Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0056.000 1998-2000Stephen K. Yarnwhiro Mayor V- uVU fg of ttfv;xii DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 - Hilo, Hawaii 967204252 (808) 961-8321 - Fax (808) 961.86691_ _ Jiro A. Su ada Deputy Chief Engineer To: Recipients of Draft EIS From: Jiro Sumada, Deputy Chief Engineer, Hawaii County Public Works Department Date: 18 December 1998 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Puainako Street Extension and Widening Project South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii The Hawaii County Department of Public Works (DPW), in cooperation with the State Department of Transportation, Highways Division (DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) announce the availability of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Puainako Extension and Widening Project in South Hilo, Hawaii County. Notice is hereby given that the draft EIS has been distributed as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Chapter 343 Hawaii Revised Statutes. The draft EIS identifies and assesses the environmental and social impacts that could result from the project. The project would widen Puainako Street to four lanes east of Komohana Street and extend it 7.3 km (4.5 miles) between Komohana Street and the Saddle Road (State Highway 200). The formal public and agency review period for this draft EIS has begun. To ensure that all significant issues are identified and the full range of issues related to this project are addressed, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Two project alignment alternatives are being considered. Public and agency input will be used in evaluating the alternative alignments addressed in the draft EIS and in selecting the preferred alignment alternative, which will be stated in the final EIS. The period for receipt of comments closes on February 22, 1999. Written comments on the project and draft EIS will be accepted up to and including February 22, 1999. If you wish to comment, please mail or deliver any comments you may have to the following addresses: Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration P.O. Box 50206, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Governor, State of Hawaii c/o of Office of Environmental Quality Control 235 South Beretania Street, Suite 702 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 A public meeting on the project will be held on January 19, 1999, at 7 p.m. in Campus Center 306-307 at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, 200 W. Kawili Street, Hilo, Hawaii. Thank you for your participation in the Environmental Impact Statement Process. Note: Attachment is on file in the Clerk's Office. Doom No. 56 Mie No.V-N p..f (- 1?� lief. To:_ is�lf. Dete DEC__2.1.1996'_ F HWA-HI-EIS-98-01-0 C , r PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION AND WIDENING SOUTH HILO, HAWAII DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION r l .J December 1998 Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (DOT) 49 U.S.C. 303, and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works C-� f( / >���e��� NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT STATEMENT The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, became effective January 1, 1970. This law requires that all federal agencies shall prepare a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is, therefore, required to have an EIS prepared on proposals funded under its authority if the proposal is determined to be a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. EISs are required for many transportation projects as outlined in NEPA. The processing of an EIS is carried out in two stages. Draft EISs are first written and forwarded for review and comment to federal, state and local agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise and are made available to the public. This availability to the public must occur at least 15 days before the public hearing and not later than the time of the first public hearing notice or notice of opportunity for a hearing. Normally, 45 days, plus mailing time, will be allowed for comments to be made on the Draft EIS unless a time extension is granted by the Hawaii State Department of Transportation (HDOT). After this period has elapsed, preparation can begin on the Final EIS. A Final EIS is prepared to reflect the distribution of the Draft EIS by including the following: 1. Basic content of the Draft EIS is amended due to internal agency comments, editing, additional alternatives being considered, and changes due to the time-lag between the Draft and Final EIS. 2. Summary of public hearing comments. 3. Summary of comments received on the Draft EIS. 4. Evaluation and disposition of each substantive comment. Administrative action cannot take place sooner than 90 days after circulation of the Draft EIS to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or 30 days after submittal of the Final EIS to the EPA. Both the Draft and Final EIS are full disclosure documents which provide a full description of the proposed Project, the existing environment, and analysis of the anticipated beneficial and adverse environmental effects. General Reviewer Information In compliance with the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (amended in 1988) and a 1991 Presidential Executive Order, numbers throughout this Draft EIS are presented in metric units with the English equivalents in parentheses. it < _, Kot FHWA-HI-EIS-98-01-0 PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION AND WIDENING SOUTH HILO, HAWAII DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (DOT) 49 U.S.C. 303, and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division Countv of Hawaii, Department of Public Works // //00/?J- Date /P qJDate of Approval /r/r-I/9� Date of Approval Da4 of Xpproval Jiro S mada, lleputy Chief Engineer Hawaii oun Department of Public Works Kazu Hayashida, Director Hawaii State Department of Transportation Abraham Wong, Division Administrato Federal Highway Administration The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator Mr. Kazu Hayashida, Director Mr. Jiro Sumada, Deputy Chief Engineer Federal Highway Administration State Department of Transportation Hawaii County Department of Public Works P.O. Box 50206 Highways Division 25 Aupuni Street 300 Ala Moana Boulevard 869 Punchbowl Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808) 961-8321 (808) 541-2700 (808) 587-2150 The proposed Project would improve traffic circulation of the State Highway system and adjacent streets by directly linking Puamako Street (Highway 2000) and the Saddle Road (Highway 200). It would alleviate congested and unsafe traffic conditions on Puamako Street and Kaumana Drive. The Project termini are at the Puainako Street/Kilauea Avenue intersection and on the Saddle Road near Country Club Drive. Alternatives include the No - Build Alternative and two alternative alignments for segments of both the Lower Portion and the Upper Portion (which are divided by Komohana Street). Substantial improvements in safety levels, travel times, circulation efficiency and air quality are expected relative to the No -Build Alternative. Other impacts include noise, relocation and construction -phase disturbance. Mitigation measures include noise barriers and relocation assistance benefits. COMMENTS ON THIS DRAFT EIS ARE DUE BY FEBRUARY 22, 1999 AND SHOULD BE SENT TO MR. ABRAHAM WONG AT THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (SEE ADDRESS ABOVE.) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PURPOSE AND NEED The proposed Project is to widen, partially realign, and extend Puainako Street in Hilo, Hawaii (Fig. S-1). Along the 2.4 km (1.5 mile) long section between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street, Puainako Street (Lower Portion) would be widened from two to four lanes. The 37 -meter (120 -ft) right-of-way would also accommodate dual sidewalks and bicycle lanes (Fig. S-2). Improvements to vertical grade yielding satisfactory sight distances and upgrades to intersections, including two new traffic signals, would also occur. Along the westernmost 1.0 km (0.6 mi.) section of this portion, Puainako Street will be routed north of its current alignment. Puainako Street would be extended approximately 7.3 km (4.5 miles) between Komohana Street and the Saddle Road (State Highway 200, also designated Kaumana Drive) (Upper Portion)as a two-lane road (Fig. S-3). The eastern project terminus is at the intersection of Puainako Street and Kilauea Avenue and the western at approximately the 10 km (6 mile) marker on the Saddle Road. The Project's purposes are to improve arterial traffic flow of the State Highway system by providing a direct link between the existing Puainako Street (Highway 2000) and the Saddle Road (Highway 200) and to alleviate congested and unsafe traffic conditions on Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive. The current ratio of traffic volume to capacity along several segments of Puainako Street approaches or exceeds 1.0 during peak hours. This leads to a Level of Service described as unstable or forced, producing severe traffic congestion. Traffic engineers calculate a substantial worsening of Level of Service if no improvements are made. Accident rates along segments of Puainako Street vary between 2.25 and 3.86 per 1.0 million miles (1.6 million km) of vehicle travel, compared to the Hawaii County average of 1.57. The corresponding figure for Kaumana Drive, a narrow and curving two-lane road which must currently conduct all traffic from Upper Kaumana and the Saddle Road to Hilo, is 7.89. These excessive accident rates are influenced by congestion and unsatisfactory vertical and horizontal alignments which could be alleviated by the proposed Project. LEAD AGENCIES AND ACCEPTING AUTHORITY The Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and the Hawaii State Department of Transportation (HDOT) are serving as joint lead agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with federal and State of Hawaii requirements, with the assistance of the Hawaii County Department of Public Works. The accepting authority for the EIS is the Hawaii Division Administrator of FHWA, under the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Governor of Hawaii, under Chapter 343 HRS, related to Environmental Impact Statements. The Project was originally developed as separate efforts to extend the County's portion of the roadway and to widen the State's portion. These projects were then integrated to optimize planning Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-1 Executive Summary r•' a sae ro = ___ " q —// Ci%�i, J \\//\\ \\ 0� __ Y\ J I / r �/ ��!\ ~ f \ Eft• ry RlN PAanc hOH LA \ 5 -AVE P51 N• ,ao.9 AVS .I e M SOu1N HAWAIIAN ISLANDS - ',$I � y,� \ \U, �/ — ° hOHALA LOCATION MAP NORTH • \, '� �%l� \ vyI '- - 2 __ ,9 HgAA`u° PROJECT _ �I LOCATION ! i r I II ' Q/ �" \•moi / I iJ� � . e t \£ L�t NJRi KONA sOUM HILO - .% V ■■ _UA `�/ ,� llu.cer n•oGH n'eu •SII ■ v 41F FONA PUNP am • ' 6 ••�� O l II r I, i fj KAU NORTH ©W 3 ORTI �E I It A _AI Ki o id Q A El LO E F r_' pl a- =i�U78 n � goLaaw. oa^ I / •umana / , \ I ��'r'� . �) -. / -- � _ G a h —JSffil rfa ll� �••••ra�' • L-�.T.. 'S �, � - % ~� _ /II II' _ - � Y I W _� '/_ `_ i ➢ - '.II'� 0393 n 'Ci �% AN �'•e•' �• III Pf V65i ,AI Y g �'-u 1 _ 7_ � �, 1 ` Water IF /� u I — IST Tank n AIS Ij,r� �'= 188 V!1 • i3<— ^�/ -� `, u_. � � `•) 1 OF i ,I o '• �/l -�,� /'' i • i1 ', - NORTH wAIMEAaL� ver w CRO5S('IS D�.\- _ - . / AL ERNAT TF F`F1C : I I _-_ ALIGNMEN�� _ ALTERNATIVE D ROAD, \ ; ° •'- UPPER -,PORTION ALIGNMENT #1 '� ` sUPPER PORTION oao< ALTERNATIVE I M ALIGNMENT.42 21 UPPER POR wl� ALIGNMENT #2 - ` a TO UPPER PORTION _ � sl i ' kPloine ers SADDLE �P > 0 ,i�20002., 400&-1- a - ROAD sc in f ^ t i - _ 'i'I "8''',' j K oma. TITLE FIGURE 5 n� Q r PUAINAKO WIDENING/EXTENSION TO PROJECT LOCATION S-1 UKP x P PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE HILO, HAWAII 10/26/98 92014/M, EIS/SCANS/FS-I DWG/SC 1=1 m 'RII m a n ➢ II m T R 292 \ a. 5 e1p1 IBI I. . TO KEAUKAHA KAMFJI MEHA H �� J � AKO 5T. ■ o ■ TO 't \ VOLCANO\ Page S-2 Z '-- w F :2 z w z, O w U d 0 N V) z 0' O 0 Ul VARIES i 3.0 m (10') WIDE SIDEWALK AREA i i 06 O.E 2' CURB & Ji GUTTER - I CL OF RIGHT OF WAY OF PAVEMENT 36.6 m (120') RIGHT OF WAY n Y OF PAVEMENT 5 m 3.6 m 4.3 m 10 m (34') WIDE TYPICAL (NO LEFT TURN NE) 4.3 m 3.6 m 3.6 m 1.5 rr 5.0 12 14 14 12 12 .0 BIKE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE LEFT TURN LANE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE BIKE LANE LANE CONC. CURB LAWN AND PLAN INGS 2% 2% --- -------- ----- --- --- 2a 2% TYPICAL SECTION FIGURE LOWER PUAINAKO S-2 KOMOHANA STREET TO KILAUEA AVENUE PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE HILO, HAWAII 8/19/98 920141N / GIS/ro-L UWU/ I.ALL 1=1 �l z z w F- w w 3.0 m VARIES i vQn :2 10 WIDE DJ N SIDEWALK z L AREA 0 w a- 0 im 0. m vi N 0 2' z 0 0 CURB & 0 GUTTER I ti 4;l NEW UTILITY POLE NOTES: 1. MAXIMUM SIDESLOPE SHALL BE 2:1. 2. UTILITIES WITHIN ROADWAY NOT SHOWN. Page S-3 z z w�- I w w VARIES I zLV) Ow I U 00 I J �[n I In z0 0 I 2:1 MAX. I --- —_ SLOPE FUTURE WIDENING ROADWAY STRUCTURES SYMMETRIC ABOUT q OF RIGHT OF WAY FUTURE TRAVEL WAY "` TYPICAL SECTION UPPER PUAIIVAKO KAUMANA DRIVE TO KOMOHANA STREET PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HILO, HAWAII 9-014,M/ EIS/FS-3 DWG/SCALE I=1 S=3 WA9 (� OF RIGHT OF WAY I 36.6 m RIGHT OF WAY 1120') 2.4 m 3.0 m (8.0') (10') SWALE SHOULDER 0.6 2' - - - - -6.25%- - Q w 0 x c� OF PAVEMENT 3.6 m (12') VEL LANE 2% 3.6 m (12') VEL LANE 3.0 m 2.4 m (10')(8.0') unl a nro cIA/AI c I 2% 6.25% ----------- 0.20 m (0.67) MAX. NOTE: 1. MAXIMUM SIDESLOPE SHALL BE 2:1. z wZ Ldz cn 1�w zi� Ow H a- 00 U0 J INS Iz0 00 U — SLOPE Page S-4 4 I and design. In that the County had initiated the efforts, it was agreed that the County should continue to organize preparation of the EIS and Project design. During the planning stages of the Project, it was subsequently determined that federal funding under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) would be utilized, which required the involvement of FRW A. ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION Alternative l: The No -Build Alternative. The No -Build Alternative provides for very limited improvements to Puainako Street, including widening shoulders and consideration of traffic signals at Komohana Street and the Waiakea School Complex. Alternative 2: The Build Alternatives. The project corridor consists of a Lower Portion, along Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street; and an Upper Portion, between Komohana Street and Kaumana Drive near the Country Club Drive Intersection. Each portion contains a set of two alternative alignments for part of the route. The Lower Portion has Alignments A and B, and the Upper Portion has Alignments 1 and 2. Four distinct combinations of these alignments are possible (Fig. S-1). In the Lower Portion, Puainako Street would be widened to four lanes by acquiring right-of-way on the north side of Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue and the Waiakea School Complex and widening northward from the existing road. Most existing intersections would be altered through some combination of widening, turning movement restrictions and signalization. Between the Waiakea School Complex and Komohana Street, Puainako Street would be realigned north of the existing housing on Puainako Street and a new four -lane road would be created. Two alternative alignments are presented for the section west (mauka) of Kawili Street. Alignment A is farther from existing houses, minimizes encroachment on the Waiakea flood control channel, and avoids crossing of Komohana Street at the flood control channel. Alignment B runs directly behind a row of 33 houses and occupies a corridor that has been identified for several decades as the ultimate location of Puainako Street. In the Upper Portion, Puainako Street would be extended as a new two-lane road within a 37 - meter (120 -ft) right-of-way from Komohana Street to Kaumana Drive near Country Club Drive. West (mauka) of Sunrise Estates the project area divides into two alternative alignments. Alignment 1 provides a more direct route and passes between Kaumana Drive and several existing and planned subdivisions to the south. Alignment 2 passes to the south of these subdivisions along a more circuitous route. