathway. This almost certainly overestimates absorption and risk. It should also be noted that the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) - Radionuclides Table (2001) provides a Gastrointestinal (GI) absorption fraction for Uranium of .02. This GI absorption factor represents the fraction of the radionuclide that may be absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract into blood following an oral intake. 5.7 Method to Estimate Average Daily Dose Reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenarios are evaluated in this risk assessment. Conservative exposure assumptions are used to construct a reasonable maximum exposure scenario. Most individuals will not be subject to all the conditions that comprise the RME scenario. Individuals who do not meet all conditions in the RME scenario have lower potential exposures to constituents, and therefore, lower potential risks associated with those exposures. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 5 -15 Saddle Road October 2009 The Chronic Average Daily Dose (CADD) is an estimate of a receptor's potential daily intake from exposure to constituents with potential noncarcinogenic effects. Note that Average Daily Dose is a term used in risk assessment and does not represent a true average because the assumptions used to derive it do not represent "averages ". According to USEPA (1989), the exposure dose should be calculated by averaging over the period of time for which the receptor is assumed to be exposed. The CADD for each constituent via each route of exposure is compared to the RfD for that constituent to estimate the potential hazard index due to exposure to that constituent via that route of exposure. Hazard indices are presented and discussed in Section 5.1 For constituents with potential carcinogenic effects, the Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD) is an estimate of potential daily intake over the course of a lifetime. The LADD was not calculated in this assessment as it was assumed that there presently exists no carcinogenic effects from the chemical exposure to Uranium. Carcinogenic risks in this assessment were based on the radiological effects associated with the COPC. The equations for estimating a receptor's potential chronic average daily dose and the exposure parameters used are discussed in the following paragraphs. The calculations for all receptors evaluated in this risk assessment are presented in Appendix B (Risk Characterization Spreadsheets). Ingestion & Dermal Contact with Soil & Sediment Cx[(IRxFIxRAF +(SAxAFxFAxRAF xEFD)]xEFxEDxCF ADD (mg /kg - day) — BW x AT where: ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg -day) C = Chemical Concentration (mg/kg) IR = Ingestion Rate (mg/day) FI = Fraction Ingested from Site (unitless) RAF = Relative Absorption Factor (Oral -Soil) (unitless) SA = Skin Surface Area (cm2) Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5 -16 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 5 -17 AF = Adherence Factor (mg /cm2 /event) FA = Fraction Absorbed from Site (unitless) RAFd = Relative Absorption Factor (Dermal -Soil) (unitless) EFD = Exposure Frequency - Dermal (event /day) EF = Exposure Frequency (days /year) ED = Exposure Duration (years) CF = Conversion factor (kg/mg) BW = Body Weight (kg) AT = Averaging Time (days) (ED x 365 days /yr, noncancer) (75 yr. x 365 days /yr, cancer) Inhalation of Soil Derived Dust C xETxEFxED ADD (mg /kg - day) — AT x BW where ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg -day) Cdust = Chemical Concentration (mg/kg) IR = Ingestion Rate (mg/day) RAF; = Relative Absorption Factor (Inhalation) (unitless) ET = Exposure Time - dust (hr /d) EF = Exposure Frequency (days /year) ED = Exposure Duration (years) BW = Body Weight (kg) AT = Averaging Time (days) (ED x 365 days /yr, noncancer) (75 yr. x 365 days /yr, cancer) 6.1 Noncarcinogenic Risk Assessment Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 SECTION 6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION Hazard Quotient A =B -C where: A = Hazard Quotient (unitless); B = Chronic Average Daily Dose (mg/kg -day); and C = Reference Dose (mg/kg -day). 6 -1 Risk characterization is the step in the risk assessment process that combines the results of the exposure assessment and the toxicity assessment for each COPC to estimate the potential for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic human health effects from chronic exposure to that constituent. This section summarizes the results of the risk characterization. The noncarcinogenic risk assessment for Uranium is generally characterized by combining exposure assumptions and toxicity data to derive Hazard Quotients (HQs) or Hazard Indices (HI). Noncarcinogenic health effects are estimated by comparing the Chronic Average Daily Dose (CADD) for each constituent with the Reference Dose for that constituent. The resulting ratio, which is unitless, is known as the Hazard Quotient (HQ) for that constituent. The HQ is calculated using the following formula: When the Hazard Quotient for a given constituent and pathway does not exceed 1, the Reference Dose has not been exceeded, and no adverse noncarcinogenic health effects are expected to occur as a result of exposure to that constituent via that pathway. The HQs for each constituent are summed to yield the HI for that pathway. A Total HI is then calculated for each exposure medium by summing the pathway - specific HIs. A Total HI that does not exceed 1 indicates that no adverse noncarcinogenic health effects are expected to occur as a result of that receptor's potential exposure to the environmental medium evaluated. Hazard Indices associated with each receptor are presented below. Summary data is provided in Table 5. Construction Worker The Construction Worker scenario assumed that the worker is on site for 8 hours a day for 250 days in 1 year and assumed to contact surface and subsurface soil. The construction worker was found to have a noncarcinogenic HI of 4E -03, well below the USEPA accepted criteria of 1. Recreational /Commuter This receptor is a user of the road on a daily basis. The recreational receptor is assumed to frequent the Site 350 days a year for 2 hours a day, as child for 6 years and as an adult for 24 years, totaling a 30 year recreational tenure. Recreational receptors were assumed to contact just the surface soil. The noncarcinogenic risk for this receptor was calculated to be 3E -03 for the Child Receptor and 1E-03 for the Adult Receptor. The higher of the two noncarcinogenic calculated risk is used to estimate the risk for the recreational /commuter receptor. Therefore the noncarcinogenic risk for the full 30 year tenure would be as a child at 3E -03, well below the USEPA accepted criteria of 1. 6.2 Carcinogenic Risk U is not considered to be carcinogenic daughter products is considered potentially cancer causing. The RESidual RADioactivity (RESRAD) computer code, Version 6.4 (ANL 2007), was used to estimate the radiological dose and total PELCR for both potential receptors. RESRAD was developed by ANL, in conjunction with the Department of Energy (DOE), USEPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a tool for predicting human health risks due to radioactivity in soils. The code uses radionuclide CSFs presented in Federal Guidance Report (FGR) No. 13 (USEPA 2002), which incorporates HEAST 2001 risk coefficient values. To determine the dose and total excess cancer risk per unit concentration of U, the EPC in pCi /g was used as the source term for each uranium isotope. Where available, site specific data was Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 Table 5 Summary of Potential Hazard Indices 6 -2 . However, the radiological activity of its isotopes and Hazard Index Compound Child Recreational Adult Recreational Construction Worker Uranium 3.E -03 1.E -03 4.E -03 Construction Worker The Construction Worker scenario assumed that the worker is on site for 8 hours a day for 250 days in 1 year and assumed to contact surface and subsurface soil. The construction worker was found to have a noncarcinogenic HI of 4E -03, well below the USEPA accepted criteria of 1. Recreational /Commuter This receptor is a user of the road on a daily basis. The recreational receptor is assumed to frequent the Site 350 days a year for 2 hours a day, as child for 6 years and as an adult for 24 years, totaling a 30 year recreational tenure. Recreational receptors were assumed to contact just the surface soil. The noncarcinogenic risk for this receptor was calculated to be 3E -03 for the Child Receptor and 1E-03 for the Adult Receptor. The higher of the two noncarcinogenic calculated risk is used to estimate the risk for the recreational /commuter receptor. Therefore the noncarcinogenic risk for the full 30 year tenure would be as a child at 3E -03, well below the USEPA accepted criteria of 1. 6.2 Carcinogenic Risk U is not considered to be carcinogenic daughter products is considered potentially cancer causing. The RESidual RADioactivity (RESRAD) computer code, Version 6.4 (ANL 2007), was used to estimate the radiological dose and total PELCR for both potential receptors. RESRAD was developed by ANL, in conjunction with the Department of Energy (DOE), USEPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a tool for predicting human health risks due to radioactivity in soils. The code uses radionuclide CSFs presented in Federal Guidance Report (FGR) No. 13 (USEPA 2002), which incorporates HEAST 2001 risk coefficient values. To determine the dose and total excess cancer risk per unit concentration of U, the EPC in pCi /g was used as the source term for each uranium isotope. Where available, site specific data was Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 Table 5 Summary of Potential Hazard Indices 6 -2 . However, the radiological activity of its isotopes and incorporated into the model. Site specific parameters include the following: Pathways — External Gamma, Inhalation, and Soil Ingestion Cover/Hydrology — Windspeed was adjusted to a site specific value of 9.163 m/s (20.5 mph) — Precipitation was adjusted to a site specific value of 0.635 m /year Occupancy — Inhalation rate adjusted to be receptor dependent, 0.833 m per hour for adults and construction workers, and 0.417 m for children. — Period of exposure adjusted to be site and receptor specific, 350 days per year for children/adults, and 250 days per year for the worker — Exposure duration adjusted to 6 years for children, 24 for adults, and 25 for the worker — Outdoor time fraction adjusted to 1, assuming that all exposure would be outdoors Where site - specific parameters were not available, the RESRAD default parameters were used as model input values. Results from the RESRAD analysis can be found in Appendix C. In evaluating dose and risk due to the external gamma pathway, it was assumed that all receptors received their exposure while outdoors. For each receptor, the maximum dose -to- source ratios and risk -to- source ratios over a period of 1,000 years were obtained from the corresponding RESRAD dose and health risk output report. Risks from each isotope and their progeny were summed to obtain the total risk for each receptor. Construction Worker The Construction Worker scenario was assumed to be on site for 8 hours a day for 250 days in 1 year and assumed to contact surface and subsurface soil. Carcinogenic risk for the construction worker was 1E-06. Recreational /Commuter This receptor is a user of the road on a daily basis. The recreational receptor is assumed to use the proposed alignment 350 days a year for 2 hours a day, as child for 6 years and as an adult for 24 years, totaling a 30 year recreational tenure. Recreational receptors were assumed to contact Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 6 -3 Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Hazard Index Construction Worker Recreational Child Recreational Adult Total Recreational Scenario Construction Worker Recreational Child Recreational Adult 1.E-06 3.E-07 9.E-07 1.E-06 4.E-03 3.E-03 1.E-03 surface soil only. The carcinogenic risk associated with this receptor was found to be 3E-07 for the Child Receptor and 9E-07 for the Adult Receptor. These carcinogenic risks can be summed for a total carcinogenic risk of a 1E-06 for the full 30-year tenure. A summary of results from the RESRAD analysis can be found on Table 6. A final summary of both the chemical and radiological risk assessment can be found on Table 7. Ground Ac-227 1.14E-11 Table 6: Summary of RESRAD Analysis Pa-231 5.01E-12 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 Pb-210 2.91E-15 6-4 Ra-226 3.44E-11 Th-230 9.44E-13 Table 7: Final Summary U-234 2.57E-09 U-235 U-238 7.53E-08 8.06E-07 Total 9.E-07 I Inhalation Soil Total Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Ground Inhalation Soil Total Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Ground Inhalation Soil Total Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk 1.01E-14 4.41E-13 1.18E-11 1.90E-13 3.55E-16 6.25E-15 1.97E-13 1.02E-11 3.80E-14 1.67E-13 1.04E-11 1.69E-14 7.11E-13 5.74E-12 2.98E-13 2.10E-15 3.58E-14 3.35E-13 4.63E-12 6.54E-14 2.79E-13 4.97E-12 1.29E-16 2.05E-13 2.08E-13 1.10E-17 1.02E-18 6.59E-16 6.71E-16 2.49E-15 4.62E-16 7.43E-14 7.73E-14 7.06E-16 1.83E-13 3.46E-11 4.85E-13 2.10E-17 2.19E-15 4.88E-13 3.05E-11 2.63E-15 2.37E-13 1.18E-11 1.30E-11 5.52E-14 2.91E-14 5.86E-13 6.70E-13 8.71E-13 9.19E-13 4.62E-12 6.41E-12 1.71E-09 8.34E-08 8.77E-08 6.31E-10 8.80E-10 1.74E-08 1.89E-08 2.47E-09 6.89E-09 3.40E-08 4.34E-08 2.11E-11 1.17E-09 7.65E-08 1.85E-08 1.09E-11 2.44E-10 1.87E-08 7.23E-08 8.53E-11 4.79E-10 7.29E-08 1.03E-09 7.49E-08 8.82E-07 1.98E-07 5.32E-10 1.56E-08 2.14E-07 7.75E-07 4.17E-09 3.05E-08 8.10E-07 3.E-09 2.E-07 1.E-06 2.E-07 1.E-09 3.E-08 3.E-07 8.E-07 1.E-08 6.87E-14 3.05E-11 7.E-08 9.E-07 Within any of the four steps of the risk assessment process, assumptions must be made due to a lack of absolute scientific knowledge. Some of the assumptions are supported by considerable scientific evidence, while others have less support. Every assumption introduces some degree of uncertainty into the risk assessment process. Conservative assumptions are made throughout the risk assessment to ensure that public health is protected. Therefore, when all of the assumptions are combined, it is much more likely that actual risks, if any, are overestimated rather than underestimated. The assumptions that introduce the greatest amount of uncertainty in this risk assessment are discussed in this section. They are discussed in general terms, because, for most of the assumptions, there is not enough information to assign a numerical value that can be factored into the calculation of risk. 7.1 Hazard Identification During the Hazard Identification step, media and constituents of concern are selected for inclusion in the quantitative risk assessment. In this assessment only lead and U were selected as COPCs. Uncertainty may be introduced due to this decision as additional chemicals may be present, but were not evaluated. Additionally, the analytical methods used to determine the concentration of lead or U may introduce significant uncertainty into the risk assessment process. To reduce laboratory method uncertainty, samples were analyzed by two independent methods. They included ICP -MS and Alpha Spectrometry. ICP -MS was theoretically more precise and provided lower detection limits for 235 and 238 isotopes. Alpha Spectrometry was theoretically more precise and provided lower detection limits for 234 U. The results indicate that ICP -MS was not the more sensitive method for any isotope, and the differences observed between methods provides some uncertainty as to the validity of our results. To address this uncertainty, this assessment utilized the alpha spectrometry results which overall provided more detailed results as well as higher activity and resulting mass concentrations. Using the higher results may potentially overestimate the actual risk. 7.2 Dose - Response Assessment SECTION 7 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS Dose - response values are usually based on limited toxicological data. For this reason, a margin of safety is built into estimates of both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk, and actual risks Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 7 -1 Saddle Road October 2009 underestimation. are lower than those estimated. The two major areas of uncertainty introduced in the dose- response assessment are: (1) animal to human extrapolation; and (2) high to low dose extrapolation. These are discussed below. Human dose - response values are often extrapolated, or estimated, using the results of animal studies. Extrapolation from animals to humans introduces a great deal of uncertainty in the risk assessment because in most instances, it is not known how differently a human may react to the constituent compared to the animal species used to test the constituent. The procedures used to extrapolate from animals to humans involve conservative assumptions and incorporate several uncertainty factors that overestimate the adverse effects associated with a specific dose. As a result, overestimation of the potential for adverse effects to humans is more likely than Predicting potential health effects from the exposure to media on -Site requires the use of models to extrapolate the observed health effects from the high doses used in laboratory studies to the anticipated human health effects from low doses experienced in the environment. The models contain conservative assumptions to account for the large degree of uncertainty associated with this extrapolation (especially for potential carcinogens in the radiological risk assessment) and therefore, tend to be more likely to overestimate than underestimate the risks. This risk assessment also utilized a conservative set of assumptions when evaluating the bioavailable fraction of COPCs available for absorption by the human body. Relative absorption factors (RAFs) estimate the amount a chemical that is absorbed by the body through different routes of exposure. As very little literature was available on the bioaccessible fraction from Uranium, AMEC used default ingestion, dermal and inhalation absorption fractions of 1, meaning the absorption in the animal study used to derive the toxicity value is identical to that in humans. More realistic bioavailable fractions for these pathways could be derived and would most likely reduce the estimate risk derived in this assessment. 7.3 Exposure Assessment During the exposure assessment, average daily doses of COPCs to which receptors are potentially exposed are estimated, which involves assumptions about how often exposure occurs. Such assumptions include location, accessibility, and use of an area. With this in mind, the receptor, or person who may potentially be exposed, and the location of exposure, were both defined for this risk assessment. The locations where certain activities were assumed to take place have been purposely selected to be consistent with the use of the Site. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 7 -2 The potential intake rates and exposure frequencies and durations assumed in the risk assessment were considered to be conservative. For example, a potential recreational scenario was assumed to be present at the Site in which a person may be present for 2 hours per day, 350 days per year for 6 years as a child and another 24 as an adult. Such assumptions almost certainly overestimate actual exposures. If more realistic and reasonable potential exposure assumptions had been employed in the risk assessment, the estimated risks would have been lower, perhaps substantially lower. The construction worker scenario assumed an 8 -hour workday, 250 days per year, for 1 year. Exposure point concentrations are estimated values of what is a Reasonable Maximum Exposure across the entire site. Given that these are estimates, a significant amount of uncertainty can be introduced into the assessment. For the soil pathways, the surface soil was assumed to be equivalent to the subsurface soil. This assumes that all Uranium is evenly distributed to depth in the contaminated zone. This could potentially overestimate any exposure to subsurface soils assuming the highest concentrations would be at the surface due to deposition. Exposure Point Concentrations were also taken from either the calculated using a 95% UCL or the maximum detected activity between the five samples. With very few samples, the variability was high, and in most cases resulted in the EPC being taken from at or near the maximum activity detected. This more than likely overestimated actual site concentrations but, as the site was evaluated as a single decision unit, using statistical analysis to generalize the actual concentrations across the site could possibly overestimate or underestimate the calculated risk. Additional uncertainty is also introduced by assuming non - detect laboratory results as present as zero. This assumption was based on the very limited and low concentrations detected across the site. Extensive analysis was performed on the sample results before making this assumption. Using half detection limits as a surrogate detection to calculate Exposure Point Concentrations resulted in unrealistic data results especially in the ICP -MS analysis. As there is no effective way to determine actual concentrations of contaminants below the reporting limit of the laboratory, this may potentially underestimate the concentration of contaminants. Other exposure factors including inhalation rate, ingestion rate, soil adherence factor and body weight were all based on recommendation from the EPA Exposure Factors Handbook (1997), which as closely represent actual site values as reasonably available. 7.4 Risk Characterization The risk of adverse human health effects depends on estimated levels of exposure and on dose- Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 7 -3 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 7 -4 response relationships. Once exposure to, and risk from, each of the selected constituents is calculated, the total risk posed by exposure to Site - related COPCs is determined by combining the health risk contributed by each constituent. Where COPCs do not interact, do not affect the same target organ or do not have the same mechanism of action, summing the risks for multiple COPCs results in an overestimate of risk posed by the Site. Because U and lead were assessed separately, little uncertainty is added in this phase of the assessment. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 SECTION 8 CONCLUSIONS 8 -1 This study has assessed the potential human health risks associated with Uranium and Lead exposures from surface soils at the proposed Saddle road alignment. Lead concentrations in all samples were well below the USEPA Region IX residential PRG of 400 parts per million, with the maximum lead concentration detected at any location of 3.3 mg /kg at sampling location DU004. Included in this study was a uranium background level assessment to assess whether onsite uranium was from natural or anthropogenic sources. Two methods were employed to evaluate uranium isotope source. The first method compared site - specific total U mass concentrations to naturally occurring U mass concentrations in Hawaii. Total U was determined by summing the isotopic concentrations of 234U 235 and 238 detected at 5 independent sites along the proposed Saddle Road alignment. Results of this analysis indicated that total uranium along the proposed Saddle Road alignment are at or below levels occurring naturally in native Hawaiian soils. Total U based on alpha spectroscopy analyses ranged from 0.4 parts per million (ppm) at location DU003 to 1.3 ppm at DU001. The average at all five (5) locations was 0.8 ppm. The second method used to determine whether detected U originates from natural or DU sources was the evaluation of isotope abundance. Except in extremely rare circumstances (not found in Hawai`i), natural U dispersed in rocks and soils have a comparatively greater 234 and 235 / ratio than those originating from DU. Although use of the 235 is considered a more precise measurement than the 234 ratio in isotopic fingerprinting of U contamination, its utility is significant when 235 data are not available or when concentrations of the 235 isotope are too low to detect. This is the case here and as such, the 234 U ratio was used as the second method to fingerprint U source. The naturally occurring 234 ratio in soil has been determined to be in the range of 0.5 to 1.2 (Sansone et al. 2001). 234U/238U ratios at the Saddle Road alignment ranged from 0.74 to 1.79, with an average ratio across all five (5) locations of 1.16. These results indicate that the 234 isotopic ratio across the proposed alignment is within the background range. A baseline human health risk assessment (BHHRA) was performed to evaluate the potential risk posed by uranium isotopes detected at the proposed Saddle Road alignment. The alignment was evaluated as a single decision unit represented by five distinct sampling locations. Receptors were assumed to be exposed to either the maximum concentration of each isotope detected or the 95% UCL of the mean. Risks were evaluated for the following receptors: • A construction worker scenario assumed to be on site for 8 hours a day for 250 days in 1 year and assumed to contact surface and subsurface soil. • A recreational user of the road assumed to frequent the Site 350 days a year for 2 hours a day, as child for 6 years and as an adult for 24 years, totaling a 30 year recreational tenure. Recreational receptors were assumed to contact just the surface soil The Construction Worker scenario assumed to be on site for 8 hours a day for 250 days in 1 year and assumed to contact surface and subsurface soil. The construction worker was found to have a carcinogenic risk of 1E-06, and a noncarcinogenic risk of 4E-03. The recreational receptor was assumed to frequent the Site 350 days a year for 2 hours a day, as child for 6 years and as an adult for 24 years, totaling a 30 year recreational tenure. Recreational receptors were assumed to contact only surficial soils. The carcinogenic risk associated with this receptor was found to be 3E -07 for the Child Receptor and 9E -07 for the Adult Receptor. These carcinogenic risks can be summed for a total carcinogenic risk of a 1E-06 for the full 30 year tenure. The noncarcinogenic risk was calculated to be 3E -03 for the Child Receptor and 1E -03 for the Adult Receptor. The higher of the two noncarcinogenic calculated risk is used to estimate the risk for the recreational /commuter receptor. Therefore the noncarcinogenic risk for the full 30 year tenure would be as a child at 3E -03. Based on the available surface soil data collected in June 2008 at five (5) locations along the proposed alignment, it has been determined that uranium detected at the site originates from natural sources. Potential noncancer health risks from the ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact of soil along the proposed alignment are below USEPA's acceptable risk level of concern. Potential cancer risks from radiological activity of the detected U isotopes are below the most conservative regulatory criteria. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 8 -2 SECTION 9 REFERENCES AMEC 2008. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Depleted Uranium Risk Assessment. Ke `arnuku Parcel, South Kohala District. Hawai `i Island, State of Hawai `i. ANL 2007. RESRAD Computer Code, Version 6.4. Argonne National Laboratory. December 19, 2007. ATSDR 1999. Toxicological Profile for Uranium. US Department of Health and Human Services. ATSDR 2008. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. US Department of Health and Human Services. http:// www. atsdr.cdc.gov /mrls / #bookmark0l. As of August 2008. Geometrician 2007. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice, Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 42, County of Hawai `i, State of Hawai `i. FHWA Project No. 200(00). Juvik, S.P., and Juvik, J.O. (eds.) 1998. Atlas of Hawai'i, Third Edition. University of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. MacDonald, B., Abbott, A., and Peterson, F. 1983. Volcanoes in the sea, 2 ed. Honolulu, University of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. Mink, J. F. and S. L. Lau 1993. Aquifer Identification and Classification for the Island of Hawai `i: Groundwater Protection Strategy for Hawai `i. Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Rubin, Kenneth H., Ph.D. 2008. Depleted Uranium, Natural Uranium and Other Naturally Occurring Radioactive Elements in Hawaiian Environments. Sansone, U., Stellato, L., Jia, G., Rosamilia, S., Gaudino, S., Barbizzi, S., and Belli, M. 2001. Levels of Depleted Uranium in Kosovo Soils. Stegnar, Peter and Benedik, Ljudmila 2001. Depleted Uranium in the Environment — An Issue of Concern? USDA 1972. Soil Survey of Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawai `i. United States Soil Conservation Service Washington, DC USEPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), EPA 540/1 - 89/002, PB90- 155581. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 9 -1 USEPA 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I.' Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance. Standard Default Exposure Factors — Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6 -03. USEPA 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes I, II, and III, USEPA /600 /P- 95/002Fa- c EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. USEPA 2001. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. Online database maintained by USEPA. ( http: / /www.epa.gov /radiation/heast). As of April 2001. USEPA 2002. Federal Guidance Report No. 13: Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides. EPA- 402/R -99 -001. USEPA 2004. EPA Region 9 Preliminary Rernediation Goal Tables and User's Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9. USEPA 2007. ProUCL Version 4.0, a Statistical Software, National Exposure Research Lab, EPA, Las Vegas Nevada. ProUCL 3.0 can be freely downloaded from the EPA website: http://www.epa.govinerlesdlitsc/tsc.htm USEPA 2008. Integrated Risk Information System. Online database maintained by USEPA. (http: / /www.epa.gov /iris). As of July 2006 Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris. 1996. Geologic Map of the Island of Hawai `i. USGS Misc Investigations Series Map I- 2524 -A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 9 -2 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 Appendix A ANALYTICAL SAMPLING RESULTS TestAmerica MMNMIMMMI . THE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING ANALYTICAL REPORT PROJECT NO PTA DU SAMPLING Soil Sampling Lot #: F8F190108 Jamie Anderson AMEC Earth & Environmental Airport Industrial Center 3375 Koapaka St., Ste F251 Honolulu, HI 96819 TESTAMERI C'A LABORATORIES, INC. y Clay TestAmerica St. Louis Project Manager July 3, 2008 Lot# F8F190108 1 of 35 Lot# F8F190108 Case Narrative LOT NUMBER: F8F190108 This report contains the analytical results for the seven samples received under chain of custody by TestAmerica St. Louis on June 18, 2008. These samples are associated with your Soil Sampling project. The analytical results included in this report meet all applicable quality control procedure requirements except as noted on the following page. The test results in this report meet all NELAP requirements for parameters in which accreditations are held by TestAmerica St. Louis. Any exceptions to NELAP requirements are noted in the case narrative. The case narrative is an integral part of this report. All chemical analysis results are based upon sample as received, wet weight, unless noted otherwise. All radiochemistry results are based upon sample as dried and ground with the exception of tritium, unless requested wet weight by the client. Observations/Nonconformances Reference the chain of custody and condition upon receipt report for any variations on receipt conditions and temperature of samples on receipt. ICP -MS (6020) Batch: 8176078 1) The samples were analyzed at a dilution due to high concentrations of target analytes. The reporting limit has been adjusted only for those targets reported from the dilution run. 2) The lCB was above the reporting limit for uranium 238. However, the bracketing CCB's are all within limits. The CCB's are sampled from the same cup as the ICB, indicating the ICB failure is an anomaly. The sample results will be reported with this narrative. 3) The MS (MSD) recovery for uranium 235 and 238 is outside the established QC limits. The RPD is within method acceptance criteria indicating a possible matrix interference. Method performance is demonstrated by acceptable LCS recovery. Affected Samples: F8F190108 (1): DU 001 F8F190108 (2): DU 002 F8F190108 (3): DU 003 F8F190108 (4): DU 004 F8F190108 (5): DU 005 F8F190108 (6): DU 006 F8F190108 (7): DU 007 TestAmerica St. Louis 2 of 35 PARAMETER Isotopic Uranium by Alpha Spectroscopy ICP -MS (6020) Percent Moisture References: METHODS SUMMARY F8F190108 ANALYTICAL PREPARATION METHOD METHOD EML A- 01- R MOD SW846 6020 MCAWW 160.3 MOD MCAWW 160.3 MOD EML "ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS LABORATORY PROCEDURES MANUAL" HASL --300 28TH EDITION, VOLUME I and II DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MCAWW !"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes", EPA - 600/4 -79 -020. March 1983 and subsequent revisions. SW846 "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical /Chemical Methods ", Third Edition, November 1986 and its updates. TestAmerica St. Louis Lot# F8F190108 3 of 35 WO # SAMPLE# CLIENT SAMPLE ID KP7GK 001 DU 001 KP7HT 002 DU 002 KP7HX 003 DU 003 KP7H0 004 DU 004 KP7H1 005 DU 005 KP7H2 006 DU 006 KP7H4 007 DU 007 NOTES SAMPLE SUMMARY F8F190108 - The analytical results of the samples listed above are presented on the following pages. - All calculations are performed before rounding to avoid round -off errors in calculated results. - Results noted as "ND" were not detected at or above the stated limit. - This report must not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. - Results for the following parameters are never reported on a dry weight basis: color, corrosivity, density, flashpoint, ignitability, layers, odor, paint filter test, pH, porosity pressure, reactivity, redox potential, specific gravity, spot tests, solids, solubility, temperature, viscosity, and weight. TestAmerica St. Louis SAMPLED SAMP DATE TIME 06/11/08 12:00 06/11/08 15:15 06/11/08 14:30 06/11/08 13:32 06/11/08 12:45 06/11/08 15:15 06/11/08 15:15 Lot# F8F190108 4 of 35 Lot - Sample #_._: F8F190108 --001 Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled___: 06/11/08 12:00 Date Received__: 06/18/08 % Moisture - 1.0 REPORTING PREPARATION- WORK PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE ORDER # Prep Batch #.__: 8176078 Lead 3.0 0.76 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24- 07/01/08 KP7GKlAD Dilution Factor: 2.5 Analysis Time..: 00:36 Uranium 234 ND Uranium 235 ND Uranium 238 0.16 NOTE (S) : Results and reporting limits have been adjusted for dry weight. AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 001 TOTAL Metals TestAmerica St. Louis 0.0051 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24- 07/01/08 KP7GK1AF Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:09 0.0051 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KP7GK1AG Dilution Factor: 1 .Analysis Time..: 16:09 0.0051 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24- 07/01/08 KP7GK1AH Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:09 Lot# F8F190108 5 of 35 AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 001 General chemistry TestAmerica St. Louis Lot -- Sample # _ _ .: F8F190108-001 Work Order # _ _ _ : KP7GK Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled___: 06/11/08 12:00 Date Received__: 06/18/08 Moisture - 1.0 PREPARATION- PREP PARAMETER RESULT RL UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE BATCH # Percent Moisture 1.0 0.10 % MCANW 160.3 MOD 06/20-06/23/08 8172171 Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 00:00 Lot# F8F190108 6 of 35 Lot - Sample $.. _ : F8F190108-002 Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled___: 06/11/08 15:15 Date Received..: 06/18/08 %7 Moisture - 5.2 REPORTING PREPARATION -- WORK PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE ORDER # Prep Batch #__ -_ 8176078 Lead 2.8 0.79 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24-07/01/08 KP7HT1AD Dilution Factor: 2.5 Analysis Time..: 01:00 Uranium 234 ND Uranium 235 ND Uranium 238 0.13 NOTE(S) : Results and reporting limits have been adjusted for dry weight. AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 002 TOTAL Metals TestAmerica St. Louis 0.0053 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KP7HT1AF Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:32 0.0053 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24- 07/01/08 KP7HTIAG Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:32 0.0053 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24-07/01/08 KP7HT1 -AH Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:32 Lot# F8F190108 7 of 35 Lot - Sample #___: F8F190108 -002 Work Order C_..: KP7HT Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled..__ 06/11/08 15:15 Date Received -__ 06/18/08 t Moisture - 5.2 PREPARATION -- PREP PARAMETER RESULT RL UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE BATCH # Percent Moisture 5.2 0.10 % MCA' 160.3 MOD 06/20- 06/23/08 8172171 Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 00:00 AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 002 General Chemistry TestAmerica St. Louis Lot# F8F190108 8 of 35 AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 003 TOTAL Metals TestAmerica St. Louis Lot -- Sample #- - - : F8F190108 -003 Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled - - -- 06 /11/08 14:30 Date Received -__ 06/18/08 % Moisture - 10 REPORTING PREPARATION- WORK PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE ORDER # Prep Batch . - -: 8176078 Lead 1.8 0.84 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KP7HX1AD Dilution Factor: 2.5 Analysis Time..: 01:04 Uranium 234 ND Uranium 235 ND Uranium 238 0.064 NOTE(S): Results and reporting limits have been adjusted for dry weight. 0.0056 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24-07/01/08 KP7HXIAF Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time... 16:37 0.0056 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KP7HXIAG Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time__: 16:37 0.0056 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24-07/01/08 KP7HX1AH Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time... 16:37 Lot# F8F190108 9 of 35 1MEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 003 General chemistry TestAmerica St. Louis Lot -- Sample # _ . _ : F8F190108-003 Work Order # _ _ _ = KP7HX Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled____ 06/11/08 14 :30 Date Received___ 06/18/08 % Moisture - 10 PREPARATION- PREP PARAMETER RESULT RL UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE BATCH # Percent Moisture 10.2 0.10 % MAW 160.3 MOD 06/20- 06/23/08 8172171 Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 00:00 Lot# F8F190108 10 of 35 Uranium 234 ND Uranium 235 ND Uranium 238 0.10 NOTE(S): Results and reporting limits have been adjusted for dry weight. AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 004 TOTAL Metals TestAmerica St. Louis Lot - Sample C..: F8F190108 -004 Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled_..: 06/11/08 13:32 Date Received_.: 06/18/08 t Moisture - 23 REPORTING PREPARATION- WORK PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE ORDER # Prep Batch # -. -: 8176078 Lead 3 -3 0.98 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24- 07/01/08 KP7H01AD Dilution Factor: 2.5 Analysis Time..: 01:08 0.0065 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 RP7H01AF Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:43 0.0065 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24-07/01/08 KP7HO1AG Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:43 0.0065 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24-07/01/08 KP7HOTAH Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:43 Lot# F8F190108 11 of 35 AMRC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 004 General Chemistry TestAmerica St. Louis Lot -- Sample #___: F8F190108 -004 Work Order #___: KP7H0 Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled...: 06/11/08 13:32 Date Received_ _ : 06/18/08 % Moisture - 23 PREPARATION- PREP PARAMETER RESULT RL UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE BATCH # Percent Moisture 23.3 0.10 t MAW 160.3 MOD 06/20 - 06/23/08 8172171 Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 00:00 Lot# F8F190108 12 of 35 AM EC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 005 TOTAL Metals Lot-Sample #...: F8F190108 -005 Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled__.: 06/11/08 12:45 Date Received__: 06/18/08 % Moisture - 16 REPORTING PREPARATION- WORK PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE ORDER # Prep Batch #___: 8176078 Lead 3.0 0.89 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24-07/01/08 KP7H11AD Dilution Factor: 2.5 Analysis Time..: 01:12 Uranium 234 ND Uranium 235 ND Uranium 238 0.14 NOTE(S) : Results and reporting limits have been adjusted for dry weight. 0.006 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24- 07/01/08 KP7H11AF Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:48 TestAmerica St. Louis 0.006 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24-07/01/08 KP7H11AG Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:48 0.006 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KP7H11AH Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:48 Lot# F8F190108 13 of 35 AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 005 General Chemistry TestAmerica St. Louis Lot-Sample #_ _ _ : F8F190108 --OO5 Work Order 4t_ _ _ : KP7H1 Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled___: 06/11/08 12:45 Date Received__: 06/18/08 t Moisture - 16 PREPARATION- PREP PARAMETER RESULT RL METHOD ANALYSIS DATE BATCH # Percent Moisture 16.1 0.10 % MCA' 160.3 MOD 06/20- 06/23/08 8172171 Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 00:00 Lot# F8F190108 14 of 35 Uranium 234 ND Uranium 235 ND Uranium 238 0.10 NOTE {S} : Results and reporting limits have been adjusted for dry weight. AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 006 TOTAL Metals TestAmerica St. Louis Lot - Sample #...: F8F190108- -006 Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled.___ 06/11/08 15:15 Date Received__: 06/18/08 % Moisture - 5.8 REPORTING PREPARATION -- WORK PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE ORDER # Prep Batch C___: 8176078 Lead 2.0 0.80 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24- 07/01/08 KP7H21AD Dilution Factor: 2.5 Analysis Time..: 01:15 0.0053 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24- 07/01/08 KP7H21AF Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 17:13 0.0053 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KP7H21AG Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 17:13 0.0053 mg/kg SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KP7H21AH Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 17:13 Lot# F8F190108 15 of 35 AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 006 General Chemistry TestAmerica St. Louis Lot - Sample #___= F8F190108 -006 Work Order #___: KP7H2 Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled___: 06/11/08 15:15 Date Received___ 06/18/08 t Moisture - 5.8 PREPARATION- PREP PARAMETER RESULT RL UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE BATCH # Percent Moisture 5.8 0_l0 % MCAWW 160.3 MOD 06/20 - 06/23/08 8172171 Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 00:00 Lot# F8F190108 16 of 35 Uranium 234 ND Uranium 235 ND Uranium 238 0.11 NOTE (S) Results and reporting limits have been adjusted for dry weight. AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 007 TOTAL Metals TestAmerica St. Louis Lot - Sample #_ -_: F8F190108 -007 Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled_ - -_ 06/11/08 15:15 Date Received_ -: 06/18/08 % Moisture - 6.3 REPORTING PREPARATION- WORK PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE ORDER # Prep Batch # -__: 8176078 Lead 2 -4 0.80 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24- 07/01/08 KP7H41AD Dilution Factor: 2.5 Analysis Time..: 01:19 0.0053 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24- 07/01/08 KP7H41AF Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 17:18 0.0053 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24-07/01/08 KP7H41AG Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 17:18 0.0053 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24- 07/01/08 KP7H47AH Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time... 17:18 Lot# F8F190108 17 of 35 AMEG Barth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 007 General Chemistry TestAmerica St. Louis Lot - Sample #.._: F8F190108 -007 Work Order #___= KP7H4 Matrix - SOLID Date Sampled___: 06/11/08 15:15 Date Received__: 06/18/08 Moisture - 6.3 PREPARATION- PREP PARAMETER RESULT RL UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE BATCH # Percent Moisture 6.3 0.10 % MGAWN 160.3 MOD 06/20- 06/23/08 8172171 Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 00:00 Lot# F8F190108 18 of 35 Client Lot #...: F8F190108 REPORTING PREPARATION- WORK PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE ORDER # MB Lot -- Sample #: F8F240000 -078 Prep Batch #_..: 8176078 Lead ND 0.30 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KQF4L1AA Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time... 00:28 Uranium 234 ND 0.005 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KQF4L1AC Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time... 15:58 Uranium 235 ND 0.005 mg /kg SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KQF4LIAD Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time... 15:58 Uranium 238 ND 0.005 mg/kg SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KQF4LIAE Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time... 15:58 NOTE(S): METHOD BLANK REPORT TOTAL Metals Calculations are performed before rounding to avoid round -off enors in calculated results. TestAmerica St. Louis Matrix - SOLID Lot# F8F190108 19 of 35 Client Lot #._.: F8F190108 PARAMETER NOTE (S) : Calculations are performed before rounding to avoid round-off errors in calculated results. LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE EVALUATION REPORT TOTAL Metals Matrix - SOLID PERCENT RECOVERY PREPARATION - RECOVERY LIMITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE WORK ORDER # LCS Lot - Satnple4t : F 8 F 2 4 0 0 0 0 - 0 7 8 Prep Batch #. . .: 8176078 Lead 105 (82 - 118) SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KQF4L1AF Dilution Factor: 12.5 Analysis Time..: 00:32 Uranium 235 104 (80 -- 120) SW846 6020 06/24-07/01/08 KQF4L1AH Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:03 Uranium 238 103 (80 - 120) SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KQF4L1AJ Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:03 TestAmerica St. Louis Lot# F8F190108 20 of 35 Lead Uranium 235 44 42 Uranium 238 37 35 NOTE (S) : PERCENT RECOVERY Calculations are performed before rounding to avoid round -off errors in calculated results. Results and reporting limits have been adjusted for dry weight. MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE EVALUATION REPORT TOTAL Metals Client Lot #...: F8F190108 Date Sampled__.: 06/11/08 12:00 Date Received -.: 06/18/08 MS Lot - Sample #: F8F190108 -001 Prep Batch #...: 8176078 (75 -- 125) SW846 6020 (75 - 125) (0 -30) SW846 6020 Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:20 (75 -- 125) SW846 6020 (75 -- 125) (0 -30) SW846 6020 Dilution Factor: 1 Analysis Time..: 16:20 TestAmerica St. Louis Matrix - SOLID RPD PREPARATION -- WORK PARAMETER RECOVERY LIMITS RPD LIMITS METHOD ANALYSIS DATE ORDER # % Moisture - 1.0 100 (75 -- 125) SW846 6020 06/24 - 07/01/08 KP7GKIAL 91 (75 -- 125) 8.6 (0 -30) SW846 6020 06/24- 07/01/08 KP7GK1AM Dilution Factor: 2.5 Analysis Time..: 00:44 06/24 - 07/01/08 KP7GKlAN 06/24 - 07/01/08 KP7GK1AP 06/24 - 07/01/08 KP7GK1AQ 06/24 - 07/01/08 KP7GKlAR Lot# F8F190108 21 of 35 Client Lot F8F190108 Date Sampled_.._ Moisture PARAM RESULT Percent Moisture 6.3 SAMPLE DUPLICATE EVALUATION REPORT Work Order C._.: KP7H4 -SMP KP7H4 -DUP 06/11/08 15:15 Date Received..: 06/18/08 6.3 DUPLICATE RPD RESULT UNITS RPD LIMIT METHOD 7.5 Dilution Factor: 1 General Chemistry TestAmerica St. Louis Matrix - SOLID PREPARATION- PREP ANALYSIS DATE BATCH # SD Lot - Sample #: F8F190108 -007 17 (0-30) MCAWW 160.3 MOD 06/20 - 06/23/08 8172171 Analysis Time..: 00:00 Lot# F8F190108 22 of 35 Lab Sample ID: F8F190108-001 Date Collected: 06/11/08 12 0 0 Work Order: KP7GK Date Received: 06/18/08 0915 Matrix: SOLID Parameter Total Uncert . Result Qual (2 (5+/ RL MDC Iso URANIUM MONK; CT) DOE A- 01--R MoD Uranium 234 0.436 0.096 Uranium 235/236 0.014 U 0.020 Uranium 238 0.368 0.087 NOTE (S) Data are incomplete without the case narrative. MDC is determined by instrument performance only. Bold results are greater than the MDC U Result is less than the sample detection limit. AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 001 Radiochemistry pCi/g 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.024 0.031 0.024 TestAmerica St. Louis Prep Analysis Date Date Batch # 8175252 Yld % 80 06/23/08 06/26/08 06/23/08 06/26/08 06/23/08 06/26/08 Lot# F8F190108 23 of 35 Lab Sample ID: F8F190108 -001X Work Order: KP 7 GK Matrix: SOLID Iso URANIUM (LONG CT) DOE A-- 01--R MOD Uranium 234 0.300 0.076 Uranium 235/236 0.003 U 0.011 Uranium 238 0.298 0.076 NOTE(S) Data are incomplete without the case narrative. MDC is determined by instrument performance only. Bold results are greater than the MDC U Result is less than the sample detection limit. AMEC Earth & Envi ronment a l Client Samtle ID: DU 001 DUP Radiochemistry Total Uncert. Parameter Result Qual (2 a+/-) RL MDC pCi /g Date Collected: 06/11/08 1200 Date Received: 06/18/08 0915 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.025 0.028 0.027 TestAmerica St. Louis Prep Analysis Date Date Batch # 8175252 Yld % 82 06/23/08 06/26/08 06/23/08 06/26/08 06/23/08 06/26/08 Lot# F8F190108 24 of 35 Lab Sample ID: F8F190108 -002 Date Collected: 06/11/08 1515 Work Order: KP7HT Date Received: 06/18/08 0 915 Matrix: SOLID Parameter NOTE(S) Result Qual Iso URANIUM (LONG CT) DOE A- -01- -R MOD pCi/g Batch # 8175252 Yld % 92 Uranium 234 0.157 0.051 0.100 0.024 06/23/08 06/26/ 08 Uranium 235/236 0.008 U 0.013 0.100 0.021 06/23/08 06/26/08 Uranium 238 0.133 0.047 0.100 0.025 06/23/08 06/26/08 Data are incomplete without the case narrative. MDC is determined by instrument performance only. Sold results are greater than the MDC U Result is less than the sample detection limit. AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 002 Radiochemistry Total Uncert. (2 a + / -) RL MDC TestAmerica St. Louis Prep Analysis Date Date Lot# F8F190108 25 of 35 Lab Sample ID: F8F190108 -003 Work Order: KP 7 HX Matrix: SOLID Parameter Iso URANIUM (LONG CT) DOE A -01 -R MOD pCi/g Batch # 8175252 Yld p83 Uranium 234 Uranium 235/236 Uranium 238 NOTE(S) Result Qual 0.118 0.017 0.066 AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Samtle ID: DU 003 Radiochemistry U J Data are incomplete without the case narrative. MDC is determined by instrument performance only. Bold results are greater than the MDC Total Uncert. (2 o +/ -) 0.047 0.022 0.035 Date Collected: 06/11/08 143 0 Date Received: 06/18/08 0 915 RL MDC 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.029 0.031 0.023 J Result is greater than sample detection limit but less than stated reporting limit. U Result is less than the sample detection limit. TestAmerica St. Louis Prep Analysis Date Date 06/23/08 06/26/08 06/23/08 06/26/08 06/23/08 06/26/08 Lot# F8F190108 26 of 35 Parameter 'so URANIUM { LONG CT) DoE A-- 01--R MoD Uranium 234 0.144 0.050 Uranium 235/236 0.0050 U 0.0099 Uranium 238 0.130 0.047 NOTE (S) Result Qual Data are incomplete without the case narrative. MDC is determined by instrument performance only. Bold results are greater than the MDC U Result is less than the sample detection limit. AIEC Earth & Environmental Client Samtle ID: DU 004 Radiochemistry Lab Sample ID: F8F190108 - 004 Date Collected: 06/11/08 1332 Work Order: KP7H 0 Date Received: 06/18/08 0 915 Matrix: SOLID Total Uncert. (2 a +/ -) pCi/g RL MDC 0.100 0.100 0.100 TestAmerica St. Louis Prep Analysis Date Date Batch # 8175252 Yld % 87 0.025 06/23/08 06/26/08 0.013 06/23/08 06/26/08 0.018 06/23/08 06/26/08 Lot# F8F190108 27 of 35 Lab Sample ID: F8F190108 -005 Date Collected: 06/11/08 1245 Work. Order: KP7H1 Date Received: 06/18/08 0 915 Matrix: SOLID Parameter Result Qual AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 005 Radiochemistry Total Uncert. (2 a +/ -) RL MDC TestAmerica St. Louis Prep Analysis Date Date I so URANIUM (LONG CT) DOE A-01--R MOD pCi / g Batch # 8175252 Yld % 76 Uranium 234 0.199 0.062 0.100 0.026 06/23/08 06/26/08 Uranium 235/236 0.01 U 0.016 0.100 0.025 06/23/08 06/26/08 Uranium 238 0.269 0.073 0.100 0.026 06/23/08 06/26/08 NOTE(S) Data are incomplete without the case narrative. MDC is determined by instrument performance only. Bold results are greater than the MDC U Result is less than the sample detection limit. Lot# F8F190108 28 of 35 Result Qual Lab Sample ID: F8F190108 -006 Date Collected: 06/11/08 1515 Work Order: KP7H2 Date Received: 06/18/08 0 915 Matrix: SOLID Parameter AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 006 Radiochemistry Total Uncert. (2 a +/-) RL MDC TestAmerica St. Louis Prep Analysis Date Date Iso URANIUM (LONG CT) DOE A .