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND WITHDRAWN Alternatives considered and withdrawn from further consideration include Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies, mass transit, four alternative alignments for the Upper Portion, and widening of Kaumana Drive. Discussion of these Alternatives and why they were withdrawn is contained in Chapter 2. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-5 Executive Summary COST AND SCHEDULE The Project would cost an estimated $62.650 to $67.234 million, depending on the combination of alignments chosen. This total includes right-of-way acquisition, engineering and construction. If approvals are obtained in a timely manner, Project design is proposed to begin in 1999. Construction would begin in 1999 and would be finished in the year 2001. RELATED PROTECTS The Saddle Road Improvement Project (EIS currently in preparation) covers the entire 78 km (48 mi.) of Saddle Road, from the terminus of the Puainako Extension in Kaumana to State Highway 190 near Waikoloa. The Saddle project would widen, provide shoulders and improve vertical and horizontal alignment. It would be the primary cause of the threefold increase in traffic expected at the western end of Puainako by 2020. Although the Puainako and Saddle projects are independent, each would more effectively serve the traffic provided by the other. The Mohouli Street Extension (scheduled for construction in 1999) would fulfill a portion of the goals of the Project by bypassing a 2.8 km (1.7 mi.) segment of Kaumana Drive between Ainako Street and Komohana Street, and a section of Komohana Street between Waianuenue Avenue and Mohouli Street. The Mohouli project does not diminish the need for the extension of Puainako Street. Undesirable traffic congestion and safety conditions along much longer sections of Kaumana Drive and Komohana Street would be improved by the Puainako Extension. The projects are thus complementary. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The project corridor connects the Waiakea and Upper Kaumana neighborhoods in Hilo. Lava flows from Mauna Loa volcano have produced a gently rolling topography with a moderate slope. In the early 20th century much of the project area supported scattered agriculture. Today, the eastern (makai) end of the project area is low- to medium -density residential intermixed with schools, churches and businesses. The central and western areas contain some vacant land with semi -natural vegetation, along with low-density residential and agricultural uses. Originally, the natural vegetation of most of the project area was 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Forest, which is dominated by a deep mat of uluhe (a native fern), scattered ' ohi' a trees, and relatively few other plant species. In the Lower Portion (and parts of the Upper Portion), intense human activity has destroyed the native vegetation almost entirely, especially in former sugar cane fields. The present vegetation there is a secondary forest dominated by alien trees and ground cover. Vegetation in the Upper Portion comprises four communities: two dominated by native plants, one that is predominantly alien, and one that is mixed. No legally protected threatened or endangered plant species were found or would likely be found in the project area. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-6 Executive Summary ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The expected environmental impacts of the Project and proposed mitigation are presented below and summarized in Tables S-1 and S-2 for ease of Alternative comparison. Unless applicable, No -Build impacts are not discussed in the text below. Physical Environment Floodplains. Alignments A and B each encroach once on a floodplain, for a total of 0.31 ha (0.75 acres) and 0.09 ha (0.22 acres), respectively. Alignment 1 makes a total of 6 floodplain crossings, with a total area of 2.17 ha (5.36 acres), while Alignment 2 would involve 9 floodplain crossings, with a total area of 2.93 ha (7.25 acres). Through appropriate use of mitigation measures, including drywells and crossing structures, no increase in flood risk, contribution to incompatible development in the flood zone, or diminishing of natural floodplain values would occur. Water Quality. Water quality would not be substantially impacted by the Project. Minor impacts to groundwater, intermittent streams and coastal waters may occur due to pollutants running off expanded pavement surface. Considered in the context of the Hilo region these would be insubstantial.. All increased pollution would be within the absorption and assimilation capacity of the surrounding land. Mitigation would include planting disturbed areas and unpaved shoulder areas to absorb and filter runoff. Air Quality. No emission concentrations exceeding federal air quality standards would be expected from either Alternative or any alignment within the Build Alternative. Total emission increases over present levels for HC and CO are substantially greater under the No -Build Alternative. NO, would increase at approximately the same rate under either. Alignments B and 2 are marginally less preferable because of shorter setbacks from residences. State air quality standards for CO are exceeded at several intersections during peak hours, but the No Build Alternative produces more severe impacts. Noise. The No -Build Alternative would be less preferable for a segment of the Lower Portion between Kawili and Komohana Streets, where the Build Alternative would mitigate existing and future noise impacts. The Build Alternative produces noise increases approaching or exceeding the FHWA and State DOT Noise Abatement Criteria at several locations with existing structures. In the shared alignment of the Lower Portion and widened side streets, 4 homes and 3 church buildings would be impacted. No reasonable and feasible measures can mitigate these impacts. West of this, a total of 40 residences are impacted on Alignment A versus 61 on Alignment B. Noise impacts on Alignments A and B would be mitigated through noise abatement walls. Alignment 1 would impact a total of 39 homes. Noise would impact 20 homes on Alignment 2. Noise barriers capable of mitigating impacts in all sections of Alignments 1 and 2 would have a cost exceeding $100,000 per residence and are thus not considered reasonable. The final decision on implementation of noise mitigation will not be made until after final design and consideration of comments received during the public involvement process. If conditions change substantially, mitigation measures will be reconsidered. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-7 Executive Summary Table S-1 Summary of Impacts and Proaosed Mitigation Measures._ Ruild Vprcnc Nn-Rniid Impact Category No -Build Alternative Build Alternative Water Quality No impact. Impact partially mitigable through adherence to Best Management Practices. Air Quality Highest CO, NO, & HC for Highest CO, NO, & HC for Upper Portion. Lower Portion and Komohana Lower total emissions for CO and HC. Street. Highest total CO & HC. Noise Noise increase approaching or Noise impacts to as many as 107 properties, exceeding Noise Abatement depending on alternatives. Impacts capable of Criteria at more than 100 homes reasonable and feasible mitigation through on Puainako Street and sound -absorbing walls in part of Lower Portion Kaumana Drive. only. No reasonable mitigation at 39 Upper Portion and 7 Lower Portion properties Native Flora No impact. Loss of vegetation in Upper Portion right-of- way sections; no sensitive species or ecosystems will be impacted by the Project. Native Fauna and No impact. No adverse impacts with mitigation T & E Species coordinated with USFWS. Wetlands No impact. Displacement of between 0.28 and 2.91 ha (0.68 and 7.19 acres) of potential wetlands, with mitigation Planning Fail to fulfill transportation and Fulfillment of planning goals. planning goals expressed in General Plan and other documents. Relocation No impact. Displacement of up to five homes. Relocation assistance would be provided. Community Continued poor circulation near Improved circulation at Waiakea School Facilities Waiakea School Complex. complex, but at cost of some area in school grounds and wider road for pedestrian crossing. Mitigable through pedestrian safety improvements including crosswalks, crossing signals. Floodplains No encroachment. Up to 3.2 ha (7.9 acres) of encroachment and 9 floodplain crossings. No adverse impacts to natural and beneficial floodplain values. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-8 Executive Summary Table S-1 Summary of Impacts and Prnnased Mitivatian MPacnrs%e !rant 1 Fimpact Category No -Build Alternative Build Alternative Visual No impact from minor Minor changes mitigable through sensitive improvements. design and landscaping. Cultural No impact. Loss of at least some of 14 archaeological sites. Partly mitigable through data recovery and/or preservation (depending upon alignment). Agricultural No impact. Loss of approximately 3.2 ha (7.9 acres) of Land Prime Agricultural land. Negligible in context of farmland supply. Transportation Continued and worsened Improvement in traffic circulation, shorter congestion, long travel times, travel times, increased safety. LOS of C or inefficient circulation and high better at all major intersections for all accident rate. LOS of D or . . turning movements at peak hours. worse at most intersections for peak hours Hazardous Waste No impact. No impact. Energy Inefficient travel leading to Efficient travel leading to decreased energy increased energy consumption. consumption. Construction No impact. Unavoidable noise, vehicle emission, traffic and access impacts. Partly mitigable through portable noise barriers (and other DOH Construction Noise Permit measures), properly tuned equipment, optimum scheduling. Economic No impact. At least $62.65 million in expenditures of government funds. Direct income of $25 million. Indirect and induced income of over $40 million. Direct and induced creation of more than 1000 labor years of construction, professional, retail and service jobs. State excise tax revenues of over $2.6 million and State income tax of over $2 million. Growth- No impact. No growth inducement, but Project would Inducement facilitate in -filling of existing subdivisions and might hasten development plans for zoned areas. Cumulative Impact No impact. No cumulative impacts or conflicts identified. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-9 Executive Summary Table S-2 Summary of Impacts for Build Alternative Alignments Note: Impact degree is rated relative to alternative alignment. Mitigation is discussed in text and in Table S-1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-10 Executive Summary Build Alternatives Impact Category Lower Portion Upper Portion Alignment A Alignment B Alignment 1 Alignment 2 Flood- Encroachment of Encroachment of 2.17 ha (5.36 acres) 2.93 ha (7.25 ac) of plains 0.31 ha. (0.75 0.090 ha. (0.22 of flood zone flood zone acres), with one acres), with one encroachment, with encroachment with crossing crossing 6 crossings. 9 crossings; more - extensive crossing structures. Water Quality No difference. No difference. Minimal impacts mitigable by adherence Minimal impacts mitigable by adherence to to BMPs. BMPs. Air Quality Less effect on More effect on More effect on Less effect on nearby residences. nearby nearby residences. nearby residences. residences. Noise 40 residences, 61 residences, 39 residences, not 20 residences, not mitigable mitigable mitigable mitigable 4 homes, 3 church buildings in common alignment; none mitigable Native Flora No difference. Somewhat less Somewhat more native ve etation native vegetation Native Fauna No difference. No adverse impacts with mitigation and T & E Negligible impact to flora or ecosystems. coordinated with USFWS. Species Wetlands 2 sq. meters (20 No wetlands. Lesser area, 0.28 Greater area, 2.91 sq. ft.) wetland ha. (0.68 acres) of ha. (7.19 acres) of resent. Dotential wetlands. potential wetlands. Planning No difference. Better connection; Poorer connection, Both fulfill planning goals. fulfills goals. but fulfills goals. Relocation No difference. No homes No homes [Five homes displaced are on shared displaced. displaced. se ment of Lower Portion Community No difference. No difference. No adverse effect. No adverse effect. Note: Impact degree is rated relative to alternative alignment. Mitigation is discussed in text and in Table S-1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-10 Executive Summary Table S-2 Summary of Impacts for Build Alternative Alignments tennt 1 Note: Impact degree is rated relative to alternative alignment. Mitigation is discussed in text and in Table S-1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-11 Executive Summary BUILD ALTERNATIVES Impact Category Lower Portion Upper Portion Alignment A Alignment B Alignment 1 Alignment 2 Visual Less impact to More impact to More impact to Less impact to adjacent residents; adjacent residents, adjacent residents, adjacent residents, impacts minor and but impacts minor but impacts impacts mitigable by mitigable by and mitigable by mitigable by landscaping. landscaping. landsca ing. landsca in . Cultural Impacts to 5 Impacts to 3 Impact to 1 Impact to 1 archaeological archaeological archaeological site. archaeological site. No sites, ( SHPO sites. Data recovery Data recovery will further work deemed recom. 2 for is suggested mitigate. necessary. preserv., 2 for data mitigation. recovery I (Shared portion: 4 sites: data recovery) Agricultural No difference. 