-01 -R MOD pCi/g Batch # 8175252 Yld % 72 Uranium 234 0.123 0.049 0.100 0.013 06/23/08 06/26/08 Uranium 235/236 0.018 J 0.020 0.100 0.016 06/23/08 06/26/08 Uranium 238 0.122 0.049 0.100 0.021 06/23/08 06/26/08 NOTE (S) Data are incomplete without the case narrative. MDC is determined by instrument performance only. Bold results are greater than the MDC Result is greater than sample detection limit but less than stated reporting limit. Lot# F8F190108 29 of 35 Parameter Iso URAN =UM {LONG CT) DOE A - 01 - R MOD Uranium 234 0.127 0.048 Uranium 235/236 0.0 U 0.0055 Uranium 238 0.154 0.054 NOTE (S) Result Qual Data are incomplete without the case narrative. NDC is determined by instrument performance only. Bold results are greater than the MDC U Result is less than the sample detection limit. AMEC Earth & Environmental Client Sample ID: DU 007 Radiochemistry Lab Sample ID: F8F190108 -007 Date Collected: 06/11/08 1515 Work Order: KP7H4 Date Received: 06/18/08 0 915 Matrix: SOLID Total Uncert. (2 6 + /--) pCi /g RL MDC 0.100 0.100 0.100 TestAmerica St. Louis Prep Analysis Date Date Batch # 8175252 Yld % 79 0.012 0.015 0.026 06/23/08 06/26/08 06/23/08 06/26/08 06/23/08 06/26/08 Lot# F8F190108 30 of 35 Client Lot ID: F8F190108 Matrix: SOLID Parameter Uranium 234 0.007 Uranium 235/236 - 0.0012 Uranium 238 0.003 NOTE(S) Result Qual I so URANIUM (LONG CT) DOE A-- 01--R MOD U U U Data are incomplete without the case narrative. MDC is determined using instrument performance only Bold results are greater than the NIDC U Result is less than the sample detection limit. METHOD BLANK REPORT Radiochemistry Total Uncert. (2 a + / - ) pCi /g 0.015 0.0025 0.015 RL NIDC TestAmerica St. Louis Lab Sample ID Prep Analysis Date Date Batch # 8175252 Yld • 87 F8F230000-252B 0.100 0.027 06/23/08 06/26/08 0.100 0.023 06/23/08 06/26/08 0.100 0.033 06/23/08 06/26/08 Lot# F8F190108 31 of 35 Client Lot ID: F8F190108 Matrix: SOLID Parameter Iso URANIUM (LONG CT) DOE A -01-R MOD Uranium 234 Uranium 238 N (S Laboratory Control Sample Report Radiochemistry Total Uncert. Spike Amount Result (2 6 + / - 19.6 20.1 19.6 17.4 Batch #: 8175252 MDC is determined by instrument performance only MDC • 1 1 % Yld % Rec TestAmerica St. Louis Lab Sample ID QC Control Limits pCi /g A -01- -R MOD F8F230000-252C 2.8 0.3 86 103 (70 - 122) 2.5 0.3 86 89 (69 - 119) Analysis Date: 06/26/08 Lot# F8F190108 32 of 35 Parameter SAMPLE Result Iso URANIUM (LONG CT) DOE A -01 -R MOD NOTE(S) U Result is less than the sample detection limit. DUPLICATE EVALUATION REPORT Client Lot ID: F8F190108 Date Sampled: 06/11/08 Matrix: SOLID Date Received: 06/18/08 Total Uncert. (26 + /-) Radiochemistry DUPLICATE % Yld Result pCi/g A - 01 - R MOD Total Uncert. (2 a+/ Data are incomplete without the case narrative. Calculations are performed before rounding to avoid round -off error in calculated results % Yld TestAmerica St. Louis QC Sample ID Precision F8F190108 --001 Uranium 234 0.436 0.096 80 0.300 0.076 82 37 %RPD Uranium 235/236 0.014 U 0.020 80 0.003 U 0.011 82 139 %RPD Uranium 238 0.368 0.087 80 0.298 0.076 82 21 %RPD Batch #: 8175252 (Sample) 8175252 (Duplicate) Lot# F8F190108 33 of 35 Client Contact Irth & Environmental paka Street, Suite F251 Project Manager: Russell Okoji TelfFax: SOS -391 -9906 Analysis Turnaround Time I Prep • Dry and Grind 1 1 Date: 6/11/08 COC No: 001 Carrier: FedEx 1 of COCs _ 1 Job No. H# 96819 Calendar ( C ) or Work Days (W) Stan -2462 Phone TAT if from Below _ „ __ .. _ _ 0 2 weeks f ] 1 week 0 2 days ED Iday -5379 FAX SDG No. ame: PTA DU Sampling Sample identification Sample Date Sample Time Sample Type Matrix i#ot ( :Om. Sample Specific Notes: DU 041 DU 002 U DU 003 DU DO4 6/11/2008 6111/2008 6/11/2005 6/11/2008 12:00 2:30 111111 Composite Com osife p Composite Composite Soil Soil Soil Soil IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MOO Mal 111111111•1111MMI DU 005 DU 006 1DLI 007 6/11/2008 6111120 }08 MEE 111111111111111111111111•11111111111111111 12:45 Ell Composite Composite Cam osife p Soil INN Soi[i 11 X fall11111111 1111111111111 iErtr MSIMSD than Usc . . Ice : 1111111111111111111111111111111111M 111111111111111111111111111111111 1 111111111111111111111111 11111111111111011111111111111111111=11111111 111111M111.11111111=1111 'aznrd Id efic lion i- Wowwrd EJ I ontr;iabk 0 Skis? Ir l itaflt Poison 13 Unknown Sample Disposal (A fee ti — assessed if samples are retained longer than 1 month) = Return To Client Ell e ' posal By Lab =A rchive For Months istructions /QC Requirements & Comments: Conduct MSIivISD on DU 005. Dry and grind all soil before subsantpling. hed by: Jamie L Anderson . -- •fir Company: AIvMEC Date/Time: 6 116/08 r� 13:00 Recei e y: `' Y ' : -, i Company: n9 - - ( 5 7 a Date/Time: r I J/i [. e,94/6 9 had by: ( Company: Date:1'ime: Receive y: Company: Date/Time: hed by: Company: Date/Time: .Received by: Company: Date/Time: 0 hh is es Trail North , MO 63045 .298.8566 fax 314.298.8757 Chain of Custody rd TestAmerica TFIE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING TestArnerica Laboratories, roc. TestAmrica .THE' LEADER !N ENVIRONMENTAL TESTIN Client: filriiSa Quote No: Shipper Name: Shipping # (s ):* 1. 2. 3. 2. 6. 2 . 8. • 3. 4. 9. 4. 5. 10. *Numbered shipping lines correspond to Numbered Sample Temp lines Condition Circle "Y" for yes "N" for no and " 'IA" for not applicable): Are there custody seals present on 1. 6. N N • 7, �,�,. } T Is sample volume sufficient for analysis? Corrective Action: ❑ Client Contact Name: - �ikQ ❑ Sample(s) processed "as is" ❑ Sample(s) on hold until: Lot# F8F190108 COC/RFA No: Initiated By: t�.e cooler? Do custody seals on cooler appear to be tam . ered with? Were contents of cooler frisked after opening, but before unpacking? Sample received with Char of Custody? Does the Chaiii of Custody match sam. ' le ID's on the container ? Was sample received broken? Condition Upon Receipt Form 'L7 / Date: Shipping Information .Lot ti(s); Ftcmoiob -3270- 5. 10. * *Sample must be received at 4°C ± 2 C- If not, note contents below. Temperature variance does NOT affect the following: Metals- Liquid or Rad tests- Liquid or Solids N Y N 10, Y N 11. Y N 12. T T 13. Y 14. Y N For DOE -AL (Pantex, LANL, Sandia) sites, pH of ALL containers received must be verified, EXCEPT VOA, TeX and soils. Notes: Informed by: • If released, notify: TestAmerica St. Louis Tame: Multiple Packages Y Sample Temperature (s): 7. 8. 9. Are there custody seals present on bottles? Do custody seats on bottles appear to be tampered with? Was sample received with proper pH'? (If not, make note below) If N /A- Was pH taken by original TestAmerica lab? Sample received in proper containers? Headspaoe in VOA or TOX liquid samples? (If Yes note s. ...le ID's below as Internal COC/Workshare received? 35 of 35 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 Appendix D CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT RISK CHARACTERIZATION SPREADSHEETS Compound Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Hazard Index Soil Sediment Groundwater Surface Water Total Soil Sediment Groundwater Surface Water Total Uranium NA NA NA NA NA 3.82E -03 NA NA NA 3.82E -03 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CANCER RISKS AND HAZARD INDICES CONSTRUCTION WORKER SADDLE ROAD Compound Soil Concentration (mg /kg) Noncancer Hazard Quotient Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Oral -Soil RAF (noncancer) Dermal -Soil RAF ADD (noncancer) (noncancer) Chronic TDI /RfD (mg /kg -day) (mg /kg -day) Soil HQ Oral -Soil Dermal -Soil RAF (cancer) RAF (cancer) ADD (cancer) (mg /kg -day) CSF [1 /(mg /kg -day)] Soil Risk Uranium 9.25E -01 1 1 1.14E -05 3.00E -03 3.79E -03 1 1 NA NA NA CONSTRUCTION WORKER SOIL EXPOSURES RISK CHARACTERIZATION SADDLE ROAD Scenario: Receptor: Medium: Exposure Pathway: Subactivity name Construction Worker Soil Ingestion and Dermal Contact ADD (mg /kg -day) = CS x F(IR x FI x RAF) + (SA x AF x FA x RAF x EFD)l x EF x ED x CF BW x AT Hazard Quotient (HQ) = ADD (mg /kg -day) / RfD (mg /kg -day) Cancer Risk (ELCR) = ADD (mg /kg -day) * CSF [1 /(mg /kg -day)] Parameter (units) Value ADD: Average Daily Dose (mg /kg -day) CS: Chemical Concentration in Soil (mg /kg) IR: Ingestion Rate (mg /day) RAF: Relative Absorption Factor (Oral -Soil) (unitless) FI: Fraction Ingested from Site (unitless) SA: Skin Surface Area (cm2) AF: Adherence Factor (mg /cm2 /event) RAF: Relative Absorption Factor (Dermal -Soil) (unitless) FA: Fraction Absorbed from Site (unitless) EFD: Exposure Frequency - Dermal (event/day) EF: Exposure Frequency (days /year) ED: Exposure Duration (years) BW: Body Weight (kg) AT: Averaging Time (days) (ED x 365 days /yr, noncancer) AT: Averaging Time (days) (75 yr. x 365 days /yr, cancer) CF: Conversion factor (kg /mg) RfD: Reference Dose (mg /kg -day) CSF: Cancer Slope Factor [1 /(mg /kg -day)] See Below Chemical- Specific 1 330 Chemical- Specific 1 3300 0.29 Chemical- Specific 1 1 250 1 71.8 365 25550 1.00E -06 Chemical- Specific Chemical- Specific 3.79E -03 0.00E +00 Compound Soil Concentration (mg /kg) Chemical Concentration in Air (mg /m3) Noncancer Hazard Quotient Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Inhalation RAF (noncancer) ADD (noncancer) (mg /kg /day) RFDi (non- cancer) (mg /kg /day) Soil -Dust HQ Inhalation RAF (cancer) ADD (cancer) (mg /kg /day) CSFi [1 /(mg /kg /day)] Soil- Dust Risk Uranium 9.25E -01 4.63E -08 1 2.94E -09 8.60E -05 3.42E -05 1 NA NA NA CONSTRUCTION WORKER - SOIL EXPOSURES RISK CHARACTERIZATION SADDLE ROAD Scenario: Receptor: Medium: Exposure Pathway: ADD (mg /kg /day) = Subactivity name Construction Worker Dust from soil Inhalation Cdust x IR x RAF x ET x EF x ED AT x BW Hazard Quotient (HQ) = ADD (mg /kg /day) / RfDi (mg /kg /day) Cancer Risk (ELCR) = ADD (mg /kg /day) * CSFi [1 /(mg /kg /day)] Parameter (units) Value ADD: Average Daily Dose (mg /kg /day) See Below CS: Chemical Concentration in Soil (mg /kg) Chemical- Specific Cdust: Concentration of dust -bound chemical in air (mg /m3) 1 Calculated RAF: Relative Absorption Factor (Inhalation) (unitless) Chemical- Specific ET: Exposure Time - dust (hr /d) 8 EF: Exposure Frequency (days /year) 250 ED: Exposure Duration (years) 1 IR: Inhalation Rate (m3 /hr) 0.833 AT: Averaging Time (days) (ED x 365 days /yr, noncancer) 365 AT: Averaging Time (days) (75 yr. x 365 days /yr, cancer) 25550 BW: Body Weight (kg) 71.8 RfDi: Reference Dose Inhalation (mg /kg /day) Chemical- Specific CSFi: Cancer Slope Factor Inhalation [1 /(mg /kg /day)] Chemical- Specific 3.42E -05 0.00E +00 Compound Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Hazard Index Soil Sediment Groundwater Surface Water Total Soil Sediment Groundwater Surface Water Total Uranium NA NA NA NA NA 2.78E -03 NA NA NA 2.78E -03 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CANCER RISKS AND HAZARD INDICES CHILD - SUBACTIVITY SADDLE ROAD Compound Soil Concentration (mg /kg) Noncancer Hazard Quotient Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Oral -Soil RAF (noncancer) Dermal -Soil RAF ADD (noncancer) (noncancer) Chronic TDI /RfD (mg /kg -day) (mg /kg -day) Soil HQ Oral -Soil Dermal -Soil RAF (cancer) RAF (cancer) ADD (cancer) (mg /kg -day) CSF [1 /(mg /kg -day)] Soil Risk Uranium 9.25E -01 1 1 8.34E -06 3.00E -03 2.78E -03 1 1 NA NA NA CHILD - SUBACTIVITY - SOIL EXPOSURES RISK CHARACTERIZATION SADDLE ROAD Scenario: Receptor: Medium: Exposure Pathway: Subactivity name Child Soil Ingestion and Dermal Contact ADD (mg /kg -day) = CS x F(IR x FI x RAF) + (SA x AF x FA x RAF x EFD)l x EF x ED x CF BW x AT Hazard Quotient (HQ) = ADD (mg /kg -day) / RfD (mg /kg -day) Cancer Risk (ELCR) = ADD (mg /kg -day) * CSF [1 /(mg /kg -day)] Parameter (units) Value ADD: Average Daily Dose (mg /kg -day) CS: Chemical Concentration in Soil (mg /kg) IR: Ingestion Rate (mg /day) RAF: Relative Absorption Factor (Oral -Soil) (unitless) FI: Fraction Ingested from Site (unitless) SA: Skin Surface Area (cm2) AF: Adherence Factor (mg /cm2 /event) RAF: Relative Absorption Factor (Dermal -Soil) (unitless) FA: Fraction Absorbed from Site (unitless) EFD: Exposure Frequency - Dermal (event/day) EF: Exposure Frequency (days /year) ED: Exposure Duration (years) BW: Body Weight (kg) AT: Averaging Time (days) (ED x 365 days /yr, noncancer) AT: Averaging Time (days) (75 yr. x 365 days /yr, cancer) CF: Conversion factor (kg /mg) RfD: Reference Dose (mg /kg -day) CSF: Cancer Slope Factor [1 /(mg /kg -day)] See Below Chemical- Specific 1 200 Chemical- Specific 1 2800 0.29 Chemical- Specific 1 1 52 6 16 2190 25550 1.00E -06 Chemical- Specific Chemical- Specific 2.78E -03 0.00E +00 Compound Soil Concentration (mg /kg) Chemical Concentration in Air (mg /m3) Noncancer Hazard Quotient Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Inhalation RAF (noncancer) ADD (noncancer) (mg /kg /day) RFDi (non- cancer) (mg /kg /day) Soil -Dust HQ Inhalation RAF (cancer) ADD (cancer) (mg /kg /day) CSFi [1 /(mg /kg /day)] Soil- Dust Risk Uranium 9.25E -01 4.63E -08 1 3.43E -10 8.60E -05 3.99247E -06 1 NA NA NA CHILD - SUBACTIVITY - SOIL EXPOSURES RISK CHARACTERIZATION SADDLE ROAD Scenario: Receptor: Medium: Exposure Pathway: ADD (mg /kg /day) = Subactivity name Child Dust from soil Inhalation Cdust x IR x RAF x ET x EF x ED AT x BW Hazard Quotient (HQ) = ADD (mg /kg /day) / RfDi (mg /kg /day) Cancer Risk (ELCR) = ADD (mg /kg /day) * CSFi [1 /(mg /kg /day)] Parameter (units) Value ADD: Average Daily Dose (mg /kg /day) See Below CS: Chemical Concentration in Soil (mg /kg) Chemical- Specific Cdust: Concentration of dust -bound chemical in air (mg /m3) 1 Calculated RAF: Relative Absorption Factor (Inhalation) (unitless) Chemical- Specific ET: Exposure Time - dust (hr /d) 2 EF: Exposure Frequency (days /year) 52 ED: Exposure Duration (years) 6 IR: Inhalation Rate (m3 /hr) 0.417 AT: Averaging Time (days) (ED x 365 days /yr, noncancer) 2190 AT: Averaging Time (days) (75 yr. x 365 days /yr, cancer) 25550 BW: Body Weight (kg) 16 RfDi: Reference Dose Inhalation (mg /kg /day) Chemical- Specific CSFi: Cancer Slope Factor Inhalation [1 /(mg /kg /day)] Chemical- Specific 3.99E-06 0.00E +00 Compound Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Hazard Index Soil Sediment Groundwater Surface Water Total Soil Sediment Groundwater Surface Water Total Uranium NA NA NA NA NA 1.07E -03 NA NA NA 1.07E -03 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CANCER RISKS AND HAZARD INDICES ADULT - SUBACTIVITY SADDLE ROAD Compound Soil Concentration (mg /kg) Noncancer Hazard Quotient Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Oral -Soil RAF (noncancer) Dermal -Soil RAF ADD (noncancer) (noncancer) Chronic TDI /RfD (mg /kg -day) (mg /kg -day) Soil HQ Oral -Soil Dermal -Soil RAF (cancer) RAF (cancer) ADD (cancer) (mg /kg -day) CSF [1 /(mg /kg -day)] Soil Risk Uranium 9.25E -01 1 1 3.22E -06 3.00E -03 1.07E -03 1 1 NA NA NA ADULT - SUBACTIVITY - SOIL EXPOSURES RISK CHARACTERIZATION SADDLE ROAD Scenario: Receptor: Medium: Exposure Pathway: Subactivity name Adult Resident Soil Ingestion and Dermal Contact ADD (mg /kg -day) = CS x F(IR x FI x RAF) + (SA x AF x FA x RAF x EFD)l x EF x ED x CF BW x AT Hazard Quotient (HQ) = ADD (mg /kg -day) / RfD (mg /kg -day) Cancer Risk (ELCR) = ADD (mg /kg -day) * CSF [1 /(mg /kg -day)] Parameter (units) Value ADD: Average Daily Dose (mg /kg -day) CS: Chemical Concentration in Soil (mg /kg) IR: Ingestion Rate (mg /day) RAF: Relative Absorption Factor (Oral -Soil) (unitless) FI: Fraction Ingested from Site (unitless) SA: Skin Surface Area (cm2) AF: Adherence Factor (mg /cm2 /event) RAF: Relative Absorption Factor (Dermal -Soil) (unitless) FA: Fraction Absorbed from Site (unitless) EFD: Exposure Frequency - Dermal (event/day) EF: Exposure Frequency (days /year) ED: Exposure Duration (years) BW: Body Weight (kg) AT: Averaging Time (days) (ED x 365 days /yr, noncancer) AT: Averaging Time (days) (75 yr. x 365 days /yr, cancer) CF: Conversion factor (kg /mg) RfD: Reference Dose (mg /kg -day) CSF: Cancer Slope Factor [1 /(mg /kg -day)] See Below Chemical- Specific 1 100 Chemical- Specific 1 5700 0.29 Chemical- Specific 1 1 52 24 71.8 8760 25550 1.00E -06 Chemical- Specific Chemical- Specific 1.07E -03 0.00E +00 Compound Soil Concentration (mg /kg) Chemical Concentration in Air (mg /m3) Noncancer Hazard Quotient Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Inhalation RAF (noncancer) ADD (noncancer) (mg /kg /day) RFDi (non- cancer) (mg /kg /day) Soil -Dust HQ Inhalation RAF (cancer) ADD (cancer) (mg /kg /day) CSFi [1 /(mg /kg /day)] Soil- Dust Risk Uranium 9.25E -01 4.63E -08 1 1.53E -10 8.60E -05 1.78E -06 1 NA NA NA ADULT - SUBACTIVITY - SOIL EXPOSURES RISK CHARACTERIZATION SADDLE ROAD Scenario: Receptor: Medium: Exposure Pathway: ADD (mg /kg /day) = Subactivity name Adult Resident Dust from soil Inhalation Cdust x IR x RAF x ET x EF x ED AT x BW Hazard Quotient (HQ) = ADD (mg /kg /day) / RfDi (mg /kg /day) Cancer Risk (ELCR) = ADD (mg /kg /day) * CSFi [1 /(mg /kg /day)] Parameter (units) Value ADD: Average Daily Dose (mg /kg /day) See Below CS: Chemical Concentration in Soil (mg /kg) Chemical- Specific Cdust: Concentration of dust -bound chemical in air (mg /m3) 1 Calculated RAF: Relative Absorption Factor (Inhalation) (unitless) Chemical- Specific ET: Exposure Time - dust (hr /d) 2 EF: Exposure Frequency (days /year) 52 ED: Exposure Duration (years) 24 IR: Inhalation Rate (m3 /hr) 0.833 AT: Averaging Time (days) (ED x 365 days /yr, noncancer) 8760 AT: Averaging Time (days) (75 yr. x 365 days /yr, cancer) 25550 BW: Body Weight (kg) 71.8 RfDi: Reference Dose Inhalation (mg /kg /day) Chemical- Specific CSFi: Cancer Slope Factor Inhalation [1 /(mg /kg /day)] Chemical- Specific 1.78E -06 0.00E +00 Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 Appendix 1. RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT RISK CHARACTERIZATION REPORTS Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 RESRAD CONSTRUCTION WORKER RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Table of Contents Part III: Intake Quantities and Health Risk Factors Cancer Risk Slope Factors 2 Risk Slope and ETFG for the Ground Pathway 4 Amount of Intake Quantities and Excess Cancer Risks Time= 0.000E +00 5 Time= 1.000E +00 8 Time= 3.000E +00 11 Time= 1.000E +01 14 Time= 3.000E +01 17 Time= 1.000E +02 20 Time= 3.000E +02 23 Time= 1.000E +03 26 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 1 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 2 Cancer Risk Slope Factors Summary Table Risk Library: FGR 13 Morbidity Current 1 Base 1 Parameter Menu 1 Parameter 1 Value 1 Case* 1 Name Sf -1 Ground external radiation slope factors, 1 /yr per (pCi /g): Sf -1 I Ac -227 +D 1 1.47E -06 1 3.48E -10 I SLPF( 1,1) Sf -1 I Pa -231 1 1.39E -07 1 1.39E -07 I SLPF( 2,1) Sf -1 I Pb -210 +D 1 4.21E -09 1 1.41E -09 I SLPF( 3,1) Sf -1 I Ra -226 +D 1 8.49E -06 1 2.29E -08 I SLPF( 4,1) Sf -1 I Th -230 1 8.19E -10 1 8.19E -10 I SLPF( 5,1) Sf -1 I U -234 1 2.52E -10 1 2.52E -10 I SLPF( 6,1) Sf -1 I U -235 +D 1 5.43E -07 1 5.18E -07 I SLPF( 7,1) Sf -1 I U -238 1 4.99E -11 1 4.99E -11 I SLPF( 8,1) Sf -1 1 U -238 +D 1 1.14E -07 1 4.99E -11 1 SLPF( 9,1) Sf -2 Inhalation, slope factors, 1/ (pCi) : Sf -2 I Ac -227 +D 1 2.13E -07 1 1.49E -07 I SLPF( 1,2) Sf -2 I Pa -231 1 7.62E -08 1 7.62E -08 I SLPF( 2,2) Sf -2 I Pb -210 +D 1 3.08E -08 1 1.58E -08 I SLPF( 3,2) Sf -2 I Ra -226 +D 1 2.83E -08 1 2.82E -08 I SLPF( 4,2) Sf -2 I Th -230 1 3.40E -08 1 3.40E -08 I SLPF( 5,2) Sf -2 I U -234 1 2.78E -08 1 2.78E -08 I SLPF( 6,2) Sf -2 I U -235 +D 1 2.50E -08 2.50E -08 SLPF( 7,2) Sf -2 I U -238 2.36E -08 2.36E -08 SLPF( 8,2) Sf -2 1 U -238 +D 1 2.36E -08 1 2.36E -08 1 SLPF( 9,2) Sf -3 Food ingestion, slope factors, 1/ (pCi) : Sf -3 Ac -227 +D 1 6.53E -10 2.45E -10 I SLPF( 1,3) Sf -3 I Pa -231 1 2.26E -10 1 2.26E -10 I SLPF( 2,3) Sf -3 I Pb -210 +D 1 3.44E -09 1 1.18E -09 I SLPF( 3,3) Sf -3 I Ra -226 +D 1 5.15E -10 1 5.14E -10 I SLPF( 4,3) Sf -3 I Th -230 1 1.19E -10 1 1.19E -10 I SLPF( 5,3) Sf -3 I U -234 1 9.55E -11 1 9.55E -11 I SLPF( 6,3) Sf -3 I U -235 +D 1 9.76E -11 1 9.44E -11 I SLPF( 7,3) Sf -3 I U -238 8.66E -11 1 8.66E -11 I SLPF( 8,3) Sf -3 1 U -238 +D 1 1.21E -10 1 8.66E -11 1 SLPF( 9,3) Sf -3 Water ingestion, slope factors, 1/ (pCi) : Sf -3 I Ac -227 +D 1 4.86E -10 1 2.01E -10 I SLPF( 1,4) Sf -3 Pa -231 1 1.73E -10 1.73E -10 I SLPF( 2,4) Sf -3 I Pb -210 +D 1 2.66E -09 1 8.81E -10 I SLPF( 3,4) Sf -3 I Ra -226 +D 1 3.86E -10 1 3.85E -10 I SLPF( 4,4) Sf -3 I Th -230 1 9.10E -11 1 9.10E -11 I SLPF( 5,4) Sf -3 I U -234 1 7.07E -11 1 7.07E -11 I SLPF( 6,4) Sf -3 I U -235 +D 1 7.18E -11 1 6.96E -11 I SLPF( 7,4) Sf -3 I U -238 6.40E -11 1 6.40E -11 I SLPF( 8,4) Sf -3 1 U -238 +D 1 8.71E -11 1 6.40E -11 1 SLPF( 9,4) Sf -3 Soil ingestion, slope factors, 1/ (pCi) : Sf -3 I Ac -227 +D 1 6.53E -10 1 2.45E -10 I SLPF( 1,5) Sf -3 I Pa -231 1 2.26E -10 1 2.26E -10 I SLPF( 2,5) Sf -3 I Pb -210 +D 1 3.44E -09 1 1.18E -09 I SLPF( 3,5) Sf -3 I Ra -226 +D 1 5.15E -10 1 5.14E -10 I SLPF( 4,5) Sf -3 1 Th -230 1 1.19E -10 1 1.19E -10 1 SLPF( 5,5) RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Cancer Risk Slope Factors Summary Table (continued) Risk Library: FGR 13 Morbidity Menu 1 Parameter 1 Value 1 Case* 1 Name Sf -3 U -234 9.55E -11 9.55E -11 SLPF( 6,5) Sf -3 I U -235 +D 1 9.76E -11 1 9.44E -11 I SLPF( 7,5) Sf -3 I U -238 1 8.66E -11 1 8.66E -11 I SLPF( 8,5) Sf -3 1 U -238 +D 1 1.21E -10 1 8.66E -11 1 SLPF( 9,5) Sf -Rn Radon Inhalation slope factors, 1 /(pCi): Sf -Rn I Rn -222 Sf -Rn I Po -218 Sf -Rn I Pb -214 Sf -Rn 1 Bi -214 Sf -Rn I Radon K factors, (mrem /WLM): Sf -Rn I Rn -222 Indoor Sf -Rn 1 Rn -222 Outdoor *Base Case means Default.Lib w/o Associate Nuclide contributions. 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 3 Current 1 Base 1 Parameter 1.80E -12 1.80E -12 3.70E -12 1 3.70E -12 6.20E -12 1 6.20E -12 1.50E -11 1 1.50E -11 7.60E +02 1 7.60E +02 5.70E +02 1 5.70E +02 SLPFRN (1, 1) SLPFRN(1,2) SLPFRN (1, 3 ) SLPFRN (1, 4 ) KFACTR (1, 1) KFACTR (1, 2 ) 1 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 4 Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Risk Slope and Environmental Transport Factors for the Ground Pathway Nuclide Slope (i) * ETFG(i,t) At Time in Years (dimensionless) (i) t= 0.000E +00 1.000E +00 3.000E +00 1.000E +01 3.000E +01 1.000E +02 3.000E +02 1.000E +03 Ac -227 3.480E -10 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 At -218 3.570E -09 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 Bi -210 2.760E -09 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 Bi -211 1.880E -07 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 Bi -214 7.480E -06 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.400E -01 Fr -223 1.400E -07 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 Pa -231 1.390E -07 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 Pa -234 8.710E -06 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 Pa -234m 6.870E -08 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 Pb -210 1.410E -09 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 Pb -211 2.290E -07 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 Pb -214 9.820E -07 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 Po -210 3.950E -11 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 Po -211 3.580E -08 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 Po -214 3.860E -10 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 Po -215 7.480E -10 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 Po -218 4.260E -11 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 Ra -223 4.340E -07 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 Ra -226 2.290E -08 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 Rn -219 2.250E -07 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 Rn -222 1.740E -09 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 Th -227 3.780E -07 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 Th -230 8.190E -10 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 Th -231 2.450E -08 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 Th -234 1.630E -08 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 T1 -207 1.520E -08 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 T1 -210 0.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 U -234 2.520E -10 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 U -235 5.180E -07 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 U -238 4.990E -11 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 * - Units are 1 /yr per (pCi /g) at infinite depth and area. Multiplication by ETFG(i,t) converts to site conditions. RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Pathway Total Radio- Ground Nuclide risk fract. Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 0.000E +00 years Meat 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 5 Milk Soil 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.529E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.597E +01 3.480E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.950E -01 1.798E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.558E +01 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 0.000E +00 years Radionuclides Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Water -ind. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Water 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water Dependent Pathways Fish Plant Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Plant risk fract. risk fract. Meat risk fract. Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 1.139E -11 0.0000 1.012E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.414E -13 0.0000 Pa -231 5.014E -12 0.0000 1.686E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.112E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 2.907E -15 0.0000 1.287E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.049E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 3.438E -11 0.0000 7.062E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.829E -13 0.0000 Th -230 9.444E -13 0.0000 2.372E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.181E -11 0.0000 U -234 2.572E -09 0.0025 1.707E -09 0.0016 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.340E -08 0.0797 U -235 7.526E -08 0.0719 2.113E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.173E -09 0.0011 U -238 8.061E -07 0.7705 1.032E -09 0.0010 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.489E -08 0.0716 Total 8.840E -07 0.8449 2.760E -09 0.0026 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.595E -07 0.1524 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.597E +01 4.950E -01 2.558E +01 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio- Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.184E -11 0.0000 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.742E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.080E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.456E -11 0.0000 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.299E -11 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.768E -08 0.0838 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.646E -08 0.0731 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.821E -07 0.8431 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.046E -06 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Ground Radon and its Decay Products at t= 0.000E +00 years Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 2.483E -14 4.982E -16 6.246E -19 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 6 Radionuclides Total 2.483E -14 4.982E -16 6.246E -19 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 2.608E -09 0.0025 1.707E -09 0.0016 2.533E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.341E -08 0.0797 U -235 7.528E -08 0.0719 2.115E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.175E -09 0.0011 U -238 8.061E -07 0.7705 1.032E -09 0.0010 3.171E -19 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.490E -08 0.0716 Total 8.840E -07 0.8449 2.760E -09 0.0026 2.533E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.595E -07 0.1524 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 7 Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.773E -08 0.0838 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.648E -08 0.0731 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.821E -07 0.8431 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.046E -06 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radon Total Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 1.156E -11 0.000E +00 7.347E -10 0.000E +00 5.063E -14 0.000E +00 4.924E -12 0.000E +00 2.274E -08 0.000E +00 2.523E -03 0.000E +00 3.472E -05 0.000E +00 1.794E -03 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +00 years Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Water -ind. 2.723E -06 2.658E -08 1.988E -11 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Radio- Ground Nuclide risk fract. Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +00 years Meat Milk 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Inhalation Pb -214 Bi -214 Water -dep. == Water - dependent 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 8 Radionuclides Soil Water 1.644E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.644E -07 1.045E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.045E -05 7.201E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.201E -10 7.003E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.003E -08 3.234E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.234E -04 3.589E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.589E +01 4.938E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.938E -01 2.551E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.551E +01 Fish Plant Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 2.723E -06 2.658E -08 1.988E -11 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) risk fract. risk Plant Meat fract. risk fract. Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 1.269E -11 0.0000 1.127E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.918E -13 0.0000 Pa -231 5.406E -12 0.0000 1.818E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.669E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 3.378E -15 0.0000 1.496E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.381E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 3.863E -11 0.0000 7.934E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.055E -13 0.0000 Th -230 1.019E -12 0.0000 2.560E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.274E -11 0.0000 U -234 2.566E -09 0.0025 1.703E -09 0.0016 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.321E -08 0.0797 U -235 7.509E -08 0.0719 2.108E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.171E -09 0.0011 U -238 8.043E -07 0.7705 1.029E -09 0.0010 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.472E -08 0.0716 Total 8.820E -07 0.8449 2.754E -09 0.0026 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.591E -07 0.1524 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio- Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.319E -11 0.0000 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.191E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.416E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.883E -11 0.0000 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.402E -11 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.748E -08 0.0838 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.628E -08 0.0731 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.800E -07 0.8431 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.044E -06 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Ground Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E +00 years Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 2.790E -14 5.597E -16 7.017E -19 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 9 Radionuclides Total 2.790E -14 5.597E -16 7.017E -19 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 2.606E -09 0.0025 1.703E -09 0.0016 2.846E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.322E -08 0.0797 U -235 7.510E -08 0.0720 2.111E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.172E -09 0.0011 U -238 8.043E -07 0.7705 1.029E -09 0.0010 3.705E -19 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.472E -08 0.0716 Total 8.820E -07 0.8449 2.754E -09 0.0026 2.846E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.591E -07 0.1524 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 10 Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.753E -08 0.0839 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.630E -08 0.0731 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.800E -07 0.8431 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.044E -06 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Total Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Radio- Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways 1.011E -10 0.000E +00 2.194E -09 0.000E +00 1.342E -12 0.000E +00 4.419E -11 0.000E +00 6.806E -08 0.000E +00 2.511E -03 0.000E +00 3.456E -05 0.000E +00 1.786E -03 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +00 years Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Water -ind. == Water - independent Ground Inhalation Nuclide risk fract. risk Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +00 years Meat Milk 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Pb -214 Bi -214 fract. risk 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 11 Radionuclides Soil Water Water -dep. == Water - dependent 1.439E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.120E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.909E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.284E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 9.680E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.572E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.915E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.540E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Plant Meat fract. risk fract. Fish Plant Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 2.443E -05 2.384E -07 1.784E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.443E -05 2.384E -07 1.784E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 1.553E -11 0.0000 1.380E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.019E -13 0.0000 Pa -231 6.185E -12 0.0000 2.080E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.774E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 4.482E -15 0.0000 1.985E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.160E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 4.808E -11 0.0000 9.875E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.557E -13 0.0000 Th -230 1.168E -12 0.0000 2.934E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.460E -11 0.0000 U -234 2.554E -09 0.0025 1.695E -09 0.0016 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.282E -08 0.0797 U -235 7.473E -08 0.0719 2.098E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.165E -09 0.0011 U -238 8.005E -07 0.7705 1.024E -09 0.0010 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.437E -08 0.0716 Total 8.778E -07 0.8449 2.741E -09 0.0026 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.584E -07 0.1524 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* 1.439E -06 3.120E -05 1.909E -08 6.284E -07 9.680E -04 3.572E +01 4.915E -01 2.540E +01 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio- 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 12 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.614E -11 0.0000 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.083E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.207E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.833E -11 0.0000 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.607E -11 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.707E -08 0.0838 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.592E -08 0.0731 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.759E -07 0.8430 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.039E -06 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 3.000E +00 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 3.472E -14 6.966E -16 8.733E -19 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 3.472E -14 6.966E -16 8.733E -19 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 2.603E -09 0.0025 1.695E -09 0.0016 3.542E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.283E -08 0.0797 U -235 7.476E -08 0.0720 2.101E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.167E -09 0.0011 U -238 8.005E -07 0.7705 1.025E -09 0.0010 4.968E -19 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.437E -08 0.0716 Total 8.778E -07 0.8449 2.741E -09 0.0026 3.542E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.584E -07 0.1524 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 13 Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.713E -08 0.0839 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.594E -08 0.0731 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.759E -07 0.8430 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.039E -06 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Total Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Radio- Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways 1.021E -09 0.000E +00 7.192E -09 0.000E +00 4.669E -11 0.000E +00 4.859E -10 0.000E +00 2.250E -07 0.000E +00 2.470E -03 0.000E +00 3.400E -05 0.000E +00 1.756E -03 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +01 years Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Water -ind. == Water - independent Ground Inhalation Nuclide risk fract. risk Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +01 years Meat Milk 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Pb -214 Bi -214 fract. risk 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 14 Radionuclides Soil Water Water -dep. == Water - dependent 1.452E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.023E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.641E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.910E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.200E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.513E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.835E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.498E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Fish Plant Meat Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 2.685E -04 2.621E -06 1.961E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.685E -04 2.621E -06 1.961E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Plant Meat fract. risk fract. Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 2.764E -11 0.0000 2.456E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.071E -12 0.0000 Pa -231 8.853E -12 0.0000 2.977E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.256E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 1.037E -14 0.0000 4.590E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.309E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 9.106E -11 0.0001 1.870E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.843E -13 0.0000 Th -230 1.684E -12 0.0000 4.229E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.105E -11 0.0000 U -234 2.513E -09 0.0025 1.667E -09 0.0016 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.147E -08 0.0797 U -235 7.351E -08 0.0719 2.064E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.146E -09 0.0011 U -238 7.874E -07 0.7704 1.008E -09 0.0010 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.315E -08 0.0716 Total 8.636E -07 0.8449 2.696E -09 0.0026 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.558E -07 0.1524 Total Milk Ingestion* 0.000E +00 1.452E -05 0.000E +00 1.023E -04 0.000E +00 6.641E -07 0.000E +00 6.910E -06 0.000E +00 3.200E -03 0.000E +00 3.513E +01 0.000E +00 4.835E -01 0.000E +00 2.498E +01 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio- 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 15 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.873E -11 0.0000 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.014E -11 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.417E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.154E -11 0.0001 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.316E -11 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.565E -08 0.0838 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.468E -08 0.0731 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.616E -07 0.8430 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.022E -06 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E +01 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 6.574E -14 1.319E -15 1.653E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 6.574E -14 1.319E -15 1.653E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 2.605E -09 0.0025 1.668E -09 0.0016 6.706E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.148E -08 0.0797 U -235 7.355E -08 0.0720 2.069E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.149E -09 0.0011 U -238 7.874E -07 0.7704 1.008E -09 0.0010 1.193E -18 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.316E -08 0.0716 Total 8.636E -07 0.8449 2.696E -09 0.0026 6.706E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.558E -07 0.1524 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 16 Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.576E -08 0.0839 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.472E -08 0.0731 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.616E -07 0.8430 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.022E -06 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Pathway Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +01 years Meat Milk 7.112E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.058E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.063E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.245E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.594E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.357E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.243E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.676E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 17 Soil Water * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Fish Plant 1.011E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.927E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.512E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.037E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 9.378E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.352E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.613E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.383E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +01 years Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Radionuclides Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 2.343E -03 2.286E -05 1.711E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total Water -ind. _= Water - independent Radio- Nuclide risk fract. 2.343E -03 2.286E -05 1.711E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +01 years Ground Inhalation Water -dep. == Water - dependent Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) risk fract. risk Plant Meat fract. risk fract. Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 7.412E -11 0.0001 6.586E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.873E -12 0.0000 Pa -231 1.599E -11 0.0000 5.378E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.269E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 5.034E -14 0.0000 2.229E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.549E -12 0.0000 Ra -226 2.950E -10 0.0003 6.060E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.569E -12 0.0000 Th -230 3.111E -12 0.0000 7.814E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.890E -11 0.0000 U -234 2.397E -09 0.0025 1.591E -09 0.0016 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.772E -08 0.0797 U -235 7.014E -08 0.0719 1.969E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.094E -09 0.0011 U -238 7.513E -07 0.7702 9.615E -10 0.0010 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.979E -08 0.0716 Total 8.242E -07 0.8450 2.573E -09 0.0026 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.487E -07 0.1524 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* 1.011E -04 2.927E -04 1.512E -05 6.037E -05 9.378E -03 3.352E +01 4.613E -01 2.383E +01 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio- 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 18 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +01 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.706E -11 0.0001 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.831E -11 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.602E -12 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.966E -10 0.0003 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.279E -11 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.171E -08 0.0838 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.125E -08 0.0730 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.220E -07 0.8427 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.754E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 3.000E +01 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 2.123E -13 4.258E -15 5.338E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 2.123E -13 4.258E -15 5.338E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 2.695E -09 0.0028 1.591E -09 0.0016 2.165E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.776E -08 0.0797 U -235 7.023E -08 0.0720 1.981E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.099E -09 0.0011 U -238 7.513E -07 0.7702 9.616E -10 0.0010 6.452E -18 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.980E -08 0.0716 Total 8.242E -07 0.8450 2.573E -09 0.0026 2.165E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.487E -07 0.1524 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 19 Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +01 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.205E -08 0.0841 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.135E -08 0.0731 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.220E -07 0.8427 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.754E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Total Radio- Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways 3.802E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.815E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.369E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.254E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.028E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.999E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.751E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.422E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +02 years Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Water -ind. == Water - independent Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +02 years Meat Ground Inhalation Pb -214 Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. Milk 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 20 0.000E +00 5.407E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.407E -04 0.000E +00 8.271E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.271E -04 0.000E +00 3.369E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.369E -04 0.000E +00 6.050E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.050E -04 0.000E +00 2.884E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.884E -02 0.000E +00 2.843E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.843E +01 0.000E +00 3.913E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.913E -01 0.000E +00 2.022E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.022E +01 Radionuclides Soil Water Water -dep. == Water - dependent Plant Meat risk fract. risk fract. Fish Plant Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 2.327E -02 2.271E -04 1.699E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.327E -02 2.271E -04 1.699E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +02 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 2.580E -10 0.0003 2.292E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.000E -11 0.0000 Pa -231 3.595E -11 0.0000 1.209E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.100E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 5.440E -13 0.0000 2.409E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.835E -11 0.0000 Ra -226 1.824E -09 0.0022 3.747E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.703E -12 0.0000 Th -230 7.608E -12 0.0000 1.911E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.512E -11 0.0001 U -234 2.033E -09 0.0025 1.349E -09 0.0016 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.593E -08 0.0795 U -235 5.950E -08 0.0717 1.670E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.277E -10 0.0011 U -238 6.373E -07 0.7684 8.156E -10 0.0010 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.921E -08 0.0714 Total 7.010E -07 0.8452 2.184E -09 0.0026 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.262E -07 0.1522 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio- 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 21 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +02 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.682E -10 0.0003 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.117E -11 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.892E -11 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.834E -09 0.0022 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.046E -10 0.0001 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.931E -08 0.0836 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.044E -08 0.0729 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.973E -07 0.8408 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.294E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E +02 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 1.303E -12 2.615E -14 3.278E -17 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 1.303E -12 2.615E -14 3.278E -17 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +02 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 3.865E -09 0.0047 1.351E -09 0.0016 1.330E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.606E -08 0.0796 U -235 5.979E -08 0.0721 1.705E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.428E -10 0.0011 U -238 6.373E -07 0.7684 8.159E -10 0.0010 9.875E -17 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.922E -08 0.0714 Total 7.010E -07 0.8452 2.184E -09 0.0026 1.330E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.262E -07 0.1522 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 22 Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +02 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.128E -08 0.0859 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.075E -08 0.0733 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.973E -07 0.8408 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.294E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon 8.883E -08 0.000E +00 1.088E -07 0.000E +00 2.337E -07 0.000E +00 2.873E -07 0.000E +00 4.891E -06 0.000E +00 1.249E -03 0.000E +00 1.720E -05 0.000E +00 8.885E -04 0.000E +00 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 23 Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +02 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Meat Milk Soil Water Fish Plant 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.263E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.263E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.547E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.547E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.324E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.324E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.087E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.087E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.957E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.957E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.777E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.777E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.446E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.446E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.264E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.264E +01 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +02 years Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Radionuclides Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 1.541E -01 1.504E -03 1.125E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total Radio- 1.541E -01 1.504E -03 1.125E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. _= Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +02 years Ground Inhalation Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Plant Meat risk fract. risk fract. Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 5.402E -10 0.0010 4.799E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.094E -11 0.0000 Pa -231 6.232E -11 0.0001 2.096E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.841E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 4.364E -12 0.0000 1.932E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.077E -10 0.0006 Ra -226 1.054E -08 0.0199 2.165E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.608E -11 0.0001 Th -230 1.702E -11 0.0000 4.274E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.128E -10 0.0004 U -234 1.271E -09 0.0024 8.432E -10 0.0016 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.120E -08 0.0779 U -235 3.719E -08 0.0703 1.044E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.798E -10 0.0011 U -238 3.983E -07 0.7534 5.098E -10 0.0010 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.700E -08 0.0700 Total 4.479E -07 0.8472 1.369E -09 0.0026 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.939E -08 0.1502 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio- 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 24 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +02 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.616E -10 0.0011 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.137E -11 0.0001 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.122E -10 0.0006 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.060E -08 0.0200 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.341E -10 0.0004 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.331E -08 0.0819 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.778E -08 0.0715 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.358E -07 0.8243 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.287E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 3.000E +02 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 7.382E -12 1.481E -13 1.857E -16 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 7.382E -12 1.481E -13 1.857E -16 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +02 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 1.183E -08 0.0224 8.474E -10 0.0016 7.529E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.175E -08 0.0790 U -235 3.779E -08 0.0715 1.113E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.096E -10 0.0012 U -238 3.983E -07 0.7534 5.103E -10 0.0010 1.473E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.703E -08 0.0700 Total 4.479E -07 0.8472 1.369E -09 0.0026 7.530E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.939E -08 0.1502 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 25 Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +02 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.443E -08 0.1030 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.841E -08 0.0727 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.358E -07 0.8244 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.287E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Pathway Total Radio- Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +03 years 6.086E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.656E -04 6.948E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 9.882E -04 1.208E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.718E -02 1.287E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.831E -02 8.696E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.237E -01 2.410E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.427E +00 3.319E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.720E -02 1.715E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.439E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +03 years Nuclide risk fract. Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Water -ind. 5.678E -01 5.542E -03 4.146E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Meat Milk Soil 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 26 Radionuclides Water Water Dependent Pathways Fish Plant 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 5.678E -01 5.542E -03 4.146E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. _= Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +03 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Plant risk fract. risk fract. Meat risk fract. Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 3.585E -10 0.0024 3.185E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.390E -11 0.0001 Pa -231 3.869E -11 0.0003 1.301E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.489E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 2.120E -11 0.0001 9.386E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.494E -09 0.0102 Ra -226 4.474E -08 0.3042 9.189E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.380E -10 0.0016 Th -230 2.952E -11 0.0002 7.413E -12 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.690E -10 0.0025 U -234 2.451E -10 0.0017 1.626E -10 0.0011 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.946E -09 0.0540 U -235 7.176E -09 0.0488 2.014E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.119E -10 0.0008 U -238 7.687E -08 0.5227 9.838E -11 0.0007 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.141E -09 0.0486 Total 1.295E -07 0.8804 2.727E -10 0.0019 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.732E -08 0.1178 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* 8.656E -04 9.882E -04 1.718E -02 1.831E -02 1.237E -01 3.427E +00 4.720E -02 2.439E +00 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio- 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 27 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +03 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.727E -10 0.0025 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.431E -11 0.0003 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.517E -09 0.0103 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.497E -08 0.3058 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.060E -10 0.0028 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.354E -09 0.0568 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.290E -09 0.0496 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.411E -08 0.5719 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.471E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E +03 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 2.563E -11 5.142E -13 6.447E -16 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 2.563E -11 5.142E -13 6.447E -16 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +03 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 4.501E -08 0.3060 1.716E -10 0.0012 2.613E -11 0.0002 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.003E -08 0.0682 U -235 7.574E -09 0.0515 2.463E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.313E -10 0.0009 U -238 7.689E -08 0.5227 9.871E -11 0.0007 1.373E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.158E -09 0.0487 Total 1.295E -07 0.8802 2.727E -10 0.0019 2.615E -11 0.0002 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.732E -08 0.1177 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days Intrisk : Construction Worker Receptor File : C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water 08/13/2008 16:18 Page 28 Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +03 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.524E -08 0.3755 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.707E -09 0.0524 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.415E -08 0.5721 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.471E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 RESRAD CHILD COMMUTER RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 1 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Table of Contents Part III: Intake Quantities and Health Risk Factors Cancer Risk Slope Factors 2 Risk Slope and ETFG for the Ground Pathway 4 Amount of Intake Quantities and Excess Cancer Risks Time= 0.000E +00 5 Time= 1.000E +00 8 Time= 3.000E +00 11 Time= 1.000E +01 14 Time= 3.000E +01 17 Time= 1.000E +02 20 Time= 3.000E +02 23 Time= 1.000E +03 26 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 2 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Cancer Risk Slope Factors Summary Table Risk Library: FGR 13 Morbidity Current 1 Base 1 Parameter Menu 1 Parameter 1 Value 1 Case* 1 Name Sf -1 Ground external radiation slope factors, 1 /yr per (pCi /g): Sf -1 I Ac -227 +D 1 1.47E -06 1 3.48E -10 I SLPF( 1,1) Sf -1 I Pa -231 1 1.39E -07 1 1.39E -07 I SLPF( 2,1) Sf -1 I Pb -210 +D 1 4.21E -09 1 1.41E -09 I SLPF( 3,1) Sf -1 I Ra -226 +D 1 8.49E -06 1 2.29E -08 I SLPF( 4,1) Sf -1 I Th -230 1 8.19E -10 1 8.19E -10 I SLPF( 5,1) Sf -1 I U -234 1 2.52E -10 1 2.52E -10 I SLPF( 6,1) Sf -1 I U -235 +D 1 5.43E -07 1 5.18E -07 I SLPF( 7,1) Sf -1 I U -238 4.99E -11 1 4.99E -11 I SLPF( 8,1) Sf -1 1 U -238 +D 1 1.14E -07 1 4.99E -11 1 SLPF( 9,1) Sf -2 Inhalation, slope factors, 1/ (pCi) : Sf -2 I Ac -227 +D 1 2.13E -07 1 1.49E -07 I SLPF( 1,2) Sf -2 I Pa -231 1 7.62E -08 1 7.62E -08 I SLPF( 2,2) Sf -2 I Pb -210 +D 1 3.08E -08 1 1.58E -08 I SLPF( 3,2) Sf -2 I Ra -226 +D 1 2.83E -08 1 2.82E -08 I SLPF( 4,2) Sf -2 I Th -230 1 3.40E -08 1 3.40E -08 I SLPF( 5,2) Sf -2 I U -234 1 2.78E -08 1 2.78E -08 I SLPF( 6,2) Sf -2 I U -235 +D 1 2.50E -08 1 2.50E -08 I SLPF( 7,2) Sf -2 I U -238 2.36E -08 2.36E -08 SLPF( 8,2) Sf -2 1 U -238 +D 1 2.36E -08 1 2.36E -08 1 SLPF( 9,2) Sf -3 Food ingestion, slope factors, 1/ (pCi) : Sf -3 Ac -227 +D 1 6.53E -10 2.45E -10 SLPF( 1,3) Sf -3 I Pa -231 1 2.26E -10 1 2.26E -10 I SLPF( 2,3) Sf -3 I Pb -210 +D 1 3.44E -09 1 1.18E -09 I SLPF( 3,3) Sf -3 I Ra -226 +D 1 5.15E -10 1 5.14E -10 I SLPF( 4,3) Sf -3 I Th -230 1 1.19E -10 1 1.19E -10 I SLPF( 5,3) Sf -3 I U -234 1 9.55E -11 1 9.55E -11 I SLPF( 6,3) Sf -3 I U -235 +D 1 9.76E -11 1 9.44E -11 I SLPF( 7,3) Sf -3 I U -238 1 8.66E -11 1 8.66E -11 I SLPF( 8,3) Sf -3 1 U -238 +D 1 1.21E -10 1 8.66E -11 1 SLPF( 9,3) Sf -3 Water ingestion, slope factors, 1/ (pCi) : Sf -3 I Ac -227 +D 1 4.86E -10 1 2.01E -10 I SLPF( 1,4) Sf -3 Pa -231 1 1.73E -10 1.73E -10 SLPF( 2,4) Sf -3 Pb -210 +D 1 2.66E -09 8.81E -10 I SLPF( 3,4) Sf -3 I Ra -226 +D 1 3.86E -10 1 3.85E -10 I SLPF( 4,4) Sf -3 I Th -230 1 9.10E -11 1 9.10E -11 I SLPF( 5,4) Sf -3 I U -234 1 7.07E -11 1 7.07E -11 I SLPF( 6,4) Sf -3 I U -235 +D 1 7.18E -11 1 6.96E -11 I SLPF( 7,4) Sf -3 I U -238 1 6.40E -11 1 6.40E -11 I SLPF( 8,4) Sf -3 1 U -238 +D 1 8.71E -11 1 6.40E -11 1 SLPF( 9,4) Sf -3 Soil ingestion, slope factors, 1/ (pCi) : Sf -3 I Ac -227 +D 1 6.53E -10 1 2.45E -10 I SLPF( 1,5) Sf -3 I Pa -231 1 2.26E -10 1 2.26E -10 I SLPF( 2,5) Sf -3 Pb -210 +D 1 3.44E -09 1.18E -09 I SLPF( 3,5) Sf -3 I Ra -226 +D 1 5.15E -10 1 5.14E -10 I SLPF( 4,5) Sf -3 I Th -230 1 1.19E -10 1 1.19E -10 I SLPF( 5,5) Sf -3 1 U -234 1 9.55E -11 1 9.55E -11 1 SLPF( 6,5) RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 3 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Sf -Rn Radon Inhalation slope factors, 1 /(pCi): Sf -Rn I Rn -222 Sf -Rn I Po -218 Sf -Rn I Pb -214 Sf -Rn 1 Bi -214 Sf -Rn I Radon K factors, (mrem /WLM): Sf -Rn I Rn -222 Indoor Sf -Rn 1 Rn -222 Outdoor Cancer Risk Slope Factors Summary Table (continued) Risk Library: FGR 13 Morbidity *Base Case means Default.Lib w/o Associate Nuclide contributions. Current 1 Base 1 Parameter Menu 1 Parameter 1 Value 1 Case* 1 Name Sf -3 U -235 +D 9.76E -11 9.44E -11 SLPF( 7,5) Sf -3 I U -238 1 8.66E -11 1 8.66E -11 I SLPF( 8,5) Sf -3 1 U -238 +D 1 1.21E -10 1 8.66E -11 1 SLPF( 9,5) 1.80E -12 1.80E -12 3.70E -12 1 3.70E -12 6.20E -12 1 6.20E -12 1.50E -11 1 1.50E -11 7.60E +02 1 7.60E +02 5.70E +02 1 5.70E +02 SLPFRN (1, 1) SLPFRN(1,2) SLPFRN (1, 3 ) SLPFRN (1, 4 ) KFACTR (1, 1) KFACTR (1, 2 ) RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 4 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Risk Slope and Environmental Transport Factors for the Ground Pathway Nuclide Slope (i) * ETFG(i,t) At Time in Years (dimensionless) (i) t= 0.000E +00 1.000E +00 3.000E +00 1.000E +01 3.000E +01 1.000E +02 3.000E +02 1.000E +03 Ac -227 3.480E -10 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 At -218 3.570E -09 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 Bi -210 2.760E -09 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 Bi -211 1.880E -07 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 Bi -214 7.480E -06 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.400E -01 Fr -223 1.400E -07 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 Pa -231 1.390E -07 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 Pa -234 8.710E -06 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 Pa -234m 6.870E -08 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 Pb -210 1.410E -09 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 Pb -211 2.290E -07 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 Pb -214 9.820E -07 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 Po -210 3.950E -11 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 Po -211 3.580E -08 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 Po -214 3.860E -10 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 Po -215 7.480E -10 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 Po -218 4.260E -11 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 Ra -223 4.340E -07 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 Ra -226 2.290E -08 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 Rn -219 2.250E -07 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 Rn -222 1.740E -09 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 Th -227 3.780E -07 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 Th -230 8.190E -10 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 Th -231 2.450E -08 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 Th -234 1.630E -08 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 T1 -207 1.520E -08 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 T1 -210 0.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 U -234 2.520E -10 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 U -235 5.180E -07 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 U -238 4.990E -11 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 * - Units are 1 /yr per (pCi /g) at infinite depth and area. Multiplication by ETFG(i,t) converts to site conditions. RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Child Commuter Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Meat Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Pathway Total Radio- Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 5 File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 0.000E +00 years 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.313E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.312E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.778E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 0.000E +00 years Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Water -ind. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Ground Inhalation Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. Milk Radionuclides Soil Water 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.052E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.052E +01 0.000E +00 4.200E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.200E -01 0.000E +00 2.170E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.170E +01 Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Plant Meat risk fract. risk fract. Fish Plant Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 1.899E -13 0.0000 3.545E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.246E -15 0.0000 Pa -231 2.975E -13 0.0000 2.102E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.581E -14 0.0000 Pb -210 1.101E -17 0.0000 1.024E -18 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.585E -16 0.0000 Ra -226 4.854E -13 0.0000 2.095E -17 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.191E -15 0.0000 Th -230 5.521E -14 0.0000 2.913E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.857E -13 0.0000 U -234 6.312E -10 0.0025 8.800E -10 0.0035 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.737E -08 0.0690 U -235 1.847E -08 0.0734 1.089E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.443E -10 0.0010 U -238 1.978E -07 0.7864 5.319E -10 0.0021 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.559E -08 0.0620 Total 2.169E -07 0.8623 1.423E -09 0.0057 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.320E -08 0.1320 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 6 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio- Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.965E -13 0.0000 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.354E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.705E -16 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.876E -13 0.0000 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.701E -13 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.888E -08 0.0750 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.872E -08 0.0744 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.139E -07 0.8505 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.515E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 0.000E +00 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 7.374E -16 1.479E -17 1.855E -20 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Ground Total 7.374E -16 1.479E -17 1.855E -20 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 6.317E -10 0.0025 8.801E -10 0.0035 7.522E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.737E -08 0.0690 U -235 1.847E -08 0.0734 1.089E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.444E -10 0.0010 U -238 1.978E -07 0.7864 5.319E -10 0.0021 2.271E -21 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.559E -08 0.0620 Total 2.169E -07 0.8623 1.423E -09 0.0057 7.522E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.320E -08 0.1320 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 7 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.888E -08 0.0750 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.872E -08 0.0744 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.139E -07 0.8505 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.515E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 8 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Meat Milk Soil Water Fish Plant Meat Ac -227 2.428E -11 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.395E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Pa -231 1.543E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.866E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Pb -210 1.064E -13 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.110E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Ra -226 1.034E -11 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.942E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Th -230 4.777E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.744E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 U -234 5.301E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.045E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 U -235 7.295E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.190E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 U -238 3.769E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.165E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Pathway Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +00 years Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 5.721E -06 5.583E -08 4.177E -11 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total Radio- Ground Nuclide risk fract. Radionuclides 5.721E -06 5.583E -08 4.177E -11 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Plant risk fract. risk fract. Meat Milk risk fract. risk fract. Soil risk fract. Ac -227 2.975E -13 0.0000 5.554E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.786E -15 0.0000 Pa -231 3.960E -13 0.0000 2.798E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.766E -14 0.0000 Pb -210 2.024E -17 0.0000 1.883E -18 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.211E -15 0.0000 Ra -226 7.677E -13 0.0000 3.313E -17 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.465E -15 0.0000 Th -230 7.355E -14 0.0000 3.881E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.803E -13 0.0000 U -234 6.297E -10 0.0025 8.780E -10 0.0035 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.732E -08 0.0690 U -235 1.843E -08 0.0734 1.087E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.438E -10 0.0010 U -238 1.974E -07 0.7864 5.306E -10 0.0021 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.556E -08 0.0620 Total 2.164E -07 0.8623 1.419E -09 0.0057 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.313E -08 0.1320 Total Milk Ingestion* 0.000E +00 1.395E -07 0.000E +00 8.866E -06 0.000E +00 6.110E -10 0.000E +00 5.942E -08 0.000E +00 2.744E -04 0.000E +00 3.045E +01 0.000E +00 4.190E -01 0.000E +00 2.165E +01 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 9 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio- Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.079E -13 0.0000 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.465E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.233E -15 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.712E -13 0.0000 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.926E -13 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.883E -08 0.0750 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.868E -08 0.0744 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.134E -07 0.8505 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.510E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E +00 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 1.166E -15 2.339E -17 2.933E -20 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Ground Total 1.166E -15 2.339E -17 2.933E -20 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 6.306E -10 0.0025 8.780E -10 0.0035 1.190E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.733E -08 0.0690 U -235 1.843E -08 0.0734 1.087E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.438E -10 0.0010 U -238 1.974E -07 0.7864 5.306E -10 0.0021 4.199E -21 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.556E -08 0.0620 Total 2.164E -07 0.8623 1.419E -09 0.0057 1.190E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.313E -08 0.1320 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 10 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.883E -08 0.0750 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.868E -08 0.0744 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.134E -07 0.8505 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.510E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radon Pathway Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 11 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Meat Milk Soil Water Fish Plant Ac -227 2.125E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.221E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Pa -231 4.608E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.647E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Pb -210 2.820E -12 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.620E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Ra -226 9.283E -11 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.332E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Th -230 1.430E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.213E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 U -234 5.276E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.031E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 U -235 7.260E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.170E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 U -238 3.751E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.155E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +00 years Radionuclides Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 5.133E -05 5.009E -07 3.748E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total Radio- Ground Nuclide risk fract. 5.133E -05 5.009E -07 3.748E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Plant risk fract. risk fract. Meat Milk Water Dependent Pathways risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 5.970E -13 0.0000 1.114E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.964E -14 0.0000 Pa -231 5.915E -13 0.0000 4.179E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.120E -14 0.0000 Pb -210 5.384E -17 0.0000 5.008E -18 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.221E -15 0.0000 Ra -226 1.572E -12 0.0000 6.783E -17 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.095E -15 0.0000 Th -230 1.101E -13 0.0000 5.810E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.168E -12 0.0000 U -234 6.268E -10 0.0025 8.738E -10 0.0035 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.724E -08 0.0690 U -235 1.834E -08 0.0734 1.081E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.426E -10 0.0010 U -238 1.964E -07 0.7864 5.281E -10 0.0021 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.548E -08 0.0620 Total 2.154E -07 0.8623 1.413E -09 0.0057 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.297E -08 0.1320 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Soil risk fract. 1.221E -06 2.647E -05 1.620E -08 5.332E -07 8.213E -04 3.031E +01 4.170E -01 2.155E +01 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radio- Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 12 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.178E -13 0.0000 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.669E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.279E -15 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.579E -12 0.0000 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.336E -12 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.874E -08 0.0750 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.859E -08 0.0744 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.124E -07 0.8505 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.498E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 3.000E +00 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 2.387E -15 4.790E -17 6.005E -20 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 2.387E -15 4.790E -17 6.005E -20 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 6.284E -10 0.0025 8.739E -10 0.0035 2.435E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.724E -08 0.0690 U -235 1.834E -08 0.0734 1.082E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.427E -10 0.0010 U -238 1.964E -07 0.7864 5.281E -10 0.0021 1.130E -20 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.548E -08 0.0620 Total 2.154E -07 0.8623 1.413E -09 0.0057 2.435E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.297E -08 0.1320 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 13 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.875E -08 0.0751 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.859E -08 0.0744 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.124E -07 0.8505 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.498E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Child Commuter Radio- Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Pathway Rn -222 Total Radio- Ground Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) 2.145E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.232E -05 0.000E +00 1.511E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.679E -05 0.000E +00 9.809E -11 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.635E -07 0.000E +00 1.021E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.863E -06 0.000E +00 4.727E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.715E -03 0.000E +00 5.190E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.981E +01 0.000E +00 7.142E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.102E -01 0.000E +00 3.690E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.120E +01 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +01 years Water -ind. 5.641E -04 5.506E -06 4.119E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Tl� Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 14 File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Meat Milk Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Inhalation Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. Radionuclides Soil Water 5.641E -04 5.506E -06 4.119E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Plant Meat risk fract. risk fract. Water Dependent Pathways Fish Plant Meat 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Pb -212 Bi -212 Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 2.412E -12 0.0000 4.502E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.933E -14 0.0000 Pa -231 1.261E -12 0.0000 8.912E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.518E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 4.361E -16 0.0000 4.057E -17 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.609E -14 0.0000 Ra -226 6.866E -12 0.0000 2.963E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.099E -14 0.0000 Th -230 2.367E -13 0.0000 1.249E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.511E -12 0.0000 U -234 6.165E -10 0.0025 8.596E -10 0.0035 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.696E -08 0.0690 U -235 1.804E -08 0.0734 1.064E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.387E -10 0.0010 U -238 1.932E -07 0.7864 5.195E -10 0.0021 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.523E -08 0.0620 Total 2.119E -07 0.8623 1.390E -09 0.0057 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.243E -08 0.1320 Total Milk Ingestion* 0.000E +00 1.232E -05 0.000E +00 8.679E -05 0.000E +00 5.635E -07 0.000E +00 5.863E -06 0.000E +00 2.715E -03 0.000E +00 2.981E +01 0.000E +00 4.102E -01 0.000E +00 2.120E +01 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radio- Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 15 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.496E -12 0.0000 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.422E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.656E -14 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.897E -12 0.0000 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.872E -12 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.844E -08 0.0750 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.829E -08 0.0744 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.090E -07 0.8505 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.457E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E +01 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 1.042E -14 2.091E -16 2.621E -19 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 1.042E -14 2.091E -16 2.621E -19 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 6.236E -10 0.0025 8.597E -10 0.0035 1.063E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.696E -08 0.0690 U -235 1.804E -08 0.0734 1.065E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.389E -10 0.0010 U -238 1.932E -07 0.7864 5.195E -10 0.0021 9.579E -20 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.523E -08 0.0620 Total 2.119E -07 0.8623 1.390E -09 0.0057 1.063E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.243E -08 0.1320 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 16 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.845E -08 0.0751 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.829E -08 0.0744 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.090E -07 0.8505 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.457E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Radio- Total Nuclide Inhalation Plant Meat Milk Soil Water Fish Plant Meat Milk Ingestion* Ac -227 1.494E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.582E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.582E -05 Pa -231 4.324E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.484E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.484E -04 Pb -210 2.234E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.283E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.283E -05 Ra -226 8.917E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.122E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.122E -05 Th -230 1.385E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.957E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.957E -03 U -234 4.951E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.844E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.844E +01 U -235 6.814E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.914E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.914E -01 U -238 3.521E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.022E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.022E +01 Radon Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +01 years * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +01 years Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 4.921E -03 4.803E -05 3.594E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Tl� Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 17 Radionuclides Total 4.921E -03 4.803E -05 3.594E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Radio- Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Ground Inhalation Plant Meat Milk Soil Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 1.194E -11 0.0001 2.228E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.926E -13 0.0000 Pa -231 3.056E -12 0.0000 2.159E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.678E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 5.792E -15 0.0000 5.388E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.465E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 4.233E -11 0.0002 1.827E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.910E -13 0.0000 Th -230 5.870E -13 0.0000 3.097E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.227E -12 0.0000 U -234 5.882E -10 0.0025 8.201E -10 0.0035 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.618E -08 0.0690 U -235 1.721E -08 0.0734 1.015E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.277E -10 0.0010 U -238 1.843E -07 0.7862 4.957E -10 0.0021 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.453E -08 0.0620 Total 2.022E -07 0.8624 1.326E -09 0.0057 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.095E -08 0.1320 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radio- Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 18 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +01 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.235E -11 0.0001 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.445E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.528E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.252E -11 0.0002 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.124E -12 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.759E -08 0.0750 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.745E -08 0.0744 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.994E -07 0.8503 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.345E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 3.000E +01 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 6.417E -14 1.287E -15 1.614E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 6.417E -14 1.287E -15 1.614E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 6.311E -10 0.0027 8.204E -10 0.0035 6.546E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.619E -08 0.0690 U -235 1.723E -08 0.0735 1.019E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.285E -10 0.0010 U -238 1.844E -07 0.7862 4.957E -10 0.0021 1.449E -18 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.453E -08 0.0620 Total 2.022E -07 0.8624 1.326E -09 0.0057 6.546E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.095E -08 0.1320 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 19 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +01 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.764E -08 0.0752 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.746E -08 0.0745 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.994E -07 0.8503 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.345E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Pathway Water -ind. 4.888E -02 4.771E -04 3.569E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total Radio- Nuclide risk fract. Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +02 years 7.986E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.587E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.222E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.018E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.977E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.859E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.937E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.133E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.260E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.447E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.200E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.413E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.780E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.320E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.987E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.716E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +02 years Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Tl� Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 20 Meat Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Inhalation Milk Soil Radionuclides risk fract. risk fract. Plant Meat Water Fish Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) risk fract. risk Water Dependent Pathways Plant 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.587E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.018E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.859E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.133E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.447E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.413E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.320E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.716E +01 Bi -212 4.888E -02 4.771E -04 3.569E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +02 years Milk Soil fract. risk fract. Ac -227 5.644E -11 0.0003 1.053E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.856E -12 0.0000 Pa -231 8.085E -12 0.0000 5.712E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.732E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 1.059E -13 0.0000 9.848E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.333E -12 0.0000 Ra -226 3.711E -10 0.0019 1.602E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.675E -12 0.0000 Th -230 1.690E -12 0.0000 8.920E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.793E -11 0.0001 U -234 4.990E -10 0.0025 6.957E -10 0.0035 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.373E -08 0.0689 U -235 1.460E -08 0.0732 8.610E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.932E -10 0.0010 U -238 1.564E -07 0.7846 4.205E -10 0.0021 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.233E -08 0.0618 Total 1.719E -07 0.8625 1.126E -09 0.0056 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.628E -08 0.1318 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radio- Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 21 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +02 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.840E -11 0.0003 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.116E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.449E -12 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.728E -10 0.0019 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.052E -11 0.0001 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.492E -08 0.0749 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.480E -08 0.0743 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.691E -07 0.8485 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.993E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E +02 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 5.576E -13 1.119E -14 1.402E -17 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 5.576E -13 1.119E -14 1.402E -17 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +02 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 8.718E -10 0.0044 6.964E -10 0.0035 5.688E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.375E -08 0.0690 U -235 1.466E -08 0.0736 8.773E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.960E -10 0.0010 U -238 1.564E -07 0.7846 4.206E -10 0.0021 3.850E -17 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.233E -08 0.0619 Total 1.719E -07 0.8625 1.126E -09 0.0056 5.688E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.628E -08 0.1318 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 22 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +02 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.532E -08 0.0769 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.487E -08 0.0746 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.691E -07 0.8485 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.993E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Radio- Total Nuclide Inhalation Plant Meat Milk Soil Water Fish Plant Meat Milk Ingestion* Ac -227 1.866E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.072E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.072E -03 Pa -231 2.286E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.313E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.313E -03 Pb -210 4.910E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.820E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.820E -03 Ra -226 6.036E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.467E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.467E -03 Th -230 1.028E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.903E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.903E -02 U -234 2.625E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.508E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.508E +01 U -235 3.613E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.075E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.075E -01 U -238 1.867E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.072E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.072E +01 Radon Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +02 years * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +02 years Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 3.237E -01 3.159E -03 2.364E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Tl� Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 23 Radionuclides Total 3.237E -01 3.159E -03 2.364E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Radio- Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +02 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Ground Inhalation Plant Meat Milk Soil Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 1.282E -10 0.0010 2.393E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.216E -12 0.0000 Pa -231 1.483E -11 0.0001 1.048E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.786E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 9.914E -13 0.0000 9.223E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.931E -11 0.0005 Ra -226 2.410E -09 0.0190 1.040E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.088E -11 0.0001 Th -230 4.000E -12 0.0000 2.111E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.243E -11 0.0003 U -234 3.118E -10 0.0025 4.347E -10 0.0034 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.578E -09 0.0676 U -235 9.125E -09 0.0719 5.381E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.207E -10 0.0010 U -238 9.774E -08 0.7698 2.628E -10 0.0021 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.704E -09 0.0607 Total 1.097E -07 0.8643 7.055E -10 0.0056 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.652E -08 0.1301 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radio- Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 24 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +02 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.326E -10 0.0010 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.672E -11 0.0001 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.039E -11 0.0005 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.421E -09 0.0191 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.854E -11 0.0004 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.324E -09 0.0734 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.251E -09 0.0729 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.057E -07 0.8326 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.270E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 3.000E +02 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 3.550E -12 7.122E -14 8.928E -17 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 3.550E -12 7.122E -14 8.928E -17 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +02 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 2.727E -09 0.0215 4.367E -10 0.0034 3.621E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.685E -09 0.0684 U -235 9.268E -09 0.0730 5.725E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.267E -10 0.0010 U -238 9.774E -08 0.7698 2.631E -10 0.0021 6.881E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.710E -09 0.0607 Total 1.097E -07 0.8643 7.055E -10 0.0056 3.621E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.652E -08 0.1301 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 25 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +02 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.185E -08 0.0933 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.400E -09 0.0740 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.057E -07 0.8326 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.270E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Child Commuter Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Pathway Total Water -ind. == Water - independent Radio- Nuclide risk fract. Tl� Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 26 File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +03 years Meat Milk 1.279E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.460E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.537E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.704E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.827E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.062E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.972E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.602E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +03 years Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Water -ind. 1.193E +00 1.164E -02 8.710E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Ground Inhalation Water -dep. _= Water - dependent risk fract. risk Radionuclides Soil Water 7.344E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.384E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.457E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.553E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.049E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.908E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.005E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.069E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Fish Plant Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 1.193E +00 1.164E -02 8.710E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +03 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Plant Meat fract. risk fract. Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 8.713E -11 0.0025 1.626E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.866E -12 0.0001 Pa -231 9.407E -12 0.0003 6.646E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.132E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 5.046E -12 0.0001 4.694E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.019E -10 0.0086 Ra -226 1.066E -08 0.3029 4.598E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.809E -11 0.0014 Th -230 7.068E -12 0.0002 3.730E -12 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.498E -11 0.0021 U -234 6.014E -11 0.0017 8.384E -11 0.0024 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.654E -09 0.0470 U -235 1.761E -09 0.0501 1.038E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.330E -11 0.0007 U -238 1.886E -08 0.5361 5.071E -11 0.0014 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.487E -09 0.0423 Total 3.145E -08 0.8939 1.405E -10 0.0040 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.593E -09 0.1021 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* 7.344E -04 8.384E -04 1.457E -02 1.553E -02 1.049E -01 2.908E +00 4.005E -02 2.069E +00 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radio- Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 27 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +03 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.016E -11 0.0026 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.061E -11 0.0003 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.074E -10 0.0087 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.070E -08 0.3043 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.578E -11 0.0024 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.798E -09 0.0511 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.785E -09 0.0507 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.040E -08 0.5798 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.518E -08 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E +03 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 1.289E -11 2.587E -13 3.243E -16 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 1.289E -11 2.587E -13 3.243E -16 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +03 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 1.072E -08 0.3047 8.833E -11 0.0025 1.315E -11 0.0004 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.076E -09 0.0590 U -235 1.858E -09 0.0528 1.268E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.729E -11 0.0008 U -238 1.887E -08 0.5361 5.089E -11 0.0014 6.859E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.490E -09 0.0423 Total 3.145E -08 0.8935 1.405E -10 0.0040 1.315E -11 0.0004 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.593E -09 0.1021 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:40 Page 28 Intrisk : Child Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +03 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.290E -08 0.3665 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.886E -09 0.0536 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.041E -08 0.5799 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.519E -08 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 1 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Table of Contents Part III: Intake Quantities and Health Risk Factors Cancer Risk Slope Factors 2 Risk Slope and ETFG for the Ground Pathway 4 Amount of Intake Quantities and Excess Cancer Risks Time= 0.000E +00 5 Time= 1.000E +00 8 Time= 3.000E +00 11 Time= 1.000E +01 14 Time= 3.000E +01 17 Time= 1.000E +02 20 Time= 3.000E +02 23 Time= 1.000E +03 26 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 2 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Cancer Risk Slope Factors Summary Table Risk Library: FGR 13 Morbidity Current 1 Base 1 Parameter Menu 1 Parameter 1 Value 1 Case* 1 Name Sf -1 Ground external radiation slope factors, 1 /yr per (pCi /g): Sf -1 I Ac -227 +D 1 1.47E -06 1 3.48E -10 I SLPF( 1,1) Sf -1 I Pa -231 1 1.39E -07 1 1.39E -07 I SLPF( 2,1) Sf -1 I Pb -210 +D 1 4.21E -09 1 1.41E -09 I SLPF( 3,1) Sf -1 I Ra -226 +D 1 8.49E -06 1 2.29E -08 I SLPF( 4,1) Sf -1 I Th -230 1 8.19E -10 1 8.19E -10 I SLPF( 5,1) Sf -1 I U -234 1 2.52E -10 1 2.52E -10 I SLPF( 6,1) Sf -1 I U -235 +D 1 5.43E -07 1 5.18E -07 I SLPF( 7,1) Sf -1 I U -238 4.99E -11 1 4.99E -11 I SLPF( 8,1) Sf -1 1 U -238 +D 1 1.14E -07 1 4.99E -11 1 SLPF( 9,1) Sf -2 Inhalation, slope factors, 1/ (pCi) : Sf -2 I Ac -227 +D 1 2.13E -07 1 1.49E -07 I SLPF( 1,2) Sf -2 I Pa -231 1 7.62E -08 1 7.62E -08 I SLPF( 2,2) Sf -2 I Pb -210 +D 1 3.08E -08 1 1.58E -08 I SLPF( 3,2) Sf -2 I Ra -226 +D 1 2.83E -08 1 2.82E -08 I SLPF( 4,2) Sf -2 I Th -230 1 3.40E -08 1 3.40E -08 I SLPF( 5,2) Sf -2 I U -234 1 2.78E -08 1 2.78E -08 I SLPF( 6,2) Sf -2 I U -235 +D 1 2.50E -08 1 2.50E -08 I SLPF( 7,2) Sf -2 I U -238 2.36E -08 2.36E -08 SLPF( 8,2) Sf -2 1 U -238 +D 1 2.36E -08 1 2.36E -08 1 SLPF( 9,2) Sf -3 Food ingestion, slope factors, 1/ (pCi) : Sf -3 Ac -227 +D 1 6.53E -10 2.45E -10 SLPF( 1,3) Sf -3 I Pa -231 1 2.26E -10 1 2.26E -10 I SLPF( 2,3) Sf -3 I Pb -210 +D 1 3.44E -09 1 1.18E -09 I SLPF( 3,3) Sf -3 I Ra -226 +D 1 5.15E -10 1 5.14E -10 I SLPF( 4,3) Sf -3 I Th -230 1 1.19E -10 1 1.19E -10 I SLPF( 5,3) Sf -3 I U -234 1 9.55E -11 1 9.55E -11 I SLPF( 6,3) Sf -3 I U -235 +D 1 9.76E -11 1 9.44E -11 I SLPF( 7,3) Sf -3 I U -238 1 8.66E -11 1 8.66E -11 I SLPF( 8,3) Sf -3 1 U -238 +D 1 1.21E -10 1 8.66E -11 1 SLPF( 9,3) Sf -3 Water ingestion, slope factors, 1/ (pCi) : Sf -3 I Ac -227 +D 1 4.86E -10 1 2.01E -10 I SLPF( 1,4) Sf -3 Pa -231 1 1.73E -10 1.73E -10 SLPF( 2,4) Sf -3 Pb -210 +D 1 2.66E -09 8.81E -10 I SLPF( 3,4) Sf -3 I Ra -226 +D 1 3.86E -10 1 3.85E -10 I SLPF( 4,4) Sf -3 I Th -230 1 9.10E -11 1 9.10E -11 I SLPF( 5,4) Sf -3 I U -234 1 7.07E -11 1 7.07E -11 I SLPF( 6,4) Sf -3 I U -235 +D 1 7.18E -11 1 6.96E -11 I SLPF( 7,4) Sf -3 I U -238 1 6.40E -11 1 6.40E -11 I SLPF( 8,4) Sf -3 1 U -238 +D 1 8.71E -11 1 6.40E -11 1 SLPF( 9,4) Sf -3 Soil ingestion, slope factors, 1/ (pCi) : Sf -3 I Ac -227 +D 1 6.53E -10 1 2.45E -10 I SLPF( 1,5) Sf -3 I Pa -231 1 2.26E -10 1 2.26E -10 I SLPF( 2,5) Sf -3 Pb -210 +D 1 3.44E -09 1.18E -09 I SLPF( 3,5) Sf -3 I Ra -226 +D 1 5.15E -10 1 5.14E -10 I SLPF( 4,5) Sf -3 I Th -230 1 1.19E -10 1 1.19E -10 I SLPF( 5,5) Sf -3 1 U -234 1 9.55E -11 1 9.55E -11 1 SLPF( 6,5) Uranium Soils Investigation Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Saddle Road October 2009 RESRAD ADULT COMMUTER RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 3 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Sf -Rn Radon Inhalation slope factors, 1 /(pCi): Sf -Rn I Rn -222 Sf -Rn I Po -218 Sf -Rn I Pb -214 Sf -Rn 1 Bi -214 Sf -Rn I Radon K factors, (mrem /WLM): Sf -Rn I Rn -222 Indoor Sf -Rn 1 Rn -222 Outdoor Cancer Risk Slope Factors Summary Table (continued) Risk Library: FGR 13 Morbidity *Base Case means Default.Lib w/o Associate Nuclide contributions. Current 1 Base 1 Parameter Menu 1 Parameter 1 Value 1 Case* 1 Name Sf -3 U -235 +D 9.76E -11 9.44E -11 SLPF( 7,5) Sf -3 I U -238 1 8.66E -11 1 8.66E -11 I SLPF( 8,5) Sf -3 1 U -238 +D 1 1.21E -10 1 8.66E -11 1 SLPF( 9,5) 1.80E -12 1.80E -12 3.70E -12 1 3.70E -12 6.20E -12 1 6.20E -12 1.50E -11 1 1.50E -11 7.60E +02 1 7.60E +02 5.70E +02 1 5.70E +02 SLPFRN (1, 1) SLPFRN(1,2) SLPFRN (1, 3 ) SLPFRN (1, 4 ) KFACTR (1, 1) KFACTR (1, 2 ) RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 4 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Risk Slope and Environmental Transport Factors for the Ground Pathway Nuclide Slope (i) * ETFG(i,t) At Time in Years (dimensionless) (i) t= 0.000E +00 1.000E +00 3.000E +00 1.000E +01 3.000E +01 1.000E +02 3.000E +02 1.000E +03 Ac -227 3.480E -10 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 9.567E -01 At -218 3.570E -09 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 9.702E -01 Bi -210 2.760E -09 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 9.450E -01 Bi -211 1.880E -07 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 9.453E -01 Bi -214 7.480E -06 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.401E -01 9.400E -01 Fr -223 1.400E -07 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 9.502E -01 Pa -231 1.390E -07 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 Pa -234 8.710E -06 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 9.400E -01 Pa -234m 6.870E -08 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 9.393E -01 Pb -210 1.410E -09 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 9.813E -01 Pb -211 2.290E -07 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 9.399E -01 Pb -214 9.820E -07 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 9.456E -01 Po -210 3.950E -11 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 Po -211 3.580E -08 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 Po -214 3.860E -10 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 9.360E -01 Po -215 7.480E -10 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 9.410E -01 Po -218 4.260E -11 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 9.390E -01 Ra -223 4.340E -07 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 9.496E -01 Ra -226 2.290E -08 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 9.524E -01 Rn -219 2.250E -07 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 9.461E -01 Rn -222 1.740E -09 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 9.370E -01 Th -227 3.780E -07 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 9.508E -01 Th -230 8.190E -10 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 9.588E -01 Th -231 2.450E -08 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 9.599E -01 Th -234 1.630E -08 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 9.610E -01 T1 -207 1.520E -08 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 9.403E -01 T1 -210 0.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 1.000E +00 U -234 2.520E -10 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 9.643E -01 U -235 5.180E -07 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 9.520E -01 U -238 4.990E -11 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 9.912E -01 * - Units are 1 /yr per (pCi /g) at infinite depth and area. Multiplication by ETFG(i,t) converts to site conditions. RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Adult Commuter Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Meat Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 5 File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 0.000E +00 years 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.063E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.462E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.556E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 0.000E +00 years Water -ind. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total Radio- Water -ind. == Water - independent Nuclide risk fract. risk Ground Inhalation Pb -214 Milk Soil 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.526E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.100E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.085E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Radionuclides Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Water -dep. _= Water - dependent fract. Plant Meat risk fract. Water Fish risk fract. risk Plant Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Bi -212 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E +00 years 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.526E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.100E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.085E +01 Milk Soil fract. risk fract. Ac -227 1.017E -11 0.0000 3.797E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.672E -13 0.0000 Pa -231 4.628E -12 0.0000 6.539E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.785E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 2.485E -15 0.0000 4.624E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.434E -14 0.0000 Ra -226 3.045E -11 0.0000 2.628E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.871E -14 0.0000 Th -230 8.710E -13 0.0000 9.192E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.620E -12 0.0000 U -234 2.472E -09 0.0027 6.894E -09 0.0074 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.401E -08 0.0367 U -235 7.234E -08 0.0781 8.532E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.785E -10 0.0005 U -238 7.748E -07 0.8369 4.166E -09 0.0045 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.054E -08 0.0330 Total 8.497E -07 0.9177 1.115E -08 0.0120 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.503E -08 0.0702 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 6 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio- Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.037E -11 0.0000 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.972E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.729E -14 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.052E -11 0.0000 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.410E -12 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.337E -08 0.0468 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.290E -08 0.0787 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.095E -07 0.8744 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.258E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 0.000E +00 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 9.242E -14 1.854E -15 2.325E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Ground Total 9.242E -14 1.854E -15 2.325E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 2.504E -09 0.0027 6.894E -09 0.0074 9.428E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.401E -08 0.0367 U -235 7.235E -08 0.0781 8.542E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.789E -10 0.0005 U -238 7.748E -07 0.8369 4.167E -09 0.0045 1.133E -18 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.054E -08 0.0330 Total 8.497E -07 0.9177 1.115E -08 0.0120 9.428E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.503E -08 0.0702 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 7 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.341E -08 0.0469 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.292E -08 0.0788 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.095E -07 0.8744 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.258E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 8 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Radio- Total Nuclide Inhalation Plant Meat Milk Soil Water Fish Plant Meat Milk Ingestion* Ac -227 4.856E -11 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.974E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.974E -08 Pa -231 3.087E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.433E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.433E -06 Pb -210 2.127E -13 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.055E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.055E -10 Ra -226 2.069E -11 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.971E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.971E -08 Th -230 9.555E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.372E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.372E -04 U -234 1.060E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.522E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.522E +01 U -235 1.459E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.095E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.095E -01 U -238 7.538E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.082E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.082E +01 Radon Radio- Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +00 years Radionuclides Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +00 years Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 1.144E -05 1.117E -07 8.354E -11 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 1.144E -05 1.117E -07 8.354E -11 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Ground Inhalation Plant Meat Milk Soil Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 1.139E -11 0.0000 4.250E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.872E -13 0.0000 Pa -231 5.005E -12 0.0000 7.073E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.012E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 2.907E -15 0.0000 5.408E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.694E -14 0.0000 Ra -226 3.438E -11 0.0000 2.967E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.757E -14 0.0000 Th -230 9.429E -13 0.0000 9.950E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.001E -12 0.0000 U -234 2.466E -09 0.0027 6.877E -09 0.0074 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.393E -08 0.0367 U -235 7.217E -08 0.0781 8.512E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.774E -10 0.0005 U -238 7.730E -07 0.8369 4.157E -09 0.0045 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.047E -08 0.0330 Total 8.477E -07 0.9177 1.112E -08 0.0120 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.488E -08 0.0702 RESRAD, Version 6.4 To Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 9 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Radio- Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.161E -11 0.0000 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.377E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.038E -14 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.446E -11 0.0000 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.939E -12 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.327E -08 0.0468 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.273E -08 0.0787 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.076E -07 0.8743 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.237E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E +00 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 1.043E -13 2.093E -15 2.624E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Ground Total 1.043E -13 2.093E -15 2.624E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 2.502E -09 0.0027 6.878E -09 0.0074 1.064E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.393E -08 0.0367 U -235 7.218E -08 0.0781 8.523E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.778E -10 0.0005 U -238 7.730E -07 0.8369 4.157E -09 0.0045 1.332E -18 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.047E -08 0.0330 Total 8.477E -07 0.9177 1.112E -08 0.0120 1.064E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.488E -08 0.0702 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 10 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.331E -08 0.0469 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.275E -08 0.0788 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.076E -07 0.8744 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.237E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Adult Commuter Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Tl� Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 11 File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +00 years 4.250E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.103E -07 0.000E +00 9.217E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.324E -05 0.000E +00 5.640E -12 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.099E -09 0.000E +00 1.857E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.666E -07 0.000E +00 2.860E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.107E -04 0.000E +00 1.055E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.515E +01 0.000E +00 1.452E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.085E -01 0.000E +00 7.502E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.077E +01 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +00 years Water -ind. 1.027E -04 1.002E -06 7.496E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total Radio- 1.027E -04 1.002E -06 7.496E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +00 years Ground Inhalation Nuclide risk fract. risk Meat Milk fract. Radionuclides Soil Water Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Plant Meat risk fract. risk fract. Water Dependent Pathways Fish Plant Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.103E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.324E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.099E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.666E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.107E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.515E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.085E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.077E +01 Pb -212 Bi -212 Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 1.405E -11 0.0000 5.245E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.311E -13 0.0000 Pa -231 5.755E -12 0.0000 8.132E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.463E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 3.901E -15 0.0000 7.258E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.167E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 4.315E -11 0.0000 3.724E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.737E -14 0.0000 Th -230 1.086E -12 0.0000 1.146E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.760E -12 0.0000 U -234 2.455E -09 0.0027 6.845E -09 0.0074 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.377E -08 0.0367 U -235 7.183E -08 0.0781 8.472E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.751E -10 0.0005 U -238 7.694E -07 0.8369 4.137E -09 0.0045 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.032E -08 0.0330 Total 8.437E -07 0.9177 1.107E -08 0.0120 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.457E -08 0.0702 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radio- Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 12 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.433E -11 0.0000 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.182E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.213E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.325E -11 0.0000 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.992E -12 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.307E -08 0.0468 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.239E -08 0.0787 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.038E -07 0.8743 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.193E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 3.000E +00 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 1.310E -13 2.627E -15 3.294E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 1.310E -13 2.627E -15 3.294E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +00 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 2.499E -09 0.0027 6.846E -09 0.0074 1.336E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.377E -08 0.0367 U -235 7.185E -08 0.0782 8.485E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.757E -10 0.0005 U -238 7.694E -07 0.8369 4.137E -09 0.0045 1.807E -18 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.032E -08 0.0330 Total 8.437E -07 0.9177 1.107E -08 0.0120 1.336E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.457E -08 0.0702 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 13 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +00 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.312E -08 0.0469 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.241E -08 0.0788 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.038E -07 0.8743 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.193E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Radio- Total Nuclide Inhalation Plant Meat Milk Soil Water Fish Plant Meat Milk Ingestion* Ac -227 4.291E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.161E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.161E -06 Pa -231 3.022E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.340E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.340E -05 Pb -210 1.962E -10 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.817E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.817E -07 Ra -226 2.041E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.932E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.932E -06 Th -230 9.454E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.358E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.358E -03 U -234 1.038E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.491E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.491E +01 U -235 1.428E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.051E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.051E -01 U -238 7.380E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.060E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.060E +01 Radon Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +01 years * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +01 years Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 1.128E -03 1.101E -05 8.238E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Tl� Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 14 Radionuclides Total 1.128E -03 1.101E -05 8.238E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Radio- Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Ground Inhalation Plant Meat Milk Soil Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 2.550E -11 0.0000 9.521E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.194E -13 0.0000 Pa -231 8.322E -12 0.0000 1.176E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.008E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 9.284E -15 0.0000 1.727E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.777E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 8.338E -11 0.0001 7.196E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.882E -13 0.0000 Th -230 1.582E -12 0.0000 1.669E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.390E -12 0.0000 U -234 2.415E -09 0.0027 6.733E -09 0.0074 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.322E -08 0.0367 U -235 7.066E -08 0.0781 8.334E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.674E -10 0.0005 U -238 7.568E -07 0.8368 4.070E -09 0.0045 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.983E -08 0.0330 Total 8.300E -07 0.9177 1.089E -08 0.0120 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.352E -08 0.0702 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radio- Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 15 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.602E -11 0.0000 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.941E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.887E -13 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.358E -11 0.0001 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.164E -11 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.237E -08 0.0468 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.121E -08 0.0787 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.907E -07 0.8743 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.044E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E +01 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 2.529E -13 5.074E -15 6.362E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 2.529E -13 5.074E -15 6.362E -18 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 2.500E -09 0.0028 6.735E -09 0.0074 2.580E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.322E -08 0.0367 U -235 7.069E -08 0.0782 8.355E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.683E -10 0.0005 U -238 7.568E -07 0.8368 4.070E -09 0.0045 4.466E -18 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.983E -08 0.0330 Total 8.300E -07 0.9177 1.089E -08 0.0120 2.580E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.352E -08 0.0702 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 16 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +01 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.246E -08 0.0469 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.124E -08 0.0788 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.907E -07 0.8743 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.044E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Adult Commuter Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Pathway Total Radio- Ground Nuclide risk fract. Tl� Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 17 File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Meat 2.988E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.291E -05 8.648E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.242E -04 4.468E -09 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.416E -06 1.783E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.561E -05 2.770E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.978E -03 9.903E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.422E +01 1.363E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.957E -01 7.041E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.011E +01 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +01 years Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Water -ind. 9.843E -03 9.606E -05 7.187E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Milk Soil Radionuclides Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Inhalation Plant risk fract. risk fract. Water 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.291E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.242E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.416E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.561E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.978E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.422E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.957E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.011E +01 Meat Water Dependent Pathways Fish Plant Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 9.843E -03 9.606E -05 7.187E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) risk fract. Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 6.989E -11 0.0001 2.609E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.149E -12 0.0000 Pa -231 1.519E -11 0.0000 2.147E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.143E -13 0.0000 Pb -210 4.669E -14 0.0000 8.686E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.396E -12 0.0000 Ra -226 2.764E -10 0.0003 2.386E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.238E -13 0.0000 Th -230 2.954E -12 0.0000 3.117E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.567E -11 0.0000 U -234 2.304E -09 0.0027 6.424E -09 0.0074 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.169E -08 0.0367 U -235 6.741E -08 0.0781 7.951E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.459E -10 0.0005 U -238 7.221E -07 0.8365 3.883E -09 0.0045 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.846E -08 0.0330 Total 7.921E -07 0.9177 1.039E -08 0.0120 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.062E -08 0.0702 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radio- Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 18 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +01 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.130E -11 0.0001 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.632E -11 0.0000 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.452E -12 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.771E -10 0.0003 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.174E -11 0.0000 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.042E -08 0.0468 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.794E -08 0.0787 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.544E -07 0.8740 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.631E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 3.000E +01 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 8.370E -13 1.679E -14 2.105E -17 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 8.370E -13 1.679E -14 2.105E -17 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +01 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 2.583E -09 0.0030 6.427E -09 0.0074 8.538E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.171E -08 0.0367 U -235 6.750E -08 0.0782 7.999E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.480E -10 0.0005 U -238 7.221E -07 0.8365 3.883E -09 0.0045 2.508E -17 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.846E -08 0.0330 Total 7.921E -07 0.9177 1.039E -08 0.0120 8.538E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.062E -08 0.0702 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 19 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +01 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.072E -08 0.0472 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.803E -08 0.0788 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.544E -07 0.8740 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.631E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Adult Commuter Radon Pathway Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 20 File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +02 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 1.597E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.443E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 9.954E -08 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.787E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.520E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.400E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.156E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.973E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +02 years Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Water -ind. 9.776E -02 9.541E -04 7.139E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total Water -ind. == Water - independent Radio- Nuclide risk fract. 9.776E -02 9.541E -04 7.139E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +02 years Ground Inhalation Meat Milk Radionuclides Soil Water Water -dep. _= Water - dependent 2.294E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.509E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.429E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.567E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.223E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.206E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.660E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.578E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) risk fract. risk Plant fract. Fish Plant Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Meat Milk risk fract. risk fract. Meat Soil 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.294E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.509E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.429E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.567E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.223E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.206E +01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.660E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 8.578E +00 risk fract. Ac -227 2.465E -10 0.0003 9.204E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.055E -12 0.0000 Pa -231 3.440E -11 0.0000 4.861E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.070E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 5.167E -13 0.0000 9.614E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.546E -11 0.0000 Ra -226 1.737E -09 0.0024 1.499E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.919E -12 0.0000 Th -230 7.275E -12 0.0000 7.678E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.859E -11 0.0001 U -234 1.954E -09 0.0027 5.449E -09 0.0074 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.688E -08 0.0366 U -235 5.719E -08 0.0779 6.745E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.783E -10 0.0005 U -238 6.125E -07 0.8345 3.294E -09 0.0045 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.414E -08 0.0329 Total 6.737E -07 0.9179 8.820E -09 0.0120 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.147E -08 0.0701 Total Milk Ingestion* RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radio- Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 21 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +02 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.515E -10 0.0003 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.696E -11 0.0001 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.607E -11 0.0000 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.741E -09 0.0024 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.354E -11 0.0001 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.429E -08 0.0467 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.763E -08 0.0785 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.400E -07 0.8719 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.340E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E +02 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 5.214E -12 1.046E -13 1.311E -16 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 5.214E -12 1.046E -13 1.311E -16 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +02 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 3.698E -09 0.0050 5.456E -09 0.0074 5.318E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.693E -08 0.0367 U -235 5.747E -08 0.0783 6.886E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.844E -10 0.0005 U -238 6.125E -07 0.8345 3.295E -09 0.0045 3.931E -16 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.415E -08 0.0329 Total 6.737E -07 0.9179 8.820E -09 0.0120 5.319E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.147E -08 0.0701 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 22 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +02 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.609E -08 0.0492 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.792E -08 0.0789 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.400E -07 0.8719 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.340E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Adult Commuter Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Water Dependent Pathways Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Meat Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon Pathway Total Radio- Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 23 File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +02 years 3.732E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.572E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 9.820E -07 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.207E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.055E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.249E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.225E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.733E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 3.000E +02 years Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Water -ind. 6.474E -01 6.318E -03 4.727E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Ground Inhalation Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. Milk Radionuclides Soil Water 0.000E +00 5.360E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.360E -04 0.000E +00 6.565E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 6.565E -04 0.000E +00 1.410E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.410E -03 0.000E +00 1.734E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.734E -03 0.000E +00 2.951E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.951E -02 0.000E +00 7.538E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.538E +00 0.000E +00 1.038E -01 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.038E -01 0.000E +00 5.361E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.361E +00 Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Plant Meat risk fract. risk fract. Fish Plant Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 6.474E -01 6.318E -03 4.727E -06 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +02 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 5.183E -10 0.0011 1.935E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.523E -12 0.0000 Pa -231 5.980E -11 0.0001 8.450E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.599E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 4.177E -12 0.0000 7.772E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.249E -10 0.0003 Ra -226 1.010E -08 0.0216 8.713E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.278E -11 0.0000 Th -230 1.632E -11 0.0000 1.722E -11 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 8.656E -11 0.0002 U -234 1.221E -09 0.0026 3.405E -09 0.0073 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.680E -08 0.0359 U -235 3.574E -08 0.0763 4.215E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.364E -10 0.0005 U -238 3.828E -07 0.8173 2.059E -09 0.0044 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.509E -08 0.0322 Total 4.305E -07 0.9191 5.528E -09 0.0118 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.237E -08 0.0691 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radio- Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 24 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +02 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.287E -10 0.0011 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.425E -11 0.0001 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.299E -10 0.0003 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.012E -08 0.0216 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.201E -10 0.0003 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.142E -08 0.0457 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.602E -08 0.0769 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.000E -07 0.8539 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.684E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 3.000E +02 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 2.970E -11 5.959E -13 7.471E -16 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 2.970E -11 5.959E -13 7.471E -16 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +02 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 1.133E -08 0.0242 3.422E -09 0.0073 3.029E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.702E -08 0.0363 U -235 3.632E -08 0.0775 4.493E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.485E -10 0.0005 U -238 3.828E -07 0.8173 2.061E -09 0.0044 5.919E -15 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.510E -08 0.0322 Total 4.305E -07 0.9190 5.528E -09 0.0118 3.030E -11 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.237E -08 0.0691 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 25 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E +02 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.181E -08 0.0679 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.661E -08 0.0782 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.000E -07 0.8539 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.684E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides RESRAD, Version 6.4 Intrisk : Adult Commuter Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon) Radio - Nuclide Inhalation Plant Ac -227 Pa -231 Pb -210 Ra -226 Th -230 U -234 U -235 U -238 Radon 2.557E -07 0.000E +00 2.919E -07 0.000E +00 5.074E -06 0.000E +00 5.408E -06 0.000E +00 3.654E -05 0.000E +00 1.012E -03 0.000E +00 1.394E -05 0.000E +00 7.204E -04 0.000E +00 * Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil and water - dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products as pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +03 years Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Water -ind. 2.386E +00 2.328E -02 1.742E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total Water -ind. == Water - independent Radio- 2.386E +00 2.328E -02 1.742E -05 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Ground Nuclide risk fract. Tl� Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 26 File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) As pCi /yr at t= 1.000E +03 years Meat Milk Soil 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.672E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.192E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.287E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.767E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.247E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.454E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.002E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.035E +00 Radionuclides Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Inhalation Plant risk fract. risk fract. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 3.672E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 4.192E -04 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.287E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 7.767E -03 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 5.247E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.454E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 2.002E -02 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 1.035E +00 Water Water Dependent Pathways Fish Plant Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +03 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Meat risk fract. Milk Soil risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 3.444E -10 0.0026 1.286E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.663E -12 0.0000 Pa -231 3.717E -11 0.0003 5.252E -13 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.237E -12 0.0000 Pb -210 2.034E -11 0.0002 3.784E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.084E -10 0.0046 Ra -226 4.293E -08 0.3239 3.705E -12 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 9.688E -11 0.0007 Th -230 2.833E -11 0.0002 2.990E -11 0.0002 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.503E -10 0.0011 U -234 2.355E -10 0.0018 6.568E -10 0.0050 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.240E -09 0.0244 U -235 6.897E -09 0.0520 8.135E -12 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.562E -11 0.0003 U -238 7.388E -08 0.5574 3.973E -10 0.0030 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.912E -09 0.0220 Total 1.244E -07 0.9384 1.101E -09 0.0083 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.061E -09 0.0533 Total Meat Milk Ingestion* RESRAD, Version 6.4 Radio- Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 27 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +03 years Water Dependent Pathways Water Fish Plant Meat Milk All Pathways ** Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. Ac -227 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.513E -10 0.0027 Pa -231 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 3.993E -11 0.0003 Pb -210 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.325E -10 0.0048 Ra -226 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.303E -08 0.3247 Th -230 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.085E -10 0.0016 U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.132E -09 0.0312 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 6.951E -09 0.0524 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.719E -08 0.5824 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.325E -07 1.0000 ** Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways Radon Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E +03 years Radionuclides Pathway Rn -222 Po -218 Pb -214 Bi -214 Rn -220 Po -216 Pb -212 Bi -212 Water -ind. 1.034E -10 2.074E -12 2.600E -15 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -dep. 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Total 1.034E -10 2.074E -12 2.600E -15 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 0.000E +00 Water -ind. == Water - independent Water -dep. _= Water - dependent Ground Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +03 years Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon) Inhalation Radon Plant Meat Milk Soil Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 4.319E -08 0.3256 6.928E -10 0.0052 1.054E -10 0.0008 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.088E -09 0.0308 U -235 7.279E -09 0.0549 9.946E -12 0.0001 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 5.352E -11 0.0004 U -238 7.390E -08 0.5572 3.986E -10 0.0030 5.535E -14 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 2.919E -09 0.0220 Total 1.244E -07 0.9377 1.101E -09 0.0083 1.055E -10 0.0008 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.061E -09 0.0532 RESRAD, Version 6.4 Tls Limit = 180 days 08/13/2008 16:34 Page 28 Intrisk : Adult Commuter File: C: \RESRAD FAMILY \RESRAD \USERFILES \SITEI.RAD Water Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t) * ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p) and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E +03 years Water Dependent Pathways Fish Radon Plant Meat Milk All pathways Radio - Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. U -234 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 4.808E -08 0.3625 U -235 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.342E -09 0.0554 U -238 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 7.722E -08 0.5822 Total 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 0.000E +00 0.0000 1.326E -07 1.0000 * * *CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix F1 Archaeological Report [This page intentionally left blank] AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY REPORT FOR 600 ACRES LOCATED ON LANDS OF KE`AMUKU, WAIKOLOA AHUPUA`A, SOUTH KOHALA DISTRICT, HAWAII ISLAND, HAWAII [TMK (3) 6 -7- 001:09] Prepared by: Glenn G. Escott, M.A. and Suzan Keris, B.A. October 2009 FINAL DRAFT Prepared for: DMT Consultant Engineers 677 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 703 Honolulu, HI 96813 SCS Project Number 885 -1.3 ABSTRACT An Archaeological Inventory Survey was conducted along an approximately 600 -acre study corridor across the lands of the Parker Ranch Ke`amuku cattle station in the ahupua `a of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawai`i, TMK: (3) 6 -7- 001:09. The lands of Ke`amuku were traditionally used as pili lands by the people of Waikoloa and Waimea. At the beginning of the post- Contact era, the area was given over to wild cattle. It was soon after fenced off and used by the Waimea Grazing and Agricultural Company (WGAC) for sheep and cattle ranching. Parker Ranch acquired the land in 1904 and still uses it for cattle grazing though the property is now owned by the U.S. Army. The present study corridor is the location for a segment (W -7 Alignment) of the proposed Saddle Road Extension between the existing Saddle Road near Kilohana to the Mamalahoa Highway along the border of South Kohala and North Kona. There are seven archaeological sites in the project corridor, including five rock mounds (SIHP Sites 50- 10 -21- 23528, 50- 10 -21- 26875, 50- 10 -21- 26876, 50- 10 -21- 26877, and 50- 10 -21- 26878), a segment of the old Waimea -Kona Belt Road (SIHP Site 50- 10 -21- 20855), and remnants of a ranching -era fence (SIHP Site 50- 10 -21- 23452). Four of the rock mounds (Sites 23528, 26875, 26877, and 26878) correspond very roughly to the boundary between the Ke`amuku cattle station lands and ranch lands to the southwest. This area is also the boundary between Waikoloa and Pu'uanahulu ahupua `a. Site 26875 contained a Kalopa Soda Works bottle and a roll of galvanized fence wire in its construction. A fifth rock mound (Site 26876) marks the intersection of two ranch roads along the southeast side of the Ke`amuku cattle station lands. The ranching -era fence (Site 23452) appears to have been used early in the history of sheep and cattle ranching at Ke`amuku. The original fence wire has been removed and it passes through the middle of several more recently fenced paddocks. Four one meter by one meter test -units were excavated at rock mound Sites 26875, 26876, 26877, and 26878. Site 26875 contained a Kalopa Soda Works bottle and a roll of galvanized fence wire in its construction. No other artifacts or cultural material were recovered during the present study. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT II LIST OF FIGURES V LIST OF TABLES VI INTRODUCTION 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2 THE GEOGRAPHY OF WAIKOLOA 2 LAVA FLOWS 2 SOILS 5 RAINFALL AND DRAINAGE 5 WIND 6 VEGETATION 6 FAUNA 7 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS 7 EARLY SETTLEMENT AND EXPANSION 7 THE TRADITIONAL LAND DIVISIONS OF WAIMEA AND WAIKOLOA. 11 TRADITIONAL ACCOUNTS OF EARLY WAIKOLOA, WAIMEA, AND SURROUNDING LANDS 11 Legends, Place Names, and Descriptions of the Land 11 Historical Narratives, the Ali `i, and Warfare in the Region 16 DESCRIPTIONS OF KOHALA, WAIMEA, AND WAIKOLOA IN HISTORIC - ERA TRAVEL ACCOUNTS 20 THE MAHELE (1845) 27 THE LANDS OF G.D. HU`EU (GEORGE DAVIS) 28 THE HISTORY OF RANCHING AT THE KE`AMUKU SHEEP STATION 31 METHODOLOGY 47 ARCHIVAL METHODS 47 CONSULTATION 47 FIELD METHODS 47 LABORATORY METHODS 48 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 49 COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 49 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON THE INLAND PLAINS TO THE UPLANDS OF WAIKOLOA 49 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON LANDS OF KE`AMUKU 57 EXPECTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 62 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY RESULTS 63 SITE 50 -10 -21 -20855 63 111 SITE 50 -10 -21 -23452 71 SITE 50-10-21-23528 74 SITE 50 -10 -21 -26875 78 SITE 50 -10 -21 -26876 84 SITE 50 -10 -21 -26877 88 SITE 50 -10 -21 -26878 91 CONCLUSION 96 DISCUSSION 96 REFERENCES CITED 97 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Hawai`i Island Map Showing Project Area Location. 2 Figure 2: USGS TOPO Map Showing Project Area Location in Yellow 3 Figure 3: Waikoloa Ahupua `a 4 Figure 4: Grasslands of Waikoloa 5 Figure 5: The Swale Lands of the Waimea Field System 10 Figure 6: Hawai`i Island Trails. 21 Figure 7: Kaelemakula Map Showing Hale o Spencer. 34 Figure 8: J. Perryman's 1882 Map of the Waikoloa Area. 38 Figure 9: The Ke`amuku Sheep Shearing Barn. 39 Figure 10: Dipping Sheep at Ke`amuku in 1906. 42 Figure 11: A Buckboard Wagon Used for Early Transportation at Parker Ranch. 42 Figure 12: Previous Archaeological Projects on Lands of Ke`amuku 51 Figure 13: Site 24465 Planview. 52 Figure 14: Site 24465 Feature 1 Plan 53 Figure 15: Site 24465 Feature 2 Plan 55 Figure 16: Site 24465 Feature 3 Plan 56 Figure 17: Archaeological Site Concentrations on the Ke`amuku Station. 61 Figure 18: Location of Sites on USGS Topo Map 64 Figure 19: Site 20855 Feature 1 Planview. 65 Figure 20: Site 20855 Feature 1, View to East (1m scale). 66 Figure 21: Site 20855 Feature 1, View to Southeast (im scale) 67 Figure 22: Site 20855 Feature 1 Construction, View to Southeast (1m scale). 67 Figure 23: Site 20855, Feature 2 Planview. 68 Figure 24: Site 20855, Feature 2, View to Southwest (1m scale) 69 Figure 25: Site 20855, Feature 2 Culvert, View to South 69 Figure 26: Site 20855, Feature 2 Road Surface, View to Southwest (20cm scale). 70 Figure 27: Location of Site 23452 Fence Remnants on USGS Topo. 72 Figure 28: Site 23452 Representative Fence Post 1 73 Figure 29: Site 23452 Representative Fence Post 2 73 Figure 30: Site 23528, View to Northeast (20cm scale). 74 Figure 31: Site 23528, View to South (20cm scale). 75 Figure 32: Site 23528 Planview. 76 Figure 33: Rock Mound Boundary Sites Along SW Boundary of Ke`amuku Parcel 77 Figure 34: Site 26875, View to East (20cm scale) 78 Figure 35: Site 23 875 Planview. 79 Figure 36: Site 26875 Close Up of Fence Wire, View to East (20cm scale) 80 Figure 37: Site 26875, Feature 1, Test -Unit 1 North and East Profiles. 81 Figure 38: Kalopa Soda Works Bottle (TU- 1) 82 Figure 39: Site 26876, Feature 1 Rock Mound, View to Northeast (10cm scale). 84 Figure 40: Site 26876, Feature 1 Planview. 86 v Figure 41: Site 26876, Feature 1, TU -1 North and East Profiles 87 Figure 42: Site 26877, Feature 1, View to NE 89 Figure 43: Site 26877, Feature 1 Planview. 89 Figure 44: Site 26877, Feature 1, TU -1 Northwest and Northeast Profiles 90 Figure 45 : Site 26878, View to West (10cm scale). 92 Figure 46: View to West from Site 26878 Hillside. 92 Figure 47: Site 26878 Planview. 93 Figure 48: Site 26878, Feature 1, TU -1 North Profile. 94 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Claims and Land Commission Awards in Waikoloa 28 Table 2: West PTA Acquisition Area, Phase I Sites (GANDA 2003: 39 -42). 58 vi INTRODUCTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Central Federal Lands Highway Division and the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) have contracted with DMT Consultant Engineers to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for a segment (W- 7 Alignment) of the proposed Saddle Road extension across lands of the former Parker Ranch Ke`amuku cattle station in the ahupua `a of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii, TMK: (3) 6 -7- 001:09 (Figure 1). The proposed 200ft wide construction corridor (Area of Potential Effect) extends approximately ten miles from the existing Saddle Road near Kilohana to the Mamalahoa Highway at the border of North Kona and South Kohala (Figure 2). Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) surveyed an approximately 600 -acre study corridor (roughly 10 miles by 500ft wide) to identify and evaluate historical properties. The survey corridor extends 150ft beyond both sides of the 200ft wide construction corridor (APE). The project is a federal undertaking and is subject to the procedures and policies of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In addition, cultural resources are considered under Section 4(f) of the DoT Act (49 U.S.C. 303), and the state of Hawaii historic preservation review process (H.R.S. Chapter 6E). Scientific Consultant Services (SCS), Inc. has performed the appropriate studies to inventory and evaluate the historical and cultural resources in compliance with the regulations above. There are seven archaeological sites documented in the project, including five rock mounds (SIHP Sites 50-10-21-23528, 50- 10 -21- 26875, 50- 10 -21- 26876, 50- 10 -21- 26877, and 50- 10 -21- 26878), a segment of the old Waimea -Kona Belt Road (SIHP Site 50- 10 -21- 20855), and remnants of a ranching -era fence (SIHP Site 50- 10 -21- 23452). Four of the rock mounds (Sites 23528, 26875, 26877, and 26878) correspond roughly to the boundary between the Ke`amuku cattle station lands and ranch lands to the southwest. This area is also the boundary between Waikoloa and Pu'uanahulu ahupua `a. Site 26875 contained a Kalopa Soda Works bottle and a roll of galvanized fence wire in its construction. A third rock mound (Site 26878) appears to mark a possible hunting spot. A fourth rock mound (Site 26876) marks the intersection of two ranch roads along the southeast side of the Ke`amuku cattle station lands. The ranching -era fence (Site 23452) appears to have been used early in the history of sheep and cattle ranching at Ke`amuku. The original fence wire has been removed and it passes through the middle of several more recently fenced paddocks. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING THE GEOGRAPHY OF WAIKOLOA Waikoloa is a large land - locked ahupua `a in South Kohala District (Figure 3). In the past it was an `ili of Waimea (see below). The western portion of Waikoloa is composed of moderately sloping `a' a and pdhoehoe lava flows. This region is extremely dry (less than ten inches of rainfall annually), hot, and barren except for patches of fountaingrass (Pennisetum setaceum). The northeastern portion of Waikoloa is a large grassy plain bounded on the south and southwest by grass covered rolling hills (Figure 4). Figure 1: Hawai` i Island Map Showing Project Area Location. LAVA FLOWS The project area corridor is situated on gently sloping to level land that increases in elevation from 2,480 (756 m) to 5,240 (1,598 m) feet above mean sea level (amsl). Slopes range from 7% to 20% within the project area. The project area is located on a single Mauna Kea `a `a flow dated to more than 10,000 years before present (ybp) (Wolfe and Morris 1996). 2 M1 • vx•: y n Fri. ''•trx i, 5 � � �s f �� a is � • �• r �e:? •r -� : �L +OF }:A�a �a�. �J ?Tt. E 4 i ... _ s ) t s . [ " t =s r. .AI1 4 ri : w f!&RZ . �G +iki I HIV _ � 'iO4" ViiS: ,�+w7A {:' : �i: „•,� : ......._ Oh. ..... • Figure 2: USGS TOPO Map Showing Project Area Location in Yellow. 3 71- Figure 4: Grasslands of Waikoloa. SOILS Soils in the project area belong to the Pu`u Pa and Kaimu series. Soil in the majority of the project area consist of Kaimu series (rKED) very dark brown extremely stony peat on a substratum of a' a (Sato et al. 1973). Soil in the northern 1 18 of the corridor consist of Pu`u Pa (PVD) extremely stony very fine sandy loam. Both types of soil are characterized as poorly suited or unsuited to mechanized - farming (Soil Survey of the Territory of Hawaii 1955). RAINFALL AND DRAINAGE Average annual rainfall at the Ke`amuku Sheep and Cattle Station between 1908 and 1947 was recorded (daily rain gauge readings) at 20.86 inches, and at 25.04 inches during the 15- year period between 1929 and 1943 (Parker Ranch Office Account Books and Rainfall Data). The average annual rainfall in the project area from 1942 to 1952 was approximately 25.59 inches. Rainfall on lands of the Ke`amuku Sheep and Cattle Station is supplemented by fog and mist, and was collected on rooftop water catchment systems. Rally Greenwell recalled torrential 5 rainfall about every 20 years while he was there (Rally Greenwell interview, Escott 2008). The Ke`amuku Station rain gauge recorded daily rainfall readings as high as 7.28 inches. Natural drainage in the area runs from southeast to northwest and a seasonal gulch in the center of the project area channels water westward away from the site. Water in the Po `opo `o Gulch (see Figure 2), roughly 1.5 miles north of the project corridor, rises three to four feet during torrential rains and flooding and erosion affect the silty ground surface in the area. WIND The area of Waikoloa and Waimea are famous for the winds that blow down from the Kohala Mountains, the saddle area between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, and from the Hamakua region. They are called the `Apa `apa `a wind, and the Waikoloa and Kaumuku winds (Maly and Maly 2002: 21). In other sources there is a strong wind called the Mumuku wind (Wilkes 1845, Bergin 2004: 15). The `Apa `apa `a wind, and the Waikoloa wind is believed to bring moisture and rain, and the strong Mumuku wind drives away the rain, stirs up the fine silt in the area, and carries it westward. The Mumuku wind is famous even in Kawaihae, where residents there were forced to lash their canoes to rocks, stakes, or trees to keep them from being carried off (Doyle 1953: 48). According to Doyle (1953), the winds have decreased in strength and frequency because of deforestation. VEGETATION Vegetation also changed dramatically after the late 1700s (see blow). Large areas of the foothills of southern Waikoloa were once covered in pili grass (Heteropogon contortus). Mamane (Sophora chysophylla), naio (Myoporum sandwicense) and 'old `a (Metrosideros polymorpha) grew on the upper plains of Waimea and at upper elevations in the foothills of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. The suite of present day flora on the project area is dominated by introduced species. Gerrish (2003), based on field survey, characterizes vegetation within the project area as Fountain Grass Pasture with Native Shrubs and Scattered Introduced Trees. This zone of vegetation extends from 2200 ft amsl to 3200 ft amsl, is heavily grazed by cattle, and is characterized by low plant diversity dominated by fountaingrass (Pennisetum setaceum). Low shrubs of native `a 'all' `i (Dodonaea viscosa) and `akia (Wikstroemia pulcherrima) dot the hilly pastureland. Kikuyugrass (Pennisetum clandestinum) and Natal redtop 6 (RhyncheIytrum repens) grow in wetter areas along the dirt access roads. Introduced trees such as eucalyptus, olive (Olea europaea), and silk oak (Grevillea robusta) were planted at the Ke`amuku Sheep and Cattle Station, and many volunteers are growing along the project area. FAUNA Several economically important animals within Waikoloa are documented in historical narratives and oral interviews. Native species include kolea, or Golden Plover (Pluvialis dominica fulva); `ua `u, or Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodrama phaeopygia sandwichensis); Ilene, or Hawaiian Goose (Nesochen sandwichensis). Polynesian- introduced species include the pig (Sus scrofa) . Several species of quail, pheasant, partridge, and turkey introduced during the Historic - era are still present at Ke`amuku. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS EARLY SETTLEMENT AND EXPANSION Archaeological evidence suggests Hawai`i was first settled between A.D. 0 and 700 by people sailing from the Marquesas (Cordy 2000). Early settlements on the Island of Hawai`i were founded on the windward shores in likely places such as Waipi`o, Waimanu, and Hilo Bay. The windward, or ko `olau shores receive abundant rainfall and have numerous streams that facilitated agricultural and fishpond production (Maly and Maly 2002). The windward shores also provide rich benthic and pelagic marine resources. Historical accounts of residential patterns, land -use, and subsistence horticulture are believed to be indicative of traditional practices developed long before contact with Europeans (McEldowney 1979). Early accounts of settlements along the windward shores describe the area as divided into several distinct environmental regions (Ellis 1963: 291 -292). At Hilo Bay, from the coast to a distance of five or six miles scattered subsistence agriculture was evident, followed by a region of tall fern and bracken, flanked at higher elevations by a forest region between 10 and 20 miles wide, beyond which was an expanse of grass and lava (Ellis 1963:403). The American Missionary C.S. Stewart wrote, "the first four miles of the country is open and uneven, and beautifully sprinkled with clumps, groves, and single trees of the bread - fruit, pandanus, and candle tree" (Stewart 1970:361 -363). The majority of inhabitants (in 1825) lived 7 within this coastal region (Ellis1969: 253). Taro, plantains, bananas, coconuts, sweet potatoes, and breadfruit were grown individually or in small garden plots. Fish, pig, dog, and birds were also raised and captured for consumption. Wood, such as `ohi `a and koa for house construction, canoe building, and fires was obtained from the upland agricultural zone (McEldowney 1979:18- 19), and from the dense forests above (Ellis 1963:236). The dry leeward shores of Hawai`i Island presented a very different environment requiring a modified set of subsistence strategies. Archaeologists and historians are uncertain about the motives that lead to the establishment and spread of settlements on the leeward side of Hawai`i, but archaeological evidence suggests the process was underway between the A.D. 900s and 1100s (Cordy 2000). Coastal sites in South Kohala District, makai of Waikoloa, at Kalahuipua`a and `Anaeho`omalu and inland sites in the ahupua `a of Waimea (Figure 3) have been dated to the A.D. 800s to 900s (Kirch 1979: 198, Cordy 2000: 130). The early coastal settlements are located on or adjacent to the dry rocky shoreline and consist of temporary habitation caves containing midden, fishing tools, and fish remains; and two possibly permanent habitation sites (Barrera 1971, Jenson 1989a, 1989b, 1990a, and 1990b). The earlier phases of occupation were likely temporary habitations used when fishing, and later permanent habitations associated with fishpond production. Cordy suggests people who lived at inland Waimea occasionally frequented the Kalahuipua` a and `Anaeho `omalu area for its anchialine pond and marine resources (Cordy 2000:131). The implication is that inland settlements and agriculture may have developed first, perhaps spreading from nearby Waimanu and Waipi`o. Maly suggests that people living permanently along the dry shoreline shared extended family relations with people inland, allowing for an exchange system that distributed marine resources to inland agriculturalists and brought inland agricultural products to people at the coastal settlements (Maly and Maly 2002). The fertile plain of Waimea, which receives 40 to 80 inches of rainfall annually and is watered by streams from the Kohala Mountains (the Waikoloa, Wai `aka, and Keanu` i `omano streams), was planted in taro and sweet potato. Sweet potato was the dominant crop at elevations that received from 30 to 60 inches (Cordy 2000: 135). At lower elevations in South Kohala District, especially along the coast, rainfall is less than thirty inches and soils are shallow or 8 nonexistent. It is possible that mulching with rocks or cut plant materials allowed for a limited amount of root crop and arboreal agriculture in pockets of soil. In Waimea and Kohala, new settlements and agricultural field systems continued to spread and intensify during the A.D. 1200s to 1400s. Permanent communities were developing at Lapakahi and along the coastal region from `Upolu Point to Kawaihae (Cordy 2000: 140). Temporary residences and an agricultural field system were also established in the uplands of the Waikoloa- Waimea area (Moffat and Fitzpatrick 1995, Maly and Maly 2002: 4). As communities grew and agriculture intensified during this period, polities began to form, along with competition between polities. Large polities influencing communities within modern district - size boundaries emerged in the 1300s (Cordy 2000: 142). Cordy notes that just north of the project area "two different settlement and political zones seem to have developed prior to the 1200s and to have lasted until late in prehistory one focused on Waimea and Kawaihae in the south, and the other in north Kohala up to `Upolu Point" (Cordy 2000:385, footnote 15). By the late 1700s extensive permanent field systems were well established in North Kohala, Waimea, and Lalamilo (Clark 1981, Clark and Kirch 1983, Cordy 2000). The Lalamilo Swale land fields, described in Clark (1981) and Cordy (2000), were part of the Waimea Field System (Figure 5) and were the nearest agricultural lands to the Ke`amuku Sheep and Cattle Station project area (the field system is more than 18 km to the north). Cordy describes the fields as, rectilinear fields with terrace facings or low- ridged walls ...fed by six major canals (one an extension out of the airport area) and a vast number of interlinking branches of these canals. The walled fields diminished to the south about half way to Pu`u Huluhulu and Pu`u Pa, where rainfall and soil quality drop — although the swales were still fed by canals (Gordy 2000: 310). Banana, sweet potato, sugar cane, and dry land taro were cultivated in the fields by farmers who built C- shaped and L- shaped enclosures for temporary use and lived some distance away from the fields (Cordy 2000:310 -311). 