3.2 ha (7.9 acres) 3.2 ha (7.9 acres) of Land No agricultural land. of conversion. conversion. No displaced farms. Transportation No difference. More efficient Less efficient Both fulfill transportation needs. connections, fulfills connections; but fulfills transportation transportation needs. needs. Hazardous No difference No difference Waste No impacts) No impacts) Energy No difference. More efficient Less efficient because Better energy efficiency than No -Build. because of lesser of greater length. length. Better Better energy energy efficiency efficiency than No - than No -Build. Build. Construction Less impacts of' More impacts. Slightly more Less impacts because noise, emissions, impacts. of greater separation visual because of from adjacent greater separation residences. from residences. Growth- No difference No difference. Inducement (No growth inducement (No growth inducement or facilitation) or facilitation Cumulative No difference No difference Impact (No cumulative impacts identified) (No cumulative impacts identified) Note: Impact degree is rated relative to alternative alignment. Mitigation is discussed in text and in Table S-1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-11 Executive Summary Natural Environment Native Flora and Ecosystems. The Project would result in the unavoidable destruction of some or all of the existing vegetation within the right-of-way. However, the flora and vegetation of the project area have minimal conservation value. Field studies, in addition to consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have determined that no plant species listed (or proposed for listing) as threatened or endangered is known from or is likely to occur in the project area. No unique or high -diversity native plant communities occur in the project area, and no plant community would be eliminated from the region. Construction and. operation of this Project may lead to the spread of alien plant species along the right-of-way. This is partly mitigable by minimizing disturbed areas during construction along areas with native vegetation. Waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. in the project area consist of a number of intermittent stream channels and wetlands. The Project would disturb between 0.28 ha (0.68 acres) and 2.91 ha (7.19 acres) of wetlands depending on the combination of alignments. Biological and hydrological impacts are minimal. An application for a Department of the Army Permit for Dredge and Fill in the Waters of the U.S. is being prepared concurrently with this EIS. If Alignment 1 is selected, a Nationwide Permit is expected to be issued, with mitigation consisting principally of Best Management Practices. Alignment 2 would require an individual permit, and mitigation is not yet specified. Native Fauna. Native fauna is not abundant in the Project Area. Three endangered bird species and the endangered native bat may make some use of the area. No nests or roosts of these species appear to be present in any of the alternative alignments. Mitigation measures including a pre - construction search for hawk nests and restrictions on construction and operational lighting will prevent impacts to threatened or endangered species or other important native fauna. Socioeconomic Environment Consistency with Local Land Use and Planning. The Project has been a part of the Hawaii County General Plan since 1967. The Project is consistent with the current County General Plan (1989) and is specifically listed on the Facilities and Land Use Patterns Allocation Guide Maps of the Plan. The Project also conforms with all other State and County Plans. Relocation. Widening the existing Puainako Street between Kilauea and Kawili Streets would necessitate acquisition of five single-family residential units along Puainako Street, displacing current residents. A relocation plan conforming to the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies of 1970 (P.L 91-646) will be developed. Public Facilities. Approximately 1.2 ha (3.0 acres) of right-of-way adjacent to the Waiakea School Complex would be required. Driveways for the complex would be redesigned, and signals and crosswalks installed for traffic and pedestrian safety. No school facilities, other than access roads, Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-12 I Executive Summary will be impacted by this project. Kaumana Cave County Park, which is approached by Alignment 1, is an important educational and cultural resource and has been avoided by road design. Visual Resources. The subtle topography and lack of important view planes affected by the Project limit visual impacts to minor levels. Alignments 2 and A would involve less intrusion into the viewplanes of neighboring residences than Alignments 1 and B. Cultural Resources. Archaeological survey in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) identified the presence of 14 sugar -cane related archaeological sites. No matter which alignments are chosen, four sites in the shared Lower Portion (none recommended for preservation) would be impacted. Depending upon which alignments are selected, a variable number of additional sites would be impacted. Five sites (including the only two Project sites recommended for preservation by SHPD) would be impacted on Alignment A. Three sites would be impacted by selecting Alignment B. Alignments 1 and 2 each contain one site. The recommended mitigation is preservation of two sites in Alignment A and data recovery at a portion of other sites. Agricultural Land. The amount of agricultural land to be removed is negligible, and only one operating farm is contained within the project corridors (in Alignment 1). A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating assessment determined that Prime farmland potentially converted directly by the project included approximately 3.2 ha (7.9 acres) in either Alignments 1 and 2. No indirect conversion is expected. Transportation Patterns. Under the No -Build Alternative, the current circulation and safety problems would continue and worsen. Any combination of build alignments would improve traffic flow on the existing Puainako Street, Komohana Street and particularly Kaumana Drive. The accident rate may be expected to decline with increases in road safety and traffic Level of Service. Safety and congestion would improve at the Waiakea School Complex. Hazardous Waste. No known hazardous waste sites are present, no active or former generators of hazardous waste are or were present, and no releases of hazardous materials have been reported along the project corridor. Energy. Improved traffic flow and engine efficiency would result from the Build Alternative. Alignment 1 is shorter and would thus involve the least consumption of energy for the Upper Portion. Construction -Phase Impacts. The Build Alternative would impact noise, air quality, and traffic during construction. Air quality concerns would be mitigated by a dust control plan. Noise impacts can be reduced by portable noise barriers, low -noise heavy equipment, or other measures that will be specified in the Construction Noise Permit issued by the State Department of Health. Optimum scheduling can reduce impacts related to noise, emissions, traffic and access. To the extent practicable, construction work fronting the school will be scheduled during the summer. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-13 Executive Summary Growth -Inducing Impacts. The Project is not expected to induce growth, although it may facilitate the in -filling of existing subdivisions and slightly accelerate development plans for other areas with approved zoning in Upper Kaumana. A number of intervening or competing opportunities for residential or agricultural subdivisions exist in areas within roughly the same distance to the employment and shopping centers of Hilo. No future residential subdivisions in the project area would produce growth -inducing impacts that are unanticipated or in conflict with the Project's needs and goals. Cumulative Impacts. The impact of the proposed Project in major environmental resource categories was analyzed in relation to other present and proposed actions in the Hilo area in order to determine whether adverse cumulative impacts would occur. The projects analyzed included existing development and programs, as well as other projects that are proposed or now in construction. Such projects included several roadways that intersect or adjoin the Project, and a number of residential subdivisions. The cumulative impact of could be severely adverse if no mitigation is associated with such actions. However, the scale of such projects and the mitigation associated with accompanying permits are expected to prevent substantial environmental impact to physical, biological or social resources. RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND POLICIES The proposed Project is specifically listed as an integral component of the Hawaii County General Plan (1989), the Hilo Community Development Plan (1975), Hawaii County Comprehensive Zoning Maps, and the Island of Hawaii Long Range Highway Plan (1991). Roadways are identified uses within the Urban and Agriculture State Land Use Districts traversed by the project area. The Project fulfills objectives of the Hawaii State Plan and the Hawaii State Functional Plan for Transportation. As part of the EIS process, the consistency of the Project with the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) policies of the federal and state government will be reviewed by the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program, Office of State Planning. COORDINATION AND AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Consultation with agencies, groups and individuals has been part of this Project. Section 9 discusses consultation; Appendix Al contains all correspondence received during consultation on the Project, including coordination letters from federal agencies with jurisdiction over aspects of the Project. The principal areas of concern that have been identified during the process are: o Right-of-way requirements o Preservation of archaeological sites o Perceived community need to commence Project immediately Requirements for property for right-of-way will be satisfied in conformance to the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-14 Executive Summary o Archaeological survey and mitigation has been supervised and approved by the State. Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). UNRESOLVED ISSUES The Project was granted a provisional_ Department of the Army Nationwide Permit for Dredge and Fill in the Waters of the U.S on September 10, 1996. This permit lapsed on January 21; 1997. An updated application for a Department of the Army Permit is being prepared concurrently with this EIS. If Alignment 1 is selected, a Nationwide Permit is expected to be issued, with mitigation consisting principally of Best Management Practices. Alignment 2 would require an individual permit, and mitigation is not yet specified. PERMITS A Section 404 Permit would be required from the United States Department of the Army. The consistency of the Project with the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) policies of the federal and state government will be reviewed by the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program, Office of State Planning. The State Department of Health must issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit signifying approval of mitigation measures for construction -related grading impacts. The State Department of Land and Natural Resources must approve a Stream Channel Alteration Permit for any work within identified stream channels. Hawaii County Department of Public Works will issue permits for Excavation of Public Highway, Grading, Grubbing, and Stockpiling, and a Permit for Outdoor Lighting and Permit for Electrical Work. This agency would also review designs related to encroachment within designated floodplains. The Hawaii County Planning Department will issue a Permit for Subdivision related to highway parcel impacts. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-15 Executive Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................... S-1 TABLEOF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................... i LISTOF TABLES...................................................................................................................v LISTOF FIGURES................................................................................................................vi 1 PURPOSE, NEED AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................1-1 1.1 Background.............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Project Location and Purpose.................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Project Description, Cost and Schedule.................................................................... 1-4 1.4 Need for Project.......................................................................................................1-4 1.4.1 System Linkage.............................................................................................. 1-4 1.4.2 Existing Roadway Deficiencies...................................................................... 1-7 1.4.3 Current Traffic Conditions.............................................................................. 1-7 1.4.4 Future Traffic Conditions............................................................................. 1-10 1.4.5 Current Safety.............................................................................................. 1-10 1.4.6 Future Safety................................................................................................. 1-12 2 ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Evaluation and Screening of Alternatives................................................................2-1 2.3 Alternatives Retained for Further Consideration.......................................................2-4 2.3.1 The No -Build Alternative ............................................ ................................... 2-4 2.3.2 Build Alternatives...........................................................................................2-5 2.4 Costs......................................................................................................................2- 13 2.4.1 No Build........................................................................................................ 2- 13 2.4.2 Build Alternatives......................................................................................... 2-13 2.4.3 Comparative Cost for Alternative Alignments...............................................2-13 2.5 Alternatives Considered and Withdrawn From Further Study ................................ 2-14 2.5.1 Transportation Systems Management (TSM)/ Travel Demand Management (TDM) Alternative ......................................... 2-14 2.5.2 Mass Transit Alternative............................................................................... 2-16 2.5.3 Alternative Roadway Alignments................................................................. 2-17 2.5.4 Related Roadway Projects............................................................................ 2-18 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING................................................................................3-1 3.1 Physical Environment.............................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Geology and Geological Hazards ........... .........................................................3-1 3.1.2 Physiography and Soils..................................................................................3-2 Draft Enviromnental Impact Statement Page i Table of Contents 4 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 3.1.3 Weather and Climate.........................................:............................................3-4 PhysicalEnvironment............................................................................................. 3.1.4 Hydrology and Floodplains...... .............................. ........................................ 3-5 3.1.5 Water Quality ................................................... .............................................. 3-7 3.1.6 Air Quality................................................................................................... 3-18 3.1.7 Noise Levels................................................................................................. 3-10 Biological Environment........................................................................................ 3-12 3.2.1 Flora and Plant Communities ............................................ .............. ........ ...... 3-12 3.2.2 Wetlands......................................................................................................3-20 4-3 5 3.2.3 Fauna...........................................................................................................3-26 4.3.1 Consistency with Local Land Use and Planning............................................4-37 Socioeconomic Environment ................................. ................................................3-28 3.3.1 Existing Land Use and Planning...................................................................3-28 4.3.4 Community Facilities and Public Services....................................................4-44 3.3.2 Demography.................................................................................................3-29 3.3.3 Public Services.............................................................................................3-35 4.3.7 Historic/Archaeological Resources...............................................................4-47 3.3.4 Parks and Recreation .... ................................................................................ 3-35 3.3.5 Visual Resources..........................................................................................3-36 4.3.10 Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic ............................................ :......................... 3.3.6 Historic Sites/Archaeological Resources...................................................... .3-36 3.3.7 Agricultural Land .................... ..................................................................... 3-42 3.3.8 Transportation Patterns.................................................................................3-42 3.3.9 Hazardous Waste ..................................... ...................................................... 3-46 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND PROPOSED MITIGATION.....................................................................................4-1 PhysicalEnvironment............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Geology and Geological Hazards..........................................................4-1 4.1.2 Physiography and Soils ........................................................................ 4-3 4.1.3 Hydrology and Floodplains....................................................... ........... 4-4 4.1.4 Water Quality.......................................................................................4-7 4.1.5 Air Quality.........................................................................................4-10 4.1.6 Noise Levels.......................................................................................4-15 Biological Environment.......................................................................................A-31 4.2.1 Flora and Plant Communities.............................................................. 4-3 1 4.2.2 Wetlands............................................................................................4-33 4.2.3 Fauna................................................................................................. 4-3 5 Socioeconomic Environment .......................... ....................................................... 4-37 4.3.1 Consistency with Local Land Use and Planning............................................4-37 4.3.2 Relocation....................................................................................................4-38 4.3.3 Community Cohesiveness and Identity.........................................................4-42 4.3.4 Community Facilities and Public Services....................................................4-44 4.3.5 Parks and Recreation....................................................................................4-45 4.3.6 Visual Resources..........................................................................................4-45 4.3.7 Historic/Archaeological Resources...............................................................4-47 4.3.8 Agricultural Land.........................................................................................4-50 4.3.9 Motorized Vehicle Transportation ... .......................................................... ...4-52 4.3.10 Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic ............................................ :......................... 4-57 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page ii Table of Contents 5 T 7 CHAPTER 343, HRS FINDINGS..............................................................................7-1 7.1 Probable Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects............................................7-1 7.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Short -Term Impacts..............................................7-1 7.1.2 Unavoidable Adverse Long -Term Impacts..............................................7-1 7.2 Relationship Between Short -Term Use of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity ........................ 7-2 7.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ........................................ 7-2 7.4 Unresolved Issues....................................................................................................7-3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page iii Table of Contents 4.3.11 Hazardous Waste...........................................................................................4-60 4.3.12 Energy..........................................................................................................4-60 4.4 Construction -Phase Impacts..................................................................................4-61 4.4.1 Sediments, Water Quality and Flooding........................................................4-61 4.4.2 Air Quality...................................................................................................4-62 4.4.3 Noise............................................................................................................4-63 4.4.4 Traffic Congestion........................................................................................4-64 4.4.5 Economic Impacts from Construction.................................:..........................4-65 4.4.6 Public Utilities...............................................................................................4-66 4.5 Growth -Inducing Impacts......................................................................................4-66 4.6 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................4-67 4.7 Secondary Impacts................................................................................................4-72 4.8 Overview of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................... 4-72 DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION..................................................................5-1 5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Section 4(f) Resources Present................................................................................5-1 5.2.1 Site 50-10-35-18914 .................................. ........... .............................................. 5-1 5.2.2 Site 50-10-35-18915...........................................................................................5-2 5.3 Section 4(f) Conclusions.........................................................................................5-5 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER POLICIES AND LAND USE PLANS ..................6-1 6.1 Hawaii State Plan...................:................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Hawaii State Functional Plans................................................................................. 6-1 6.3 State Land Use Districts..........................................................................................6-2 6.4 Hawaii County General Plan ......................................... .......................................... 6-2 6.5 General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Maps and Facilities Map .............6-3 6.6 Hawaii County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance..................................................6-4 6.7 Hilo Community Development Plan.........................................................................6-4 6.8 Island of Hawaii Long -Range Highway Plan...........................................................6-4 6.9 Coastal Zone Management Act................................................................................6-4 6.10 Required Permits and Approvals..............................................................................6-6 7 CHAPTER 343, HRS FINDINGS..............................................................................7-1 7.1 Probable Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects............................................7-1 7.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Short -Term Impacts..............................................7-1 7.1.2 Unavoidable Adverse Long -Term Impacts..............................................7-1 7.2 Relationship Between Short -Term Use of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity ........................ 7-2 7.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ........................................ 7-2 7.4 Unresolved Issues....................................................................................................7-3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page iii Table of Contents 8 LIST OF DOCUMENT PREPARERS.....................................................................8-1 9 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...........................................................9-1 9.1 Project Organization................................................................................................ 9-1 9.2 Agencies Contacted................................................................................................ 9-1 9.3 Public Involvement..................................................................................................9-2 9.4 Chronology of Consultation and Coordination.........................................................9-4 10 DEIS DISTRIBUTION LIST..................................................................................10-1 11 INDEX...................................................................................................................11-1 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................R-1 LIST OF TABLES Table S-1 Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures, BuildVersus No-Build................................................................................. S-8 Table S-2 Summary of Impacts for Build Alternative Alignments .................................. S-10 Table 1-1 Definition of Traffic Level of Service..............................................................1-8 Table 1-2 Current Traffic Volumes.................................................................................. 1-9 Table 1-3 Near -Capacity or Over -Capacity Intersections................................................. 1-9 Table 1-4 2020 Projected Traffic Volumes Without Proposed Roadway Improvements............................................................................................. Table 1-5 Accident Rates Within Project Limits............................................................ 1-12 Table 2-1 Initial Alignments Comparison Matrix.............................................................2-3 Table 2-2 Summary of Major Intersections and Changes to Intersection Controls, LowerPortion............................................................................................. 2-1 1 Table 2-3 Cross -Street Widening...................................................................................2-14 Table 2-4 Summary of Project Costs, by Alternative...................................................... 2-16 Table 3-1 Summary of State of Hawaii and National Ambient Air Quality Standards .....3-10 Table 3-2 A -Weighted Sound Level, in Decibels...........................................................3-12 Table 3-3 Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria ........................... 3-1- -l3Table Table3-4 Traffic Noise Measurement Results ..................................................... .......... 3-14 Table 3-5 Background Ambient Noise Measurement Results ......................................... 3-15 Table 3-6 Distribution of Wetlands.................................................................................3-25 Table 3-7 1990 U.S. Census Data, Census Tracts ....................................... ....................3-33 Table 3-8 1990 U.S. Census Data, Census Block Groups...............................................3-34 Table 3-9 Archaeological Site Summary and Significance.............................................3-40 Table 4-1 Change to Impermeable Surface.......................................................................4-8 Table 4-2 HC, CO and NO, Emissions (Tons Per Year) .................................................. 4-1 1 Table 4-3 Estimated Worst -Case 1 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ...................4-13 Table 4-4 Estimated Worst -Case 8 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ...................4-14 Table 4-5 Noise Impacted Properties, No -Build Alternative, Kilauea Avenue to KomohanaStreet......................................................................................... 4-16 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page iv Table of Contents Table 4-6a Noise Impacted Properties, Build Alternative, Kilauea Avenue to LIST OF FIGURES Figure S-1 WaiakeaSchools.............................................................................................4-25 S-2 Table 4-6b Noise Impacted Properties, Build Alternative, Alignment A Bypass Section........ 4-25 Table 4-6c Noise Impacted Properties, Build Alternative, Alignment B Bypass Section ........ 4-26 Table 4-6d Noise Impacted Properties, Build Alternative, Alignment 1 ............................4-27 1-2 Table 4-6e Noise Impacted Properties, Build Alternative, Alignment 2 ............................4-28 Table 4-7 Potential Displaced Residential Units..............................................................4-39 Table 4-8 Availability and Price of Rental and Purchase Homes, Hilo, April 1998 .........4-42 Table 4-9a Recommended Mitigation for Archaeological Sites........................................4-50 Table 4-9b Archaeological Sites Requiring Preservation...................................................4-51 Table 4-10 2020 Projected Traffic Volumes, by Alternative..............................................4-54 2-8 Table 4-11 Level of Service at Near or Over Capacity Major 2-9 Figure 2-2d Intersections, by Alternative.........................................................................4-55 2-10 Table 4-12 Projects with Potential to Produce Cumulative Impacts...................................4-69 Table 4-13 Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Figure 3-3a BuildVersus No-Build.................................................................................4-73 Table 4-14 Summary of Impacts for Build Alternative Alignments...................................4-75 Table 5-1 Archaeological Sites Requiring Preservation....................................................5-4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure S-1 Puainako Widening/Extension, Project Location .............................................. S-2 Figure S-2 Typical Section, Lower Puainako, Komohana Street to Kilauea Avenue .......... S-3 Figure S-3 Typical Section, Upper Puainako, Kaumana Drive to Komohana Street........... S-4 Figure 1-1 Puainako Widening/Extension, Project Location ............................................... 1-2 Figure 1-2 State and County Highway System...................................................................1-3 Figure 1-3 Typical Section, Lower Puainako, Komohana Street to Kilauea Avenue ...........1-5 Figure 1-4 Typical Section, Upper Puainako, Kaumana Drive to Komohana Street ...........1-6 Figure 2-1 Alternative Alignments Considered During Scoping........................................2-2 Figure 2-2a Lower Puainako: Lanes, Turning Movements and Traffic Patterns....................2-7 Figure 2-2b Lower Puainako: Lanes, Turning Movements and Traffic Patterns (cont.) ......... 2-8 Figure 2-2c Lower Puainako: Lanes, Turning Movements and Traffic Patterns (cont.) ......... 2-9 Figure 2-2d Lower Puainako: Lanes, Turning Movements and Traffic Patterns (cont.) ....... 2-10 Figure3-1 Kaumana Cave.................................................................................................3-3 Figure 3-2 Approximate Limits, 100 -Year Flood Zone......................................................3-6 Figure 3-3a Location of Noise Measurement Sites............................................................3-16 Figure 3-3b Location of Noise Measurement Sites (cont.)