9 Figure 5: The Swale Lands of the Waimea Field System. 10 THE TRADITIONAL LAND DIVISIONS OF WAIMEA AND WAIKOLOA The traditional land divisions of Hawai`i, established during the 16 century recognized Kohala as one of the six districts (moku -a -loko) of the island. Waimea was a sub - district Cokana or kalana) of Kohala, and Waikoloa was an 'ill' of Waimea. `Ouli, Wai`aka, Lalamilo, PuakO, Kalahuipua` a, `Anaeho `omalu, Kanakanaka, Ala` Ohia, Paulama, Pu'ukalani, and Pu'ukapu were also 'ill of Waimea. Other accounts state that Waimea was an ahupua `a that had the status of moku (Curtis Lyons, quoted in Maly and Maly 2002: 6). TRADITIONAL ACCOUNTS OF EARLY WAIKOLOA, WAIMEA, AND SURROUNDING LANDS Traditional accounts (mo `olelo `aina) of Waikoloa, Waimea, and areas adjacent to lands of the Ke `amuku Sheep and Cattle Station include legends and historical narratives documented in historic times by native Hawaiians and 19 century authors. The accounts refer to events that took place from the 13 century to the arrival of European explorers. None of the accounts pertain directly to lands within the project area, but do refer to lands directly north (Waikiloa, Waimea, and Lalamilo), northwest (the coastal region from `Anaeho `omalu to PuakO), east (Waiki`i), and south (lands between Hualalai and Mauna Kea). Accounts include legends of supernatural entities that describe places they traveled to in this region, and also legends that tell the stories of deities and persons whose actions and namesakes are the origins of prominent natural features and places on the landscape. There are also historical narratives that describe battles between warring ali `i and describe land traversed by warriors, and the place names where battles were fought. Legends, Place Names, and Descriptions of the Land The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka -Miki, published in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawaii and translated by Maly (pertinent excerpts in Maly and Maly 2002) contains an extensive description of customs, lands, and places near the project area, as well as many places on the Island of Hawai`i. The legend is set in the 13 century but also reflects more recent influences (Maly and Maly 2002: 17). Underlined quotes in this report are from Maly's original and are his emphasis. 11 The District of Kohala is described in the legend as divided into smaller units that included: Large Kohala, little Kohala, inner Kohala, outer Kohala, Kohala of the `Apa` apa` a wind, of Pili and Kalahikiola, the two traveling hills. Indeed! They are the combined districts of this proud land brushed by the `Apa` apa` a wind, maturing like love fondly in the bosom of love (Ka Hoku o Hawaii, March 22, 1917, translated in Maly and Maly 2002: 18). Maly defines outer Kohala (Kohala waho) as the lands from Kawaihae to Waikoloa, and `Anaeho `omalu. The Hawaiian language names for the smaller districts are as follows: large Kohala is Kohala nui, little Kohala is Kohala iki, inner Kohala is Kohala loko, outer Kohala is Kohala waho, Pili and Kalahikiola are as written, and the two traveling hills is Na-pu 'u-haele-lua. Dr. Bergin describes the traditional boundaries of Kohala as divided into two major divisions. Kohala Iloko is the name of the windward lands east of `Upolu Point (Bergin 2004:15). Leeward Kohala is the second major division and is further divided into four zones that posses four distinctive types of terrain. Kohala i waho is the traditional name of the lands from `Upolu Point to Kahua, north of Kawaihae. `Aina Kawaihae refers to the coastal area at present day Kawaihae. Wai one are the coastal plains south of Kawaihae to `Anaeho `omalu. The kula area refers to the Waimea plains area roughly ten miles inland. Waikoloa without a kahako means "duck water" (Pukui et al. 1976), perhaps a reference to lands that attracted wetland ducks. In many references it is written with a kahako and means "northwest wind," perhaps a reference to the strong wind that blows through the area. If the kahako was over the last "o" it might be translated as "the long, sweet water." This might be a reference to the lack of water and its refreshing flavor when finally reached (Andrade interview, collected for Wolforth et al. 2004). The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka -Miki also relates the origins of several place names in the area of South Kohala. 12 The region of Lalamilo was named for the young chief Lalamilo, grandson of Kanakanaka, an expert lawai`a hi -`ahi (deep sea tuna lure fisherman) and Pilia -mo`o, a powerful priestess and `olohe. Kanakanaka and Piliamo `o were the parents of Ne'ula (a fishing goddess), and she married Pu`u- hina`i a chief of the inlands, and they in turn were the parents of Lalamilo. Kanakanaka's sister was the wind goddess, Waikoloa, for whom the lands are now named. Lalamilo gained fame as an expert `olohe and fisherman. And through his wife Puako, he came to possess the supernatural leho (cowry octopus lure) which had been an `onohi (cherished) possession of Ha'aluea, a goddess with an octopus form... How this octopus lure came to rest on the reefs fronting this land remains a mystery.. . Puako was the daughter of Wa` awa` a (kane) and Anahulu (wahine), and the sister of: `Anaeho `omalu (wahine); Pu` ala` a (kane); and Maui -loa (kane). Puako's great desire was to eat he`e (octopus), and Pu` ala` a was kept continually busy acquiring he ` e for Puako, and getting pa` ou` ou fish for `Anaeho `omalu. When he could no longer provide sufficient numbers of fish for his sisters they left Puna and set out in search of suitable husbands who could provide for their needs. Because of their great love for `Anaeho`omalu and Puako, Anahulu, Wa` awa` a, their relatives and attendants also moved to the Kona - Kohala region and dwelt at sites which now bear their names; only Pu` ala` a remained in Puna. This is how Pu'u- Huluhulu, Pu`u -Iki, and Mauiloa came to be named; and Pu`u Anahulu (Ten day hill [ceremonial period]) was named for Anahulu, the chiefess wife of Wa` awa` a (Pu'u Wa` awa` a). Arriving at Kapalaoa in the Kekaha lands of Kona, `Anaeho `omalu married Naipuakalaulani, son of the chiefess Kuaiwa of Kapalaoa. Puako went on to Waima where she met with natives of that area, and was introduced to the chiefess Ne`ula, mother of Lalamilo. When Ne `ula learned that Puako greatly coveted he`e, she told Puako that her son was the foremost lawai`a `okilo he`e (octopus fisherman) of the region. And because Puako was so beautiful, Ne`ula introduced her to Lalamilo. Lalamilo saw Puako, and compared her to the foremost "he`e" which he could catch (Ka Hoku o Hawaii, July 5 and 19, 1917, translated in Maly and Maly 2002: 22 -23, underlined emphasis is Maly's). 13 Another mo `olelo `aina collected by Maly (1999) relates the story of Kaniku and Kanimoe, two mo `o wahine who were sisters and guardians of Kamehameha's fishpond Wainanali`i. They were covered by a lava flow when the lua -i -Pele came down to the coast and they and are now two stones in the flow. They are visible makai of the highway. Kaniku is an upright pohaku and Kanimoe is behind (Keakealani interview, collected for Wolforth et al. 2004). The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka -Hiki contains several descriptions of weather and agriculture in Waimea - Waikoloa region and surrounding areas. The frequent strong westerly winds that originate in the Kohala Mountains and from Mauna Kea are called the 'Apa `apa `a wind, and the Waikoloa and Kaumuku winds (Maly and Maly 2002: 21). In other sources there is the mumuku wind (Wilkes 1845, Bergin 2004: 15). The winds in this region bring moisture and rain, and when strong, stir up the fine silt in the area and carry it westward. Many of the trees in Waimea lean in that direction from the constant buffeting they receive. There is a rain called naulu (southern rain storms) in The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka- Hiki (Maly and Maly 2002: 25). Cultural informants recall the ua naula that is a sudden downpour that disappears as quickly as it develops (Andrade interview, collected for Wolforth et al. 2004; Greenwell interview, collected for Maly and Maly 2002). Another legend tells of rain sent by Kahaloi- wai- a- ka- Nd'ulu, the keeper of the na `ulu rain. He was said to live on a pu `u in the Kohala Mountains where he could keep watch on his sister Pu`u Anahulu. He would send his rains to shower Pu` u Anahulu and Pu` u Wa` awa` a when they were dry ( Keakealani interview, collected for Wolforth et al. 2004). Sources of water play a prominent role in The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka -Hiki. Ka- Miki is tasked with retrieving the water of Kane and Kanaloa, at the royal compound of Poli` ahu and Lilinoe, below the sacred platform of Pohaku -a -Kane on Mauna Kea. He fills the `awa bowl Hoku `ula with the water and returns to meet his brother Maka- `mole. Ka -Miki then joined Maka-`mole at Holoholoku on the plain of Waikoloa. And as they traveled across the plains on their way back to Hualalai, the wind goddess Wai- ko -loa (Water carried far) caused the water to splash over the brim of Hoku`ula. Some of the water was carried afar by the wind and fell, forming a new spring. 14 When the spring appeared, Pohaku -a -Kane fetched some of the water. Because Pohaku -a -Kane fetched some of the water, that place is called Wai -ki`i (Fetched- water) to this day. This happened near the hills of Pu`u Keke`e. Pohaku -a -Ka took the water he retrieved to the base of the cliffs of Mauna Kea and dug into the earthen plain of Pohakuloa and placed the water there. From Pohakuloa, the water flowed under ground and appeared as springs at several other places, including Ana -o- Hiku at Hanakaumalu. Honua`ula, and Kipahe`e -wai on the slopes of Hualalai... (Ka Hoku o Hawaii, March 12, 1914, translated in Maly and Maly 2002: 21, emphasis Maly and Maly). In another legend, Hoku `ula is the name of the place where the great Akua Makuakua from Kahiki lived with the goddess Wao. Wao would journey to the Waimea hills, which were sacred for her to give birth. She was accompanied by her servants, whom she turned to stone each night to guard the land (Doyle 1953). The origin of the large gulch `Auwaiakeakua situated east /west between Ke`amuku and Waiki`i was told to Maly by former residents of Waiki`i Village. `Auwaiakeakua (Water channel of the gods) was built by menehune who abandoned the construction in fear of the coming dawn (Maly and Maly 2002: 27). References to agriculture in The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka -Miki include: Lalamilo arose and told his wife Puako and his mother Ne'ula that he was going to the uplands to visit his father, sister, and the people who worked the upland plantations. Lalamilo desired to eat the sugar cane and bananas and drink the `awa which grew on the hill of Po`opo`o. Po`opo`o was also the name of a makaula (seer) who saw to the continued peaceful dwelling of the people.. . Lalamilo then departed and traveled up towards the residences and agricultural lands of Pu`u Hina`i ma (Ka Hoku o Hawaii, July 5, 1917, translated in Maly and Maly 2002: 22, emphasis Maly and Maly) . Po`opo`o (dark headed) is the name of a gulch that is oriented southeast /northwest roughly 1.5 miles north of the project area. The area mentioned, Pu` u Hina` i ma, is several miles west of the project area. It is also mentioned in the legend that `awa was grown at Po`opo`o (Maly and Maly 2002: 25). 15 The trail between Waimea and Mauna Kea also figures prominently in The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka -Miki. The trail that leads to "the whitened peaks" of "the sacred and astonishing mountain (Mauna Kea)" is a "lonely path" and a "damp dreary path" through "the mists that seem to crawl upon the forest growth" where people often go astray (Maly and Maly 2002: 19). Aside from the Po'opo`o gulch, none of the places mentioned above are near the project corridor. Historical Narratives, the Ali`i, and Warfare in the Region Historical narratives set near the project area describe battles between warring ali `i, land traversed by warriors, and the place names where battles were fought. There are five accounts of historical events that took place near the project area between the 14 and 18 centuries. The events are documented by Fornander (1996), Kalakaua (1990), Kamakau (1961), and Malo (1951), and are treated in detail by Maly (Maly and Maly 2002) and Wolforth (Wolforth et al. 2004). The first event is the 14 century battle between Kamiole, a Ka` u chief and Kalapana, the son of Kanipahu the sixth moi of the Pili line (Wolforth et al. 2004: 3 -5). Kamiole and his warriors, reinforced by warriors from Kona, Hilo, and Puna had previously defeated Kanipahu at Kohala. Kalapana, with the aid of chiefs from Kohala and Hamakua met Kamiole at `Anaeho `omalu and defeated him. The second event is the battle between Umi (ruler, A.D.1600 -1620) and a chief from Kailua. An elder man named Kanuha recounted the events of the battle to Jules Remy, a Frenchman who arrived in Hawaii in 1851 (Maly and Maly: 2002: 9 -10). The French version was translated and printed in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ke Au Okoa May 8, 15, and 22, 1865. The account was then translated into English by Maly (Maly and Maly 2002: 9 -12). The version referred to in this report is drawn from Maly's translation. Umi ruled the eastern side of the Island of Hawai`i, while a chief from Kailua ruled the western side. The chief from Kailua was reputed to have committed various evil deeds and Umi set out to defeat him. Maly's translation of the events follows: 16 Umi marched to battle, joined by his famous warrior, Piimaiwaa, and his companions Koi and Omaokamau. Also with him were his favorite, Pakaa, and his priest Lono.. . Between Mauna Kea and Hualalai the chief and all his party traveled, with the thought of descending to Kailua. Keliiokaloa did not wait though, but instead, traveled with his warriors to meet Umi in battle. The two armies met on a broad open plain, surrounded by the three mountains, at the place [now] called Ahu a Umi. There, Laepuni and them (people who were unattached to a chief) fought with Umi. Umi was almost killed, but Piimaiwaa leapt in and helped him, it was he who turned the battle in the favor of Umi's side. There is not much else that is said, but, it is known that the chief of Kailua died in the battle. Thus, with this battle, the entire kingdom was gained by Umi. He became the chief that controlled the entire island of Hawaii. So that the battle would be remembered from generation to generation, he (Umi) built the stone altar, that remains to this day, the altar (ahua) of Umi... (Ke Au Okoa; Mei 22, 1865) ...He (Umi) also built a heiau (temple) below Pohaku Hanalei, it is called the altar (ahua) of Hanalei; and on the side of Mauna Kea, by where one travels to Hilo, he built the third of his temples, at the place called Puukekee [also written Puu Keekee in historical texts]; and there at Mauna Halepohaku he built the fourth of his temples; there, it is said, Umi dwelt with his many people. It is said that Umi was a chief who dwelt upon the mountain, it was because of his love of his people, that he (Umi) returned and dwelt in the middle of the island [Ahu-a-Umi] , that is where he dwelt with his beloved people. His commoners lived along the shores, and they brought food for them (in the uplands), from one side of the island to the other... (Ke Au Okoa; Mei 22, 1865, translated in Maly and Maly 2002:10 -12, emphasis is Maly's). The third historical event that took place near the project area is the battle between Lonoikamakahiki (ruler, A.D. 1640 -1660) and rebel chiefs (most notably his elder brother Kanaloa-kua'ana) encamped along the shore at `Anaeho `omalu. Lonoikamakahiki and his Kona warriors were joined by forces from Ka`u at the border of Kohala and Kona, on inland `Anaeho ` omalu. The next day Lono marched down and met the rebels at the place called Wailea, not far from Wainanalii, where in those days a 17 A fourth battle was fought north of project area during the reign of Lonomakahiki. The king of Maui (Kamalalawalu), desiring to take over the Island of Hawaii, sent spies to discover the best place from which to launch an attack (Kamakau 1961). They returned after investigating the shores of Hawaii and reported that Kohala would be easy to capture as the inhabitants lived only on the coast and were few in number (Kamakau 1961:56). They further thought that, Kamalalawalu and his forces captured Puako, and mislead by two old men of Kawaihae, marched to the dry grassy plain of Waimea (Waikoloa), and the hills of Hoku`ula and Pu`u `Oa`oaka to await the warriors of Hawai`i. The warriors of Hawai`i took several routes to Waikoloa and stationed themselves around the forces of Maui. Fornander records: Kamakau recorded: watercourse appears to have been flowing. Lono won the battle, and the rebel chiefs fled northward with their forces. At Kaunooa, between Puako and Kawaihae, they made another stand, but were again routed by Lono, and retreated to Nakikiaianihau, where they fell in with reinforcements from Kohala and Hamakua. Two other engagements were fought at Puupa and Puukohola, near the Heiau of that name, in both of which Lono was victorious (Fornander 1996:120 -121). if Kohala was conquered, Kona, Ka-`u, and Puna would be easily taken, and they felt that Hilo and Hamakua would lend no assistance. This was true, for the chiefs of these districts were cousins of the chiefs of Maui (Kamakau 1961: 57). During the night and including the following morning the Kona men arrived and were assigned to occupy a position from Puupa to Haleapala. The Kau and Puna warriors were stationed from Holoholoku to Waikoloa. Those of Hilo and Hamakua were located from Mahiki to Puukanikanihia, while those of Kohala guarded from Momoualoa to Waihaka (Fornander 1917, quoted in Cordy 2000: 229). After Kama - lala - walu's warriors reached the grassy plain, they looked seaward on the left and beheld the men of Kona advancing toward them. The lava bed of Kaniku and all the land up to Hu'ehu'e was covered with the men of Kona. Those of Ka'u and Puna were coming down from Mauna Kea, and those of Waimea and Kohala were on the level plain of Waimea. The men covered the whole of the grassy plain of Waimea like locusts. 18 Kamalalawalu with his warriors dared to fight. The battlefield of Pu'oa'oaka was outside of the grassy plain of Waimea, but the men of Hawaii were afraid of being taken captive by Kama, so they led (Kamalalawalu's forces) to the waterless plain lest Maui's warriors find water and hard, waterworn pebbles (Kamakau: 1961:58). The two armies only skirmished in the beginning, soon turning into a full battle, and a final route of the forces of Maui (Kamakau 1961). Almost all of the chiefs and warriors of Maui were slain either on the field of battle or at the Kawaihae shoreline. The alter (Ke Ahu a Lono) at the coastal boundary between Kona and Kohala is often described as an alter for "the warrior leaders and warriors of Lonoikamakahiki, built at the time he went to battle with Kamalalawalu" (Kihe in Ka Hoku o Hawaii Jan. 31 -Feb. 14, 1924, translated by Maly 2002: 15). A second account ascribes Ke Ahu a Lono to the restoration of friendship between Lonoikamakahiki and Kapaihiahilina. Lonoikamakahiki built the ahu for offerings made to consecrate their reconciliation. The Ahu a Lono was also the place where offerings were gathered during the Makahiki (Andrade interview, collected for Wolforth et al. 2004). Kamehameha also built (rebuilt) Pu`ukohola heiau (possibly completed by 1791) mauka of Mailekini heiau above Kawaihae (Kamakau 1961, Cordy 2000). Kinny (1913:43) and Kamakau (1961: 154) suggest the construction undertaken by Kamehameha was a reconstruction of a previously built heiau reconsecrated to his god Kuka`ilimoku. Kamehameha and his chiefs resided in Kawaihae during the construction and after, from 1792 to 1796 (Maly and Maly 2002: 16). Lonoikamakahiki, Alapa`inui, Keawe`apala, and numerous lower chiefs often visited and stayed at Kawaihae, Puako, and Waimea (Kamakau 1961: 182 -183). Historical narratives of the Waikoloa area underline its geographical location as a nexus of travel between often contending political centers (Figure 6). Trails from Kona to Kohala crossed the lava flats inland of `Anaeho`omalu and Puako. Trails stretched from the coast to Waimea. Other trails ran from Kona, south and then east of Hualalai, and down to Waimea or the coast. Trails from Hilo crossed the saddle, past Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, and downhill to Lalamilo where travelers could take trails either east or west. Trails were also used between the Waipi`o- Hamakua region and Waimea. The trails connected Kawaihae, Waimea, and leeward 19 Kohala to other centers of royal power and figured prominently in interregional conflict. Kawaihae was also a center of political power and the fishponds at `Anaeho`omalu and Kalahuipua` a were `il i kupono from around the 12 century onward (Cordy 1987; Andrade interview, collected for Wolforth et al. 2004). The battles detailed above were fought several miles from the project corridor and there are no trails near the project corridor. DESCRIPTIONS OF KOHALA, WAIMEA, AND WAIKOLOA IN HISTORIC -ERA TRAVEL ACCOUNTS By the late 1700s the Waimea area supported an estimated population of approximately 24,000, mostly inland (Wellmon 1969, Cordy 2000). Captain Cook's journals from his arrival in 1779 describe the area along the coast of Kohala as unpopulated, with very few houses or agricultural fields (Beaglehole 1967). Fishing, aquiculture, salt production, and abrader production were carried out along the coast from Kawaihae to `Anaeho `omalu (Vancouver 1967, Ellis 1969, Barrere 1971, Kirch 1975 and 1979, Cordy 2000). The majority of agricultural production was carried out in the foothills of the Kohala mountains and from Lalamilo to the Waipi`o Valley, especially along the Waimea's three streams; Waikoloa, Wai`aka, and Keanu`i`omano. Large areas of the foothills of southern Waikoloa were covered in pili grass traditionally used for thatching. Mamane (Sophora chysophylla), naio (Myoporum sandwicense), wauke or paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera), `iliahi or sandalwood (Santalum spicatum), and `ohi `a (Metrosideros polymorpha) grew on the plains of Waimea and at upper elevations in the foothills of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. Traditional resource extraction from these areas included kapa cloth made from wauke (Wilkes 1970: 217 -218), mamane limbs cut for adze handles, and birds trapped for their meat and feathers. The arrival of Europeans and the Hawaiian people's introduction to world markets drastically altered the distribution of population centers, agriculture, and cultural practices in Hawai`i. In the Waimea - Waikoloa region, maritime trade and ranching slowly replaced traditional fishing, aquiculture and farming practices as chief economic activities. Sandalwood harvesting for China's markets commenced in 1808 and reached a peak in the 1820s. Kamehameha held a monopoly on the collection and sale of sandalwood to foreign trading vessels. 20 Figure 6: Hawai` i Island Trails. 21 Sandalwood trees were rapidly harvested from the Waimea - Waikoloa area and an island -wide kapu was placed on the cutting of sandalwood in 1830. The royal government next looked to ranching as a steady source of income. Sheep and cattle ranching provided wool, fresh meat, salted beef, tallow, and hides for local markets on Hawai` i and O `ahu, and for provisioning merchant and whaling vessels (until 1860). Ranching has its roots in the first cattle and sheep brought to the island in 1793 by Vancouver. Six cows, one bull, four ewes, and two rams were released to prosper in the region of Waimea, Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Hualalai (Vancouver 1967). Kamehameha placed a ten -year kapu on the killing of cattle so that they would have time to multiply (Ellis 1963: 291). Vancouver wrote: In this valley is a great tract of luxuriant, natural pasture, whither all the cattle and sheep imported by me were to be driven, there to roam unrestrained, to "increase and multiply" far from the sight of strangers, and consequently less likely to tempt the inhabitants to violate the sacred promise they had made; the observance of the which, for the time stipulated in their interdiction, cannot fail to render the extirpation of these animals a task not easily to be accomplished (Vancouver 1967(3):64). Vancouver returned in 1794 with more cattle, sheep, goats, geese, and various plants and seeds. Two American captains, William Shaler and Richard Cleveland presented two horses to John Young in 1803. Cleveland later returned with more than 200 horses brought from California. Donkeys, mules and oxen were also imported for transportation and hauling. By 1813 to 1815 cows began overrunning agricultural fields and became a danger to travelers and residents alike (Ellis 1963: 291, Wilkes 1970: 204). A wall, called Kauliokamoa for the King's konohiki, was constructed between 1813 and 1819 (Barrere 1983) to keep cattle in Waikoloa and off of agricultural land to the east (Lalamilo and Waimea). The wall was located from roughly the northern border of Waikoloa to near Pu`u Huluhulu and separated the less fertile annual grasslands from the perennial grasslands (Boundary Commission Book for Hawai`i Vol. A, 6, 10; Wolforth et al. 2004). 22 John Parker was granted permission to hunt wild bullock for the crown in 1822. Wild cattle were captured in bullock pits seven to eight feet long by four feet wide covered with braches and a thin layer of dirt (Wilkes 1970: 204). They were also hunted with guns and were lassoed in later years, after the arrival of vaqueros, "Spaniards [Central and South Americans] with horses from California" (Wilkes 1970: 203). Ellis also described the nature of the herds and bullock hunting. Although there are immense herds of them, they do not attempt to tame any; and the only advantage they derive is by employing persons, principally foreigners, to shoot them, salt the meat in the mountains, and bring it down to the shore for the purpose of provisioning the native vessels. But this is attended with great labour and expense. They first carry all the salt to the mountains. When they have killed the animals, the flesh is cut off their bones, salted immediately, and afterwards put into small barrels, which are brought on men's shoulders ten or fifteen miles to the sea -shore (Ellis 1963: 291). In 1830 Governor Kuakini moved to Waimea to oversee and improve government cattle. He ordered the construction of corrals and the widening and improvement of twelve miles of the Waimea to Kawaihae trail. Liholiho visited the same year to witness strides made in the nascent cattle ranching industry. It was hoped that the exportation of tallow, hides, and salted beef would supplant the defunct sandalwood trade as a major source of income. In 1835 William French opened a store in Waimea and began several ventures related to ranching, including tallow making, tanning, and saddle making (Bergin 2004: 156). Cowhide was tanned using the astringent bark of local trees (Wilkes 1970: 218). Other craftsmen included carpenters and a blacksmith. The lion's share of French's trade involved supplying whaling ships and the local market with beef. A description of French's operation in 1840 describes their capture and shipment. Our principal object in taking the walk was to witness the marking of a lot of cattle that had been driven down from the mountains not long since. Great numbers of wild bullocks are caught in the mountains every year by the hunters: The lasso, the principal instrument in their capture is made of braided thong upon one end of which is a ring forming a slip noose which is thrown with astonishing precision around any part of the animal. Even while at 23 a full gallop in pursuit, the hunter grasps his lasso and giving it two or three twirls around his head with his right hand, throws it unerringly and entangles his victim by the horns or limbs... For their capture a mode frequently resorted to by the hunters was to dig deep pits and cover them with underbrush and dirt.... The bullocks to be marked were driven into a pen towards which we directed our steps. They were noble animals and had been tamed by tying them singly with tame cattle for a time.... There were not far from 40 bullocks marked on this occasion intended for the Clementine in her trip down to Honolulu. They are then put into pasture to be fattened for the supply of ships visiting Honolulu in the fall season. This brig Clementine had upon its deck about 40 head of bullocks arranged closely together with their heads turned inwards. They were tied down by the horns to a strong framework of spars so that there was no danger of their getting loose (Olmstead, quoted in Bergin 2004: 156). By 1840 bullock hunting had drastically reduced the numbers of wild cattle, driving them to higher and higher elevations of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea (Wellmon 1969). A five -year kapu was placed on cattle hunting and lead to further efforts to tame, brand, and fence in herds on privately owned land (Wilkes 1970: 200). The decline of whaling and the kapu placed on killing cattle created economic hardship and population decline in the Waimea area. Wilkes reported that during this time there were still three or four stores operated by foreigners at Waimea (Wilkes 1970: 218). In 1880 George Bowser's "Directory and Tourists Guide" reported that, Waimea itself, although of immemorial age, and once populous, is now only a scattered village, with but two stores and a boarding and lodging house and coffee saloon (quoted in Maly and Maly 2002: 60, emphasis Maly's). Grazing, the opening of new pastureland, and fires was denuding the forested plains of Waimea, and pushing the tree line to higher and higher elevations (Doyle 1953: 47 -48). An article published in the Sandwich Island Monthly Magazine in 1856, and quoted in Wolforth et al. 2004, described the deforestation in the following terms: It is in the memory of many foreigners now living there, when the whole of these plains were covered with a thick wood, to the very 24 edge of the slope. Where now hardly a tree is to be seen for miles, we were informed by an old resident, that twenty -five years ago he lost himself with his team in the weeds. He also stated that at that time there was far more rain at Waimea than there is now, which indeed might be readily inferred, as clearing the land has been almost entirely effected by the cattle...At this moment they swarm the thick jungle that covers the windward or eastern slope towards Hamakua. They are now gradually destroying this, and thousands of old dead trees die of age, no young ones are seen taking their places, as during the last thirty or forty years, the cattle have eaten or trodden them down...At the present time the vapors and rain which are brought across the plain by the trade winds, are generally dissipated between Waimea Village and Lihue...But when some twenty -five or thirty years ago, woods extended over the whole plain and to the very edge of it, close on to this debatable ground —and when rain was in consequence more frequent over this district, the vapors and cold moist atmosphere, instead of being dissipated near Waimea Village, would necessarily have more frequently extended to the debatable ground... (February 1856:44 -47). A report written in 1877 by the Royal Commissioners on Development of Resources documents similar environmental impacts in the Kohala, Waimea, and Waikoloa area. The report states: The forests on the Kohala mountains are dying rapidly. The land is mostly for grazing purposes, though on the mountain potatoes of fine quality can be raised in large quantities. In sheltered places, coffee would doubtless grow, but owning to the sparseness of the population and the superior attractions to other parts of the district, this part will hardly soon be settled. The once fertile and populous plain of Waimea looked sterile and desolate when visited by the Commission -a painful contrast to Kohala loko on the other side of the mountain. The complaint of the people is well founded. The water they use is fouled in many places by cattle, horses and other animals, and as the stream is sluggish it has no chance to free itself of impurities, and the water used bb the people in their houses must be a cause of disease and death, especially to the children... It is little wonder that with his crops trodden out by the sheep or cattle of his stronger neighbors, his family sickened perhaps to death by the polluted Waters, that the small holder should yield to despair, and abandoning his homestead seek employment in some other district, usually without making another home... 25 The plains of Pukapu and Waimea are subject to high winds, aggravated by the loss of the sheltering forests of former days. The soil however is very good in many places for sugar cane and other products. To develop its best resources, efforts must be made to restore the forests and husband the supply of water at their sources to furnish a supply for agricultural purposes. At present the lands are used almost exclusively for grazing purposes. Although the proprietors and lessors are probably not averse to the establishment of agricultural enterprises, it is to be feared that the denudation of the neighboring mountains and plains of the forests will render the climatic conditions unfavorable to success. It would seem that a wise appreciation of the best interests of this district, even of the grazing interests themselves, would lead to the decrease of the immense herds which threaten not only Waimea but even Hamakua with almost irreparable disaster. It is to be feared that they will in time render a large part of the land of little value even for grazing purposes. Owing to the increasing frequency and severity of droughts and consequent failure of springs. Some thousands of cattle are said to have died this last winter from want of water, and the works erected in Waimea for the purpose of trying out cattle have been idle for months for want of water. The commission do not propose here to discuss fully the vexed Questions of the causes of the diminution of the forests, but in view of the fact that they are diminishing and the streams and springs diminishing a corresponding rations, also that with the cattle running upon the lands as at present, any effort to restore them must be futile and any hopes of their recuperation vain, the Government, if it would wish to preserve that part of the island of Hawaii from serious injury, must take some steps for reclaiming the forests. In this connection we would say that it is unfortunate that large tracts of Crown and Government lands have been lately leased on long terms for grazing purposes, without conditions as to their protection from permanent injury, at rates much lower than their value even as preserves for Government purposes or public protection. The commission deem (sic) this a matter of grave importance, challenging the earnest attention of the Government, and involving the prosperity of two important districts (Report of the Royal Commissioners on Development of Resources 1877, quoted in Maly and Maly 2002: 58 -59). 26 The impacts recorded above were the results of grazing sheep and cattle in the 80 -year period after Vancouver landed the first of their kind. The history of herding and ranching these animals proceeds from hunting wild herds to the organization of ranching in an effort to consolidate ownership, improve breeding stock, and to prevent further degradation of the lands of Waimea and Waikoloa. THE MAHELE (1845) Article IV of the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles was passed in December 1845 and began the legal process of private land ownership based on western law. The law established a board of five commissioners to oversee land claims and to issue patents and leases for valid claims. Many scholars believe that Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III) was forced to establish laws in order to protect Hawaiian sovereignty and crown lands from foreigners who had already begun claiming ownership of land they were granted permission to use for homes and business interests (Daws 1968:111; Kuykendall 1938(1): 145 footnote 47, 152, 165 -6, 170; Kame' eleihiwa 1992: 169 -70, 176; Kelly 1983: 45, 1998). Among other things, the foreigners were demanding private ownership of land to secure their island investments (Kuykendall 1938(1): 138, 145, 178, 184, 202, 206, 271; Kame' eleihiwa 1992: 178). As legal statutes defining the Mahele continued to evolve (up to 1850), the lands of the kingdom of Hawai`i were divided among the king (crown lands), the ali `i and konohiki, and the government. Once lands were thus divided and private ownership was instituted, the maka 'ainana (commoners), if they had been made aware of the procedures, were able to claim the plots on which they had been cultivating and living as stipulated in the Kuleana Act (1849). These claims, however, could not include any previously cultivated or presently fallow land, okipu 'u, stream fisheries, or many other resources traditionally necessary for survival (Kelly 1983, Kame' eleihiwa 1992:295, Kirch and Sahlins 1992). The right of claimants to land was based on the written testimony of at least two witnesses who could corroborate the claimant's long- standing occupation and use of the parcel(s) in question. The claimant was then awarded a patent for the property, subsequently called Land Commission Awards (LCAs) (Chinen 1961:16). 27 Applicant LCA Register Testimony Award Book James Fay (Kimo Fe) Helu 589 NR 2:281 n/a n/a James Hall (Kimo Holo) Helu 672 FR 2:103 FT 5:67 & NT 4:48 MA 3:100 Edmund Bright (Braita) Helu 986 FR 2:125 FT 5:67 & NT 4:43 MA 3:91 Kipikane (w.) Helu 1117 n/a NT 4:45 & FT 5:66 n/a James Fay Helu 2258 FR 2:147 NT 5:65 -66 MA 3:52 Nahoena Helu 3195 NR 8:50 NT 4:8 n/a Makalahae Helu 3684 NR 8:44 NT 4:33 MA 5:48 -49 Waiahole Helu 3738 NR 8:46 NT 4:34 -35 MA 5:48 -49 Auwae Helu 3762 NR 8:47 NT 4:35 -36 MA 5:46 Ohiaku Helu 3783 NR 8:47 -48 NT 4:39 -40 MA 5:47 Opunui (w.) Helu 3786 NR 8:48 NT 4:38 MA 4:287 I.A. Palea Helu 3828 NR 8:380 NT 4:31 -32 MA 5:46 Pauhala Helu 3844 NR 8:51 NT 4:10 MA 5:51 J. Seaboy (Seabury) Helu 4024 NR 8:55 -56 NT 4:44 MA 5:49 -50 James Hall Helu 4036 FR 1:3 n/a n/a Wm. Beadle Helu 4038 FR 3:2 FT 5:67 & NT 4:42 MA 3:9 Kaahukoo Helu 4126 NR 8:64 NT 4:12 n/a Kaumu Helu 4129 NR 8:64 NT 4:37 MA 5:51 Keaulama Helu 4184 NR 8:53 -54 NT 4:36 Kua Helu 4215 NR 8:59 -60 NT 4:24 MA 5:47 Kaulua Helu 4231 NR 8:58 NT 4:25 -26 MA 5:48 Manuwa Helu 4505 NR 8:66 NT 4:20 MA 5:50 G.D. Hueu Helu 8068 NR 8:70 -71 NT 4:18 -19 Kipikane (w.) Helu 8505 FR 3:19 FT 5:67 & NT 4:45 MA 3:55 G.D. Hueu Helu 8521 B NR 3:709 n/a n/a Laahiwa Helu 9972 NR 8:169 n/a n/a At least 26 claims were made for kuleana plots in Waikoloa (Maly and Maly 2002: 66). Table 2 below lists claims and awards within the lands of Waikoloa (adapted from Maly and Maly 2002: 66). Table 1: Claims and Land Commission Awards in Waikoloa. THE LANDS OF G.D. HU`EU (GEORGE DAVIS) George Davis Hu'eu (George Davis) inherited and owned a large portion of the good grazing lands of Waikoloa. Kamehameha I had given the land to G.D. Hu'eu's father, Isaac 28 Davis, as an `ili kupono for services rendered during the conquest of the Hawaiian Islands. Local chiefs claimed some portions of his land when he died in testate in 1810 (Macrae 1972: 44). It became necessary for Isaac Davis' friend John Young to ask the crown for stewardship of the property for Davis' children's sake. When the Davis children came of age, Young requested that, the King, Kaahumanu [Kinau], Adams [Kuakini] and Rooke and all the Chiefs will let Isaac Davis' children keep their father's lands that King Kamehameha gave to him as a reward for assisting the King in his wars in conquering the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, and which I hope in God our young king will fulfill the wishes of his honored father (Collins 1951: 12 -13). Isaac Davis' land (Royal Patent Grant 5671) was granted to George Davis Hu'eu as an unsurveyed LCA (8521B) in 1865. The lack of longtime residents to testify to the traditional boundaries, the nature of the existing survey maps, and various contradictory land claims created further problems concerning G.D. Hu'eu's land award. Early survey maps of the area depicted traditional boundaries in locations that are very different from those codified only five to ten years later. The Wiltse map of 1860 Waimea places the boundary between North Kona and South Kohala Districts further north and east than its later accepted location. The mauka boundary of Waimea, and so Waikoloa, are described in a letter from three Commissioners of Crown Lands based on the Wiltse map. The description of the boundary relating specifically to the area of Davis' land and shown on the Wiltse map is as follows: Thence to Pumahoelua. Thence to a large rock marked "H." Thence to Kuikahekili; then to Namahana on the line of Kona. Thence along the gulch called Poopoo, bordering the land called Puuanahulu to an ohia tree marked "H." Thence to Puuiwaiwa. Thence to a point of rocks maked "H." Thence along the line of Puuanahulu to Kahooalapiko, then to Puuhinei (Maly and Maly 2002: 82, emphasis Maly's). 29 The remainder of the boundary between North Kona and South Kohala is much further north than the later, officially agreed apron boundary. The extent of Davis' property was contested by the Crown in court in 1866, and was finally surveyed and mapped in 1867. Counsel for Davis contended the land granted by Kamehameha included the plains near the seacoast. Representatives of the Crown contended the grant consisted of the hill country only and no land on the Waikoloa plain. A.F. Judd recorded the court proceedings as follows: Conspicuous land marks, geographical points are the boundaries of districts and large lands; so Waikoloa has Puaapilau; Keahualono, Puukapele, and Puuhuluhulu, all hills, and not a low place on the plain and the meeting of two gulches in the plain, as alleged by the Crown, to the boundaries of Waikoloa. Puukapele and Keahualono are hills visible each from the other, and the two points establishing the base of the triangle (Handwritten notes of A.F. Judd November 28, 1866, Bergin collection). The hills of Waikoloa were determined to be Davis' land and the plains along the seacoast remained possessions of the Crown. G.D. Hu'eu's property contained: . . .a house lot in the ili of Waikoloa, the cattle corral in the ili of Nohoaina, the goat corral in the ili land of Paulama, and the house site there. There are four sections. The first section is the house site in the ili of Waikoloa, it has been enclosed and there are two houses within; one house for the school teacher, Kauahi, he has only a house there; the other one is for Hueu. To the uplands and outer area (waho) is the land of Uilama Pakele (William Beckley); the kula (plain or open) lands on the lower (makai) side are also his; and on the Kohala side is the Alanui hele (path) and the corral of Parker folks and William [Beadle]. It is his old land, gotten from his father, Aikake (Isaac). From KI [Kamehameha I]. Gotten by Aikake from Koapapaa. No one has objected. Parcel two is in the ili land of Nohaaina, a cattle corral. Uilama Pakele's land is mauka, and on all sides. 30 [Parcel three] The goat corral in ili land of Paulama. Uilama Pakele is the only one who bounds it on all sides. Parcel 4. Keoni's house lot is to the upland side; the outer (waho) and shoreward (makai) sides are Uilama Pakele's land; towards Kohala is Leleiohoku' s cattle corral. Hueu' s interest is from Uilama. No one has objected. William Beckley, sworn and stated: I know this, and his interest is from me. I gave him these sections in 1845 -1846. (Native Testimony Volume 4:18 -19, translated in Maly and Maly 2002: 68 -69). William Beckley was an agent of the Crown entrusted with the management of cattle on Crown lands. Hu'eu's property eventually became the lands of the Ke`amuku Sheep and Cattle Station. The project corridor is located along the southwest boundary of the property. THE HISTORY OF RANCHING AT THE KE`AMUKU SHEEP STATION Ke`amuku, as recorded on the first and all survey maps since, translates as "cut -off lava" and refers to the lava flow and low prominence (3074 ft amsl) west of the Ke`amuku Sheep Station (Pukui et al. 1974: 102). Cultural informants specified that in the Waimea- Waikoloa area, the station and ranch have from time immemorial been called Ke`amoku. Both muku and moku can be translated as cut off, or severed, as an island or district is delineated from its surroundings (Andrews 2003: 402, 407). The Ke`amuku lava flow runs parallel to and along the boundary between Kona and Kohala for more than 10 kilometers and Ke ` amuku might refer to the lava flow's function of delineating the two moku of Kona and Kohala. The origin of organized sheep ranching in the Waimea region is credited to William French, who first arrived in Hawaii in 1819 as a representative of an American shipping venture involved in the sandalwood trade (Wellmon 1969: 49). By 1826 he was grazing sheep and cattle between Waimea and Kawaihae and by 1844 was exporting wool (Wellmon 1969: 57). French owned the Lihu`e Livestock Farm and a home in Waimea (the historic Spencer House) (Bergin 2004: 156). French also established a store at Pu`u Loa, and tallow works, a tannery, and blacksmith and carpentry shops (Bergin 2004: 156) in Waimea. French's ranching operation was taken over by Francis Spencer and partners after French's death in the mid -1850s (Bergin 2004: 157). 31 Francis Mcfarland Spencer (Born in England 1818, died 1897) arrived in Kawaihae in 1839 with his wife and two young children. For a time he ran the stagecoach from Kawaihae to Waimea, from Waimea to Kukuihaele, Honokaa, and Pauuilo (John Spencer interview, recorded by A. Wakayama 1983). Oxen, horses (Percherons), and mules were the primary draught animals for the stagecoach at that time. Spencer used his income to purchase land, and by the 1854 was operating a store and a sheep and cattle farm in Lihu`e. Spencer's copartners in the Lihu` e sheep farm were James Louzada and Henry Cornell (Maly and Maly 2002: 135). James Louzada was one of three "Spaniards" that were hired between 1930 and 1932 to hunt bullock on the island of Hawai`i. Spencer and Louzada imported six Saxon - merino crossed sheep in 1858 to improve their stock (Bergin 2004: 229). Spencer also operated a sheep farm at Pu'u Loa (his primary residence), which combined with his other ranching interests, was called F. Spencer and Company. F. Spencer and Company entered into a partnership in 1861 with the newly formed Waimea Grazing and Agricultural Company (WGAC), owned and operated by Robert Cheshire Janion and his partner William H. Green (Maly and Maly 2002: 134). The WGAC, like all ranching operations in the area, was involved in bullock hunting and the production of salted beef and hides as well as sheep and cattle ranching. The new joint business venture, consolidated under the name of the Waimea Grazing and Agricultural Company, became the largest ranching operation of its time. In 1865 Francis Spencer bought out the ranch operation of three Hawaiian ranchers who held a lease (General Lease No. 106) on the entire ahupua `a of Pu'u Anahulu adjacent to and west of Ke`amuku (Maly and Maly 2002: 137). On July 2, 1868 G.D. Hu'eu leased his land in Waikoloa to William L. Green on behalf of the WGAC for $600 per year (Maly and Maly 2002: 139). The 20 -year lease included all of the land awarded to G.D. Hu'eu under LCA Number 8521 B Parcel 1, except properties previously sold to William Claude Jones in October 1866 (Maly and Maly 2002: 137-139). The Hu'eu family was allowed to continue grazing their 1,000 cattle, 100 horses, and 1,000 sheep on the land under the terms of the lease. 32 The WGAC, in turn, leased the land to Francis Spencer, who leased the grazing rights to the WGAC. The lease, combined with previously owned /leased land (seven properties altogether) gave Francis Spencer and the WGAC the right to hunt wild (unbranded) cattle and sheep, and to graze their cattle, sheep, horses, and mules over a vast area of land from Hilo to Hamakua, to South Kohala, and to Kona (Maly and Maly 2002: 137). William L. Green estimated that in 1870 100 "bush cattle" hides (also called "mountain hides ") per year could be taken from Ke`amuku with a maximum return of 9.5 cents a hide (Maly and Maly 2002: 143). An early survey map drawn by Kaelemakula shows a "Hale o Spencer" (Spencer House) in the vicinity of the historic residence of the Ke`amuku Sheep Station (Figure 7). Given the difficulties of early survey procedure, the Hale o Spencer is situated very close to the Ke`amuku Sheep Station residence when plotted on the USGS Keamuku Quadrangle map (1982). It must be noted that the Kaelemakula map depicts the house on the southern bank of the gulch, not on the northern bank, as is the case with the location the residence at the Ke`amuku Sheep Station. There are two possible locations along the Ke`amuku gulch that are likely locations for the original house (suggested by archaeological investigations and map analysis) if the map is not incorrect. Cultural informants have maintained that the Ke`amuku House at the Ke`amuku Sheep Station is the original Spencer house. An English traveler, Isabella Bird, passed through the Waimea area in 1873 and described the Spencer residence and sheep operations at Pu`u Loa. On clambering over the wall which surrounds my host's kraal of dwellings, I heard in the dusk strange, sweet voices crying rudely and emphatically, "Who are you? What do you want ?" and was relieved to find that the somewhat inhospitable interrogation only proceeded from two Australian magpies. Mr. S. is a Tasmanian, married to a young half -white lady; and her native mother and seven or eight dark girls are here, besides a number of natives and Chinese, and half Chinese, who are employed about the place. Sheep are the source of my host's wealth. He has 25,000 at three stations on Mauna Kea, and, at an altitude of 6000 feet they flourish, and are free from some of the maladies to which they are liable elsewhere. Though there are only three or four sheep owners on the islands, they exported 288.526 lbs. of wool in 1872. Mr. S. has also 1000 head of cattle and 50 horses (Bird 1998: 147 -148). 33 Figure 7: Kaelemakula Map Showing Hale o Spencer. She also described the Spencer sheep station at Kalai`eha where Francis Spencer's oldest son Ashford (1847 -1891) and his wife Puakalehua Awai lived. I have described the "foreign residences" elsewhere. Here is one of another type, in which a wealthy sheep owner's son, married to a very pretty native woman, leads for some months in the year, from choice, a life so rough, that most people would think it a hardship to lead it from necessity. There are two apartments, a loft and a "lean -to." The hospitable owners gave me their sleeping -room, which was divided from the "living- room" by a canvas partition. 