..................................................3-17 Figure 3-4 Streams and Wetlands....................................................................................3-24 Figure 3-5 Project Area Census Tracts and Block Groups...............................................3-32 Figure 3-6 Archaeological Sites ................ ...................................................................... 3-41 Figure 3-7 Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) ................. 3-44 Figure 3-8 1994 Average Daily Traffic Volumes, Major Project Area Roadways ............3-45 Figure 4 -la Noise Impacts and Mitigation — Key to Maps.................................................4-17 Figure 4 -Ib Noise Impacts and Mitigation —Kilauea Avenue to Waiakea Schools .............4-18 Figure 4-1c Noise Impacts and Mitigation — Bypasses A and B ........................................4-19 Figure 4 -Id Noise Impacts and Mitigation — Upper Portion to Sunrise Estates .................4-20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page v Table of Contents Figure 4 -le Noise Impacts and Mitigation — Upper Portion, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page vi Table of Contents Alignment 1 — Edita Street Area................................................................ 4-21 Figure 4- If Noise Impacts and Mitigation — Upper Portion, Alignment 1 — Pacific Plantation.......................................................... ........ 4-22 Figure 4- 1 Noise Impacts and Mitigation — Upper Portion, Alignment 1 — Wilder Road Area.................................................................4-23 Figure 4-1h Noise Impacts and Mitigation — Upper Portion, Alignment 2 ..........................4-24 Figure 4-2 Residential Relocations................................................................................... 4-40 Figure 4-3 2020 Average Daily Traffic Volumes, Major Project Area Roadways, Build and No -Build Scenarios......................................:..............................4-58 Figure 5-1 Location of Historic Sites 18914 and 18915 ...................... ........................ ........ 5-3 Figure 6-1 Rights -of -Way and Zoning.............................................................................6-5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page vi Table of Contents 6 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix AI: Comments by Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Appendix A2: Transcript of Public Meeting, 20 July 1992 Appendix B: Vegetation and Wetlands Habitat Report Appendix C: Vertebrate Fauna Report Appendix D: Kaumana Cave Report Appendix E I: Archaeological Inventory Survey, Hunt and McDermott 1993 Appendix E2: Supplemental Archaeological Inventory Survey, Robins and Spear 199 Appendix F: Drainage Report Appendix G: Traffic Report Appendix H: Water Quality Study Appendix I: Preliminary Engineering Design and Costs Summary Appendix J: Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Documentation Appendix K: Acoustic Study Appendix L: Air Quality Assessment Appendix M: Tax Map Key and List of Owners for Affected Properties Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page vii Table of Contents Section 1: 0 I PURPOSE, NEED AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Background The Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and the Hawaii State Department of Transportation (HDOT) are serving as joint lead agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with federal and State of Hawaii requirements, with the assistance of the Hawaii County Department of Public Works. The accepting authority for the EIS is the Hawaii Division Administrator of FHWA. The Project was originally developed as separate efforts to extend the County's portion of the roadway and to widen the State's portion. These projects were then integrated to optimize planning and design. Because the County had initiated the efforts, it was agreed that the County should continue to organize preparation of the EIS and Project design. During the planning stages of the Project, it was subsequently determined that federal funding under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) would be utilized, which required the involvement of FHWA. This EIS is prepared in compliance with federal law, .including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as State of Hawaii law (Chapter 343, HRS)'. The purpose of this EIS is to investigate the impacts to the physical, biological and social environments that would result from construction of the proposed Project and to devise mitigation measures to minimize r potential adverse impacts. The EIS under preparation will be a joint Federal -State document fulfilling both State of Hawaii and federal environmental protection laws. The EIS revises and replaces a State of Hawaii EIS prepared for the Project in 1993 by the County of Hawaii (original EIS). In addition to the inclusion of federal involvement in the Project, several design changes in the Project have been implemented, including intersection improvement and widening and realignment of corridors in certain areas. 1.2 Project Location and Purpose The proposed Project involves roadways in the town of Hilo, in Hawaii County (Figure 1-1). The purposes of this Project are: 1) to improve arterial traffic flow of the State Highway system by providing a direct link between the existing Puainako Street (Highway 2000) and the Saddle Road (Highway 200; designated as Kaumana Drive below Country Club Drive); and 2) to r alleviate congested and unsafe traffic conditions on Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive. Figure 1-2 depicts the State and County Highway system within Hilo. 'Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 200, §11; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U. S. C 4332, (2)(c) Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (DOT) 49 U. S. C. 303; Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508); and Federal Highway Administration's Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR 771). Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-1 Purpose, Need and Project Description _ N Nm cACInc Q o4 Lau KOH LA � At, `AYE°° HAWAIIAN ISLANDS'- NOHALA LOCATION MAP /- NORTH Frj\<i HANAKUA NORTH HILo ( r 4 ( 1 % I a F \SFS �/ _ �s PROJECT LOCATION,Q/ Noam KONA Boum HIL° � �I � � 11� I ' I � 'oMA � % R ✓ I I ' •• , � ,� �-,/fin _J _ Q �I _ - , , �•V x. I• , � �� 1 I o � �J�� // i 1 7f, ✓ \I lower, t ,d.l-[ a vu 1, I A) KONAPUNAP _ ////!,\.• ,.II ® I ' KAu 11 •,tii "' • •./ jl )r NORTH fl ` �%Il r ( y . Irl s9a ` - , If �V,h I ' ,I '\�i � \) LA _ T a -� Q, ill , II ,.. yPo .1' AI , /1 " " -��• -Iii - y ✓ :" -_ , /� -, 5y LOW 3 ORTI `tl II )� I �/�• ' I l II/j'�� —� L i II I 1 I l ��I I ; ,;�; 1 � �� ; � i iC''{-J �� I .�, I , `� I � 1 /^ . (l �, � E I I • I �I a - , / L " P-: f \V ✓1 I M % I `1 I ~ P, AI A \I 1 1 A,1I% n""9_ �' ill 3 11 N�Ar pR�N /� •omega'1`1 II ' , ' ' - ' E P qo �•: r s• VM I I I �\ `C I Q �" �.-�I .-J h __ 1 � i�c ' III '"li � • • � ' �I .-1 � •, •1 � _I -�� � 1 W J \ � 1 �le� I K �-x(211 r121' .A�� i- .. � L f� --� �II ��� \ 1 ~. '- � I ➢'- � - 393 '� PO[. A A�/j9;1 '\ j I� ..n I�, ` I ` _ , ,\� {� Water ST 'a L 'q=`� wr. �¢,., •I'�� ��,\� y�,1 _1 I.I I ,i (` I I',I, L \ — li-.. _ - '4'//.l E. Tank 5I Kew Rl zez IAYp'� � \ .,�, . � Z•u c �..I ' -�\ �IL - Ali- v , _ III, 1 Lij19 TO i` WAIMEA Nak ORTH p��` CRO -afS 61t' I ,I _ ' 1 '1 AL ERNSAT o'O� - - 1 1 ` A NMENT _ I p� �AM�H SHA TR�CP6�C ROADI \ e .� _ ; 'I ;� ll' U ERI P F TION ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE i .'ALIT NATIVE 11, �. UPPER PORTION°�oJJ :A'LI NMENtT 2 �-- - j . � ALTERNATIVE � 2 'UP R ; POR x 1 j 2 . I'I ALIGNMENT #2 Sc i kiioriae ers I''1 ''i j e a �� TO UPPER PORTION o� Aero sT. 0 1 w12000:I 11 _ , I' I 1 c SADDLE o� " 4,00 \ = a ROAD yp SIC _ I iR ij' f t \ J; r ,w! °II( WAluw ST. (y v`� I gr / \ nn TITLE FIGURE ANHA ST PUAINAKO WIDENING/EXTENSION TO a 2P PROJECT LOCATION ��� WAIAKEA x I� L4N U ST 21--! 1 ---°TO ~s KEAUKAHA UKA TO 11 \ PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE VOLCANO\ HILO, HAWAII 10/26/98 92014/M/ EIS/SCANS/FI-1 DWG/SCALE.1=1 Page 1 -2 IL NOTE: This map indicates existing transportation facilities and facilities proposed in various existing plans; Figure 17, Transportation Plan, shows the facilities proposed in the Hilo Plan. PROJECT HWY 19 LOCATION • • •SADDLI • • KAWAHA • •�lr • • A-• • � v1 • • • • • • • • PROPOSED• AINAK•• • • • • ykU'M1y • • • • • KAWAILANI x • QQnC�,i • ® .� • g4i• • • K o� 1. • �O• • • •� E�4 '3 3 THOROUGHFARES & STREETS HA HA Primary Secondary • Arterial Arterial • 36.6m ROW 24.4m ROW o Existing • • • • N-Fi-f-• •-.-.-.-•-.-.. Improve • • • • • • • • • 00000 •••••••• Proposed •• • TITLE STATE & COUNTY HIGHWAY SYSTEM PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION L HILO, HAWAII 92014/M /.. EIS/F1-2 DWG/SCALE 1=1 HILO BAY COMMERCIAL AREA WUAKEA SCHOOL COMPIFK MAJOR SHOPPING CENTER PACIFIC OCEAN ST AKO .. • j • • • mss,. • • i• • UN"OE'W • 0• OF HAWAII AT HILO HILO ELD q • \ 1 ACCE ADWAY ET _ • \ 0 HWY 11MAJOR • • • \ •� r • • ` • •SADDLI • • KAWAHA • •�lr • • A-• • � v1 • • • • • • • • PROPOSED• AINAK•• • • • • ykU'M1y • • • • • KAWAILANI x • QQnC�,i • ® .� • g4i• • • K o� 1. • �O• • • •� E�4 '3 3 THOROUGHFARES & STREETS HA HA Primary Secondary • Arterial Arterial • 36.6m ROW 24.4m ROW o Existing • • • • N-Fi-f-• •-.-.-.-•-.-.. Improve • • • • • • • • • 00000 •••••••• Proposed •• • TITLE STATE & COUNTY HIGHWAY SYSTEM PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION L HILO, HAWAII 92014/M /.. EIS/F1-2 DWG/SCALE 1=1 HILO BAY COMMERCIAL AREA WUAKEA SCHOOL COMPIFK MAJOR SHOPPING CENTER PACIFIC OCEAN 0 1 2 1-2% scale in kilometers 0 4000 8000 DATE scale in feet 10/26/98 Airport Ultimate Airport & Boundary �.J Page 1 —3 x'11 j • mss,. • L 1 • GE ELD \ 1 ACCE ADWAY ET _ \ 0 HWY 11MAJOR \ \ b • • SHOPPIG : • • • • NCENTER \ • • • • • • • • • • • o G� 0 f r•o AIRPORTS & HARBORS • s• ® Port Facilities 0 1 2 1-2% scale in kilometers 0 4000 8000 DATE scale in feet 10/26/98 Airport Ultimate Airport & Boundary �.J Page 1 —3 x'11 1.3 Project Description. Cost and Schedule Puainako Street would be widened from two to four lanes. Other proposed improvements would include dual sidewalks and bicycle lanes, improvements to intersections, and two new traffic signals (see typical cross-section of Lower Puainako, Figure 1-3). Puainako Street would be extended as a two-lane road with a 37 -meter (120 -ft) right-of-way approximately 7.3 km (4.5 miles) between Komohana Street and the Saddle Road (see Figure 1-4, typical cross-section of Upper Puainako). The eastern project terminus is at the intersection of Puainako Street and Kilauea Avenue and the western terminus at approximately the 10 km (6 mile) marker on the Saddle Road (detailed descriptions of proposed improvements are contained in Section 2.3, Alternatives). This Project is included in the current approved federally required State Transportation Improvement program (STIP). The Project would cost an estimated $62.650 to $67.234 million, depending on the combination of alignments chosen. This total includes right-of-way acquisition, engineering and construction. If approvals are obtained in a timely manner, Project design would begin in 1999. Construction would begin in 1999 and would be finished in the year 2001. 1.4 Need for Project 1.4.1 System Linkage Puainako Street is currently a two-lane roadway extending from Railroad Avenue to Komohana Street, in Waiakea. The existing right-of-way has a minimum of 38 in (125 ft.) between Kanoelehua Avenue and Kilauea Street. At that point, the right-of-way narrows to 12 in (40 ft.) up to its intersection with Komohana. According to the Hawaii County General Plan Facilities Map, Puainako Street is intended to link the Saddle Road with a future coastal road serving the Puna District (see Figure 1-2). The Zoning Map calls for the provision of a 37 -meter (120 -ft.) right-of-way along the entire length of the roadway. The State Highway system provides inter -regional connections between communities. The State Highway system presently extends along Puainako Street between Kanoelehua Avenue and Komohana Street. A gap in the system occurs between Komohana Street and the Saddle Road, which begins at approximately the 10 -km (6 -mile) marker above the residential area of Kaumana. The Saddle Road provides a cross -island link with Mauna Kea, Pohakuloa Training Area and on to West Hawaii. There is currently no convenient connection between Komohana Street and the Saddle Road. The proposed Project would provide that important link in the State Highway system by directly connecting the existing Puainako Street with Saddle Road.' ' Although it is part of the State Highway System, the Saddle Road is currently owned and maintained by the County of Hawaii. The State has reached an agreement with the County to take over responsibility for the Saddle Road, subject to improvements of the roadway. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-4 Purpose, Need and Project Description L� 0 F- r 0 OF PAVEMENT TITLE TYPICAL SECTION LOWER PUAINAKO KOMOHANA STREET TO KILAUEA AVENUE PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HILO, HAWAII 92014/M./..EI$/F1-3 DWG/S6 1=1 OF RIGHT OF WAY 36.6 m 1 120') RIGHT OF WAY EN01 F OEM F -- x OF PAVEMENT 10 m (34') WIDE TYPICAL 4.3 m 3.6 m 3.6 m 1.5 n (NO LEFT TURN NE)14 12 12 5.0 LEFT TURN LANE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE BIKE LANE CONC. CURB LAWN AND PLAN rINGS --`-----------1 ------- 8/19 v E 2% SIDEWALK AREA m i VARIES NEW UTILITY POLE NOTES: 1. MAXIMUM SIDESLOPE SHALL BE 2:1. 2. UTILITIES WITHIN ROADWAY NOT SHOWN. Page 1-5 F - z F g z UJ w iw :2 z ow O_ 0 �_j i� U) z 0 0 0 0 I I i VARIES3.0 m 10 m z(10') WIDE 33 uj z SIDEWALK UJ w 1.5 m 3.6 m 5.0 12 W AREA B TRAVEL LANE 0 O6 0.6mLANE 0 a 2' 2 CURB & i N i GUTTER z "Of010 2% TITLE TYPICAL SECTION LOWER PUAINAKO KOMOHANA STREET TO KILAUEA AVENUE PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HILO, HAWAII 92014/M./..EI$/F1-3 DWG/S6 1=1 OF RIGHT OF WAY 36.6 m 1 120') RIGHT OF WAY EN01 F OEM F -- x OF PAVEMENT 10 m (34') WIDE TYPICAL 4.3 m 3.6 m 3.6 m 1.5 n (NO LEFT TURN NE)14 12 12 5.0 LEFT TURN LANE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE BIKE LANE CONC. CURB LAWN AND PLAN rINGS --`-----------1 ------- 8/19 v E 2% SIDEWALK AREA m i VARIES NEW UTILITY POLE NOTES: 1. MAXIMUM SIDESLOPE SHALL BE 2:1. 2. UTILITIES WITHIN ROADWAY NOT SHOWN. Page 1-5 F - z F g z UJ w iw :2 z ow O_ 0 �_j i� U) z 0 0 0 0 z wz �z V) w VARIES z� 0w I U 00 I V I 0 z 0 o 0 U I I 2:1 MAX. �(/ ----- SLOPE i FUTURE WIDENING ROADWAY STRUCTURES SYMMETRIC ABOUT q OF RIGHT OF WAY FUTURE TRAVEL WAY T1 TLE TYPICAL SECTION UPPER PUAINAKO KAUMANA DRIVE TO KOMOHANA STREET PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HILO, HAWAII 92014/M:/ EIS/F1-4DWG/SC L1=1 1-4 wm•. OF RIGHT OF WAY 36.6 m RIGHT OF WAY 120') 2.4 m 3.0 m (8.0') (10') SWALE I SHOULDE OF PAVEMENT I 18 m 3.6 m 3.6 m (12') T (12') VEL LANE I TRAVEL LANE 0.6 2' - ----Cr.257__ _-- 2% I VARIES H w� Icwi�w 3.0 m 2.4 m z oa (10') (8.0') I HOULDER SWALE I 0 0 06 m 0 2' z 00 I U 2%o 6.25% - - G - - - 2:1 MAX. -----------0.20 m SLOPE (0.67) MAX. NOTE: 1. MAXIMUM SIDESLOPE SHALL BE 2:1. Page 1-6 e The proposed transportation Project is intended to meet the existing and projected demand, based upon local land use plans. 1.4.2 Existing Roadway Deficiencies Although Puainako Street is essentially straight, it has considerable deficiencies, including: o Limited sight distance due to poor vertical alignment _ o High proportion of no -passing zones based on poor sight distances 0 3 -meter (10 -ft.) wide traffic lanes that decrease potential level of service as traffic increases o Narrow shoulders o Excessive access points from existing driveways and street intersections o Limited pedestrian facilities o No signalized crossing at the Waiakea school complex. These deficiencies increase congestion, decrease capacity, and worsen safety conditions. Without a substantial upgrade, Puainako Street cannot fulfill the function of a main link in the State Highway system. 1.4.3 Current Traffic Conditions As the upland neighborhoods of Hilo have grown in population, Puainako Street has become a primary conduit routing traffic to and from the neighborhoods of Kaumana and Waiakea Uka. Puainako Street serves drivers destined for a number of locations within Hilo and in surrounding districts. Waiakea High School, Waiakea Intermediate School, Waiakea Elementary School, Hawaii Community College and the University of Hawaii at Hilo are all located on or near Puainako Street (Figure 1-1). Motorists on Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive currently experience congested traffic conditions at peak hours. Both Waiakea Elementary and Waiakea Intermediate Schools are located on Puainako Street between Kinoole Street and Kawili Street. Traffic congestion associated with the start of school (7:00 to 8:00 AM) and the close of school (2:00 to 3:00 PM) occurs daily, as vehicles carrying students enter and exit the school complex. Because the start of the school day coincides with the morning work commute, particularly bad congestion occurs in the morning. Traffic circulation can also be poor between 4:00 and 6:00 PM because of returning commuters. Another source of traffic is students, faculty, staff and visitors of the University of Hawaii at Hilo and Hawaii Community College. Traffic to and from the colleges exhibits moderate peaks in the morning and late afternoon, but also contributes a steady flow throughout the day and into the evening. Traffic engineers assess the quality of traffic flow by the Level of Service (LOS) (see Table 1-1). LOS is determined by comparing the amount of traffic using a roadway and the amount that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 Purpose, Need and Project.Description Table 1-1 Definition of Traffic I.twel of CPrvir,- Level of Service Operational Description I V/C Ratio for Arterial Roads A Free flow 0.00-0.60 B Stable flow (slight dela 0.61-0.70 C Stable flow (acceptable dela 0.71-0.80 D Approaching unstable flow 0.81-0.90 E Unstable flow 0.91-1.00 IL F Forced flow >1.00 aource: based on Iransportauon Kesearch Board. 198b. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Washington, D.C. Note: The VIC (Volume -to -Capacity) ratio indicates relative traffic demand relative to the road's traffic carrying ability. road is designed to carry (its capacity). LOS has values between "A" (Free Flow, when traffic flows with congestion) and "F" (Forced Flow, when traffic frequently comes to a stop). LOS "A", B, and "C" are considered acceptable. LOS "D" is considered a "desirable minimum" operating level of service. LOS "E" is an undesirable condition and "F" is unacceptable. From an operational perspective, LOS "F" results in traffic queues backing up from downstream intersections, affecting traffic flow at the study intersection. From a planning perspective, LOS "F" indicates that the traffic demand far exceeds the roadway's carrying capacity. Roadway design is undertaken with the goal of producing LOS Level "C" or higher - which is the minimum goal of the proposed Project. A field traffic study and data analysis for this Project is contained in Appendix G. The field investigation was conducted in May and June 1992, while school was in session. Manual traffic count surveys were conducted from 6:30 to 8:30 AM and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM at a number of affected intersections. Additional traffic data were obtained from the State DOT. Traffic volumes along Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive are illustrated in Table 1-2, below. A capacity analysis was performed on the data, based upon procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 1985) and associated software from the Federal Highways Administration. The study concluded that the traffic Level of Service operates at undesirable levels at peak periods. Several descriptors of the traffic demand relative to the road's traffic carrying ability were generated for all intersections. The current ratio of traffic volume to capacity along several segments of Puainako Street approaches or exceeds 1.0 during peak hours. Many intersections were found to be operating at poor condition (LOS "E" or "F") at either or both the AM and PM peak hours. Table 1-3 below presents the near or over -capacity intersections in the AM peak hour. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-8 Purpose, Need and Project Description Table 1-2 Current Traffic Volumes Roadway Section 24 -Hour AM Peak Hour Volumes PM Peak LVolumes Hour Volumes Puainako St W of Kanoelehua Ave 20,164 1,057 1,065 1,600 Puainako St E of Kilauea Ave Puainako St Between Kilauea St and Kinoole St 17,527 11,580 1,402 685 569 484 621 527 1476 941 Puainako St W of Kinoole St 8,743 688 Puainako St E of Iwalani/Kawili Sts Puainako St W of Iwalani/Kawili Sts 7,460 8,427 632 786 Puainako St E of Komohana St 6,622 519 Komohana St N of Puainako St 15,259 1243 Saddle Road E of Country Club Dr .Qnnrro Th- Tv..Fa.. 1,630 130 146 .,,�yci, cin —bunds! (Hppenalx G). Table 1-3 Near -Capacity or Over -Ca aciq Intersections INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A.M PEAK HOUR Puainako at Komohana F - Unacceptable LOS Puainako at Iwalani/Kawili E - Undesirable LOS Puainako at Waiakea Schools E - Undesirable LOS II Puainako at Lokahi I D Desirable Minimum LOS Source:The Traffic Management Consultant (Appendix G). Note: LOS listed pertains to one or more branches of the intersection. Figures 3-5 and p. 11 of Appendix G provide detailed data. (Refer to Table 1-1 for further definition of Level of Service codes.) Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-9 Purpose, Need and Project Description Conditions are worst at the intersection of Puainako and Komohana, where motorists turning onto Komohana in the AM peak hour are stuck in a long queue. The left -turn movements from the exit driveways of Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate Schools both operate at LOS "E" ("undesirable"). Vehicles on the east- (makai-) bound lane of Puainako Street turning left at the school entrances must cross driveways from the through traffic lane. This results in queuing on Puainako Street, and occasional gridlock. Portions of Kaumana Drive are congested during the AM peak. The other intersections in the study area operate satisfactorily. Poor levels of service at the PM peak hour (4:15-5:15 PM) are currently found only at the westbound approach of Puainako Street to Komohana Street and on Kaumana Drive. 1.4.4 Future Traffic Conditions The State Department of Transportation in its Island of Hawaii Long Range Highway Plan forecasts an increase in traffic in the Hilo area of up to 68 percent between the years 1990 and 2010 (HDOT 1991). An assumption in this plan was the existence in 2010 of both the Puainako Street Widening and Extension project and accelerated upgrade of the Saddle Road. This plan is currently under revision. A separate modeling of traffic volumes under the assumption "No -Build" was performed for this EIS and is presented in Table 1-4. These volumes represent increases of 50 to 100 percent for the various points measured. The LOS at intersections will drop substantially, and most intersections along Puainako will operate at Level D or poorer with no improvements. It is clear that congestion will worsen to critical levels without remedial measures. 1.4.5 Current Safetv The Hawaii County Police Department (see HCPD letter of 15 August 1995, see Appendix Al) recorded the following accident totals for the five years preceding July 1995: 0 139 on Kaumana Drive between Country Club Drive and Komohana Street 0 102 on Komohana Street between Waianuenue Avenue and Puainako Street 0 332 on Puainako Street between Komohana Street and Kilauea Avenue. Currently, poor sight distance, deficient horizontal alignment and the lack of shoulders combine with regularly deficient levels of service to cause high accident rates on Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive. Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-10 Purpose, Need and Project Description p Table 1-4 2020 Proiected Traffic Volumes Without Prnnngi-d Rnnriwav Tmnrnvnm on*e Roadway Section 24 -Hour AM Peak PM Peak Volumes Hour Hour Volumes Volumes Puainako St 36,300 1,983 2,798 W of Kanoelehua Ave Puainako St 30,600 1,935 2,376 E of'Kilauea Ave Puainako St Between 22,500 1,346 1,812 Kilauea St and Kinoole St Puainako St 20,100 1,485 1,407 W of Kinoole St Puainako St 18,000 1,403 1,268 E of Iwalani/Kawili Sts Puainako St 15,200 1,180 1,347 W of Iwalani/Kawili Sts Puainako St 15,000 1,186 1,364 E of Komohana St Komohana St 24,000 2,222 2,058 N of Puainako St Saddle Road 5,500 468967 E of Country Club Dr Source: the battle Management Consultant. Forecast assumes major improvements to Saddle Road. To arrive at an accident rate that can accurately assess the safety of these roads requires data on the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for these road segments. Table 1-5 compares the accident rate adjusted for level of traffic for each road segment, for the year 1993 (the latest date for which both accident and ADT data are available). The average rate of accidents occurring on the above roadway segments is between 2.5 and 5.0 times the County average, indicating substantially more unsafe conditions than average. Residents of Kaumana have been vocal at public meetings and in letters to the editor in expressing the need to improve road safety conditions along Kaumana Drive, as well as providing alternative emergency access routes to and from Kaumana. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-11 Purpose, Need and Project Description Table 1-5 Accident RntPc Within PrniPrt 1.imitc source: riawao rare iramc tngineer (see Appendix Al); Hawaii County Police Department; Hawaii County Public Works Department, Highways Division. Note: Accident rate is normalized to accidents per 1.6 million vehicle kilometers (1.0 million miles). 1.4.6 Future Safety Unless modifications to existing roads or diversion of existing traffic occurs, traffic safety conditions can be expected to worsen in the future. The degree cannot be predicted with any certainty because the increase in traffic volumes may interact with deteriorating Levels of Service in complex ways. The following types of actions - with or without the proposed Project - would be necessary to accomplish greater safety: o Signalization of busy intersections; o Signalized crossing where pedestrian traffic is heavy (e.g., at schools); o Improvements to sight distance for turning and crossing from minor roads; o Elimination of blind hills. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-12 Purpose, Need and Project Description Location Accident Rate Puainako Street: Kilauea Ave to Kinoole St 3.86 Puainako Street: Kinoole St to Iwalani/Kawili St 3.09 Puainako Street: Iwalani/Kawili St to Komohana St 2.25 Kaumana Drive: 15 m west of Ha uu Rd to Count Club Dr 7.89 HAWAII COUNTY AVERAGE 1.57 source: riawao rare iramc tngineer (see Appendix Al); Hawaii County Police Department; Hawaii County Public Works Department, Highways Division. Note: Accident rate is normalized to accidents per 1.6 million vehicle kilometers (1.0 million miles). 1.4.6 Future Safety Unless modifications to existing roads or diversion of existing traffic occurs, traffic safety conditions can be expected to worsen in the future. The degree cannot be predicted with any certainty because the increase in traffic volumes may interact with deteriorating Levels of Service in complex ways. The following types of actions - with or without the proposed Project - would be necessary to accomplish greater safety: o Signalization of busy intersections; o Signalized crossing where pedestrian traffic is heavy (e.g., at schools); o Improvements to sight distance for turning and crossing from minor roads; o Elimination of blind hills. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-12 Purpose, Need and Project Description 0 Section 2: ALTERNATIVESI r 2 ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Introduction The County of Hawaii developed for consideration a wide range of alternatives to address the Project objectives of developing a State Highway connection linking lower Puainako Street with Saddle Road, in Upper Kaumana. These included a Build Alternative with two alternative alignments in the Lower Portion and six alternative alignments in the Upper Portion. Other Project alternatives considered included widening of the existing Kaumana Drive and substitution of the Mohouli Street extension for a portion of the project area. Transportation Systems Management and Mass Transit were also considered. All alternatives were evaluated for I environmental and engineering feasibility and fulfillment of Project objectives. In accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement jointly the NEPA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the signatory agencies, including FHWA, HDOT, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps �— of Engineers reviewed the alternatives. Based on this review, one No -build Alternative and one Build Alternative with four alternative alignments were advanced for detailed engineering and environmental studies (illustrated previously in Figure 1-1). Both alternatives 'are under consideration at this time. The County of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii will not select the preferred alternative until after consideration of public and agency comments on the information contained in the EIS. (See Appendix Al for correspondence). This chapter first discusses the process by which alternatives were evaluated and briefly explains why some alternatives were withdrawn from further consideration. This is followed by a detailed description of the alternatives that were retained. The costs of these alternatives are compared in the next section. Finally, a detailed discussion of the alternatives withdrawn from further consideration and the rationale for eliminating them from further study are presented in Section 2.5. 2.2 Evaluation and Screening of Alternatives The screening process consisted of first reducing the number of Build Alternative Alignments to those which met the Project need, conformed with State and County plans regarding land use and road networks, had the potential to satisfy the design standards, did not involve major disruption of existing or planned residential areas, and did not require extensive flood zone crossings. The alignments considered are illustrated in Figure 2-1. Table 2-1 presents the criteria and scores of this initial screening process. Most of the potential build alignments failed to satisfy most of the screening criteria. Both alignments in the Lower Portion were acceptable. In the Upper Portion, only Alignments 1 and 2 reasonably satisfied the evaluation criteria (refer to Section 2.5 for detailed discussion of withdrawn alternatives). Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-1 Alternatives O Q N PACIFlC O OCEAry KOHH L LA Al.L Soa �J w..0 P xwa19 HAWAII 6 � '\ \ a\ \ "�• s HAWAIIAN ISLANDS \�'y �_ of ' 1 SOON LOCATION MAP i V NORTH HILO 19 HAMANUA PROJECT LOCATION NORTH KONA SOUTH HILO 0 M Q T a, K 13 KONA PUNA Pµ • � i • - '� hAU NORTH ����pp���� /Y // `. ., / - I l ., •'' % r^ . (� �. \ A Iti„- 1 �� �� bpi l�h � \� J / I NT y/ I �%.••y�t�p \Til I �i' �-”. O'11yIZo I'� 1 � '/�/ \A •1 �_���\� I�.�., /))r`�, \_ )frau �a /, 1, 1o�(iN" osaaE,`\'(i •u�lr aa\ I/I"'\ �(� �a \, -� �I^\�C I Ig �- I .JI,__r `r� �- ••\\ I niznzi/ ',I r"o \ , ^ ', �I I I�•- �' 1 1 sl] -Keu fla lC �_ \�/ 1 2,•'C N AN �� �• y-' • "^�1 PO PIAS} '• all .