34 This last has a rude stone chimney split by an earthquake, holding fire enough to roast an ox. Round it the floor is paved with greatrough stones. A fire of logs, fully three feet high, was burning, but there was a faulty draught, and it emitted a stinging smoke. I looked for something to sit upon, but there was nothing but a high bench, or chopping - block, and a fixed seat in the corner of the wall. The rest of the furniture consisted of a small table, some pots, a frying -pan, a tin dish and plates, a dipper, and some tin pannikins. Four or five rifles and "shot- guns," and a piece of raw meat, were hanging against the wall. A tin bowl was brought to me for washing, which served the same purpose for everyone. The oil was exhausted, so recourse was had to the native expedient of jar of beef fat with a wick in it. We were most hospitably received, but the native wife, as is usually the case, was too shy to eat with us, or even to appear at all. Our host is a superb young man, very frank and pre - possessing looking, a thorough mountaineer, most expert with the lasso and in hunting wild cattle. The "station" consists of a wool shed, a low grass hut, a hut with one side gone, a bell -tent, and the more substantial cabin in which we are lodged. Several saddled horses were tethered outside, and some natives were shearing sheep, but the fog shut out whatever else there might be of an outer world. Every now and then a native came in and sat on the floor to warm himself, but there were no mats as in native houses. It was intolerably cold. I singed my clothes by sitting in the chimney, but could not warm myself. A fowl was stewed native fashion, and some rice was boiled, and we had sheep's milk and some ice cold water, the drip, I think, from a neighbouring cave, as running and standing water are unknown. There are 9000 sheep here, but they require hardly any attendance except at shearing time, and dogs are not used in herding them. Indeed, labour is much dispensed with, as the sheep are shorn unwashed, a great contrast to the elaborate washings of the flocks of the Australian Riverina. They come down at night of their own sagacity, in close converging columns, sleep on the gravel about the station, and in the early morning betake themselves to their feeding grounds on the mountain. (Bird 1998: 232 -233). George Bowser also described Waimea and the Spencer sheep ranching interests in the following terms: ... Waimea has always been a place of some considerable importance, and there are around it several pretty homesteads, 35 notably the residences of Mr. F. Spencer and the Reverend Mr. Lyons. From Mr. Spencer's veranda there is a striking view of Maunakea, the summit of which was at this time of the year still in its winter robe of snow. The snow never leaves this mountain -top entirely, but the position of the snow -line varies considerably with the season of the year, and also from one year to another, according to the weather which characterizes them. The country all round is chiefly suitable for grazing, and, besides innumerable wild cattle, descended, no doubt, from those which Vancouver gave to Kamehameha I, there are some 20,000 head depastured in the neighborhood, the property of Mr. Parker, who has, besides, some large droves of horses, probably numbering a thousand head in all. Mr. Spencer has turned his attention chiefly to sheep farming, and occupies a large tract of country with his flock of 15,000 sheep and 15,000 goats. Waimea itself, although of immemorial age, and once populous, is now only a scattered village, with but two stores and a boarding and lodging house and coffee saloon (Bowser 1880, quoted in Maly and Maly 2002:60, emphasis Maly's). At some point between the end of 1871 and the beginning of 1876, the WGAC went out of business due to drought (Wellmon 1969). Francis Spencer formed the Puuloa Sheep and Stock Company out of his sheep stations in Waimea, Waikoloa, and Pu`u Anahulu (Wellmon 1969: 44). In October of 1876 he sold (mortgaged) his interest in the Puuloa Sheep Ranch to George W. Macfarlane (Maly and Maly 2002: 145). Macfarlane sold a fourth of the interest to W. L. Green including, ... Twenty one thousand sheep with one fourth increase of the same, all sheep stations on the Island of Hawaii aforesaid with the improvements, and everything appurtenant to said sheep stations, all waggons, oxcarts, spring waggon, working oxen, steers, cows and calves, horses, mares, mules and all the goods, wares and merchandise in the retail store in Lihue, Island of Hawaii... the wool press, vats, tanks, pots, and all the implements and appurtenances belonging to or appertaining to sheep raising which were conveyed to me by Francis Spencer... I the said George W. Macfarlane have granted, sold, assigned and set over, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, assign and set over unto the said W.L. Green, the undivided fourth interest in all the several leases of land in the Island of Hawaii aforesaid, as follows, the lese of the Ahupuaa of Waikoloa, the land called Beadles Hill or Hokuula, Pitman's lease, the land called Holuokawai, and Kalopa... (Bureau of Conveyances Lib. 54:185 -186, quoted in Maly and Maly 2002: 145). 36 According to Maly, Spencer "still maintained a residence and station at Ke`amuku through the 1880s and held his interests in the Pu`u Anahulu Ranch lease through 1895. A sketch of the Waikoloa area drawn by J. Perryman in 1882 shows a series of buildings labeled "Warren's Keamuku" at the location of the Ke`amuku Sheep Station (Figure 8). Warren is most likely a reference to William Warren who used the name Jack Purdy and worked for William Green and the WGAC (Bergin 2004: 84 -85). Francis Spencer died in 1897. A.W. Carter purchased the Puuloa Sheep and Stock Company interests for $20,000 (Brennan 1972: 136) in January 1904 on behalf of Parker Ranch, including, the Keamuku Sheep Station. This was purchased from the MacFarlane interests and included 4,500 ewes, 800 lambs, 300 wethers, and an undisclosed number of rams of reasonable breed - mainly merino crosses. Also undisclosed was the exact number of semiwild range sheep that grazed in adjoining Kalawamauna, but estimates were between 2, 000 and 2, 500. At the time of purchase there were substantial improvements, including a dwelling, men's quarters, and outbuildings that housed scales and equipment for shearing sheep and packing wool. Pens, corrals, and yards were left intact also. All told, A. W. acquired nearly 8, 000 head of sheep, together with station improvements and equipment -but the centerpiece was the Lihu` e kuleana (property) itself adjacent to Waimea, followed by the Keamuku lands, which included Kalawamauna (Bergin 2004: 230). One of the outbuildings was a shearing barn that was photographed in the early 1960s before it was demolished (Figure 9). Richard Smart wrote of the purchase and early sheep operations at Ke`amuku in the newsletter Paka Paniolo noting that it ... was purchased by Parker Ranch in February 1904 along with the stock numbering 6,175 sheep. Wool produced that year totaled 10,000 pounds. Mr. Frank Johnson was the manager of the Puuloa Sheep and Stock Ranch when it was purchased by Parker Ranch, and remained as manager of the station until 1906 when Mr. A.C. Aubrey became the manager (Richard Smart 1965, quoted in Maly and Maly 2002: 210). 37 Figure 8: J. Perryman's 1882 Map of the Waikoloa Area. 38 • Figure 9: The Ke`amuku Sheep Shearing Barn. Yutaka Kimura, who began working at Ke` amuku Section in 1919, was interviewed by Langlas and described early ranching at Ke`amuku, before the purchase, as follows: Kimura was told that the sheep range was not fenced, but that two men with dogs kept the sheep from wandering away. A Hawaiian named Nahulu lived on the lower side, in a shack at Pu`u Hinei, and a Chinese named Akuna lived on the upper side, in another shack makai of Pu `u Keeke`e. The Ke`amoku sheep operation ended not too long after Parker Ranch took it over. Mr. Kimura said that the sheep were taken from there up to Humu'ula "before my time." (Langlas et al. 1999: 46). A.W. Carter began grazing cattle at Ke`amuku Section in 1907 (Wellmon 1969). At that time there were eight employees listed as working at Ke`amuku Section including, Condo (Kondo), Ah Kune, Ah Him, Mori, Suketa, Kanikubo, Yamamoto, Egawa, and Codeiro (Maly and Maly 2002: 173). By 1908 there were 18 employees, predominantly of Japanese descent (Maly and Maly 2002: 174). In March 1908 water was piped up to the Ke`amuku Section via Waiki`i. As a result, sheep and wool production from Parker ranch's Ke`amuku Section continued to increase and improve as documented in the following Paka Paniolo article: By June 1908 the station had increased its stock to 10,997 sheep and produced 30,000 pounds of wool which was almost completely free of kikania (cockle burr). Therefore, Parker Ranch wool always brought good prices in Boston where it was marketed. Shearing was done early in the Spring before the kikania burrs had a chance to mature and harden and stick to the wool. For this reason also 39 Parker Ranch wool was always preferred in the Islands as padding for the Hawaiian quilts. Speaking of quilts, Mrs. Theresa Quinn of Kohala was contracted to make a quilt for Queen Liliuokalani's bed at Washington Place during Governor Stainback's term of office. The wool for this quilt was donated by Parker Ranch (Richard Smart article 1965, quoted in Maly and Maly 2002: 210). In 1914, after Parker Ranch acquired the Humu'ula Sheep Station, A.W. Carter began to phase out sheep at the Ke`amuku Section. The invasion of kikania that lodged in sheep's wool and made sheep shearing unprofitable at other locations in the early 1900s did not immediately affect the sheep at Ke `amuku Section. Wool continued to be produced at Ke `amuku until around 1918 when the remaining sheep and equipment were finally transferred to Humu'ula (Maly and Maly 2002: 171 -172, 206). A.W. Carter commented on his sheep ranching experiences writing, I do not profess to be a sheep man. My business has been primarily cattle. However, I have learned considerable about sheep with reference to our own peculiar conditions. The only experience that I have had with sheep has been with a special type of Merino and I have imported rams of this type from Australia. This is a wool type. By the importation of rams I have been able to raise the average wool clip to about eight pounds per animal and it is the type of wool that is desired in trade. I ship it to Boston, the headquarters of wool in the United States, and we get a very good price. For many years the wool clip continued to be profitable. The wethers and ewes were sent to the Honolulu market. The wethers dressed out at about 48 pounds. The real demand is for lamb. We are not in a position on this particular Ranch to go into the lamb business. I have raised a few lambs for our local supply on Hawaii by crossing the English Leicester, which is a large long - wool sheep, on Merino ewes and I think this is a good practice if anyone should want to follow that line of business. For many years I have used an arsenic dip to cure and prevent sheep scabs and finally eliminated it. I have continued however, to use a carbolic dip annually and I think that anyone running sheep must dip their flocks every 12 months to keep them clean. We are fortunate in not having any burrs and our wool is very 40 clean as it comes from the sheep's back. Dirt and burrs, of course, depreciate the value [of] wool. The Merinos, which we use, are small, chunky animals, not like the large sized Merinos that you often see in Australia. We have a very rough and rugged country and we find that these do much better than heavier sheep. We run our sheep in paddocks; they are not herded. I have handled Southdowns and Shropshires but without much success (Bergin 2004: 236). Sheep were dipped annually in a cement dipping vat at Ke`amuku until they were transferred to the Humu'ula (Figure 10). There were no automobiles in 1910 and very few in the 1920s, all transportation was by foot, horse, or by wagon, carriage and buggy (Figure 11). Three major cart roads led to and from the Ke`amuku Section. The Ke`amuku-Waimea trail was situated from Ke`amuku, north past the eastern bases of Pu`u Papapa and Pu`u Nohonaohae (where it joined the trail to Spencer's sheep operations on Mauna Kea), and on to Waimea town (J.S. Emerson Field Book 251:83 and 109, in Maly and Maly 2002: 100 -101). A second trail ran from Ke`amuku, northwest past the east side of Pu`u Hinai, and down to Puako (ibid). A third trail constructed in the 1800s is situated west of Ke`amuku Station in the direction of Pu`u Hinai (Maly and Maly 2002: A -472). Two later dirt roads connected Ke`amuku to Waiki`i and to the Kona - Waimea Road. Rally Greenwell and Jiro Yamaguchi commuted by vehicle from Hale Kea (Parker Ranch headquarters) and Waimea to Ke`amuku every day (Rally Greenwell interview, Jiro Yamaguchi interview collected for Maly and Maly 2002). A small crew of three two four hands lived at Ke`amuku House (Rally Greenwell interview collected for Langlas et al. 1999). Work at Ke`amuku included weeding, fence mending, goat eradication, rain gauge reading, sheep dipping and shearing, and the tending and driving of cattle. The earliest cowboys and ranch hands were mostly Hawaiian and cowboys like Matsuichi Yamaguchi learned to speak 41 Figure 10: Dipping Sheep at Ke`amuku in 1906. Figure 11: A Buckboard Wagon Used for Early Transportation at Parker Ranch. 42 fluent Hawaiian (Jiro Yamaguchi interview collected for Wolforth et al. 2004, and Ichiro Yamaguchi interview). The Plaster Gang, usually comprised of a Hawaiian foreman, a luna, and Japanese crew, constructed new fences, mended fences, and removed noxious weeds. Fence checking was done once a month. It took a day to check the fence from the Waimea -Kona belt road to Pu`u Hinai and another day to check it from Pu` u Hinai to Puako (Greenwell interview collected in Maly and Maly 2002). The type of fence post used for the construction of new fence lines was dependent primarily on location. Hardwood such as kiawe was preferred and used in places where it was close by, such as Puako (Rally Greenwell interview). Kiawe was also transported for use as corner posts where strength was important. Most of the fence posts at Ke`amuku are eucalyptus because they were grown there. Two types of Eucalyptus were used: red gum and blue gum. Red gum is easier to split and was used for central posts and the more solid blue gum was used for corner posts (Ichiro Yamaguchi interview). The Plaster Gang also removed Pampas —a name ranchers commonly used to refer to fountaingrass (Pennisetum setaceum)—spreading from the Kona side, from lava flows (up to a mile within the flow) surrounding Ke`amuku. As a result, Parker Ranch was free of fountaingrass. From the 1930s to1960s Parker Ranch worked to eradicate the panini or prickly pear cactus (Opuntiaficus-indica and O. cordobensis). The cactus, brought from Mexico in 1809 for forage and moisture, was rampant by the early 1900s. Cactus eradication crews began working in the 1930s and cleared roughly 60,000 acres by 1965 (Bergin 2004: 272). Sheep were dipped annually and were shorn two to three times a year. Lambs were shorn in February and rams and ewes were shorn in May or June. Parker Ranch employees, contract men, and day workers were carried out the shearing. Eight or nine men could shear roughly 100 sheep a day (Ichiro Yamaguchi interview). Sheep were lead by ramp into the pen in the center of the shear barn where men working at individual stations along the outside edges of the central pen would select sheep for shearing. Each station had a mechanical clipper attached to a single motor for clipping the wool. 43 Shorn sheep were pushed individually into an outside corral through a hatch in the side of the shear barn. Each man kept a count for pay purposes. The combing (highest grade wool) and tags (lower grade wool) were then baled in a manual wool press. Nana `aina men kept and eye on the land and watched over the cattle (Rally Greenwell interview). Their daily presence with the cattle kept them familiar with men and kept them laka (tame). A nand `diva man knew the cycles of the environment and cattle. He was first to know when the calves were ready to drop, or when illness and death struck. He kept track of the water in paddocks and the state of the forage. The cowboy gang also ran the cattle from paddock to paddock depending on the rain. It was common to ride with a rifle to eradicate goats and to shoot older cattle to feed the pigs at Waiki`i (Foreman Books for Parker Ranch, H.P.A. collection). Wild pigs and plover (kolea) were often shot to supplement provisions brought up from Waimea (Rally Greenwell interview). Rally remembered a smokehouse at the Ke`amuku House where they smoked pork and mutton (Rally Greenwell interview collected in Maly and Maly 2002). Figs, peaches, and watermelon were grown at Ke`amuku Station. Vegetables, hogs, and fowl raised at Waiki`i, and meat butchered and cut in Waimea supplemented food at all Parker Ranch sections (Rally Greenwell interview). Most food supplies and other necessities were sent up from Waimea. Three or four men lived at Ke`amuku year round. Three unmarried men lived at Ke`amuku House and went home to Waimea on weekends. Mr. Uyehara lived in a small cottage near the north gate and watched over the ranch on the weekends. Water for cooking, cleaning and bathing was collected from the shear barn roof (fog, dew, and mist more often than rain) before water was piped to Ke`amuku. The piped water was stored in a metal tank until a redwood tank was constructed in 1945 (Ichiro Yamaguchi interview). During World War II (between 1942 and 1945) portions of Parker Ranch were used for military training. The Army and Marines stationed some 30,000 to 50,000 men in Waimea. Tents and Quonset huts were located south of Waimea at Camp Tarawa. A firing range for artillery practice was set up and a dirt road for tank travel extended between Kawaihae and Pu' u 44 Ke'eke'e (Brennan 1974:164). The old wagon road Connecting Waimea to the Humu'ula area became the Saddle road, constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1943 (Langlas et al. 1999: 29). Jiro Yamaguchi noted that some 26,000 marines were training out by Pu`upa between the Waiki`i and Ke`amuku sections (Jiro Yamaguchi interview collected for Maly and Maly 2002). Though the Ke`amuku Section was off the beaten track, it was renowned for the size and health of the cattle raised there. Dr. Billy Bergin attributes the success of both sheep and cattle ranching at Ke`amuku to its environment. The cool arid weather, "strong ground" and "strong grass" at Ke`amuku are ideal conditions for raising healthy livestock (Bergin interview). Changes in weather patterns, improvement in transportation, and the impetus to consolidate and centralize operations in the late 1940s foreshadowed a process that would eventually close outlying sections such as Ke`amuku and Waiki`i (Bergin interview). Up until the late 1940s, the annual rains remained consistent. There was a time for planting and for rotating livestock through regional paddocks, and the weather could be counted on. This changed and by the early 1950s, crops were lost, and the ranch's feed planting program diminished, adjusting to the weather patterns (Maly and Maly 2002: 202). Waiki`i Village and ranch section closed and most of the houses there were moved to "Little Waiki`i" in Waimea by 1957. Ke`amuku continued as a ranch section and in 1962 general repairs were made (Malay and Maly 2002: 204). Only a small crew remained at Ke`amuku, while other ranch hands commuted from Waimea. The hands were kept busy weeding and mending fences. Further changes in ranching strategy at Parker Ranch led to the consolidation of herds (Rally Greenwell and Bergin, personal communication). Cattle were no longer moved (seasonally) from paddock to paddock within individual ranch sections as forage was depleted. As consolidation occurred Ke`amuku became less necessary, or even economical to maintain on a full -time and full -scale basis. Richard Smart wrote in Paka Paniolo that: In the early days it was necessary to maintain Keamuku as an outpost camp as transportation and communication to and from the 45 camp were difficult but with the modern means of communication of today the Keamuku area may be inspected and worked very readily from headquarters at Waikii. This was a decision by management in the interest of streamlining ranch operations. The present buildings at the Keamuku camp will eventually be dismantled. Standing there now are several interesting old buildings including an old shearing barn (Richard Smart 1965, quoted in Maly and Maly 2002: 209 -210). The house (bachelor's quarters) at the Ke`amuku Section was moved to the grounds of the Japanese Church (Hongwanji) in Waimea, the shear barn was demolished, and the area around it bulldozed (Rally Greenwell interview). Ke`amuku was used for joint military operations in the 1980s that included a Korean contingent (Mark Yamaguchi, interview collected for Maly and Maly 2002). In 2005, Ke`amuku was purchased by the U.S. Army for use as a STRYKER Brigade training area. The property is known as the Ke`amuku Maneuver Area at the U.S. Army Pohakuloa Training Area. Parker Ranch continues to use the property to pasture cattle. There are no military training features within the project corridor. All of the archaeological features identified within the project corridor date to the time period the property was used for sheep and cattle ranching. 46 METHODOLOGY ARCHIVAL METHODS In addition to referencing available resources at SCS, archival research was conducted in the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) report database and library facility (Hilo, HI), the Hawaii County land records office, the Waihona `Gina Mahele database website, the Hawaiian collections holdings at the University of Hawai` i -Hilo Library, and the Hawaii State Library system. Archival work consisted of general research on the history and archaeology of the project area, as well as specific searches of previous archaeological studies in and around the current project area. Historic land use data, land ownership, maps, and narrative information were obtained from the Hawaii County land records office, the Waihona `Gina Mahele database website, and the University of Hawai`i, Hilo, Special Collections. CONSULTATION Oral interviews conducted by SCS with Jiro Yamaguchi, Rally Greenwell, Dr. Billy Bergin, and Ichiro Yamaguchi for lands of Ke`amuku were used in the present study. In addition, oral interviews collected with John Spencer (Wakayama 1983) and others (Langlas et al. 1999) knowledgeable about the lands of Ke`amuku were consulted. FIELD METHODS Inventory Survey work was conducted intermittently from September 16, 2008 to March 26, 2009 (320 man -hours total) by Suzan Keris, B.A. and Glenn Escott, M.A (Project Director). Bob Spear, PhD was the Principle Investigator for the project. There were four main field components to Inventory Survey process: pedestrian survey of the entire project area; plotting located sites on a project area map with Global Position System (GPS) Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) units (Zone 5 North) using WSGS84 datum for all three sites; individual site mapping and recording; and hand excavations. Survey was conducted along east /west traverse lines at ten to 15 meter intervals apart. Observed cultural features were assigned temporary feature numbers. The site UTM was recorded at the site datum, which is marked with a metal tag. Four sites (rock mounds) were selected for test excavation to determine several site characteristics including site function, construction method, and timing. Test -units were excavated as 0.5 x 0.5 meter and 1.0 x 1.0 meter dug in both natural and arbitrary 10 centimeter levels. These were used on features that were thought to have a high potential for yielding functional or temporal data, and used where vertical control would contribute to this data. Test- 47 units were screened for cultural material through 118 inch mesh, and all units were stratigraphically profiled. Cultural material was recorded by type on standard SCS excavation forms and collected. Soil colors were recorded using Munsell color charts, soil composition was recorded with the aid of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey Manual on standard soil stratigraphy forms, and profiles were drawn. Overview photographs were taken of individual site features, sites, excavations, and the project area. Color photographs were taken with a 3.2 mega -pixel digital camera using a 20 cm long north arrow scale divided into 10 cm black and white increments. LABORATORY METHODS Inventory of midden and artifacts collected from the test excavations were analyzed and weighed. Bottle glass recorded during the current study was automatic bottle machine made (after 1900 to 1910). No earlier, dark green, hand blown or mould blown bottle glass was recorded during the current study. All field notes, maps, cultural material, and photographs pertaining to this project are currently being curated at the SCS facilities on the Island of H awai ` i . 48 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS Past archaeological investigations along the coast near the ahupua `a of Waikoloa are numerous. Several studies document sites on the inland plain of Waikoloa. Archaeological studies in the uplands of Waikoloa near the present project area are few in number. Sites from all three environmental areas function together in a cultural and economic sense, but are very different in their regional characteristics. This report briefly summarizes archaeological feature types common to the coastal and inland plain. Individual archaeological reports pertaining to upland Waikoloa and lands of Ke `amuku are discussed in greater detail. COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS More than 30 archaeological studies have been conducted along the coast from `Anaeho`omalu Bay to Puako (discussed in detail in the "Early Settlement and Expansion" section above). Coastal archaeological features include habitation sites (lava tubes, C- shapes, and platforms) and tool production sites associated with fishing. Fishhooks, octopus lures, and marine midden are common artifacts found at coastal sites. Basalt extraction and abrader production features are located up to a half mile from the coast on lava fields. Small excavations in the lava likely used to trap birds for food are interspersed with abrader production features. Numerous trails connect the coastal habitation sites with these inland economic features. ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON THE INLAND PLAINS TO THE UPLANDS OF WAIKOLOA The Mudlane- Waimea - Kawaihae Road Project surveyed a large strip of the Waimea (or Lalamilo) Field System in Kawaihae, Lalamilo, Waimea, and Mudlane (Barrerra and Kelly 1974, Kirch and Clause 1981, Athens 1981, Clark and Kirch 1983). The major result of this study was the documentation of an agricultural system that combined traditional irrigated pondfield cultivation and dryland cultivation to form an intensive "supplemental irrigation" form of cultivation (Kirch 1983: 527). Common agricultural features of the Waimea Field System include walled and rectilinear fields, terraces, and canals. An example of field distribution in one portion of the field system is depicted in above. 49 ACOE conducted a reconnaissance survey of a 60 m wide corridor along the PTA to Kawaihae tank trail (Figure 12). The project area covered an area from the inland plain to the uplands of Waikoloa. No cultural or archaeological resources were identified within the study area (Cox 1983). Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc. (OEES) conducted an archaeological inventory survey in central Waikoloa (Nees and Williams 2000a). Three pre - Contact era sites and several Historic period sites were recorded. Pre - Contact sites included the mid -17 century battlefield site at Pu`u Pa (battle between Lonoikamakahiki and Kamalalawalu), two agricultural sites, and the prison camp located near the Kamakao Gulch. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc. (OEES) conducted archaeological monitoring and reconnaissance survey on six parcels within the ahupua `a of Kawaihae 2, `Ouli, Lalamilo, Waikoloa, and Pu'ukapu (Robins et al. 2001). The majority of the 153 sites are associated with military training (defensive positions). Fifty-three sites have features associated with the pre - Contact era or traditional Hawaiian practices (mainly habitation). The remaining sites are associated with Historic period ranching. Two sites were recorded on Ke`amuku ranch section lands, including a dryland agricultural complex (Site 22929) and a pre- Contact era temporary habitation (Site 22933). The former site is located within the crater of Pu` u He `ewai and the latter within the crater of Pu` u Kanalopakanui. Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 723 acres (292 hectares) for the proposed Saddle Road Extension corridor situated east of `Anaeho `omalu Bay to approximately 300 m southeast of the present project area (Wolforth et al. 2006). Fifty -seven sites, located primarily at lower elevations, were identified. The majority of sites are associated with the extraction of scoriaceous lava, abrader production, and a network of trails that connect these sites to coastal habitation sites. Low and mid - elevation sites also include basalt extraction quarries and caves, including habitation/refuge caves. 50 xxx... . r • 1 • rk • 1 • • •} 7 • • • ti • r r { , :T • :••.• ;'•:•••' : •- : :rti •.rti. • • • ti ' 1 • 1 •L. r..� .L � ti . 1 - r� L • • rti • • 1 • • r .rr l • . ' _ ti'. i 1 r• .: - } '' { .'. , • - � •. r • :•rx•.' � • ti . • .r. Y,• •• ' ' -� •r1 ..Y. y • • • - •' .• • ti •i •• •. - • • • ? •. ti • ' �. •• • • • ti • ` • •• • • • r ti r• • r: •1 . .... r f . .r. . • .. : . 71. ti •Y . ti �. •1 .......-:•'...1.' ti . ' '• • • ti . ;� ti • . ti ti - ' .. ,9 L • ••.L''.....1• : • - '{ . • - '' �• • f }-• 1• • ' f r •. ti.'. X r ' • r r . •r.• . r .. •- }, • r , ..• $ . ti .• �.' .. .. • 71 Ir � •• • . ti ■ rti - • ti... • ' . : r •1 ; .. r„ -: �- tir•:' "'x • •.•. li ' : : • : : : : : : . . :..:...%•;':..........-.-:-.....5: -L• r .. 7: . r1r �. •1 . ti 1 •• . - } . • ..ii ., ..1 •. L f. : ; .f. r}• -;•-•;•-•.... ti - f : ti :...;•: • .. . 1 ti . . ti ' r • ti '� Z �' fr ' f , r,L • of •rte '• ti{ ...7... - •r . . • •ti , 1ti •. S • ' 1: 'Z': ti : 1 ' '. f • ''.. -r • :F.: •• •••. L - 1• 1 . • .'.:',.• .. • r - ' 1 . • . ti • • L ti • ti .. .ti : • ' •••• ". 'r •r -'• • r. }.•..• f •r; ' •1 . r..ti ' .. • • r - r•�.. free r1 - - 'r Figure 12: Previous Archaeological Projects on Lands of Ke` amuku. 51 One site (Site 24465) was recorded in the upland Waikoloa region near the present project area (see Figure 12). Site 24465 is a multi-component site situated below the Mamalahoa Highway approximately 3.25 km northwest of the Ke`amuku Sheep and Cattle Station (Wolforth et al. 2006:32 -44)). The site consists of five features associated with pre - Contact and post- Contact era farming and ranching (Figure 13). Figure 13: Site 24465 Planview. Feature 1 is a roughly circular enclosure 37 to 40 meters in diameter, from 0.3 to 0.9 meters in height, and located at the southern edge of the site (Figure 14). It is constructed of dry - laid pahoehoe (vesicular basalt) cobbles and boulders stacked three to five stones wide (1 to 2 meters) and four to five courses high. The ground surface within the enclosure is 40% exposed pahoehoe and 60% shallow sediment with a dense cover of fountain grass. The interior ground surface is uneven and undulating, slopes gently to the northwest, and is dominated by 4 small hillocks at the center of the enclosure. The hillocks are the remains of pressure blisters in the pahoehoe flow that left exposed outcrops ranging from 1.0 to 1.7 meters above the interior ground surface of the enclosure. No cultural remains were present within or around Feature 1. 52 y � ( �r.��, '�a�{•,`� Iw .''�FV i 7 s 'r.T �3`�w.�r_,r..,�+.�r�q-0� Figure 14: Site 24465 Feature 1 Plan. Feature 2 is a rectangular enclosure 18 by 16 meters, from 0.2 to 0.6 meters in height, at the northern edge of the site (Figure 15). The enclosure is constructed of platy pahoehoe cobbles stacked three to four courses high and three to four stones wide (1 to 2 meters). The walls appear to have been faced on both the interior and exterior by placing the platy pdhoehoe on end either 53 on or in the ground surface. Numerous facing stones are still in position and many others have fallen over onto the ground surface around the perimeter of the enclosure. Four "entrances" exist in the enclosure walls and appear to be caused by cattle or goats passing in and out of the enclosure. The enclosure is in fair condition and has been altered by the action of ruminants grazing in and around it. The ground surface is level consisting predominantly of shallow sandy silt deposits supporting a 90% coverage of fountain grass. Ash and charred grass from recent burning is evident on the ground surface. A 4 cm wide by 70 cm long band of metal strapping and green bottle glass were located on the ground surface within the enclosure. No other cultural material was present in the vicinity of Feature 2. Twenty Four shovel probes and two one by one meter test units were excavated at Feature 2. A kukui nut fragment submitted for radiocarbon dating returned a calibrated range of 1490 to 1660, with an intercept at AD 1640. The majority of artifacts recovered from both test units and shovel probes included early post- contact, dark green bottle glass, square -cut nail fragments, and other historic items, as well as marine shell fragments, and bone animal fragments. Feature 3 is an oval enclosure measuring 15 by 8 meters, and from 0.4 to 0.6 meter in height (Figure 16). The enclosure is constructed of pahoehoe cobbles stacked two to three courses high and two to three stones wide (1 to 2 m). The interior of the enclosure is level sediment with 25% fountain grass, and is 11 by 5 meters. There is roughly 6 meters of facing on the interior of the eastern portion of enclosure wall, but it lacks a formal entrance. Feature 3 is in fair condition and has been altered by ruminants grazing in the area. Numerous cobbles appear to have fallen out of the enclosure wall and are scattered on the surrounding ground surface. No cultural remains were present on the surface in the vicinity of Feature 3. A small amount of charred material was recovered from four shovel probes excavated at Feature 3. No cultural material was recovered from a one by one meter test -unit excavated at Feature 3. Feature 4 and Feature 5 were identified as ahu (rock mounds) likely marking a trail or used for some other function. 54 .' '-i-o .-11 . I .:- 'F' ifT a,. • , , . 11'74 1 ' .. ..4.. ., 5d. i al. • . , ,s._ : 1 ....,,Ln i i i ii i . 1 " : ' „sl _ ..., ., , : ,: ' '-.4- : ' . - - .- i -- . 4 - -.,' -41..--) 4 J .,..% , 1 ' ,..;.' .:;$ . 7 . ',j- . r 11 ...'4:•- .. :(*11. ''' -......-, --# .4, : ,....71 . . ' 9 4 ' ro .A9 ,..„. --1. ,.., • ...,,. ,, , , i7it..; , -, kTiv..a ti i - .r -is. _4. _ .„.. i . , y• ......., ;x -,, .-iati t - .1•• . - .. 4 :,,,_ :E..; . *•••,. -..- Lx . . , , . - . e_. .'. ' . ' ,• . _ - ij ' • ' 4 .... ' : . .._. . . r„, ....4 FA_4. Figure 16: Site 24465 Feature 3 Plan. Site 24465 is a multicomponent site with a prehistoric occupation of unknown function, and a historic farmstead occupation dating to the mid- 1800s. The physical characteristics of the stone enclosures suggest that they were created during prehistory. They are low, stone alignments lacking the core -fill indicative of historically created walls. They are too low to keep 56 animals in or out, and this is reinforced by their lack of use by ranchers: Parker Ranch did not use these features in any way (Mark Yamaguchi interview). Although there are no distinctly prehistoric artifacts in the small material assemblage collected in this investigation, there is one kukui nut fragment. Kukui trees are not present in the area now, and it is unlikely that they were present in the area in the past. None of the historical or botanical research indicates that kukui trees were native to the region. The kukui nut fragment in the Site 24465 assemblage was brought to the area. The radiocarbon results indicate that the most likely time that it was brought to the site was around AD 1640. The nearby ahu (Feature 5) is also a typical prehistoric feature, and is similar in configuration to other trail markers in the project area and throughout Hawaii. The origin and function of the pair of ahu (Feature 4) near the large circular enclosure (Feature 1) is less clear, but they may also represent a trail pathway The way that this set of features was used during prehistory is unclear. The nearby level pockets of soil may have been used for agriculture, and the enclosures may have been a habitation associated with that activity. There are numerous caves in the area, and the enclosures may have functioned as an activity node for people entering and using the caves. Battles were fought along the shoreline to the west of here, and the enclosures may be related to battle camps or battlefields in some way. The historical component is associated with agriculture. The nearby level colluvial soils were used for farming in the 1800s (see Figure 4), and it has been passed down that pumpkin was one of the cultigens grown in the area (Mark Yamaguchi interview). The paucity of material remains suggests that the historical occupation was short in duration, or not very intensive. ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON LANDS OF KE`AMUKU Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc (PHRI) conducted an archaeological inventory survey of two proposed Saddle Road alignments within the present project area (Langlas et al. 1999). PHRI recorded two historic sites on the property, including the Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road (Site 50- 10 -33- 20855) and two Historic period enclosures (Site 50- 10 -33- 20854). Phase I (Robins et al. 2004) and Phase II (Robins et al. 2007) archaeological studies were conducted on the entire property of the Parker Ranch Ke`amuku Station by GANDA, and a Phase II study (Escott 2006; Johnson and Escott 2009 draft) was conducted by Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. on the primary work and living areas of the station (see Figure 12). GANDA documented 68 sites comprised of 265 features (Table 3) within the project area. Fifty 57 Site No. Feature Site /Feature Type Yp Probable Function Age g e 20854 1 -5 C -shape Complex Habitation Post - Contact 20855 1 Kona - Waimea Belt Road Government road Post -1916 21132 1 -5 Mound complex Construction Material Post - Contact 22929 1 -12 Terrace - Enclosure Complex Habitation Undetermined 22933 1 Rockshelter Habitation Undetermined 23467 1 Enclosure Military Post - Contact 23468 1 -2 Mound Complex Boundary Marker Post - Contact 23472 1 -2 Cairn complex Boundary Markers Post - Contact 23473 1 -2 Mound complex Markers Post - Contact 23489 1 Mound Land Clearing Post - Contact 23490 1 -2 Enclosure Complex Temporary Habitation Pre - Contact 23491 1 Mound Boundary Marker Post - Contact 23492 1 Wall section Boundary Remnant Post - Contact 23493 1 Mound Land clearing Post - Contact 23494 1 Cairn Marker Post - Contact 23495 1 -5 Complex Agriculture Post - Contact 23496 1 Platform Water tank foundation Post - Contact 23498 1 Cairn Marker Post - Contact 23499 1 -8 Complex Cattle Watering /Agriculture Post - Contact two (76 %) of the sites contain post- Contact features associated with ranching, habitation, and boundary markers. Four sites (6 %) contain possible pre- Contact or early post- Contact era features, including a burial cave, a temporary habitation enclosure, a petroglyph, and a pictograph. Two (3 %) sites had both pre- and post- Contact features. The period associations of ten (15 %) sites were unclear and could not be determined. The majority of features are rock mounds and cairns associated with ranching era land clearing, boundary demarcation, and the quarrying of rock for construction material (most likely for construction of the Kona - Waimea Belt Road. A number of terraces, enclosures, C- shapes, two rock shelters, and an L -shape are associated with temporary habitation and agriculture. Several walls are associated with ranching and agriculture. Sites are concentrated in the northern along the existing Mamalahoa Highway, in the vicinity of the Ke`amuku Sheep and Cattle Station, along the southwestern edge of the Ke`amuku Station Parcel, and to a lesser extent at north tip of the Ke`amuku Station Parcel, and at two upland paddock areas (Figure 17). Table 2: West PTA Acquisition Area, Phase I Sites (GANDA 2003: 39 -42). 58 Site No. Feature Site /Feature Type Yp Probable Function Age g e 23 500 1 -2 Parallel walls Possible cattle chute Post - Contact 23501 1 Petroglyph Rock art Pre - Contact 23 502 1 Cairn Possible Marker Undetermined 23 503 1 Cairn Possible Marker Undetermined 23 504 1 Cairn Possible Marker Undetermined 23 505 1 -2 Enclosure /Platform Complex Habitation Post - Contact 23 506 1 Wall Possible cattle chute Post - Contact 23 508 1 Terrace Erosion Control Post - Contact 23 509 1 -24 Mound Complex Construction Material Post - Contact 23 510 1 Mound Survey Marker Post - Contact 23 511 1 Enclosure Temporary habitation Tem p y Pre- Contact /Post- Contact 23 512 1 -3 Enclosure /Mound Complex Possible Habitation Post - Contact 23 513 1 Cairn Boundary Marker Post - Contact 23 514 1 Cairn Boundary Marker Post - Contact 23 515 1 Firing Position Military Training Post - Contact 23 516 1 Ranch Road Transportation Post - Contact 23 517 4 Cremation Remains Burial Modern 23 518 1 Retaining Wall Ranch Road Post - Contact 23 519 1 -4 Complex Habitation/ Animal Pen? Post - Contact 23 520 1 -3 Mound Complex Construction Material Post - Contact 23 521 1 -7 Mound Complex Construction Material Post - Contact 23 522 1 -6 Mound complex Construction Material Post - Contact 23 523 1 -2 Terrace Mound ' Possible Habitation Pre- Contact /Post- Contact 23 524 1 Cairn Marker Post - Contact 23 525 1 -2 Mound Survey Markers Post - Contact 23 526 1 Enclosure Remnant Habitation Post - Contact 23 527 1 Pictograph Rock art Pre - Contact 23 528 1 Cairn Boundary Marker Undetermined 23 529 1 Mound Boundary Marker Post - Contact 23530 1 Cairn Boundary Marker Post - Contact 23 531 1 Cairn Boundary Marker Post - Contact 23532 1 Cairn Boundary Marker Post - Contact 23533 1 Cairn Boundary Marker Post - Contact 23 534 1 Mound Boundary Marker Post - Contact 23536 1 Mound Boundary Marker Post - Contact 23537 1 Mound Boundary Marker Post - Contact 23538 1 Mound Land Clearing Post - Contact 23539 1 -100 Ke `amuku Ranch Station Sheep - cattle station: permanent habitation; animal pens Post-Contact 23 540 1 Retaining Wall Road Post - Contact 23 541 1 -3 Enclosure Complex Animal Pens Post - Contact 23542 1 C- Shaped Enclosure Temporary Habitation /Hunting? Post - Contact 59 Site No. Feature Site /Feature Type Yp Probable Function Age g e 23 543 1 -83 Mound Complex Construction Material Post - Contact 23 576 1 -5 Concrete Pads Foundation Post - Contact 23 579 1 -33 Complex p Temporary Habitation; Agriculture; Boundary Post-Contact 23580 1 Enclosure Temporary Habitation Post - Contact 23588 1 Faced Mound Marker /Possible Shrine Undetermined 23 591 1 Lava Tube Burial Pre - Contact 23 592 1 Mound Possible Marker Undetermined 23 593 1 -2 Mound Complex Markers Undetermined 23 594 1 Mound Marker Undetermined 23 597 1 Mound Land Clearing Post - Contact 23 599 1 -3 Mound Complex Construction Material Post - Contact 23 600 1 Mound Complex Land Clearing Post - Contact 23 620 1 -3 Mound Complex Land Clearing Post - Contact Sites highlighted blue are documented in Escott 2006 and Johnson and Escott 2009. 60 { { • x •aaCat a2S Sk • Yk y • • • • Figure 17: Archaeological Site Concentrations on the Ke`amuku Station. 61 Phase II archaeological investigations at the Parker Ranch Ke`amuku Station work and living area (Escott 2006; Johnson and Escott 2009 draft) suggest the station was first established during the mid -19 century as an early sheep ranching enterprise, combined with bullock hunting and the earliest attempts to domesticate wild cattle. Living quarters, processing facilities, walls, and corrals were constructed during this period. Early ranch layout, building construction techniques, material culture, and dietary regime suggest a synthesis of Hawaiian, Japanese, and Western cultures. The sheep ranch facilities underwent further transformation and renovation after 1904 to accommodate cattle ranching, as reflected in the remains of fences, corrals, and dietary changes in the archaeological record. One of the major problems that confronted early ranchers at the Ke' amuku Sheep and Cattle Station was the availability of water and changing rainfall patterns, both seasonally and annually. The ability to tap distant groundwater sources and to transport water to the ranch after 1908 enabled it to become one of the most fertile sections of Parker Ranch. Features at the Ke' amuku Sheep and Cattle Station were grouped into three activity areas: the Upper Corral Area, The Lower Corral Area, and the Ke'amuku House Area. Excavations suggest that the Upper Corral Area was likely one of the earliest locations used at the ranch. The Lower Corral and Shear Barn Area was the processing center for sheep and cattle during the height of the ranching industry. The shear barn was later used to store saddle, tack, and tools after 1918 when the sheep were moved to the Humu'ula section of Parker Ranch. EXPECTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Based on historical accounts, oral interviews, and previous archaeological studies, SCS expected that post- Contact rock mounds and other survey and boundary markers will be located within the study corridor. Although the land within the present study corridor has been previously surveyed (Robins et al. 2004), the thick cover of fountain grass might have concealed smaller features such as rock mounds. It is unlikely that larger features associated with ranching and habitation, such as rock walls, platforms and enclosures will be identified during the present study. 62 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY RESULTS Three previously identified archaeological sites and four new sites were located in the present study corridor (Figure 18), including five rock mounds (SIHP Sites 50- 10 -21- 23528, 50- 10 -21- 26875, 50- 10 -21- 26876, 50- 10 -21- 26877, and 50- 10- 21- 26878), a segment of the old Waimea -Kona Belt Road (SIHP Site 50- 10 -21- 20855), and remnants of a ranching -era fence (SIHP Site 50- 10 -21- 23452). Four of the rock mounds (Sites 23528, 26875, 26877, and 26878) correspond roughly to the boundary between the Ke`amuku cattle station lands and ranch lands to the southwest. This area is also the boundary between Waikoloa and Pu'uanahulu ahupua `a. Site 26875 contained a Kalopa Soda Works bottle and a roll of galvanized fence wire in its construction. A fifth rock mound (Site 26878) appears to mark a possible hunting spot. Another rock mound (Site 26876) marks the intersection of two ranch roads along the southeast side of the Ke`amuku cattle station lands. The ranching -era fence (Site 23452) appears to have been used early in the history of sheep and cattle ranching at Ke`amuku. The original fence wire has been removed and it passes through the middle of several more recently fenced paddocks. SITE 50 - 10 - 21 - 20855 FORM Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road FUNCTION: Transportation AGE: Historic (1916 -1922) DIMENSIONS: Length: 500.0m (E /V); Width: 6.0m; Height: 1.73m (max) CONDITION: Good SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None SITE 20855 Site 20855 is located at station 9 +00, between the station left (LT) and station right (RT) boundary of the proposed corridor, at an elevation of 2,540ft (774m) amsl (see Figure 18). The site is the Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road surface and two causeways (Features 1 and 2). The road surface is oriented northeast/southwest, is approximately 4.0 meters wide, and is bare dirt. The road surface appears unaltered and is in good condition. Feature 1 is a causeway located along the east edge (Station 9 +00 LT) of the study corridor (Figure 19). The road is constructed into the side of a northward sloping hill (Figure 20). Portion of the hillside south of the road have been removed to form a level road bed. The causeway is constructed under the north edge of the road to prevent it from collapsing down slope. 63 r _.'•eT.4 :::.. . : ^"•��M1„r_• • yY r'.w •. „•� •- Ma,�ham., Figure 18: Location of Sites on USGS Topo Map. 64 Figure 19: Site 20855 Feature 1 Planview. 65 Feature 1 is 20.40m long (east /west) by 6.Om wide, and is 1.73m high (maximum). The causeway is constructed of angular and subangular large cobbles and small boulders stacked one to six courses high along the north edge of the road (Figure 21). The rocks are well- fitted, well- faced, and slope outward away from the road edge (Figure 22). Feature 1 appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. Feature 1 is in the study corridor but is not in the proposed construction corridor, and will not be impacted by road construction. Figure 20: Site 20855 Feature 1, View to East (lm scale). Feature 2 is a causeway located along a two to three meter high elevation break at the west edge (Station 9 +00 RT) of the study corridor (Figure 23). The causeway is constructed under the north edge of the road to prevent it from collapsing down slope. Feature 2 is approximately 50.0m long (east /west) by 6.Om wide, and is 1.50m high (maximum). The causeway is constructed of angular and subangular large cobbles and small boulders stacked one to eight courses high along the north edge of the road (Figure 24). The rocks are well- fitted, well- faced, and slope outward away from the road edge. There is a drainage culvert constructed under the road surface to allow water to pass under the road (Figure 25). The road surface is built up with pebbles and cobbles along its north edge (Figure 26). Feature 2 appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. Approximately 9.0m of Feature 2 are in the study corridor 66 but not in the proposed construction corridor, and the causeway will not be impacted by road construction. Figure 21: Site 20855 Feature 1, View to Southeast (lm scale). Figure 22: Site 20855 Feature 1 Construction, View to Southeast (lm scale). 67 Figure 23: Site 20855, Feature 2 Planview. 68 Figure 24: Site 20855, Feature 2, View to Southwest (lm scale). Figure 25: Site 20855, Feature 2 Culvert, View to South. Figure 26: Site 20855, Feature 2 Road Surface, View to Southwest (20cm scale). The original road was a wagon track, and this section of the Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road (Site 20855) was built on top of the wagon road in about 1920 (Langlas et al. 1999:81). The section of road documented in this study was constructed by prison laborers who were housed at a camp makai of the modern Saddle Road and Mamalahoa Highway intersection. Portions of the road east of Feature 1 up to the modern Saddle Road intersection were paved (ibid.). This portion is not paved. The Old Waimea -Kona Belt was approximately 63 km long. Numerous remnant segments of the road are evident on either side of the modern Mamalahoa Highway between Pu'uanahulu and Saddle Road. Langlas recommended data recovery and interpretation for the portions of Site 20855 his study looked at (Langlas et al. 1999:147). An interpretive sign will be placed at a pull out constructed by the site near Features 1 and Feature 2 though they are outside of the construction corridor. Monitoring is recommended along the entire length of the proposed construction corridor during ground disturbance activities associated with this project. 70 SITE 50 -10 -21 -23452 FORM Fence Posts FUNCTION: Boundary marker /Fence in Ranch Animals AGE: Historic DIMENSIONS: Length: 0.9m (E/W); Width: 0.8m; Height: 0.65m (max) CONDITION: Fair SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None SITE 23452 (Previously Recorded by PTA Cultural Resources Staff Site 23452 is a remnant segment of ranching -era fence posts situated at 110 °/290° and located between station 339 +00 LT and station 349 +00 RT at an elevation of roughly 4,600 ft (1,402m) amsl (see Figure 18). The documented segments of the fence line are situated from the eastern boundary of the U.S. Army Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) to an area west of the current study corridor within the Ke`amuku property (Figure 27). The segment of fence line that crosses the present study corridor consists of fence posts of cut natural logs, either whole or halved, or quartered, and set into the ground surface. The log posts vary from 15cm to 20cm in diameter, and are roughly 120cm to 140cm above the modern ground surface (Figures 28, and 29). The fence wire has been removed, but there are some heavy gauge galvanized metal staples in the posts, that once held the wire to the posts. There are twenty fence posts standing in the study corridor and one post in the corridor that has fallen down. Site 23452 is documented in many places within PTA, where it is in better condition. In some places along the fence line on PTA, there are signs stating that the fence marks the boundary of a game management area and no hunting is allowed. It is possible that the fence is related to early attempts to fence in cattle within owned property to keep them separate from the King's cattle. It might have later been used to separate private sheep and cattle land from state owned land (a game management area) to the south. The fence line within the study corridor no longer has any wire and consists of fence posts only. It has been altered by ranching activity and is in poor condition. 71 Figure 27: Location of Site 23452 Fence Remnants on USGS Topo. 72 Figure 28: Site 23452 Representative Fence Post 1. 73 Figure 29: Site 23452 Representative Fence Post 2. SITE 50 -10 -21 -23528 FORM Circular Rock mound FUNCTION: Boundary marker AGE: Historic DIMENSIONS: Length: 0.9m (E /W); Width: 0.8m; Height: 0.65m (max) CONDITION: Fair SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None SITE 23528 (Previously Recorded, Robins et al. 2004) Site 23528 is located at station 48 +00, between the centerline (CL) and the left (LT) boundary of the proposed corridor, at an elevation of 2,862ft (872.3m) amsl (see Figure 18). The site consists of a single circular rock mound situated at the top of a low ridge oriented 140° /320° (Figure 30 and 31). The ridge is approximately 15 to 20ft (4.5 to 6.0m) above the surrounding ground surface, in an area of rolling ridges and knolls with no panoramic view. The ridge surface is predominantly silt, with intermittent bedrock outcrops. The rock mound measures 0.9m (E /W) by 0.8m, is 0.65m in height, and is constructed of a large cobble and four small boulders stacked two courses high on a small boulder bedrock outcrop (Figure 32). The rock mound appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. Figure 30: Site 23528, View to Northeast (20cm scale). 74 Site 23 528 is in close proximity to several rock mounds along the southwest property boundary (Figure 33). Sites 23491, 23468 (not shown in Figure 33), 23513, 23514, 23528, 23529, 23530, 23531, 23532, 23533, 23536, 23537, 23538, 26875, 26876, and 26878 are either right along the southwest property boundary to roughly 500m northeast of it. This property boundary is also the boundary between Waikoloa and Pu'uanahulu ahupua`a, and North Kona and South Kohala. It is most likely that the rock mounds are the result of several early Historic to late Historic efforts to survey and record and mark these boundaries. k � s Figure 31: Site 23528, View to South (20cm scale). 75 Figure 32: Site 23528 Planview. 76 ....,r4 • ,:,•••• • •., ;:•:,.• -••• .... . . ... . . . . .................,.. ... 1 ,...r .. ...... ::..... .._...... . ..:.:.:..:. . .... • : ... 0047:.:....::.:: :::.::: : e. :.::.....,; .7. • . ::,:•:%e: • .:. • • ..:' :,.,. .. • • :. ' 7 •W: _,. , . . .., : ) 6,,r " -.:;.. -: el!: • .... . .. Iftt• ':,..:.... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. • : Figure 33: Rock Mound Boundary Sites Along SW Boundary of Ke`amuku Parcel. 77 SITE 50 -10 -21 -26875 FORM FUNCTION: AGE: DIMENSIONS: CONDITION: SURFACE ARTIFACTS: EXCAVATION: Figure 34: Site 26875, View to East (20cm scale). Circular Rock mound Boundary marker Historic Length: 1.64m (56 °/236 °); Width: 1.30 m; Height: 0.58m (max) Fair Fence wire lm by lm test -unit Site 26875 (SCS Temporary Site 1) Site 26875 is located 15.5m at 153° from station 6 +00 RT, at an elevation of 2,530ft (771m) amsl (see Figure 18). The site consists of a circular rock mound situated at the top of a ridge (Figure 34). The ridge is approximately 100ft (30.48m) above the surrounding ground surface and is oriented 160 °/340 °. The rock mound measures approximately 1.64m (56 °/236 °) by 1.30m, and is 0.58m in height (Figure 35). It is constructed of a small subangular boulder resting on four small boulders of lesser size. The top boulder measures 0.59m x 0.42m. Directly beneath it along its northern periphery is a short roll of 1/8 inch heavy gauge galvanized fence wire (Figure 36). 78 Figure 35: Site 23875 Planview. 79 Figure 36: Site 26875 Close Up of Fence Wire, View to East (20cm scale). Site 26875 Test -Unit 1 Excavation Description A single SOcm by SOcm test -unit (TU -1) was excavated in the center of the rock mound at Site 26875. TU -1 contained an architectural layer and three stratigraphic layers, was excavated as six roughly l Ocm levels, and terminated on bedrock at SOcm below the modern ground surface (Figure 37). Architectural Layer (O-58cm above modern ground surface) contained five angular and subangular basalt small boulders resting approximately 5cm deep in loose sandy silt (Layer I). A rolled up length of heavy gauge galvanized fence wire and a Kalopa Soda Works bottle (Figure 38) were recorded in the Architectural Layer. Layer I/1 (0-1 Ocmbs) was very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) loose, aeolian sand and silt with five angular and subangular basalt small cobbles and pebbles, and 1% small grass roots. Layer I did not contain cultural material. 80 Figure 37: Site 26875, Feature 1, Test -Unit 1 North and East Profiles. Layer I/2 (10-1 5cmbs) was similar to Layer I/1 and did not contain cultural material. Layer II /1 (15-25cmbs) was dark brown (7.5YR3/2) loose to soft, coarse to fine sand and silt with 30% small to large angular and subangular basalt cobbles and 10% small grass roots. Layer II/ 1 did not contain cultural material. 81 Figure 38: Kalopa Soda Works Bottle (TU -1). 82 Layer III /1 (25- 35cmbs) was very dark yellowish brown (1OYR4/6) soft, fine sandy silt with 50% small to large angular and subangular basalt cobbles and 5% small grass roots. The basalt cobbles appear to be the top of an `a`a lava flow. Layer III /1 did not contain cultural material. Layer III /2 (35- 45cmbs) was similar to Layer III /1 and did not contain cultural material. Layer III /3 (45-5Ocmbs) was similar to Layer III /2 material and is predominantly `a`a lava bedrock with a small amount (25 %) of dark yellowish brown silt. Layer III /3 did not contain artifacts and terminated on bedrock. Site 26875 Summary A length of fence wire and a Kalopa Soda Works bottle were the only artifacts recovered from Site 26875, TU -1. The bottle is an automatic bottle mchine (ABM) type bottle likely manufactured after 1920. The rocks that make up the architecture of the rock mound appear to be roughly 5cm to 7cm below the modern ground surface. The small amount of deposition and the historic artifacts indicate that the rock mound was constructed during the Historic era. Site 26875 is in close proximity to several rock mounds along the southwest property boundary (see Figure 33). Sites 23491, 23468 (not shown in Figure 33), 23513, 23514, 23528, 23529, 23530, 23531, 23532, 23533, 23536, 23537, 23538, 26875, 26876, and 26878 are either right along the southwest property boundary to roughly 500m northeast of it. This property boundary is also the boundary between Waikoloa and Pu'uanahulu ahupua`a, and North Kona and South Kohala. It is most likely that the rock mounds are the result of several early Historic to late Historic efforts to survey and record and mark these boundaries. 83 SITE 50 -10 -21 -26876 FORM Rectangular Rock mound FUNCTION: Marker AGE: Historic DIMENSIONS: Length: 2.0m (E/W); Width: 1.5m; Height: 0.75m (max) CONDITION: Fair SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: lm by lm test -unit SITE 26876 (Temporary Site 2) Site 26876 is located 45.0m at 234° from station 460 +00 LT, at an elevation of 5,200ft (1584.96m) amsl (see Figure 18). The site consists of a single rock mound situated on a low rise at the east (mauka) edge of a relatively level Swale area within close proximity to three modern ranch roads (Figure 39). The rise is approximately 20m (E /W) by lOm, and lto 2m in height. Figure 39: Site 26876, Feature 1 Rock Mound, View to Northeast (lOcm scale). 84 The swale surface is composed predominantly of loose silt with intermittent bedrock outcrops. Fountain grass and `a `dli `i are also present. The rock mound measures approximately 2.0m (E /W) by 1.5m and is 0.75m in height (Figure 40). It is constructed of angular slabby pahoehoe large cobbles and small boulders piled on the ground with no formal construction elements. There is no formal stacking or facing evident in the rock mound construction. The slabby pahoehoe rocks are piled onto a segment of bedrock outcrop measuring 1.9m in length and 0.55m above the surrounding ground surface. Site 26876 Test -Unit 1 Excavation Description A single 1.Om by 1.Om test -unit (TU -1) was excavated in the center of the rock mound at Site 26876. TU -1 contained an architectural layer and five stratigraphic layers, was excavated as eleven roughly l Ocm levels, and terminated on bedrock at 110cm below the modern ground surface (Figure 41). Architectural Layer (O-75cm above modern ground surface) contained angular slabby basalt small boulders and large cobbles resting approximately 5cm to 7cm deep in loose sandy silt (Layer I). No artifacts or cultural material was recovered from the architectural layer. Layer I (O-4cmbs) was very dark grayish brown (10YR2 /2) loose, coarse aeolian sand and organic detritus with 5% small angular and subangular basalt cobbles and 1% small grass roots. Layer I is an "0" Horizon organic duff material. Layer I did not contain cultural material. Layer II /1 (4-1 5cmbs) was very dark brown (10YR2 /2) soft, coarse to fine sand and silt with 40% small to large angular and subangular basalt cobbles and 10% small grass roots. The base of the rock mound terminated at roughly 8cmbs in Layer II /1. Layer II /1 did not contain cultural material. Layer II /2 (15-25cmbs) was similar to Layer II /1 and contained only 60% small to large angular and subangular basalt cobbles and 5% small grass roots. Layer II /2 did not contain cultural material. Layer III /1 (25- 35cmbs) was dark brown (7.5YR3/4) soft, fine sandy silt with 70% small to large angular and subangular basalt cobbles and 1% small grass roots. Layer III /1 did not contain cultural material. 85 J IIIREE. • ad777["! �.5 x . �i • y• 4 ry . .� a Ara ' Figure 40: Site 26876, Feature 1 Planview. 86 Figure 41: Site 26876, Feature 1, TU -1 North and East Profiles. 87 Layer IV /1 (35- 45cmbs) was dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) soft, very fine sandy silt with 81% small to large angular and subangular basalt cobbles and pebbles, and no roots. Layer IV /1 did not contain artifacts. Layer IV /2 (45-55cmbs) was similar in composition to Layer IV /1 and did not contain artifacts. Layer V (55-1 lOcmbs) was 100% `a `a lava flow bedrock excavated in five 10 cm levels. Layer V did not contain any sediment, did not contain artifacts, and terminated on bedrock. Site 26876 Summary The rock mound at Site 26876 appears to be a ranch feature associated with the three dirt ranch roads that intersect nearby. The rock mound is located on a low rise visible from two of the ranch roads near where they intersect. It is possible it marks that intersection. The rock mound does not appear to be altered and is in good condition. SITE 50 -10 -21 -26877 FORM Rectangular Rock mound FUNCTION: Boundary marker AGE: Historic DIMENSIONS: Length: 1.04m (E/W); Width: 0.9m; Height: 0.6m (max) CONDITION: Fair SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: lm by lm test -unit SITE 26877 (Temporary Site 3) Site 26877 is located 85m at 300 °from station 324 +00 CL, at an elevation of 4,500ft (1371.6m) amsl (see Figure 18). The site consists of a single rock mound at the top of a hill (Figure 42). The hill measures approximately 100m (N /S) by 25m and is 15m in height. The mound is situated near the peak of the hill, and is most visible from the west (makai), and the east (mauka), but is less visible from the north. The rock mound measures 1.04m (E /W) by 0.9m and is 0.6m in height (Figure 43). It is composed predominantly of small boulders with a few large cobbles filling in the gaps, and although there is no stacking or facing it is relatively well constructed. The mound rests on a boulder bedrock outcrop. 88 Figure 42: Site 26877, Feature 1, View to NE. Figure 43: Site 26877, Feature 1 Planview. 89 Site 26877 Test -Unit 1 Excavation Description A single SOcm by SOcm test -unit (TU -1) was excavated in the center of the rock mound at Site 26877. TU -1 contained an architectural layer and three stratigraphic layers, and terminated on bedrock at 25cm below the modern ground surface (Figure 44). .. ............ ............................... Figure 44: Site 26877, Feature 1, TU -1 Northwest and Northeast Profiles. Architectural Layer (O-6Ocm above modern ground surface) contained 14 angular and subangular basalt small boulders and large cobbles resting approximately 5cm deep in loose sandy silt (Layer I) on a bedrock outcrop. The Architectural Layer did not contain artifacts. Layer I (O-2cmbs) was very dark grayish brown (10YR2 /2) loose, aeolian sand and organic detritus with no inclusions or roots. Layer I was a classic "0" Horizon and did not contain cultural material. Layer I terminated at the top of a boulder bedrock outcrop in TU -1, except for the presence of a Layer II material in a northwest /southeast oriented crevice through the center of the bedrock boulder. Layer II (2-1 Ocmbs) was dark brown (7.5YR3/2) loose to soft, fine sand and silt with no inclusions and no roots. Layer II did not contain cultural material. 90 Layer III (1O-25cmbs) was dark brown (10YR3/4) soft, fine silt with no inclusions and no roots. Layer III /1 did not contain cultural material and terminated on bedrock. Site 26877 Summary Site 26877 is in close proximity to several rock mounds along the southwest property boundary (see Figure 33). Sites 23491, 23468 (not shown in Figure 33), 23513, 23514, 23528, 23529, 23530, 23531, 23532, 23533, 23536, 23537, 23538, 26875, 26876, and 26878 are either right along the southwest property boundary to roughly 500m northeast of it. This property boundary is also the boundary between Waikoloa and Pu'uanahulu ahupua`a, and North Kona and South Kohala. It is most likely that the rock mounds are the result of several early Historic to late Historic efforts to survey and record and mark these boundaries. SITE 50 -10 -21 -26878 FORM FUNCTION: AGE: DIMENSIONS: CONDITION: SURFACE ARTIFACTS: EXCAVATION: Oval Rock mound Boundary marker Historic Length: 1.25m (140 °/320 °); Width: 1.0m; Height: 0.45m (max) Fair Modern trash lm by lm test -unit Site26878 (Temporary Site 5) Site26878 is located 13m at 60° from station 195 +OOCL, at an elevation of 3700ft (1127.76m) amsl (see Figure 18). The site consists of a single rock mound at the top of a hill (Figure 45). The hill is 15 to 20m high with unobstructed views in all directions (Figure 46). The rock mound is situated near the western perimeter of the hill top, within close proximity to two olive trees. The rock mound measures 1.25m (140 °/320 °) by 1.0m and is 0.45m in height (Figure 47). It is constructed of angular and subangular large cobbles and small boulders, loosely piled (two courses high) on a bedrock outcrop. The mound has the appearance of having been disturbed by ungulates and humans, an indication that at one time it may have been greater in height. An abundance of trash, i.e. food, beverage and tobacco containers are present on the ground surface immediately west of the rock mound. 91 Figure 45: Site 26878, View to West (lOcm scale). Figure 46: View to West from Site 26878 Hillside. 92 at d un n10 k l e w roc 1a the . �$ p center o f ted . site z68 ion the c ent d terminated , S t . u re 4� D ca In layers, an Fig ayatlon w as ex raphic y it 1 Ei.c . t do three tratlg lest-fin test-unit (VA) and thr . 6$7 . e ned l a l lay er a 4S) . Site 2 l . pn1 by architectural (Figure single � an ar urf ac ntaln rpu nd s • T� -1 co e mo dern g Site 26g,� $ below th sit 3pcmb on bedrock at rr t t TW 1 y M - '1 f . • v _ _ . w _ .. .,:1�.+}z ?..t.: tJ r.+r.'h TA':.:JC -•ar •'. v , Figure 48: Site 26878, Feature 1, TU -1 North Profile. Architectural Layer (O-42cm above modern ground surface) contained seven angular and subangular basalt small boulders and large cobbles resting approximately 5cm to 7cm deep in loose sandy silt (Layer I). The Architectural Layer did not contain artifacts. Layer I (0-1 Ocmbs) was very dark grayish brown (10YR2/2) loose, aeolian sand and fine silt with 10% pebbles and small cobbles, and 20% fine grass roots. Layer I did not contain cultural material. Layer II (1O-2Ocmbs) was dark brown (7.5YR3/2) loose, fine sand and silt with 30% pebbles to large cobbles and 10% fine grass roots. Layer II did not contain cultural material. Layer III (20-3Ocmbs) was dark yellowish brown (1OYR4/6) soft, fine silt with 30% pebbles to large cobbles and 10% fine grass roots Layer III /1 did not contain cultural material and terminated on bedrock. 94 Site 26878 Summary Site 26878 is in close proximity to several rock mounds along the southwest property boundary (see Figure 33). Sites 23491, 23468 (not shown in Figure 33), 23513, 23514, 23528, 23529, 23530, 23531, 23532, 23533, 23536, 23537, 23538, 26875, 26876, and 26878 are either right along the southwest property boundary to roughly 500m northeast of it. This property boundary is also the boundary between Waikoloa and Pu'uanahulu ahupua`a, and North Kona and South Kohala. It is most likely that the rock mounds are the result of several early Historic to late Historic efforts to survey and record and mark these boundaries. There was also a moderate amount of modern trash (soda and food cans, and a plastic snuff tobacco tin) scattered on the ground surface at the site. It is likely that the area was used as a hunting spot, and /or lunch spot in the recent past. The hillside allows good views to the west and the two olive trees provide shade and cover. 95 CONCLUSION Three previously identified archaeological sites and four new sites were located in the present study corridor, including five rock mounds (SIHP Sites 50-10-21-23528, 50- 10 -21- 26875, 50- 10 -21- 26876, 50- 10 -21- 26877, and 50- 10 -21- 26878), a segment of the old Waimea - Kona Belt Road (SIHP Site 50- 10 -21- 20855), and remnants of a ranching -era fence (SIHP Site 50- 10 -21- 23452). Four of the rock mounds (Sites 23528, 26875, 26877, and 26878) correspond roughly to the boundary between the Ke`amuku cattle station lands and ranch lands to the southwest. This area is also the boundary between Waikoloa and Pu'uanahulu ahupua `a. Site 26875 contained a Kalopa Soda Works bottle and a roll of galvanized fence wire in its construction. The rock mound at Site 26878 appears to also mark a possible hunting spot. A fifth rock mound (Site 26876) marks the intersection of two ranch roads along the southeast side of the Ke`amuku cattle station lands. The ranching -era fence (Site 23452) appears to have been used early in the history of sheep and cattle ranching at Ke`amuku. The original fence wire has been removed and it passes through the middle of several more recently fenced paddocks. DISCUSSION All of the sites recorded within the current study area corridor are Historic era ranching features, and a road. They are primarily boundary markers (rock mounds and a fence line). This makes sense since they are located along the edge of a traditional boundaries that of private land divisions between Parker Ranch land and the Hind family ranch to the south; the boundary between North Kona and South Kohala: and the boundary between Waikoloa and Pu'uanahulu ahupua `a. The rock mounds, and even fence Site 23452, are roughly from along the modern boundary up to 500m north of the modern boundary. Given methods of surveying during the mid 1800s to early 1900s these differences are not unexpected. The single archaeological site unrelated to ranching is the Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road built in the 1920s. 96 Andrews, L. 2003 Barrera, W. Jr. 1971 B arrere, D. 1971 1983 Beaglehole, J.C. 1967 Bergin, Dr. B. 2004 Bevacqua, R.F 1972 Bird, I. REFERENCES CITED A Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language. Island Heritage Publishing. Waipahu. Anaeho `omulu: An Hawaiian Oasis. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 15, Dept. of Anthropology, Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Anaehoomalu -A Reconstruction in History. In Anaeho `omulu: An Hawaiian Oasis, ed. by W. Barrera. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 15, Dept. of Anthropology, Bishop Museum. Honolulu. "Notes of the lands of Waimea and Kawaihae ". In: Archaeological Investigations of the Mudlane- Waimea - Kawaihae Road Corridor, Island of Hawari. Jeffery Clark and Patrick Kirch (eds). Dept. of Anthropology, Report 83 -1. Bishop Museum. The Journals of Captain James Cook. Hakluyt Society. Cambridge. Loyal to the Land: The Legendary Parker ranch, 750 -1950. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Archaeological Survey of Portions of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. Departmental Report Series 72 -4. Dept. of Anthropology, Bishop Museum. Honolulu. 1998 Six Months in the Sandwich Islands. Charles E. Tuttle Co. Rutland, Vermont. Boundary Commission Book for Hawai` i Vol. A, 6, 10 and Vol. B:64 and 74. Microfilm at University of Hawaii at Hilo Library. Bowser, G. (compiler) 1880 The Hawaiian Kingdom Statistical and Commercial Directory and Tourist Guide. Bowser and Co. Honolulu. Brennen, J. 1972 The Parker Ranch of Hawaii: The Saga of a Ranch and a Dynasty. The John Day Company. New York. 97 Chinen, J.J. 1961 Original Land Titles in Hawaii. Ching, F. 1971 The Archaeology of South Kohala and North Kona: Surface Survey, Kailua- Kawaihae Road Corridor. Hawaii State Archaeological Journal 71-1. DLNR. Kapolei. Clark, J. 1981 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Lalamilo Agricultural Park, South Kohala, Island of Hawaii. Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Clark, J.T. and P.V. Kirch 1983 Archaeological Investigations of the Mudlane- Waimea- Kawaihae Road Corridor. Report 83 -1. Dept. of Anthropology. Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Collins, George 1951 The Story of Young and Davis. Essay to Social Science Association, 3 December 1951. Honolulu. Cordy, R. 1987 Anaeho `omalu's Ahupua `a Alter Ke Ahu A Lono (HA-E1-63). An Archaeological and Archival Overview, South Kohala, Hawai V. DLNR. Kapolei. Cox, D. 1994 The Ala Kahakai Trail — Or the Ala Loa: An Archaeological & Historical Preservation Perspective (ms.). 2000 Exalted Sits the Chief The Ancient History of Hawai `i Island. Mutual Publishing. Honolulu. 1983 Site Visit and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Firebreak Route Along Puu Kulua Road, Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), Island of Hawaii. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division by David W. Cox, Archaeological Technician, Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District. Doyle, E.L. 1953 Makua Laiana, The Story of Lorenzo Lyons. Advertiser Publishing Co. Honolulu. Ellis. W. 1963 Narative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyhee. Advertiser Publishing. Honolulu. 1969 Journal of William Ellis. Honolulu Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd, Honolulu. 98 Escott, G.E. 2006 Fornander, A. 1996 Frigiola, Jim 2002 Gerrish, G. 2003 Hommon, R. 1982 Jensen, P.M. 1988 Phase II Archaeological Investigations at State Sites 50- 10 -21- 23499, 50- 10 -21- 23515, 50- 10 -21- 23516, 50- 10 -21- 23517, and 50 -10 -21 -23539 on Lands of the Ke `amuku Sheep and Cattle Station Located in the Ahupua `a of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawai `i [TMK (3) 6 -7- 001:09]. DLNR. Kapolei. Ancient History of the Hawaiian People to the Times of Kamehameha I. International Ammunition Association, Inc. Journal number 426, July /August, 2002. Vegetation Study for Saddle Road Extension. Prepared for DMT Consultant Engineers, Hilo. Archaeological Data Recovery at Site 342, Kalahuipua `a. Science Management, Inc. Prepared for Mauna Lani Resorts. Archaeological Data Recovery and Intensive Survey, Resort Expansion Area and Selected Undeveloped Resort Parcels, Waikoloa Beach Resort, Lands of Waikoloa and Anaehoomalu, South Kohala, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 371- 031488. Prepared for Transcontinental Development Company. DLNR. Kapolei. 1989b Archaeological Inventory Survey, Waikoloa Beach Resort Parcels 20, 21, 22, and 23, Land of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 512- 022289. Prepared for Prepared for Transcontinental Development Company. DLNR. Kapolei. 1990a Archaeological Data Recovery and Site Preservation. Undeveloped Portions of Lots 22 and 23 of File Plan 1562 and the Strip Between Lot 23 and Kiholo Puako Trail. Waikoloa Beach Resort. Land ofAnaehoomalu, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report. DLNR, Kapolei. 1990b Archaeological Data Recovery Program. Lots 1, 2, 6, 7, 17, 24, Waikoloa Beach Resort. Land ofAnaehoomalu, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report. DLNR, Kapolei. Johnson, K. and G.E. Escott 2009 Additional Phase II Archaeological Investigations at State Sites 50- 10 -21- 23499, 50- 10 -21- 23515, 50- 10 -21- 23516, 50- 10 -21- 23517, and 50 -10 -21 -23539 on Lands of the Ke `amuku Sheep and Cattle Station Located in the Ahupua `a of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawai `I [TMK (3) 6 -7- 001:09]. Draft. 99 Kalakaua, D. 1990 The Legends and Myths of Hawaii. Mutual Publishing. Honolulu. Kamakau, S. 1961 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. The Kamehameha School Press. Honolulu. Kame' eleihiwa, L. 1992 Native Land and Foreign Desires: Pehea La E Pono Ai? Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu. Kelly, M. 1983 Na Mdla o Kona: Gardens of Kona. Dept. of Anthropology Report Series 83 -2. Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Kelly, M., B. Nakamura, and D. B arrerre 1981 Hilo Bay: A Chronological History, Land and Water Use in the Hilo Bay Area, Island of Hawai `i, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kinny, H.W. 1913 The Island of Hawaii. Hilo Board of Trade. Hilo. Kirch, P.V. 1975 Preliminary Report on Phase II Archaeological Investigations at Kalahu 'ipua 'a, South Kohala, Hawaii Island, Dept. Of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum. Prepared for Mauna Loa Land, Inc. 1979 Marine Exploitation in Prehistoric Hawaii: Archaeological Excavations at Kalahuipua `a, Hawaii Island. Pacific Anthropological Anthropological Records, 29. Department of anthropology, Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Kirch, P.V. and M. Sahlins 1992 Anahulu. Vol. 1 and 2. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Kuykendall, R.S. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom. Vol. 1. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Langlas, C., T.R. Wolforth, and J. Head 1999 The Saddle Road Corridor: An Archaeological Inventory Survey and Traditional Cultural Property Study for the Hawai `i Defense Access Road A -AD- 6(1) and Saddle Road (SR200) Project. Prepared for Okahara and Associates, Inc. Macrae, James 1972 With Lord Byron at the Sandwich Islands in 1825: Being Extracts from the MS Diary of James Macrae, Scottish Botantist. Petroglyph Press. Hilo. 100 Malo, D. 1951 Hawaiian Antiquities. Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu. Maly, K. 1999 Pu `uwa `awa `a and Pu `uanahulu (Npu `u), at Kekeha -Kona, Hawai V. Prepared for Pu'uanahulu `Ohana. Kamuela, Hawaii. Maly, K. and O. Maly 2002 He Wahi Mo `olelo No Ka `Aina A Me Na `Ghana 0 Waiki `i Ma Waikoloa (Kalana 0 Waimea, Kohala), A Me Ka `Aina Mauna: A Collection of Traditions and Historical Accounts of the Lands and Families of Waiki `i at Waikoloa (Waimea Region, South Kohala), and the Mountain Lands, Island of Hawai `i (TMK Overview Sheet 6- 7 -01). Kumu Pono Associates. Hilo. McEldowney, H. 1979 Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design: Lava Flow Control Study, Hilo, Hawai, Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum. Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer District, Pacific Ocean. Moffat, R.M. and G. L. Fitzpatrick 1995 Surveying the Mahele. An Editions Limited Book. Hong Kong. Parker Ranch Office Account Books and Rainfall Data Various Years. Office accounts and data from ranch stations sent to the Weather Bureau of the United States Department of Commerce in Honolulu, and the Pineapple Research Institute and Experiment Station H.S.P.A. Collected at H.P.A. and stored with Dr. Billy Bergin at Waimea. Pukui, M.K., S. Elbert and E. Mookini 1976 Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Robins, J.J., K.A. Desilets, and A.L. Gonzalez 2007 Final: Intensive Phase II Survey for Significance Determinations of Cultural Resources, Ke `dmuku Land Acquisition Area (WPAA) for the Stryker Brigade Combat TEAM (SBCT), U.S. Army Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawai 7lsland, Hawai 7 (TMK: 3 -6 -7- 001:03). SHPD Kapolei. Robins, J.J. , T. Torres, and S. Williams 2001 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Monitoring in Support of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program of Formerly Used Defense Sites (DERP FUDS) Activities at Former Waikoloa Manuever Area, Ahupua `a of Kawaihae 2, `Ouli, Lalamilo, Waikoloa and Pu `ukapu, South Kohala District, Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Submitted to U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc. Honolulu. 101 Rosendahl, P.H. 1972 Archaeological Salvage of the Hauna- Anaehoomalu Section of the Kailua- Kawaihae Road (Queen Ka `ahumanu Highway), Island of Hawaii. Dept. Report Series 75 -5. Dept. of Anthropology, Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Sato, H., W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro Jr. 1973 Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Washington D.C. Smart, R. 1965 Paka Paniolo. September Newsletter. Waimea. Stewart, C. 1970 Journal of a Residency in the Sandwich Islands, During the Years 1823, 1824, and 1825. University of Hawai`i Press. Honolulu. Tera Tech, Inc. 2003 Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Transformation of the 2 Brigade, 25 Infantry Division (L) to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Hawai `I, Vol. 2. Tera Tech, Inc. Honolulu, HI. U.S. Department of the Interior 1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. National Park Service, USDI, Washington, D.C. Vancouver, G. 1967 A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and Around the World. Robinson and Edwards. London. Wakayama, A. 1983 Oral history Interview with John Spencer (JS), January 27, 1983, Kamuela, Hawaii (ms). Waimea Oral History Project. Waimea. Wellmon, B.B. 1969 The Parker ranch: A History. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas Christian University. University Microfilms. Wells, T. 1998 Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features. Historical Archaeology 1998, 32(2): 78 -99. Wilkes, C. 1970 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1938 -1842. Vols. 1 -5 and Atlas. Lea & Blanchard. Philadelphia. 102 Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris 1994 Geological Map of the Island of Hawai`i. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigations Series. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. Wolforth, T., G. Escott, and L. McGerty 2006 Inventory Survey for the Saddle Road Extension: Investigations into Resource Extraction in the Middle Elevations of Waikoloa Ahupua `a in Kohala, and Pu `uanahulu Ahupua `a in Kona. Prepared for Okahara and Associates, Inc. 103 [This page intentionally left blank] SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix F2 Section 106 Correspondence and List of Section 106 Consulted Parties [This page intentionally left blank] J.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Ms. Theresa Donham State Historic Preservation Division 40 Po'okela Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Ms. Donham: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, CO 80228 October 26, 2009 In Reply Refer To: HFPD -16 We are contacting you at this time to continue consultation on the Saddle Road (SR 200) highway improvement project. As you know the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), with the cooperation of the Department of the Army, plans to reconstruct and pave Saddle Road from the Mamalahoa Highway (SR 190) easterly to mile post 6 of Saddle Road, Island of Hawaii. In 2006, the Department of the Army purchased a property known as the Ike` amuku parcel for training which included most of Section I of the proposed Saddle Road. In order to provide a safe separation of civilian transportation and military training, the U.S. Army has requested the Federal Highway Administration and the Hawaii Department of Transportation to relocate the alignment for this section of the Saddle Road to near the southern boundary of Ike amuku. A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) is being prepared to address this realignment. This DEIS presents the action alternatives and the No Action Alternative and evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed improvement of Section I (as defined in the original EIS) of the Saddle Road, which extends from Mamalahoa Highway (SR 190) to Milepost 42 near the western end of the existing Saddle Road improvements completed to date. Most of the length of Sections II and III of the Saddle Road, which extends between Mileposts 42 and 9, have already been completed, are under construction, or are in the final design stage of development as described in the Final EIS for the entire project completed in 1999. The two alternatives under consideration are; W -3, the Recommended Alternative in the Final EIS for the project in 1999 and the other, W -7 is a new alternative. The No Action Alternative would continue use of the existing alignment. The No Action Alternative, which was not selected in the 1999 EIS for reasons of safety for motorists and non - motorized traffic, circulation, and land use impacts, would continue use of the existing alignment. As it has already been rejected, the No Action Alternative is not under consideration in this SEIS and is referenced for baseline purposes only, as is W -3. If it is not feasible to construct W -7, FHWA and DOT expect to build W -3 , the alternative selected in the 1999 ROD. Both alternatives would build a new two -lane roadway with shoulders and a uphill climbing lane and a design speed of 55 to 62 miles per hour. In Section I, the existing Saddle Road is a narrow, winding, two -lane road with steep grades, sharp curves, poor pavement, and no shoulders. The existing road connects Mamalahoa Highway (State Highway 190) with the U.S. Department of the Army's Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), and within PTA at Milepost 42 it connects to a section of the Saddle Road that is undergoing or has undergone improvement and realignment as far as Milepost 19. Both Alternatives would improve pavement condition, increase safety and capacity, improve quality of traffic flow, decrease cross - island travel times, and stimulate economic growth and development. Only W -7, however, would minimize conflict between civilian motorists and military training units. The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), with the assistance of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Central Federal Lands Highway Division, has contracted with DNIT Consultant Engineers to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the proposed W -7 Alternative that traverses lands of the former Parker Ranch Ke`amuku cattle station in the Ahupua`a of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii, TMK: (3) 6 -7- 001:09. The W -7 Alternative extends approximately ten miles from the existing Saddle Road near Kilohana (mile post 42) to the Mamalahoa Highway at the border of North Kona. and South Kohala (6 miles south of Waimea). Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) surveyed a 600- acre cultural resource inventory study corridor (roughly 10 miles by 500 feet wide) to identify and evaluate historic properties. The survey corridor extends 150 feet beyond both sides of the 200 -foot wide area of potential effects (APE) which is the actual width of the right -of way /construction corridor. This was done to allow for avoidance of identified historic properties where feasible through preliminary highway design. There are seven archaeological sites documented in the study corridor, including five rock mounds (SIHP Sites 50- 10 -21- 23528, 50- 10 -21- 26875, 50- 10 -21- 26876, 50-10-21-26877, and 50- 10 -21- 26878), a segment of the old Waimea -Kona Belt Road (SIHP Site 50- 10 -21- 20855), and remnants of a ranching -era fence (SIHP Site 50-10-21-23452). Four of the rock mounds (SIHP Sites 50-10-21-23528, 50- 10 -21- 26875, 50- 10 -21- 26877, and 50- 10 -21- 26878) correspond roughly to the boundary between the Ke`amuku cattle station lands and ranch lands to the southwest. This area is also the boundary between Waikoloa and Pu'uanahulu Ahupua` a. Site SIHP 50-- 10 -21- 826875 ,contained a Kalopa Soda Works bottle and a roll of galvanized fence wire in its construction. Site 50 -10 -21 -26878 appears to mark a possible hunting spot. Site 50- 10 -21 -26876 marks the intersection of two ranch roads along the southeast side of the Ke`amuku cattle station lands. The ranching -era fence (Site 50- 10 -21- 23452) appears to have been used early in the history of sheep and cattle ranching at Kea-mail. The original fence wire has been removed and it passes through the middle of several more recently fenced paddocks. A copy of the report entitled An Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for 600 acres Located in lands of Ke 'amuku, Waikoloa Ahupuua'a, south Kohala district, Hawai'I [TMK (3) 6 -7- 001:09] is enclosed. The five rock mounds and historic fence line are within the study corridor, but are located outside of the APE, and will be avoided with the current preliminary highway design. We have enclosed preliminary highway design plan sheets that document avoidance of the five rock mounds and historic fence line. 2 The Waimea -Kona Belt Road (SIHP Site 50- 10- 21- 20855) was previously determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under criterion "d" by the FHWA following the cultural resource survey of the W -3 Alternative. The Hawai'i SHPO concurred with the FHWA's determination and signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the FHWA and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to mitigate adverse effects to Site 50- 10 -21- 20855. Mitigation consists of preparation of a mitigation plan which provides for a pull off and interpretive sign to be constructed adjacent to the Site. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(d) (1) and for the purposes of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, it is the finding of the FHWA, as lead agency, that Sites 50- 10 -21- 23528, 50- 10 -21- 26875, 50 -10 -21- 26876, 50- 10 -21- 26877, 50- 10- 21- 23452,and 50 -10 -21 -26878 are outside of the APE and will not be affected by the proposed W -7 Alignment. Since they are outside of the APE, they will not be evaluated for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. In addition, it is the finding of the FHWA that Site 50-10-21-20855, the Waimea -Kona Belt Road, cannot be avoided by the proposed W -7 Alternative and will be adversely affected. The FHWA will notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation of the adverse effect and amend the existing Memorandum of Agreement to provide mitigation for the adverse effect to Site 50 -1 0- 21- 20855. In accordance with the existing MOA for the Saddle Road Project, the FHWA will continue to provide a full time Archaeological monitor for all clearing, grubbing, and excavation activities during project construction. We ask for your concurrence with our finding of "no historic properties affected" for the six sites that are outside of the APE and our finding of adverse effect for Site 50-10-21-20855, the Waimea -Kona Belt Road. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Stephen Hallisy, Archeologist/Environmental Protection Specialist, at (720) 963 -3685 or write to the above address, Attention: Environment HFHD -16. Sincerely yours, David Gedeon, P.E. Project Manager Enclosure cc with enclosure: Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 711 Kapi'olani Blvd., Ste. 500, Honolulu, HI 96813 Colonel Matthew T. Margotta, Department of the Army, US Army Installation Management Command, Pacific Region, Headquarters, United States Army Garrison, Hawaii, 851 Wright Avenue, Wheeler Army Airfield, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii 96857 -5000 Mr. Alvin Char, Chief, Environmental Division, Directorate of Public Words, United States Army Garrison, 948 Santos Dumont Avenue, Sheeler Army Airfield, bldg. 105, Schofield Barracks, HI 96857 -5013 3 Mr. Ken Tatsuguchi, State Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, Honolulu, HI 96813 LIST OF NATIVE HAWAIIAN ORGANIZATIONS BEING CONSULTED AS PART OF SECTION 106 CONSULTATION Clyde Namu` o, Administrator Office of Hawaiian Affairs 711 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1250 Honolulu HI 96813 Ruby McDonald Office of Hawaiian Affairs 75 -5706 Hanama Place, Ste. 107 Kailua -Kona HI 96740 Lukella Ruddle OHA, Hilo Office 162 A Baker Avenue Hilo HI 96720 -4869 Ali`i `Aimoku Paul K. Neves, Chairperson Royal Order of Kamehameha I 1162 Kalanianaole Ave Hilo HI 96720 Chairperson Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs P.O. Box 1135 Honolulu HI 96807 President Council on Native Hawaiian Advancement 33 South King Street, Suite 513 Honolulu HI 96813 Hawai `i Island Burial Council 74-383 Kealakehe Parkway Kailua -Kona HI 96740 Hawai`i Maoli P.O. Box 1135 Honolulu HI 96807 Ike `Aina Native Hawaiian Trust P.O. Box 4192 Honolulu HI 96812 LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII January 6, 2010 David Gedeon, P.E., Project Manager LOG NO 2009.4 195 US Department of Transportation, FHA DOC NO: 1001MD05 Central Federal Lands Highway Division Archaeology 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Dear Mr. Gedeon: SUBJECT: National Historic Preservation Act I IPA Section 106 Review — West Saddle Road Highway Improvement Project Ke'arnuku & Waikoloa Altupt a'a, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii TMK: (3)__6 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the aforementioned undertaking, which we received on December 4, 2009. We have reviewed and accepted the archaeological inventory survey (AIS) for this undertaking Escort and ICeris 2009). No further work is required and the report has been accepted as final (Log No. 2010.0025, Doc No. 1 OJM o4 ). We do have one issue to raise. In your letter to us you cited the proposed mitigation to site 20855 (the Waimea-Kona Belt Road) which was determined to be eligible under criterion "d" during the assessment of the W -3 alternative; you also note that the W -3 would present an adverse affect to site 20855 and mitigation would include a pullout and sign along the new road. However, the AIS was prepared for alternative W -7, which according to the report would bypass site 20855 and not have an adverse or other affect; in this case, should you choose W -7 then no adverse affect will be caused by this undertaking- We understand that the proposed mitigation to 20855 was part of an MOA between FHWA and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; we are not suggesting a change to agreed -upon commitments but are simply raising the issue that it appears choosing alternative W -7 would avoid the adverse impact. Please contact Morgan Davis at 80 896-0514 or morgan.c.davis@hawaii.gov if you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter. Aloha, STATE OF HAWAII l 1 D PA TM ��+ OF LAND AND NATURAL AL RESOURCES POST OFFICE 8 X 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 9 809 Nancy McMahon, Deputy SLIP /State Archaeologist and Historic Preservation Manager State Historic Preservation Division Cc: Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 711 Kapiolani Blvd., Honolulu Hawaii 96813 -5278 LAURA IL. THIELEN 0 LAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MA-NAG EVENT RUSSELL Y. T UJI FIRST DEPUTY ' C. KAWA TIARA DEPUTY DIRECT OR -WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOAT LNG AND OCEAN RECREATION: BUREAU OE CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON RATER RESOURCE M NAG EMENT CONS ERV'AT ION AND COASTALLA.NDS CONS ERVAT ION AND R€SO4 RCEES ENFORCEM E T ETrGI:'l:.ERINC FORESTRY ACTT VOLDLITE I TISTORIC PRESERVATION KAIHOOLAVTF 1TLAND RE.SHIVE CO; i f1SSTON LAND STATE FARMS LINDA LINGLE COVER OROFSIAWA January 19, 2010 Dear Mr. Gedeon: Aloha, 1 ,c?/4,a STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HHA 4'AUY 96809 LAURA 1I. THIELLN C m rERsoN BOARD OF LAN M I A'I URAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RUSSELL Y. TS1'JC FIRST DEPUTY KEN C. KAY AIIACL DEPUTY DIRECTOR - WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING ANT) OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES 'A.' CES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AVD COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENfORCEMPNT FS GINFERNO FORESTRY AND WIDE IFE F IISTORIC PRESERVATION KAI IOGLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATE PARKS David Gedeon, P.E., Project Manager LOG NO: 2009.4195 US Department of Transportation, FHA DOC NO: 100 I M 19 Central Federal Lands Highway Division Archaeology 12300 west Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228 SUBJECT: National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Review — REVISED west Saddle Road Highway Improvement Project K&arnul u & Waikoloa Ah pua'a, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii TMK: (3) - - 001 :00 = This letter is a correction to our earlier comments (Doe No. 1001MD0 . We previously reviewed and accepted the archaeological inventory survey (AIS) for this undertaking sot and Keris 2009 • No further work is required and the report has been accepted as final (Log No. 2010.0025, Doc No. IOOIMD04 . One site, SIHP 20855 (the Waimea -Kona Belt Road) was previously determined to be eligible under criterion "d" during the assessment of the W-3 alternative; the w -3 would present an adverse affect to site 20855 and mitigation would include a pullout and sign along the new road. We concur that the new proposed alternative W-7 will have the same adverse affect to this historic property as the previously reviewed W -3 alternative. We concur that this adverse affect will be mitigated as detailed in the MOA. Please contact Morgan Davis at (808) 896-0514 or morgan.eadavisAhawaii.goy if you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter. Nancy McMahon, Deputy SHPO /State Archaeologist and Historic Preservation Manager State Historic Preservation Division Cc: Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 711 Kapiolani Blvd., Honolulu Hawaii 96813 -5278 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Among the ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION and FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION and HAWA3` I STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER Regarding the Saddle Road (SR 200) and Hawaii Defense Access Road (A- AD -6 -I) Improvement Project on the Island of Hawaii, Hawai `i WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the proposed Saddle Road (SR 200) Improvement Project from Kaumana (at Milepost 6 on Saddle Road) to the intersection of Saddle Road with the Mamalahoa Highway will have an effect on 20 historic properties (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Section 3.19) which by consensus determination appear to meet the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places ( NRHP), and have consulted with the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Office (SI-TO) 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. 4 i 0f); and WHEREAS, the Hawaii SHPO has reviewed and concurred with the evaluations and recommendations provided in the report entitled The Saddle Road Corridor: An Archaeological, Historical, and Traditional Cultural Property Inventory Survey, Evaluation and Assessment for the Hawai `i Defense Access Road .4 . - 6(J) and Saddle Road (SR 200) Project and with the Supplemental Traditional Cultural Properties Assessment prepared to address issues presented in the Drat Environrnental Impact Statement, Saddle Road (State Route 200), Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 6, Technical Appendix Volume V Social Impact Assessment, Appendix B: Indigenous Hawaiian Cultural Values, and; WHEREAS, the Hawvai`i SEPO has acknowledged that data recovery of the portions of the seven linear archaeological sites impacted by the recommended alternative (Attachment 1) is appropriate mitigation, and; WHEREAS, Mauna Kea, as described in the Supplemental Traditional Cultural Properties Assessment to The Saddle Road Corridor: An Archaeological, Historical, and Traditional Cultural Property Inventory Survey, Evaluation and Assessment for the Hawaii Defense Access Road A- AD --6(I) and Saddle Road (SR 200) Project appears to meet the criteria for placement on the as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) as defined by National Register Bulletin Number 3 8, guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, U.S. D ep arnent of the Interior, National Park Service, and; WHEREAS, the effects of the Saddle Road Project on Mauna Kea are indirect, and miti gat idn of any potential effects can best be addressed as part of the University of Hawai`i's (Tjt) new management plan for Mauna Kea, and; --- . 7 -: _ r :: : 7) : WHEREAS, the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) have been consulted in preparation of this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), and concur with the stipulations contained herein; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council, FHWA, and SHPO 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 FH \VA shall ensure that the following measures are carried out: 1. FHYVA shall develop and implement an archaeological Data Recovery Plan for those sites indicated on Attachment 1 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 publication, Treatment of Archaeological Properties, and the SHPO minimal standards for archaeological data recovery and interim protection. The Data Recovery Plan will: • Identify sites that require data recovery (see Attachment 1), • Present research context and questions to be addressed during data recovery, with an explanation of their relevance and importance, Specify methods to be used, with reference to their relevance to the research questions, Establish how and to what agencies and interested organizations or individuals the plan will be distributed, • Provide procedures for consideration of comments on the plan from those to whom it was distributed, • Specify procedures for interim protection through archaeological monitoring of work during construction, as applicable to specific sites, • Itemize contents of the Data Recovery Report (Report), • Indicate Report review procedures to be followed, • Provide a Report completion date, • Establish procedures by which agencies and interested organizations or individuals will be provided with a summary of the Report findings and how they will be notified when the work is beginning. FHWA shall submit the Data Recovery Plan to the SHPO and OHA for a 30 day review period. Finless the S I-IP o has specific concerns to procedures, methods, and treatments outlined in the plan within 30 days after receipt and responds in writing, the FHWA may assume SHPO concurrence. If SHPO objects to the Data Recovery Plan within 30 days of receiving the plan, it shall be revised as applicable and submitted for another 30 day review period. ORA. shall provide written comments on the plan to the FHWA within the 30 day review period. FHWA will consult with OHA as necessary to address all comments. In the absence of comments received by the FHWA from OHA within the 30 day review period, the FHWA may assume concurrence by this agency. 2. FHWA shall ensure that all archaeological materials and records are curated by an institution acceptable to the SHPO in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. 2 3. FHWA shall develop and implement a Treatment Plan for interpretative mitigation of designated sites (Attachment 1). Efforts will be made to design the proposed roadway footprint to minimize impact to the sites. Portions of the sites that cannot be avoided during construction will be included within the data recovery activity and incorporated into the Data Recovery Flan outline . a• ove. e Treatment ' an s inc ude: • A list of agencies and interested organizations or individuals to whom the plan will be distributed for review, • Procedures for consideration of comments on the plan from those to whom it was distributed, • A brief description of the project location and roadway design in the site vicinity, • A brief summary of previous archaeological research performed in the vicinity, • Schematic maps locating the site and depicting the roadway design and treatments, and • Separate subsections describing the scope of the treatment methods for data recovery, interim protection by archaeological monitoring as applicable, preservation methods for remaining site features as applicable, and roadway design features and interpretive aid applicable to enhancing the site. FHWA shall submit the Treatment Plan to the S HP O and OHA for a 30 day review period. Unless the SHPO has specific concerns to procedures, methods, and treatments outlined in the plan within 30 days after receipt and responds in writing, the FHWA may assume SHP O concurrence. If SHP() objects to the Treatment Plan within 30 days of receiving the plan, it shall be revised as applicable and submitted for another 30 day review period. OHA shall provide written comments on the plan to the FHWA within the 30 day review period. FHWA will consult with OHA as necessary to address all comments. In the absence of comments received by the FHWA from OHA within the 30 day review period, the FHWA may assume concurrence by this agency. 4. The Federal Highway Administration agrees to cooperate with the UH in planning for access restriction facilities or signage at the intersection of Mauna Kea Access Road and Saddle Road by providin 'design or Right -of -Way accommodations as might be reasonably considered part of the Saddle Road Project at the time the project is advanced. 5. If a previously unknown archaeological site is encountered during project construction, the FHWA shall notify the Hawaii SNRO and OHA immediately. The FHWA shall ensure that all work ceases in the area of the discovery and in any adjacent areas where associated resources are likely to be encountered. The FHWA, Hawai `i SKPO and OHA shall then consult on the potential significance of the resource and appropriate treatment measures. The Hawaii SHPO and OHA shall participate in such consultation in an expedited manner consistent with the timely advancement of the project with the intent of minimizing construction delays. When agreement has been reached on data recovery, interim protection, preservation, or interpretive measures and such measures have been implemented, construction may proceed in the area of the discovery. 6. Should any signatory or concurring party to this agreement object to a proposed Data Recovery Plan or Treatment Plan within the 30 day review period 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 3 dispute to the Council. Within 30 days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council will: • Provide the FHWA with recommendations to be considered 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 considered by the FHWA in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(c)(2) with reference to the subject of the response. 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 that are not subject to dispute will remain unchanged. 7. Any party to this MOA may request that it be amended, where upon the parties will consult in accordance with 36 CFR 800 to consider such amendment. Execution of the MO _A and the implementation of its terms evidence that the FHWA afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Saddle Road (SR 200) Improvement Project and it effects on historic properties, and that the FHWA has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties. AD OUN CIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATI Bv: / 'STATE OF HAW ` HISTORIC PRES'" VATION OFFICER By: CONCUR: OFFICE OF HA By: AIIAN AFFA RS HAWAI `I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Date: 6///197 Date: ,'^ SHIP # DESCRIPTION CRITERIA IMPACT MITIGATION 20852 Burial! D no Avoid 20854 Ranching - Habitation & Animal Enclosures D yes Data Recovery Only 20855 Transportation- Old Waimea -Kona Rd. D yes Data Recovery, Interpretation 5 002 Ranching - Ka` ohe Wail' D no Avoid 5 003 Temporary Habitation' D no Avoid 14638 Temporary Habitation' D no Avoid 20862 Ranching- Linear Wall D yes None~ 20865 Ranching- Linear Post Fence D yes None ' 20 877 Ranching- Linear Wall D yes None 2 1150 ' 7 Transportation- Humucula Wagon Trail D3 yes Data Recovery, Interpretation 7119 Ranching -Humu' u1a Sheep Station Walls D yes Data Recovery, tation Interpretation 10309 Transportation- Pu`u '0`o Volcano Trail D • yes Data Recovery, Interpretation 20856 Paving D yes None' 20878 Transportation- Hilo Pu`u `D`o Trail D yes Data Recovery, Interpretation 20864 Transportation- Old Saddle Road D yes Interpretation' 20869 Survey Marker D no None' 20870 Agriculture- `O1a a Flume D yes Interpretation' - 20872 Recreation- Hilo Country Club D no None' 20873 Habitation- Senator Kirni's House D no None= TCP Mauna Idea' TCP indirect Avoid: defer to Univ.of Hawai` i Management Plan study ATTACHMENT 1 Mitigation for NRHP Eligible Archaeological Sites and Associated Significance Criteria for Site Segments within the A.P.E. of the Recommended Alternative for the Saddle Road Improvement Project 1. Not within the Recommended Alternative APE but identified as eligible during alternate alignment investigations. 2. Data Recovery has been completed, either as part of this project or other independent surveys. 3. Additional Significance Criteria may apply outside of road corridor crossing. [This page intentionally left blank] SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 41 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. 200(00) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division and STATE OF HAWAII Department of Transportation (HDOT) Highways Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Appendix G Section 7 ESA Correspondence [This page intentionally left blank] U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Loyal Mehrhoff, PhD. Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Room 3 -122 Honolulu HI 96813 Dear Dr. Merehoff, General Project Description RECOVERY.GOV Central Federal Lands Highway Division October 28, 2009 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, CO 80228 In Reply Refer To: HFPM -16 Subject: Saddle Road (State Route 200) Improvement Project: Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 6 Project. Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the West Side W -7 Alignment. US Fish & Wildlife Service (EJSFWS) Log # 1- 2- 98 -F -01. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Central Federal Lands Highway Division is seeking concurrence from your office that the proposed action will not likely adversely affect any listed species known from the Island of Hawaii. The limits of the W -7 alignment extend from Milepost (MP) 42 located just to the east of the Department of the Army's Pohakuloa Training Area's (PTA) Ke`axnuku parcel eastern boundary to the projects western terminus along Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) (Figure 1). The purpose of the Saddle Road Improvement Project is to provide a safe and efficient route for access along the entire route and for cross - island traffic between East and West Hawaii. The proposed improvements will address five general types of needs: roadway deficiencies, conflicts with and hazards of military training operations, capacity, safety, social demand and economic development. Upon completion, the improved 48 -mile long Saddle Road will meet the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design standards for rural arterials and provide adequate capacity to handle anticipated traffic volumes for the next 20 years. A Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Saddle Road improvements were completed in 1999. As part of the EIS process, twelve action alternatives incorporating use of the existing alignment and potential new alignments were considered. The project was divided into four different sections (Sections I, II, III, and N) for purposes of alternative development and selection, as well as project scheduling (Figure 2). In the intervening years since the release of the EIS, the Department of the Army has purchased a large section of land in the Ke`amuku area from Parker Ranch. This development has caused the originally selected alignment, W -3, in Section I to less adequately fulfill one of the key purposes and needs of the proposed improvement project, namely the separation of military training activity from the general driving public using the Saddle Road. Another alignment, W -7, has been proposed and studied to fulfill the need to separate civilian traffic from military training activities. A supplemental environmental impact statement SEIS is being prepared to address this new alignment. The W -7 alignment gently slopes from east to west, from an elevation of— 5800-feet, above mean sea level (ASL), along the existing Saddle Road, down slope to where it will intersect the existing Mamalahoa Highway at — 2493 -feet ASL. The alignment is roughly 10.3 miles long, with approximately 8.9 miles of the route located within TMK: 6- 7- 001:041: and the remaining 1.4 miles of the alignment going through a portion of the main PTA training area (Figure 1). FHWA is proposing to build a two -lane hot asphalt concrete paved roadbed, two 12 -foot travel lanes with two 8 foot paved shoulders, and a 6 -foot wide ditch in locations where the new roadway will be cut. Because of the grades, an uphill passing lane would be provided for most of the length of W -7, as it passes through the Ke`amuku parcel and is illustrated as Typical Section A (Figure 3). The road will be designed to accommodate 60 mile an hour traffic speeds, a minimum curve radius of 230 -meter (754 foot), an 8 percent maximum super elevation, simple curves with 67 percent of runoff on tangent, and an 8 percent maximum grade. Project Area 2 The project area is on the west- facing slope of Mauna Kea, on the leeward side of the island. Annual rainfall is in the neighborhood of 20- inches a year, with the upper reaches somewhat drier. The terrain present along the alignment is composed of a mix of 'a `a and pahoehoe lava flows disgorged from Mauna Kea more than 14,000 and 65,000 years ago during the Pleistocene Age. Additionally there are surficial alluvial deposits in many areas, which were washed down from Mauna Kea at the end of the last ice age. Along the southern boundary of the area several small fingers of 'a Ti from the Ke`amuku flow, deposited by Mauna Loa between 200 and 750 years ago overlay portions of the older Mauna Kea flows (Wolfe and Morris 1996). The vast majority of the site has been extensively altered by decades of cattle grazing and is now largely a pasture of introduced grasses with scattered shrubs and very few trees. The vegetation between the eastern terminus of the project and approximately the 4200 foot level is dominated by fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), with sparse amounts of `a alil `i (Dodenea viscosa), and numerous other alien grasses and Madagascar ragwort (Senecio madagascariensis). At the lower elevations in this section there are also pockets of buffelgrasss (Cenchrus ciliaris), Guinea grass (Panicum maximum), and Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum). Between the 4300 foot and 4600 foot elevation the makeup of the vegetation is similar to that found in the lower section, except that in this zone the native species are dominate, with large dense stands of a ali `1 making up to 50% of the ground cover. Between the 4300 -foot elevation and the boundary of the Ke` amuku parcel and PTA proper the habitat is similar to the previously described ones, but with varying densities of the component species, as is to be expected in pastureland that is grazed on a rotational basis. Between approximately 5200 -feet ASL and the eastern terminus of the project the substrate is markedly different than that found lower on the alignment, in this area is made up of alluvial and colluvial sand and gravel deposited by the erosion of Mauna Kea by the melting of the last ice cap. On this substrate the dominate plant is the endemic shrub `aheahea (Chenopodium oahuense). Consultation History The history of FHWA's consultation with the USFWS beginning in 1990 and culminating in the issuance of a BO on July 27, 1998 is detailed on pages 1 through 5 of that BO ( USFWS Log #1- 2- 95- F -01). Since the original BO was completed, FHWA and its consultants have had numerous meetings with the USFWS to discuss ongoing issues over the implementation of the conditions included in the original BO. Additionally, FHWA reinitiated Section 7 consultation with the USFWS in July 2009 to address additional species and Critical Habitat that were listed and designated between the issuance of the original BO in 1995 and the present. These issues pertained to Sections II, III and IV as defined in the EIS. That consultation was concluded with the issuance of a BO on September 11, 2009 ( USFWS Log #2009 -F- 0314). FHWA, HDOT, project consultants and USFWS met on August 27, 2009 to discuss the new W -7 alignment, view maps, and discuss the findings of the biological surveys that were completed as part of the NEPA process for this new alignment. The parties met again on October 15, 2009 to discuss the Section 7 consultation, at which time the FHWA informed the USFWS that they have determined that by implementing the minimization measures outlined in this document that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any listed species and is therefore seeking concurrence from the USFWS of this determination. At that meeting and through subsequent discussions with the Service it was agreed that the FHWA would consult with the Service over potential project impacts to Blackburn's sphinx's moth (Manduca blackburni), Nene (Branta sandvicensis), Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius) Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), Newell's Shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli), Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) and Haplostachys haplostachya. The moth, Nene, petrel bat and haplostachys are listed as endangered species and the shearwater as a threatened species. Biological Surveys and Results Prior to the onset of field surveys both the project botanist and zoologist consulted with the design team to alert them of any historically known issues with endangered species within the general proposed area of the W -7 alignment that will need to be avoided during development of the design. There were no known real issues with avian and mammalian species, though botanical studies conducted within the Ke` amuku parcel in 2002, found three endangered plant species near the southern border of the Ke axnuku property (Arnett 2002). These three, Haplostachys haplostachya, (common name: honohono) a perennial mint with showy white flowers; Stenogyne angustifolia (no common name) a twining mint, and Vigna o- wahuensis (no common name) which is a very rare legume vine. Prior to 2002, Haplostachys and Stenogyne were only known to exist within PTA and nowhere else. Arnett (2002) recorded and mapped the location of over 8,000 Haplostachys, 11 Stenogyne, and 74 Vigna within Ke` amuku. The proposed W -7 alignment was carefully designed to avoid all of the known locations of these endangered species. Biological surveys were conducted on the W -7 alignment in 2008 and 2009. Botanical surveys were conducted in September 2008, and an additional botanical survey searching for 3 Haplostachys haplostachya, Stenogyne angustzfolia, and Vigna o- wahuensis was mounted in May 2009 (Garrish 2009). Avian and mammalian surveys were conducted in June 2009 (David 2009). Potential Impacts to Protected Species The principal potential threat that the development of the W -7 alignment poses to Blackburn's sphinx moth is if clearing and grubbing activities associated with construction of the roadway were to remove host plants used by this species. During the course of the biological surveys conducted for the project none of the native host plants used by this species were found, nor was the alien host plant, tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) encountered (Gerrish 2009). The principal potential threat that the development of the project poses to Hawaiian Hawks is if vegetation - clearing activities were to remove an active hawk - nesting tree. Hawaiian Hawks are not known from the Ke` amuku area, and furthermore there are no suitable nest trees within, or close to the W -7 alignment (David 2009). 4 No avian, mammalian or botanical species currently listed as endangered, threatened or proposed for listing under either federal or State of Hawai `i endangered species were detected within the W -7 alignment corridor (David 2009, Gerish 2009). Although not detected during the course of the faunal surveys the endangered Nene have been recorded in small numbers within the Ke amuku parcel in the recent past (David 1996, Lena Schnell, personal communication 2009). Nene nest at the Big Island Country Club and at Pu` uwa` awa` a, which are located some 7 and 10 miles respectively south of the southwestern terminus of the W -7 alignment. Nene have been recorded being attracted to some roadways especially during the non - breeding season at other locations on the island. Birds have been observed loafing, feeding on short grass and other plants, walking on the roadways, and taking gravel from the side of the road. If a population develops within the Ke ` amuku parcel there is the potential that birds could be attracted to the roadway at some as yet unidentified location and put at risk of being hit by motorists. The principal potential threat that the development and operation of the proposed project poses to Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters are associated with birds potentially being downed after becoming disoriented by lights associated with night time construction, and following build -out by street lights that may be required for public safety. With that said, it should be stated that very few downed seabirds have been documented on the leeward side of the island over the past 35 years. The principal potential impact that the development of the proposed project poses to Hawaiian hoary bats is during the clearing and grubbing phases of construction. Clearing woody vegetation greater than 15 -feet tall (the preferred size of roost trees) during the pupping season could potentially cause harm to bats. As bats use multiple roosts within their home territories the potential disturbance resulting from the removal of the vegetation is likely to be minimal. During the pupping season, females carrying their pups may be less able to rapidly vacate a roost site as the vegetation is cleared; additionally, adult female bats may leave their pups in the roost tree while they themselves forage, leaving very small pups unable to flee a tree that is being felled. Potential adverse effects from such disturbance can be avoided or minimized by not clearing such vegetation (i.e., clearing of trees taller than 15 -feet tall) between April 15 and August 15, the period in which bats are potentially at the greatest risk of being harmed by roost tree removal. Fortunately there is no suitable bat roosting habitat within the ROW. The principal potential impact that the development of the proposed project poses to the haplostachys population located south of the proposed roadway, and immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Ike` amuku parcel is that an unplanned wildfire started by a catalytic converter, discarded lit cigarette or other roadway- associated perturbation could spread into the Army's haplostachys enclosure. Potential Impacts to Critical Habitat There is no federally delineated Critical Habitat for any listed species within the project corridor, as such - the construction and operation of the W -7 alignment will not result in modification or deleterious impacts to any delineated Critical Habitat units. Proposed Minimization Measures 5 The project proposes to implement the following minimization measures to ensure that the construction and operation of the proposed W -7 alignment does not result in adverse impacts to any listed species: • To minimize collateral damage to areas outside of the ROW, the Special Contract Requirements will mandate that all construction activity shall be restricted to within the clearly delineated ROW and that entry and exit into the ROW by all construction personnel and equipment shall be at previously identified and marked non - sensitive areas. • Special Contract Requirements will be incorporated into the construction documents directing the contractor's work consistent with specific minimization commitments that are outlined in this section and in the BO for the project. The Contract Officer will have the authority to shut down construction should violations of Special Contract Requirements be detected; furthermore, the project engineer will be responsible for ensuring compliance with all environmental restrictions and minimization measures. • A comprehensive manual outlining and discussing the environmental commitments contained in the original ROD, BO and Special Contract Requirements will be prepared. This document will be prepared by the FHWA in accordance with their environmental team policy, which ensures that the environmental team closely follows the entire project to its completion. • If nighttime work will be required in conjunction with the development of the project, all lights will be shielded and, or directed at the ground to reduce the potential for interactions of nocturnally flying Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters with external lights and man -made structures. • No nighttime construction will occur during the peak seabird fallout period, namely between September 15 and December 15 annually. • Any streetlights that may be installed, as part of this action will be shielded. This minimization measure would serve the dual purpose of minimizing the threat of 6 disorientation and downing of Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters, while at the same time complying with the Hawaii County Code §14 — 50 et seq. which requires the shielding of exterior lights so as to lower the ambient glare caused by unshielded lighting to the astronomical observatories located on Mauna Kea. • No smoking will be permitted during construction within the construction site, nor will any fires be permitted within the project corridor. • These measures and in some cases prohibitions will be included as part of Special Contract Requirements, which will be incorporated in the construction contract documents. • To reduce the potential threat of wildfires being started by careless smokers or drivers driving or parking on grassy verges on the north side of the roadway between mile marker 41 and the eastern boundary of the Keamuku parcel an expanded and modified typical section for the roadway that will both reduce the likelihood of accidental ignition from unintentional road sources (car fires, catalytic converters, cigarettes, etc.) and assist in creating a firebreak and fuelbreak on the north side of the roadway will be constructed in this section. This section is illustrated as Typical Section B (Figure 4). This expanded Typical Section will consist of: o Two 12 -foot travel lanes with 8 -foot paved shoulders. o An 8 -foot strip of pavement on the north side of the highway, which would serve as a firebreak, with a four -inch high curb on the outside. o At the outside edge of the firebreak a wire fence with metal posts would be constructed to a height of four feet on the edge of the pavement to discourage off pavement travel by motorists. • As W -7 enters Keamuku and descends towards Mamalahoa Highway, the primary wildfire concern shifts towards preventing fires from Saddle Road spreading southwards, towards the western boundary of the Haplostachys haplostachya exclosure. The Typical Section between the Ike amuku parcel boundary towards Mamalahoa Highway is illustrated in Figure 4 as Typical Section C, and would consist of the following features: o Three 12 -foot travel lanes with a paved 8 -foot shoulders, with a four -inch high - extruded asphalt curb at the outside of the shoulder on the south side of the road. This would create a 52 -foot wide paved surface that would serve as a firebreak, as well as a curb to protect against thrown cigarette butts or other thrown material and will prevent motorists from driving off of the roadway onto grassy areas. It should be borne in mind that the proposed road will be located within the PTA training facility, which has an extensive fire minimization and mitigation program in place in accordance with the Biological Opinions that have been issued at the conclusion of the two Section 7 consultations that the US Army has recently completed. The proposed W -7 alignment will create an additional firebreak within the PTA, which will be between 40 and 52 feet wide. This road will also allow very rapid response by PTA and County of Hawai `i firefighting personnel in the event that a fire does occur within the general project area. To put that statement into perspective of fire responsiveness, the center of the W -7 alignment is approximately 10 miles from the PTA fire station, and approximately the same distance from the W aikolo a fire station. As the new road will be designed to accommodate 60 mile an hour traffic, both fire stations could respond in a very short period of time to any wildfire that might occur within the general project area. These areas would otherwise be extremely difficult to access from the existing Saddle Road, thus result in extremely long response times. Additionally, the Army is currently constructing five firefighting dip tanks within the Ke` amuku parcel to provide onsite water to be used to fight any wildfires that may ignite within the general area. • At the current time there is no known conflict between Nene and the proposed W -7 alignment. At such time as such a conflict arises FHWA plans to address the issue with a multi- pronged approach mimicking the measures that have been agreed to, to minimize vehicle Nene interactions along a portion of the recently constructed Saddle Road that are detailed in the September 11, 2009 BO. The measures fall into the following categories, and may well be augmented following field trials with measures that are being implemented between approximately the 29 and 30.2-mile markers (not within the scope of this consultation). These measures, if determined to be necessary, will include the following: o The erection of a permanent fence along both the north and south sides of the roadway within any section that appears to attract Nene on a regular basis. The fence will be placed as close to the roadside as is permissible under ASHTO federal safety guidelines. o Vegetation will be removed between the aforementioned fence and the edge of the roadway, this will be accomplished either by the use of herbicides, or by paving the area. o The loose gravel along the roadside in any such identified area will be secured with a tacking agent, or asphalt paving, so that Nene are unable to gather gravel for use in their crops. o FHWA will install enhanced Nene crossing and traffic advisory signs to warn motorists of the potential danger they pose to Nene along any such identified roadway section. We look forward to working with you and your staff toward a successful consultation on these important issues. In summation, we are seeking concurrence from your office that by implementing the proposed minimization measures presented above that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the listed species discussed above. If you require any additional information or have questions regarding this submittal, please contact Dave Gedeon at 720 -963- 3723, Melissa Dickard at 720 -963 -3691, or Reggie David, Rana Biological Consulting, Inc. at 808- 329 -9141. Sincerely yours Rick . uare 4 " .E. Divis on Engineer 7 cc: Mr. Brennan Morioka, HDOT Mr. Glenn Yasui, HDOT Mr. Alvin Char CN USA IMCOM bcc: Mr. Donald Okahara, Okahara & Associates, Inc. Mr. Reggie David, Rana Biological Consulting, Inc. A. Wong, FHWA - Hawaii R. Suarez D. Zanetell E. Hammontree S. Hallisy M. Dickard D. Gedeon 8 Literature Cited Arnett, M. 2002. Report of survey for rare plants on the Ke`amuku parcel, Island of Hawaii. Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado. David, R. E. 1996. Ornithological and Mammalian Surveys of the Proposed Improvement and Realignment Corridors of the Saddle Road (State of Hawaii Route 200), Island of Hawai i, Hawaii. Prepared for: Rust E &I & The Federal Highways Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division. 99pp. David, R. E. 2009. Avian And Terrestrial Mammalian Species Surveys Conducted on The W -7 Alignment of the, Hawaii State Route 200 -- Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 6 Saddle Road Realignment Project, North Kona District, Island Of Hawaii. Prepared for DMT & associates, and the Federal Highways Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division. Gerrish, G. 2009. Botanical Study for Proposed Alignment W -7 for the Realignment of Saddle Road (State Route 200). Prepareed for: DMT Associates, Inc. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division and Hawaii Department of Transportation (FHWA et ad.) 1999. Environmental Impact Statement, Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 19) to MP 6, County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, FHWA Project No. A- AD -6(1). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998. Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Saddle Road Realignment and Improvement Project. July 27, 19998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009. Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Reinitiation Saddle Road Realignment and Improvement Project Section 7 Consultation for Saddle Road (State Route 200) Improvement Project: the East Side, Milepost 6-42, Hawaii. September 11, 2009. 9 [This page intentionally left blank] KAWAIHAE NORTH KONA PRdJE SITE • HONOKAA .5 5 10 GRAPHIC SCALE IN MILES NORTH HILO SOUTH HILO Waiki'i Ranch PU'UANAHULU GAME MANAGEMENT AREA 0 0 PACIFIC Hilton Waikoloa Waikoloa Village W aikoloa Rd IMP_AC_fi SECT 0 N 1 AREA GIRL SCOUT CAMP MP 42 CDder /- - — PTA — 7 C T 1 0 N 1 1 STAT! HI SADDLE ROAD PROJECT HI SR 200(W7) SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEkTS MAUNA KEA r U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION FIGURE 1 W-7 ALIGNMENT Scale: As Noted Date: Sept. 2009 SHEET No. 1 OF 1 MP 42 P O H A K U L O A T R A I N I N G PROJECT LOCATION Mauna Kea Beach Hotel Hapuna Beach Park* Mauna Lani Resort Hilton Waikoloa holo By Kawaihae Puaka ZONAL ; \ o 'uanahulu Ke'amuku i r 0 PACIFIC 0 5 10 20 GRAPHIC SCALE IN MILES +5380 Kohala Mountains - Waj <a F :WAI M EA KAMUELA AIRPORT \ Mane\ 7 .Honoka a MANA ROAD -SECTION II + 113,796 MAUNA KEA BRADSHAW ARM11S\ AIRFIELD MAUNA KEA STATE PARK n g n c 7 // c z - - -I if v M:8 G 7 7 (4WD) ECTION III Keanakolu ■ ti 1 j I � Puaakala (t, /sr s Pa'auilo R• KOlani Lau'pahoehoe HILO MP9_ MP6 A KAUMANA* CITY \\ E -3 STATE SADDLE ROAD PROJECT SHEET NO. HI HI SR 200(W7) S E C T I O N I V Hakalau Kolekole Park Honomu KUHI �� HARBO HILO AIRPORT Pepe'ekeo Papai'kou \\ Kea'au Kurtistown TOTAL SHEETS U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION FIGURE 2 ORIGINAL SADDLE ROAD ALIGNMENTS Scale: As Noted Date: Sept. 2009 SHEET No. 1 OF 1 ROW SLOPE VARIES 2:1 (H:V) MAX. 60' MIN AND VARIES 8' -0" 6' —O" 8'_0" SHLDR. 12' -0" TRAVEL WAY 2% iQ ROAD 12' -0" TRAVEL WAY 2% —2" A.C. 7" A.C. BASE 4" AGG. SUB —BASE 0' -12' (VARIES) CLIMBING LANE 60' MIN AND VARIES 8' -0" SHLDR. 2% 2% TYPICAL SECTION INSTALLED FROM HWY 190 TO STATION 340 +00. TYPICAL SECTION A NOT TO SCALE 32' CLEAR ZONE 3' -0" EXIST. GROUND ROW SLOPE VARIES 2:1 (H:V) MAX. STATE HI SADDLE ROAD PROJECT HI SR 200(W7) SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION FIGURE 3 ROAD TYPICAL SECTION A Scale: N.T.S. Date: Sept. 2009 SHEET No. 1 OF 1 AUXILIARY LANES FOR THE INTERSECTION IS NOT SHOWN. 0 , w 4 a 0 0 7) a 0 0 ROW EXIST. GROUND ROW — I1 8' -0" DITCH 14' -0" FIREBREAK FENCE* 4" ASPHALT CURB* 1 6' -0" 6 8' -0" - 2 - - - -- - I1 60' MIN AND VARIES 8' -0" 8' -0" PAVED SHLDR. FIRE- BREAK* *PAVED FIREBREAK, ASPHALT CURB, AND FIREBREAK FENCE INSTALLED ON NORTH SIDE FROM STATION 467 +00 TO THE NEW SADDLE ROAD NEAR MP 41 (STATION 544 +37). TYPICAL SECTION B 60' MIN AND VARIES 1 6' -0" 2" A.C. 7' A.C. BASE 8' -0" SHLDR. 12' -0" T 12' -0" TRAVEL WAY TRAVEL WAY 2% 12' -0" TRAVEL WAY 2% Q ROAD 2% 2" A.C. 7' A.C. BASE 4" AGG. SUB -BASE NOT TO SCALE 12' -0" TRAVEL WAY 2% -2" A.C. 7" A.C. BASE 4" AGG. SUB -BASE TYPICAL SECTION C NOT TO SCALE 60' MIN AND VARIES 0' -12' 8'-0" (VARIES) SHLDR. CLIMBING LANE 0' -12' (VARIES) CLIMBING LANE 60' MIN AND VARIES 8' -0" SHLDR. 2% 9 3' -0" 2% 6 1 1' -6" 1' -0" 2' -0" - - - - - - - - - -- - GUARDRAIL, IN FILL ONLY AND ONLY WHERE WARRANTED 4" ASPHALT CURB ** * *ASPHALT CURB INSTALLED ON SOUTH SIDE FROM STATION 340 +00 TO 466 +00 IN CUT AND FILL CONDITIONS. ROW STATE HI ROW SADDLE ROAD PROJECT HI SR 200(W7) SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION FIGURE 4 ROAD TYPICAL SECTIONS B & C Scale: N.T.S. Date: Sept. 2009 SHEET No. 1 OF 1 tx : x xx • x k :ry InfReply Refer To _noun United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE x Pacific Islands Fish and wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3 -1: ,, iiox 50088 Honolulu, Hawaii 9685( kick Suarez, P.E Engineer Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 340 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Subject {: - the �_ ' . I Side W-7 Alignment, Saddle em ation of Section 7 Conndtat on for R ' � :: Road (State �? —Ai 200) Improvement . • t Pro3 ect 1 veen Mamalahoa Highway ( State Rout_ i _ 0) to Milepost 6, Hawaii jAN292O1O Dear Mr_ Suarez' . the 1998 Biological Opinion ' responds to your request for reinitial �� �f This a�o,�c�� Opinion respa�nd y �1 ° wr (1998 . Saddle vernent Project ec ( �B-F � }} for um Saddle Road Realignment and Impro � � t to the f • U.S. ish and Wildlife Sce (Service) pursuan Road Biological Opinion) with the U S .. • • �, with the ded (Act). Consultation was reinitxat S ecies Act of 1973, as amen tndgered p Ito address modifications to the • stration (F}IWA) on January 8, 2010, . Federal Highway Adn:nni • ;,.,ice n, address impacts from this • . In this Biological Op we addr p 1 ^ ^° Saddle Road Biological Opinion � r � lostac� a (honoliOnOl - � lant �a l c .: Sys dap y ' that may adversely .... ,�t the endangered plant p , project th y , 1 improving Saddle Road on the ' cal in ddressed impacts of realignin p 98 Biological Op ' • } � and the threatened plant species bird bailleui }, palila critical had endangered bird palila 2 'iensis in accLL--Ice with section 7(a)( ) of the �tlene hawaa 1 } . k J � pursuant to 50 CFR §402.16, as new enitiation of the 19� 8 Biological Opinion is necessary, ..: , , er or to an R. • • ons of the ro ect may afect lip ,pecies in a mann Information reveals rnodificati P � Impact Statement (EIS} • • nal opinion. A Final EnvirG . ital . extent not considered in the ongi P � were completed in 1999. As for the Saddle Road improvei1—s p and Record of Decision (ROD) f of the existing alignment and x process, twelve action alternatives incorporate � use c! i, of the EIS p � was ( , ed into four different sections new alignments were considered. The project • potential n develo �t and selection, as well as 1, II III and IV) for purposes of 1 , (Stions , . � f alternative in years since u. 1 elease of the EIS, the r� � * _� � �heduling (Figure "1.j. In the intervening y P .- f land in the Keamuku area from Parker .' ` � � ..,at of the Army has purchased a large section o uku Dep roughly asses though the middle of the Ream P � The W-3 alignment (Section I) rou Y p xx _ xx xx xx • !I . i • • • • • 'al �• I — r r a 1. x r , . 1. : J , yr 1 ;'a t I • . . • .ry . F+1 a F•. • . • •fir _ 1 f • ' •• 1 r. • • a , ' J Y +•_ 1 1 r J �' .' , .. - ' �i L � 1 1 £ I • 1 #r } rj :::•••• • • , 1 Y - • • f i •i. • 1 •r • 1 — '1 • 1 • • - • 1 • • • } } } } } } } } } } Mr Rick Suarez, P E. This alignment does not fulfill one of the key purposes and ni project, namely separation of military training activity from C1 i le Road. Another alignment, W-7, has been proposed rate civilian traffic from military training activities (Fig E • )flmental Im pact Statement (SEIS) was prepared to ad reimtiation covers FHWA actions associated with the const Saddle Road between Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 19u All other information within the 1998 Biological Opinion and the 2009 Reinitiation (Service file 26694:0314) remains in effect, except for the new actions described above. The findings and recommendations in this reinitiation are based on the followii 1. The above refere-1, 19 \\ iological Opinion, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Saddle Road ( Road 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to MP 6, County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, FHWA Project No. A-AD-6(1) (1999); 3 U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Hig" r Administration, Record of Decision, Saddle Road (State Road 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to MP County of Hawai Lte of Hawaii (1999); 4 The FHWA request for reinitiation of section 1 consultation for the West Side W-7 Alignment (2009) 4 Meetings, a site visit, reports, electronic mail (email), phone calls (see Consultation History); and 6 • Other information in our files. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on - ffl° 7 the Service's Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office. The overall Saddle Road Realignment and Improvement Proj " extends rrom Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to MP 6 (see Figure 1). The limi the W-7 alignment extend from MP 42 located just to the east of the Department of the v's Pohakuloa Training Area's (PTA) Keamuku Parcel eastern boundary to the project's weL. terminus along Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) (see Figure 1). The alignment is roughly 10.3 miles (mi) (16.( kilometers (km) lon€ 11. approximately 8.9 mi (14.3 km) of the route located within TMK: 6- )01:041(the Keamumi Parcel) and.the remaining 1,4 miles of the alignment going through a port nf the main PTA traininp (see Figure 2) CONSULTATION HISTORY August 27, 2009: Steve Hallisy (FHWA), Dave Gedeon (FHWA), Melissa Dickard (FHWA), Reginald David (FHWA consultant), Patrice Ashfield (Service) and Jeff Zimpfer (Service) met to ss the new W-7 alignment, view maps, discuss the findings of the biological surveys that were completed as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for this new alignment - s of the proposed improvement general driving public using the tudied to fulfill the need to !). A Supplement ; this new alignmci. This m of the realigned and improved Milepost (MP) 6 3 .X.X.X.X.X.X.X.:. .X.X.X.X.X.X.X.:. ........ .X.:. .X.X.X.:. • tx: tx: �. tx: • x x • r •- fi L'+ I •• .. • • t >• t _ { ' •x* Y 1 M1 . • 4 : : Ir '.1 k F• ,rf • 1' L - r � f• • . `• r' EI 1 • 1• r, ;i 7'• .1 1 •: • 1 .• r� r� r _+ 1i • r+t _ 1• Fa. +. .. t• - • A : +y ? • • + } 1 i• • • . • ■ 1• • • 4 .: ;I' • • 1� '1 1 • 'y. • . 1 M1 �' , F S •1 " f . I • • • • • • +11 " ti Mr Rick Suarez, P,E. September 11, 2009: The Service completed our .consultation titled Reinitiation Saddle I Realignment and Improvement Project Section 7 Consultation fdr Saddle Road (State Route 200) implovement Project. the East Side, M v. 2, Hawaii 0C•ber 15, 2009: Melissa Dickard (FHWA), Reginald Day" [TWA consultant) and Jeff Zimpfer (Service) met again to discuss the section 7 consultation. The FHWA informed the Service that based the conservation measures in this document, they had determined that the nrnnosed action is not likely to adversely dffem Illackbunes sphinx's moth (Manduca burn°, Hawaiian goose (Bram 14vic !), Hawaiian' hawk (Buteo solitarius), Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwidiensis), Newell's shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli), Hawaiian hoary bat (Lash 7inereus semotr ind Haplosta chys haplostachya. FHWA informed the Service they .1d be requestin concurrence with their determination. November 4, 2009: The Service received a request from trINV, ' that the proposed West side W-7 alignment w; es. Noyember 13, 2009: Jeff Zimpfer (Service) and Lena Sc] Natural Resource Coordinator for Pohakuloa Training Area), participated in a site visit to the J 2stachys haplostachy pup in the Army's Keamuku Parcel that occurs near 7oposed W-7 alignment. The site visit resultex.....inding seven plants along a 300-foot (ft, (i00-meter (m)) transect through a portion of the H. haplostaeliva population. The site is heavily dominated by fountain gxasE E(Pennisetum setaceum). Based on the findings during the si the Service recommenced FHWA enter into formal consultation for potentiai adverse fulis to the plant from wildfire. Jaminry 8, 2010: FHWA requested formal consultation on the West Side Saddle Road Ir iement Project for potential impacts to Hap7ostachys haplostachya. SPECIES CONCURRENCE STATEMENT ____,cribtx1 in the above consultation history, FHWA has determined that the above proposed project is not likely to adverseikaffect Blackburn's sphinx's moth, Hawaiian goose, Hawaiian hawk, % Hawaiian petrel, Newell's shearwater, and Hawaiian hoary bat. Biological surveys for the of the Blackburn's sphinx moth were not detected e proposed right-of-way for the ct Based on the lack of available habitat or the presi_.... _ of Blackburn's sphinx moth in the action area, we concur with your determination that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely'to adversely affect, the Blackburn's sphinx moth. Although if. do+0 during the course (Attie biological sun Hawaiian g9ese.have been recorded within the K earnuku Parc - 1chne11 personal co nication 2009). Hawaiian gee! nd at Puuwaav - ,vhich are located 7 and 10 mi (1 1 ai of 'western term vi the W-7 alignment. Since Hawaiiai . le action area, we concur w our determination that 4 but is notlikely to adversely affect, the Hawaiian goose concurrence on tneir Hut likely to adversely affect listed for this project, a few the recent past (David 1996. st at the Big Island Countr km) respectively south c se are not known to occi the proposed project may ................ '' ' A Mr Rick Suarez, P E. Hawaiian hawks are not known to occur in the Keam d uku ar � no suitable nest trees are or close to, the W -7 alignment. Based on the lack o able nesting trees for Hawaiian .ks, the Service concurs with your determination this proposed project may affect, but is not likely ....lversely affect the Hawaiian hawk because the known aistribution or nesting colonies of listed vanan petrels on the island of Ha is on the southwest flanks of Mauna Loa, and know ;eding colonies of Newell's waters occur in East Hawaii, it is unlikely large numb( 'listed seabirds will transit the prnieC t area. This, combined with the implementation of th __ervation measures listed below, we' concur with your determination that this proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Hawaiian petrel or Newell's shearwater As described in the Action Area Description above, habitat — the right -of -way consists of law- statured vegetation and is not suitable Hawaiian hoary bat roosting habitat. Based on the Lick of suitable habitat, the Service concurs with your determination this proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Hawaiian hoary bat Biological opinion Summary of the 1998 Project Description Saddle Road, which was 11t in 942, is a narrow, winding, tv o -lane road with steep grades, Qham curves, poor pavement, and substandard drainage. This is the only paved road serving PT the Mauna Kea telescope complex, Waikii Ranch, upper Kaumana, Mauna Kea State Rex ation Area, Kilohana Girl Scout Camp and several maj( nting areas. It is also an important cross- island link for business travel, the transport of goods and servir° tourism, recreation, shcp and commuting. Military traffic on Saddle Road going to and from PTA jpvnlves transportation of Ammunition, water, training equipment and troop ri ne rHWA Saddle Road improvements include upgrading and modernizing approximately 48 ` mi (78 km) of the road, from the Mamalahoa Highway (State 'wad 190) to MP 6, near Hilo, Hawaii (see Figure 1). The purpose of the Saddle Road Improvement Project is to provide a safe and efficient route for travel between east: and west Hawaii. The proposed improvements will address five general types of needs: roadway deficiencies, conflicts with and hazards of military training operations, capacity, safety, social demand and economic development. Upon c the improved 48 -mile long Saddle Road will meet the Arr :an Association of State h1vi acid Transportation Officials design standards for rural arta... and provide adequate capacity to handle anticipated traffic volumes for the next 20 years. The FHWA estimates that the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Saddle Road in 1994 was 900 vehicles. By the year 2014, in its present condition, Saddle Road is expected to accommodate an ADT of 4,400 vehicles. Projected figures, based . on increased usage associated with commuter traffic, residential development at both ends of the road, tourism and recreation, agriculture, military operations, the Mauna Kea telescope complex, and increasing congestion along alternative cross- island routes, estimate that Saddle Road will need to accommodate an ADT of 14,000 vehicl the year 2014 v :: Mr • Rick Suarez, P.E. • 2009 Project Description • Site'Description An EIS and ROD for the Saddle Road improvements were i Meted in 1999. Construction of the ‘e.- 48 mi (77 km) project is be- - - thased; the first pliab from MP 19 to 42 (Section II phis' rtion of Section III (see Figi1, A)) is nearing complcitnn. The next construction project will improve Saddle Road between MP 11 and 49. The sch ng of the remaining construction phases is dependent on the future appropriation of Federal f rig. A full description of di( project's background, purpose and nee Ld specific desigi • racteristics is contained in the Executive e Summary of the Final EIS (FHWA 1999). The S.. 1998 Biological Opinion also contains a complete description of the project and evabintinn of impacts to listed species and critical habitat. For the portion of the project addressed in th onsultation, we evaluate the impacts to listed species that will result from the proposed changes from the original alignment roposed roadway engineering and construction activities remain the same as do the rvation measures developed in our 1998 Biological Opinion. In addition to direct actions rc_ _J. to the actual construction of the road, FHWA committed to conservation measures as part f Leir project description in the 1998 Saddle Road Biological. Opinion. These measures include :ing restrictions, minimization of increased fire threat, eit ement activities for endangered a reatened plants, minimizing the spread of invasive a1iei 4,,cies, offsetting loss of palila critical hohitnt Ind avoiding impacts to the Hawaiian hawk Since the Service issued its original Biological Opinion for the Road projek....zi 1998, the Dermrtment of the Army has purchased a large section of land in the Keamuku area from Parker Ranch. The originally selected alignment (W-3, in Section I) bisected this parcel and thus no lotiger one of the key needs of the proposed improvement project, namely the separation or military training activity from the general driving public usin Saddle Road. The W-7 alignment has been proposed as the preferred alignment (see L. re 2). FHWA Proposed Road Improvemeni The.W-7 alignment gently slopes from east to west, from an lion of approximately 5,800 ft (1,800m) above mean sea level (MSL) along the existing Sa • Road down slope to where it will intersect the existing Mamalahoa Highway at approximately 2,500 ft (750 m) MSL. The alignment is roughly 10.3 mi (16.6 km) long, with approximately 8.9 mi (14.3 km) of the route 1- within TMK. 6-7-001:041, and the remaining 1 A mi km) of the alignment going ti ugh a portion of the main PTA training area (see Figure 2) FHWA is proposing to build a two-lane hot asphalt concrete paved roadbed, two 12-ft (3.66-m) travel Imes with two 8-ft (2.4-m) paved shoulders, and a 6-ft (1.8-m) wide ditch in locations where the new roadway will be cut. Because of the grades, a- 7hill passing lane will bk, provided for most of the length of W-7, as it passes thmught eamuku. Parcel and i$. illustrated as Typical Section A (Figure 3). The road will be pied to accommodate IMPH traffic speeds with a minimum curve radius of 2: (754 ft), an 8 percen maximum super elevation, simple curves with 67 percent of runoff on tangent, and an 8 percent maxiinum gradt... Mr Rick Suarez, P.E. elevation and the eastern terminus of the project, the substri,._ ' is markedly different than that found lower on the alignment; this area is made up of a11uvia ind colluvial sand and gravel deposited by the erosion of Mauna Kea by the melting of the list ice cap On this substrate the dominate plant is the vnuemic shrub Chenopodium oahuense (aheahea). The population of Haplostachys haplostachya tht occurs within the project site is in an area dominated by fountain grass and other alien vegetation. 1 Fire Minimization T1 e i,iposed W-7 alignment will be entirely located within the U.S. Army training facilities These training facilities h in extensive fire minimiz,atiot - mitigation program in place in accorda vith the Service's 2003 (2003-F-002) and 2008 (2008-F-278) Biological Opinions for Army actions at PTA and the Keamuku Parcel. The proposed W-7 alignment will create an additional firebreak within the Army's Keamuku Parcel, which will be between 40 and 52 ft (12 ..., 16 m) wide. This road will also allow very rapid respow PTA and County of Hawaii firetfghting personnel in the event that a fire does occur withi • general project area. The center of the W-7 alignment is approximately‘lb mi (16 km) . the PTA fire station, an approximately the same distance from the County of Hawaii Waikoloa fire station. As the new road will be designed to .9 60 MPH (100 KPH) ti both fire stations could resnond . in a very short pi of time to any wildfire that migh t occur within the general project area.: These areas would wise be extremely difficult to access from the existing Saddle Road, thus result in extreinviy long response times. Additionally, the Army is currently tructing five firefighting dip tanks within the Keamuku Pa 1 provide onsite water to be used to fight any wildfires that may ignite within the general ai Conservation Measures following conservation measures are designed to id. a iinimize effects to Blackburn's sphinx's moth, Hawaiian goose, Hawaiian hawk, Hawaiian petrel, Newell's shearwater, Hawaiian hoary bat and Haplo sta haplostachya and are considered part ()fettle proje( descritption. When used in the context of the Act, "conservation measures" represent acutnis pro by the Federal action agency that are intended to fu • the recovery of and/or minimize or compensate for prOject effects on the species under review. Because conservation measures are pledged in the Project Description by the action agency, their implementation is required under the terms of ' consultation. The act proposes to implement the following measures to ensure that the Alustruction and opera,I1U11 of the proposed W-7 alignment does not result in adverse impact isted specit, . o reduce the construction related project footprint, FHWA has agreed to measures and or prohibitions that will be included as part of special contract requirements that will be incorporated in the construction contract document • 1 To minimize damage to natural resources in areas outside of the right of way (ROW), special contract requirements will mandate that all construction activity shall be restricted to within`the clearly delineated ROW and that entry and . exit into the ROW by all Mr Rick , PE. of construction personnel and equipment shall Ix ,rev._ __sly identified and marked non- sensitive areas Special contract requirements will be incorporated into the construction documents directing the contractor's work to be consistent with specific minimization commitments that are outlined here and in the 1998 Biological Opinion for the project. The Contract Officer will have the authority to shut down construction should violations of special ract require Is be detectek furthermore, the project engineer will be responsible for ensuring compliance with all environmental restrictions and minimization measures. 3 A comprehensive manual outlining and discussing the environmental commitments contained in the original ROD, 1998 Biological Opinion and special contract requirements will be prepared. This document will be prepared by the FHWA rn accordance with their environmental team policy, which ensures that the environmental team closely follows the entire project to its completion. To avoid impacts to Hawaiian petrels Newell's shearwater (listed se l s), FHWA has agreed to the following. If nighttime wort Dquired, ail lights will be shielded or directed at the ground to reduce the potential for interactions of noctumally-flying listed seabirds with lights and man-made structures. 2 No nighttime construction will occur during the peak seabird fallout period, namely between September 15 and December 15, annually 3 Any streetlights that may be installed as part of this action will be E led. This minimization measure would serve the dual purpose Limmizing the threat of disorientation and downing of listed seabirds, while at the same time complying with the Hawaii County Code §14 — 50 et seq, which requires the shielding of exterjrwl;ghts so as to lower the ambient glare caused by unshielded lighting to the astronomic observatories located on Mauna Kea. 1 To reduce the threat of wildfires FHWA has agreed to the following: No smoking will be permitted during construction within the construction site, nor will _my fires be permitted within the project corridor 2 To reduce the - dal threat of wildfires beirfg started:by careless smokers or drivers driving or parkin vn grassy verges on the north side of the roadway between mile marker 41 and the eastern boundary of the Keamuku Parcel, an expanded and modified typical section for the roadway will both reduce the likelihood of accidental ignition from unintentional road sources (car fires, catalytic converteis, cigarettes, etc.) and assist in creating a firebreak and fuelbreak on the north side or 1,9.e roadway. This section is illustrated as Typical Section B (Figure 4). This expanded Typical Section will consist 10 " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i • } • . • . •r. • •.. r. • . . 1• • • •1 • Mr Rick Suarez, P.E. ZOOg, island o f Hawaii (U.S. y 00 individuals areas in.atel 1 ? �0 iduals on the i cur on Army training occurrences totaling approximately . s o f this species, occur accurr - occurring population (apprOXifl1atelY 97 atorall uals of this species p. 11 . All known, n Y majority of individ ' ns p } cel .The vast J e d an d maintai the Keainuku F ar } has consnuct ols (P:TA and fenced units the Army ere the Army contr are in ungulate-free f cies are in areas wh A percent) ax individuals of this species re the in 2004 co t ' atel 30 percent of the of this species at Puu weed . im Y anted 26 individuals Arm weeds, The y has also outpl S .. Army 2009, p• 15) stony, veneered lava, very' osed areas on ash . an d an stack a grows in dry exp cracks on rocky ridges a losta oils haplo y establishes in large o d .� outcro s� It often � arrsaeSyc treeland, p alto con and lava ... p h a is found in Ch naea shallow i island IL haplvstac y ea Shrubland, Dodonaea c � cones. On .Hawas, dersto , open Dodr�na vegetation types. .... • y �th dense shrub un � aea Shrubland veg Mixed deros treeland M o yarn -; oaor� n Mauna Metrosideros Shrubland, and y �' one population o • d Shrubland, lVyaF° a Kea fl with p Mixed ��,�_ exclusively on old Maim e taxon occurs � st The pahoehoe lavL. wand moderate intensity lams can serve low to drought. F species following ha lastachya may be sensitive .T s uccess of the sp _ ns stachys to b f ire resistant} n rocky slopes, Fire (i.e., t he plants appear fr e cent location o Y fire i s p fires t resprout an d its q e fire coupled is be due t�. its ability p w f load. How fire is presumed to sities beCause of l0 there is tends to occur at low inter ce. From year to year? in rocky areas t eccies annu abund s ecie that are with ears to affect the sp the o u latian� of this p with drought appears , o f individuals in th p P • variability in the number considerable v ctivel goats; rooting a y monitored � feral sheep and g 1 os tachya are browsing y other nonnative threats to ,�aplvstachys hap ass and a primary thre . , d nutrients by fountai grass i . b The p fork t, space, an • competition � _ � vegetation common feral igs, compete bitat to a fire based g and the by p and conversion of ha training. Aphids plants; and invasion by PTA are impacted by Army lams in p � . •' populations that occur at PT � u ku parcel and on p dltlon, some popula .. the � its in the Keam ad • • mildew have been noted on � introduction of meld Ise conditions. v • • • • • 13 Environmental Baseline x . • n Area for this project. This ° th Species in the Action n within the action area Status stack a populatio grit and could be is ,t tostachys ha�1v Y ro osed w-� alit There i S one 700 ft (200 m) from the p p o ad. The area is roximatey 70 li ed Saddle Road. is approximately originating from the rea observations, Army ' acted by a wildfire gi Based an personal indirectly imp 5, 6 and 7 ) • unfair grass • by fountain grass (Figures . \ to an area, the fountain heavily Invaded y fountain grass moves in nervations, Army staff believe as four gr' Based on personal ob . Natural Resource . ture and nutrients. area of this project s �: ha plostachya for moss a lvstachya in the action ar outc the abundance of H. h . Resource staff believe th al Resou r Peshut ,010. r►ers• comm.). Natural more than 80 percent it etc has been reduced by m .. .. individuals in the fie counts of thi population and r o that may be no recent surveys of p 1? c , ... population Y There have been n We estimate the size p even plants in a • provided by FHWA. ' st .-. ;observation of s affected were p . Based on our i population 10 ac (4 ha). biologist affected is approximately <x: Mr Rick Suarez, P.E. 300 (100 m) I ran 14 � sect and the fact • grass, we estimate c t that the entire area has been co ate the population in 1ete1 200 pla t hat may be impacted P y Invaded b f ount P � by wildfire to be ain approximately 100 to Effects of the Action The w -7 alignment will bring Saddle Road � h 7 alignment o ula ad within 700 f (200 .P p ion (see Fi re T) of the .�Ia to hapl stac /jy 3 2), whereas the current a le Road y . (5 km) away from ent ►merit o f Saddl • d �y affect H. h the . . haplostach a Road is . aplostachya because �' p -- r..�ation. The road will o f wildfires to no plants occur withi Il not • IL haplostach a FH n the road ali en ri the vicinity of y ' WA has agreed to the To reduce the � haplostachya (easten a roitowing conservation High�,ya • n boun d a ion measu Y) boundary f the R, - --� Parcel to Mamalohoa 1 2 ( wide paved • A P surface that will four -inch (lOc serve as a firebreak. high-extruded as �:� south side of th r phalt curb at th side will prevent � de of the shoulder o grass and other vegetation cigarette bi ro n the getation material Th c m coming in contact with of the roadway onto curb will a1s,� Lev y grassy areas. .r ent motorists from dri • Ong off The entire proposed -7 alignment will • • extensive fire ill be located w _ _ 1, airun minimization and, • • � ' Arn facilities, ext _rise b p mitigation pr a.m. g r which has an { . � by PTA and County a f .. �` This roan � (1 also th tY Hawaii firefi ti allow very rapid general project g personnel in p p � ��• The 1�a los the event that a fire proximity a the to the w_7 p tachys haplostach does occur- fire station. is locat .� � population that win be e station. The new approximately 6 mi in close fire . i.ations road will be desi �' (10 �.� by road fro s could respond designed to accommodate from the PTA spend in a sham � MPH (10{} KPH) project period of time t w H) traffic, both J area. This area would ildfire that might oc existing uld otherwise ' cur wig the g Saddle Road, and be ex�"ernelY diffic�.l thus result in extremely t to access from. th is currently constructing emely lon response • ct�ng five firefighting g pone times. Addition water to be used g dip tanks wi ally, the Arm Y ed to fight wildfire thin the .I�earnuk p . s that may ignite within t he ax'cel to provide onsite n °reneral ar In addition, rtiwA has agreed to contribute $50,000 to (Pa add Division of tri na Resources Mara wasi Volcanoes Naha population of H. ha Management. The Park will use ab l Park's plostachya in areas se these funds to establish e u latio l range o of the Park which n 1 t sh three g f the species and are believed to be within suitable habitat (Pri within the ce and Jacobi unpublished). published). ................ n ;,. ;,. ;,. Mr Rick Suarez, P E. All of these actions will reduce and minimize the impacts from :wildfires. In addition, FHWA will )onsor an outplanting program of H. haplostachya at HaNiaii Volcanoes National Park. Presently, this species has a very limited range, only occurrin • hin the Saddle area of Hawaii isli" Outplanting this species in an area wl 1 does not! • ritly occur, but within the pre ted former range of the species, increases likelihood this species will persist in the elm • the populations in the Saddle area of Hawaii island are dec nated by a catastrophic event. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 2 While the road increases access and proximity to the listed plants which may increase the threni of fire, it also provides a more rapid response by firefighting perso' ..5 ine proposed project witi be located lin Army training facilities which also have an extensive fire minimization and mitigation program which includes constructing fire 4 i2-ft (10-m) wide paved surface will serve as a firebreak and the 4-in (10-cm) curb • .. The population of H. haplostachya that may potentially be impacted by this project, represents less than one percent of the lcilown total number ofH haplostachya. No plants occur within the road alignment itself will provide a bather against cigarette butts. (Tilting dip tanks that will provide onsite water 17 ion 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to ier the 4' p •oses of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and thfeatened species. Conservation recomrnende - 3 are discretionary agency activities tc minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposeu adOfl on listed species or critical habita., . help implement recovery plans, or to develop information 1. Fountain grass has become a threat to this population of Haplostachys haplostachya that occurs within the action ---- FHWA should fund the long-term eradication and management of alien gra the benefit of H haplostachya 2.- Fountain grass is a threat to native ecosystems across vast areas of West Hawaii. FHWA should fund researcn rocusing on developing bio-control agents for controlling fountain' In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benen ing listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any L.uilservation recommendations grass. REINITIATION STATEMENT This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in the re-initiation request. As d in 50 CFR §' 402.16, reinitiation of consultation is required where discretionary Federal a involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if ;,. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ''''''' ''' ''''''' ''' ''' " nap iiostacnya St:tem era n �. ' 1 [This page intentionally left blank]