� � � \�'`��,�^ �\� , m / I �N � � �) ", _// � \ �-�� `�}��� � \��;\• �" fans( s •w AI ` �; I d1 ev f II J; ss, yrs b •l, I , ��\ '� (�` � —1 � � / J\J y i 1 TO <,' ti; ' ,e��rr.1�-� -1"*I w �.; • ° r^ _ I - i �'� ', ; ( \ 1�- NORTH WAIMEA eRO��- = 1J=====____= TRAPKb . \ ` fzr — - f)I ALTERNATIVE ROADI ,l ALIGNMENT #1 �L� -)l I �� - UPPER PORTION TION – ALTERNATIVE I 2 rpI i t 1 '� 'I� 1 c ' II ' � D ALIGNMENT #2 E TO UPPER PORTIONA SADDLE oR`� 0 X000 : 400 111 1-� a ROAD ° s� lin" f t 44 0 'I TLE FIGURE c ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS TO CONSIDERED DURING SCOPING 2-1 WK� a 'ROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE HILO, HAWAII 10/26/98 92014/M / EIS/SCANS/F2-1 DWG/SCALE I=I JL! �7 �h11��A11 '1 =I i i i • 1 (, , IiIfAT \ o.-� 1T( 0 6� Page 2-2 TO \� KEAUKAHA 1 A H � 4 Ko ST. NI ST. m x D t ST. ' TO VOLCANO ' I Page 2-2 Table 2-1 Initial Alignments Comparison Matrix Notes: • Good — Fair 0 Poor Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-3 Alternatives BUILD HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVES OTHER FACTORS LOWER PORTION UPPER PORTION PROJECTS A B t 2 s 4 5 s MOHOULI KAUMANA Conformance with State and • • • _ _ 0 O _ 0 0 Regional Plan Consistency with State Highway • • • — _ 0 0 _ 0 0 System Potential Relocation Impacts _ — • • • O O • O 0 Impacts on Zoned/Entitled • • • ® O O 0 O O 0 Lands Potential to Meet Design • • • • _ _ ® ® 0 0 Standards • • Drainage Impacts Overall Potential to Satisfy • • • • _ 0 0 _ 0 0 Project Need Notes: • Good — Fair 0 Poor Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-3 Alternatives 4 The initial screening process reduced the alternatives under consideration to the No -Build Alternative, the Build Alternative (with two alternative alignments each in the Upper Portion and the Lower Portion), the Transportation Systems Management Alternative, and the Mass Transit Alternative. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) involves restrictions to road use, such as work- and school -time staggering, car-pool incentives, and High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (HOVLs), and minor changes to existing roads. Each of these techniques entails substantial problems that prevented their practical application to the Project need. Road restrictions, HOVLs and most changes to existing roads would require a system of roadways that has or can accommodate multiple lanes. This would not be practical in the project area, where most roadways have only two lanes and have considerable restrictions to expansion of right-of-way. A coordinated staggering system would probably prove counter-productive to the goal of reducing trips during peak hours to and from Upper Kaumana. Mass transit is usually a practical alternative only in urban areas where a well-developed transit system already exists. Mass transit in Hilo consists of a bus system with a minimal service schedule not geared to the needs of commuters and students who compose the peak hour traffic. Given the needs of riders and the land use patterns present in the project area, expansion of the bus service system in this part of Hilo would not be cost-effective if it attempted to meet the practical needs of sufficient potential riders to reduce traffic by a substantial amount. In addition, it would not create the needed link in the State Highway System between Highway 11 (Volcano Highway) and Highway 200 (the Saddle Road). Neither the Transportation System Management Alternative nor the Mass Transit Alternative provided a prospective solution to the Project needs. They were therefore eliminated from further consideration. Section 2.5 contains a more detailed discussion of withdrawn alternatives, including these. 2.3 Alternatives Retained for Further Consideration 2.3.1 The No -Build Alternative Under this alternative, Puainako Street would not be widened substantially east (makai) of Kawili Street, or rerouted behind the existing Puainako Street west (mauka) of Kawili Street, nor extended west (mauka) from Komohana Street to Kaumana Drive. Intersection improvement might be undertaken east (makai) of Kawili Street. Improvements to the traffic signal at Kawili Street and the creation of a signal at Komohana Street might also take place. The No -Build Alternative is the benchmark for comparing the other improvement alternatives. Traffic volumes for the design year 2020 were formulated in order to compare the demand placed upon the existing roadway network if Puainako Street is not widened or extended. Construction and right-of-way acquisition costs are also estimated. These measures along with the projected social and environmental impacts of each alternative are used as a basis of comparison of the costs and benefits of each alternative. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-4 Alternatives e This Alternative does not address current and future deficiencies of capacity and safety on Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive. It does not provide for a State Highway connection between Highway 11 and the Saddle Road. Problems associated with congested traffic on a two- lane road with a narrow profile (e.g., noise, air quality and safety) are not addressed. However, by definition, the No -Build Alternative also avoids environmental impacts associated with disturbance of natural and semi -natural vegetation, wetlands alteration, removal of historic sites, and construction -phase impacts to noise and air quality levels. 2.3.2 Build Alternatives The Build -Alternative encompasses a set of alternative alignments that would widen, partially realign, and extend Puainako Street (Figure 1-1). Along the 2.4 km (1.5 mile) long section between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street (Lower Portion), Puainako Street would be widened from two to four lanes and include dual sidewalks and bicycle lanes in the 37 -meter (120 -ft.) right-of-way. Improvements to vertical grade yielding satisfactory sight distances along road portions and at intersections and the addition of two new traffic signals would also occur. Puainako Street would be extended approximately 7.3 km (4.5 miles) between Komohana Street and the Saddle Road (State Highway 200, also designated as Kaumana Drive) as a two-lane road (Upper Portion). The eastern project terminus is at the intersection of Puainako Street and Kilauea Avenue and the western project terminus is at approximately the 10 km (6 mile) marker on the Saddle Road, near the Country Club Drive intersection. Each portion contains a set of two alternative alignments. The Lower Portion has Alignments A and B, and the Upper Portion has Alignments 1 and 2. A total of four distinct combinations of these alignments is possible. All combinations share the following elements: 1. Lower Portion: a. Realignment of the existing Puainako Street right-of-way between Komohana Street and Kawili Street, parallel and to the north of the existing Puainako Street alignment. Acquisition of necessary land to provide a 37 -meter (120 -foot) right-of- way, which is expanded to 40 meters (132 feet) for a distance of 275 in (900 ft.) west of the Waiakea School Complex. b. Design and construction of a four -lane roadway within the existing and realigned Puainako Street right-of-way between Komohana Street and Kilauea Avenue. C. Construction of dual sidewalks/bikeways, curbing and crossing facilities that conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act (P.L. 101-336). d. Modification and improvements to existing intersections including widening, signalization and restriction of turning movements. (See Figure 1-3 for typical cross-section) Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-5 Alternatives 4 2. Upper Portion a. Design, acquisition, and construction of a new two-lane road within a 37 -meter (120 -ft.) right-of-way from Komohana Street to Kaumana Drive near Country Club Drive. A portion of the right-of-way would include an already existing right-of- way, which extends approximately 1,128 in (3,700 ft.) west (mauka) of Komohana Street. (See Figure 1-4 for typical cross-section). Appendix M provides a list of the Tax Map Keys and owners for all affected properties. 2.3.2.1 Lower Portion The Project design calls for Puainako Street to be re-routed to the north of the existing Puainako Street above Kawili Street. Widening of Puainako Street between Kawili and Komohana Streets is not feasible because of the narrow right-of-way and terrain. This option would require acquisition of over thirty (30) homes and substantial cuts and fill and therefore was eliminated from further consideration. Both alignments entail redesign of existing intersections, including signalization and widening for additional through lanes and turning movement lanes. Figure 1-1 (above) illustrates the overall configuration of Alignments A and B. Figures 2-2(a) — 2.2(d) provide a detailed depiction of each alignment's relationship to individual intersections. Table 2-2 below summarizes the changes. The cross streets at Kilauea Avenue and Komohana, Kawili and Kinoole Streets will be widened in order to provide multiple lanes for efficient traffic movement through the intersections. The widening will taper back gradually from the intersection. For some segments, the road/shoulder pavement will be widened back to the edge of the. existing right-of-way. In other areas, the right-of-way must be widened to accommodate the broader road profile. Table 2-3 summarizes the changes. In addition, the intersections serving the Waiakea Intermediate and Elementary Schools would be reconfigured. Currently, there are four unsignalized driveways entering the complex. Under the proposed design, these would be replaced by two central, fully signalized intersections and one subsidiary intersection with a right -turn -in only turning movement. 2.3.2.1.1 Alignment A Alignment A was sited with several goals: to reduce the area of contact with the Waiakea flood control channel, to avoid a crossing of Komohana Street at the flood control channel, and to minimize disturbance to the existing residences on Puainako Street. This alternative overlaps Draft Enviromnental Impact Statement 2-6 Alternatives ALIGNMENT A r -ALIGNMENT B II HAMAKUA I I MAUKA MAKAI Komohana Kilauea St. Z St. PUNA I W Z N WAIAKEA v i 132.00' SCHOOL mE •- -- (L PROPOSED PUAINAKO ST. I I COMPLEX r ! ! ! I I I I ~- -------- EXIST. --- EXIST. PUAINAKO ST. I I I I f ! �nl I Z w O 2 d. i i W In a LOWER PUAINAKO: (CONT.) LANES, TURNING MOVEMENTS, & TRAFFIC PATTERNS 2=2b PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE HILO, HAWAII 8/19/98 !014/M/ -OS/F2-281)K/S 1=2 LANES, TURNING MOVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC PATTERNS FOR ALIGNMENTS A AND B ARE SIMILAR. Page 2—t5 HAMAXUA 92014/M / .EIS/F2-2C.DWG/SCALE 1=2 LANES, TURNING MOVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC PATTERNS FOR ALIGNMENTS A AND B ARE SIMILAR. rage /-a R w Of N J O Z TI TLE HAMAKUA MAUKA MAKAI Ko7n.ohana Kilauea St. St. PUNA LOWER PUAINAKO: (CONT.) (,(���r�� LANES, TURNING MOVEMENTS, & TRAFFIC PATTERNS 2=2d LANES, TURNING MOVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC PATTERNS FOR ALIGNMENTS IECT PLIAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE A AND 8 ARE SIMILAR. HILO, HAWAII 8/19/98 92014/M / .as/F2-2bzft/s0 1=2 Page 2-10 Table 2-2 Summary of Maior Intersections and Changes to Intersection Controls, Lower Portion Intersection Intersection Control Signal Turning Movements Allowed Puainako (Realigned) at Komohana Yes Full Puainako (Existing) at Komohana No Right turn in/out* Kapualani Street Offset Extension to Puainako (Realigned) No Full Puainako (Realigned) at Kawili Yes Full Puainako (Existing) onto Kawili/lwalani No Right turn* in/out Kanoelani Drive Extension to Puainako (Realigned) No Full Puainako (Existing) to Anela No Right turn in/out Puainako at Naniakea Yes Full Puainako at Nohea Yes Full Puainako at Kehaulani No Right turn in/out Puainako at Pamala No Right turn in/out Puainako at Santos/Lokahi No Full Puainako at Maikai No Right turn in/out Puainako at Kinoole Yes Full Puainako at Kilauea Yes Full *Note: Cul-de-sacs are also being considered for these intersections. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-11 Alternatives 8 Table 2-3 Cross -Street Widening Cross -Street North of Puainako Street South of Puainako Street Length of Road Widening Maximum ROW Increase Length of Road Widening Maximum ROW Increase Kilauea Ave. 280 6 310 6 Kinoole St. 250 4 250 4 Kawili St. 335 0 145 0 Komohana St. 430 0 290 16 Source: Project plans. Units are meters. Alignment B for the first 122 m (400 ft.) extending- uphill from Waiakea Intermediate School towards Komohana Street. It then deviates towards the north to avoid the existing County Department of Water Supply reservoir and extends straight towards Komohana Street, intersecting the flood control channel before the intersection (see Figure 1-1). 2.3.2.1.2 Alignment B Alignment B extends straight between Kawili Street and Komohana Street, directly behind a row of 32 houses. It occupies a corridor that has been identified for several decades as the ultimate location of Puainako Street. 2.3.2.2 Upper Portion The objective of the Upper Portion of the Project is to link the realigned Puainako Street at Komohana Street and Kaumana Drive at Country Club Drive. After consideration of a number of alternative routes, two basic alignments have been subjected to engineering and environmental studies (refer to Figure 1-1). 2.3.2.2.1 Alignment 1 Alignments 1 and 2 share the same corridor until the Extension passes west (mauka) of Sunrise Estates. At that point, Alignment 1 continues straight for approximately 610 m (2,000 ft.) and then curves to the southwest, intersecting Edita Street between Pacific Plantation Subdivision and Kaumana Drive. It continues southwest until Uhaloa Street, after which it curves west and intersects Wilder Road between Park Hokulani Subdivision and Kaumana Drive. It then continues due west until its intersection with Kaumana Drive. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-12 Alternatives v 2.3.2.2.2 Alignment 2 Alignment 2 curves to the southwest beyond Sunrise Estates and avoids lands identified for residential development. It has only one intersection with an existing street - the terminus of Wilder Road. After this intersection, it curves to -the northwest in order to meet Kaumana Drive at the same location as Alignment 1. 2.4 Costs 2.4.1 No Build Although no major construction costs are associated with the No -Build Alternative, the cost of this alternative is by no means zero. As traffic volumes increase over time, a higher level of maintenance and improvements will be necessary both to alleviate traffic congestion and for safety considerations. The actual costs associated with such improvements will largely depend on specific improvements to be made; e.g., traffic lights and/or widening of roadways. At the present time there is no specific funding source identified for the improvement of Puainako Street apart from the proposed Project. 2.4.2 Build Alternatives 2.4.2.1 Upper Portion As noted in Table 2-4, the Project costs include planning and design, acquisition and relocation costs, construction costs, contingencies, and right-of-way costs. The construction costs also include mitigation costs for noise barriers. There is a $2.413 million total Project cost difference between Alignments 1 and 2, at $31.094 million and $33.507 million in 1998 dollars, respectively. 2.4.2.2 Lower Portion As shown in Table 2-4, the total Project cost for Alignments A and B are $33.727 and $31.556 million in 1998 dollars, respectively. As indicated in the tables, the total cost includes the cost of purchasing right-of-way plus five existing residential structures along the right-of-way. One structure would likely be relocated instead of purchased. The right-of-way costs are estimated using the current market value of land and structures. The cost of the Project for alignment A is $2.171 million higher than that of Alignment B. 2.4.3 Comparative Cost for Alternative Alignments There are four possible combinations of alternative alignments for the Build Alternative. Projected costs are shown below. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-13 Alternatives y Table 2-4 Summary of Proiect Costs, by Alternative Notes: Acquisition and relocation includes right-of-way acquisition of the following: 18.5 ha (45.9 acres) in Alignment 1; 23.0 ha (56.9 acres) in Alignment 2; 1.4 ha (3.5 acres) in Alignment A. 1. Upper Puainako Alignment 1 connecting to Lower Puainako A: $ 64,821,000* 2. Upper Puainako Alignment 2 connecting to Lower Puainako A: $ 67,234,000* 3. Upper Puainako Alignment 1 connecting to Lower Puainako B: $ 62,650,000 4. Upper Puainako Alignment 2 connecting to Lower Puainako B: $ 65,063,000 *$3.365 million has been deducted from these sums to avoid double counting the cost of drainage improvements at Waiakea Stream charnel 2.5 Alternatives Considered and Withdrawn From Further Study 2.5.1 Transportation Systems Management (TSM)/ Travel Demand Management (TDM) Alternative Considered under this heading are restrictions and/or programs involving road use, such as work - and school -time staggering, car-pool incentives, and High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, and minor changes to existing roads. These techniques often have great merit in relieving road congestion and in improving the general urban environment in certain situations. The Hawaii State Functional Plan for Transportation calls for increased use of such measures wherever possible. Nevertheless, for the particular case under consideration, each of these techniques also entails substantial problems. A discussion of the merits and shortcomings of these alternative solutions follows. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-14 Alternatives LOWER LOWER UPPER ALTERNATIVE PORTION PORTION PORTION UPPER PORTION ACTIVITY ALIGNMENT A ALIGNMENT B ALIGNMENT 1 ALIGNMENT 2 Planning & Design $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 Planning & Design 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Specification & Building 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Acquisition & Relocation 5,050,000 5,050,000 950,000 1,070,000 Consultant 300,000 300,000 200,000 200,000 Implementation 4,750,000 4,750,000 750,000 870,000 Construction 27,277,000 25,106,000 28,744,000 31,037,000 Road Construction 24,127,000 21,956,000 25,594,000 27,887,000 Management/[nspection 3,150,000 3,150,000 3,150,000 3,150,000 Project Costs $33,727,000 $31,556,000 $31,094,000 $33,507,000 Notes: Acquisition and relocation includes right-of-way acquisition of the following: 18.5 ha (45.9 acres) in Alignment 1; 23.0 ha (56.9 acres) in Alignment 2; 1.4 ha (3.5 acres) in Alignment A. 1. Upper Puainako Alignment 1 connecting to Lower Puainako A: $ 64,821,000* 2. Upper Puainako Alignment 2 connecting to Lower Puainako A: $ 67,234,000* 3. Upper Puainako Alignment 1 connecting to Lower Puainako B: $ 62,650,000 4. Upper Puainako Alignment 2 connecting to Lower Puainako B: $ 65,063,000 *$3.365 million has been deducted from these sums to avoid double counting the cost of drainage improvements at Waiakea Stream charnel 2.5 Alternatives Considered and Withdrawn From Further Study 2.5.1 Transportation Systems Management (TSM)/ Travel Demand Management (TDM) Alternative Considered under this heading are restrictions and/or programs involving road use, such as work - and school -time staggering, car-pool incentives, and High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, and minor changes to existing roads. These techniques often have great merit in relieving road congestion and in improving the general urban environment in certain situations. The Hawaii State Functional Plan for Transportation calls for increased use of such measures wherever possible. Nevertheless, for the particular case under consideration, each of these techniques also entails substantial problems. A discussion of the merits and shortcomings of these alternative solutions follows. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-14 Alternatives The morning one-way traffic pattern involving Waianuenue Avenue and adjacent streets has for many years been the solution for handling the joint influx of students and commuters from Kaumana. Despite the elaborate and labor-intensive transformation of the traffic patterns on weekday mornings, considerable congestion remains. At present there is no coordinated policy of work- or school -time staggering for traffic congestion alleviation. Classes at all schools begin at approximately 8:00 AM. Most state and county workers report to their jobs between 7:30 and 8:00 AM. A County of Hawaii policy allows "flex -time" and "staggered -time" work scheduling for county employees. Some businesses have also adopted such policies. There is thus — at least theoretically — a potential to alleviate congestion by staggering work times across a four-hour period. The problems inherent in such a policy, however, are wide-ranging. Locally, it appears that most existing car-pooling consists of shared rides between couples and their children on their way to school and work. Staggering work and school times might actually prevent family members from sharing rides, forcing multiple, separate trips. Any staggering policy would have to be sensitive to such situations and, from the standpoint of employees and students, would need to be implemented on a voluntary basis to promote common sense solutions designed by individual families. The problem with such individualistic applications is that schools and businesses may not function well without organization -coordinated start -times. It is probably the case that only when a well- developed mass transit system is in place would work- and school -time staggering be practical. Car-pooling is practiced on a limited basis in East Hawaii, particularly among Puna residents and those who work at the Kohala Coast hotels (on special buses, for the most part). However, the short commuting distance from Kaumana to Hilo makes inter -household car-pooling more trouble than it is worth for most commuters. It is doubtful that any measures short of mandatory car-pooling or incentives such as High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes would be successful in inducing this behavior in commuters. High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (HOVL), on which travel is permitted only by vehicles carrying over a specified number of occupants (typically 2 or 3), are often successful in encouraging car- pooling in large cities. To install HOVLs along Kaumana Drive would require far greater community disruption and substantial costs associated with right-of-way expansion and shoulder cut -and -fill than the Puainako Extension. Other, "minor" changes to roads include use of existing shoulders for through or travel lanes and better signalization to optimize queuing. The traffic congestion problem is most intense during rush hours along Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive. Unfortunately, neither of these roadways has sufficient unused right-of-way space to support an additional lane. Komohana Street, by contrast, is designated as a future four -lane road and could be expanded in parts to relieve congestion. However, Komohana already has left turn lanes where they are most necessary. Furthermore, Komohana Street between Punahele Street and Puainako Street is the least congested portion of the route from Kaumana to Kanoelehua Avenue. Therefore, the only road that could actually support expanded lanes would probably not benefit from them. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-15 Alternatives a At present, there are demand -type traffic, signals at the following intersections: Kaumana Drive and Ainako Street, Lele Street and Kaumana Drive, Waianuenue Avenue and Komohana Street, Mohouli Street and Komohana Street, Kawili/Iwalani Street and Puainako Street, Kinoole Street and Puainako Street, and Kilauea Avenue and Puainako Street. Many drivers bound from Kaumana to the Puainako area avoid the stop light at Waianuenue Avenue and Komohana Street by turning right off Kaumana Drive at Punahele Street. A traffic signal might alleviate congestion problems, although this idea would require further study. Signalization is also possible at the Waiakea school complex, but with the current lack of space for turning lanes, a situation not much better than the present congestion might develop. In summary, although added signals might alleviate congestion on feeder roads leading into the main route under discussion, overall traffic flow would probably not proceed any more smoothly without considerable widening. In summary, the TSM/TDM Alternative was withdrawn from further study because it does not solve the problem of the present and future traffic demand in the project area. 2.5.2 Mass Transit Alternative As of mid-1998, the public transportation system in Hilo consists of a county bus system and a limited rideshare taxi system. A fleet of 17 buses serves eight routes that involve at least some service in Hilo. Three buses link the Kaumana area with downtown and the shopping centers on Kanoelehua Avenue. The first bus departs Kaumana at 7:30 AM, the second at 11:30 AM and the third at 2:30 PM. A program of replacing the entire fleet of county buses, each of which had over 1.6 million km (1.0 million mi.) of service, was begun in 1992: So far, eight have been replaced, with six new buses planned for the next two years, and as many as six more in the three years following. Future service expansion is planned to focus on West Hawaii. There are no plans in the immediate future for major expansion of service in the Hilo area, which would probably require funding from the county budget and increased rider fees. The history of public transportation in Hilo is one of low ridership, with very few working commuters. This is often explained as a function of the city's small population, which prevents the frequent scheduling needed to satisfy the complex demands of commuters. The small scale of Hilo also offers very short automobile commutes in terms of mileage and minutes. When commuters balance the cost and effort of busing versus the convenience and mobility a car affords, they nearly always opt to drive. This would probably be true even if a better bus schedule were available. For many reasons, a gradual improvement in the public transportation system is warranted, but such a scheme offers little in the way of solutions for the congestion seen in the project area. This alternative was therefore withdrawn from further consideration. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-16 Alternatives C 2.5.3 Alternative Roadway Alignments During initial Project conceptualization, six alternative alignments for the Upper Portion of the project area were examined. Assessment of the engineering, physical and social conditions associated with each reduced the number of sensible alternative alignments for the Lower Portion to the two currently under consideration. Figure 2-1 (above) depicts the individual alignments, including Alignments 1and 2, which were retained, each with slight modifications. The other alternatives were withdrawn from further consideration for the reasons below: Alignment 3: This route had the advantage of avoiding most of the existing residential subdivisions on the south side of Kaumana Drive, as with Alignment 2, but with a shorter overall length than Alignment 2. However, the use of this route would have intersected several planned subdivisions for which appropriate zoning has already been approved and the subdivision process has already begun. This would have entailed high right-of-way acquisition costs and excessive disturbance to residential lots. Alignment 4: This route followed Alignment 1 until just west of Edita Street, after which it crossed Kaumana Drive in order to avoid much of the Existing development in Kaumana. Like Alignment 3, it would have entailed far greater levels of disturbance and right-of-way acquisition cost than either Alignment 1 or 2. In addition, another large intersection at Kaumana Drive would have been necessary and would have impacted existing residences. Alignment 5: This alignment is very similar to Alignment 4 except that it crossed Kaumana Drive east of Edita Street. Although feasible, it had essentially the same disadvantages as Alignment 4. Alignment 6: Alignment 6 followed the path of Alignment 1 until it approached Wilder Road, after which it veered to the southwest to link up with Alignment 2. It is essentially the same length as Alignment 2 but, similar to Alignment 3, crossed over areas that already contain planned uses. In addition to these four alignments, the use of all or a portion of Kaumana Drive itself was considered as a possible segment of the project area. Several factors weighed against selecting this option. Kaumana Drive is circuitous, has a narrow right-of-way that is infeasible and/or expensive to widen in many locations, and has unfavorable vertical and horizontal alignment. Furthermore, it would have entailed the acquisition of a large number of existing residences. Alignments 1 and 2 were selected for further engineering and environmental study because they best meet Project purposes and needs, efficiently link the termini of the project area and entail the least impact in terms of cost and disturbance to existing and planned uses. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-17 Alternatives b) 2.5.4 Related Roadway Projects The Saddle Road Improvement Project (EIS currently in preparation) covers the entire 78 km (48 mi.) of Saddle Road, from the terminus of the Puainako Extension in Kaumana to State Highway 190 near Waikoloa. The Project would widen, provide shoulders and improve vertical and horizontal alignment. It would be the primary cause of the threefold increase in traffic expected at the western end of Puainako by 2020. Although the Puainako and Saddle Projects are independent, each would more effectively serve the traffic provided by the other. The Mohouli Street Extension (scheduled for construction in 1999) would fulfill a portion of the goals of the Project by bypassing a 2.8 km (1.7 mi.) segment of Kaumana Drive between Ainako Street and Komohana Street, and a section of Komohana Street between Waianuenue Avenue and Mohouli Street. The Mohouli Extension does not diminish the need for the Project, because the former project would ameliorate traffic flow and safety along less than 20 percent of the 8 km (5 mi.) length of Kaumana Drive. Conditions along this entire length would be improved by the Puainako Extension. Also, the Mohouli Extension does not fulfill the Project's goals of providing a continuous State Highway System link between the Saddle Road and State Highway 11. Therefore, this project is not considered a true "alternative" to the proposed project. However, the Mohouli project would complement the Puainako project and would improve Hilo's traffic circulation system. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-18 Alternatives 140 Section 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING a 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This chapter describes the existing social, economic, cultural, and environmental conditions surrounding the proposed Project. Chapter 4 discusses the probable impacts of the proposed action and mitigation measures designed to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts. The Island of Hawaii, which had 120,317 residents according to the 1990 U.S. Census of Population, is largely rural. Major divisions include West Hawaii and East Hawaii. West Hawaii's dry climate and calm ocean waters support a major tourism industry in the Kona and Kohala districts. East Hawaii has an economy based on agriculture and the business and government functions headquartered in Hilo, the major city on the island. The project area contains roughly 13 square km (5 square mi.) within Hawaii County, from the eastern limit of the Puainako Street/Kilauea Avenue intersection to the western limit of the Kaumana Drive/Country Club Drive intersection. The project area is illustrated in Figures 1-1 and 1-2. 3.1 Physical Environment 3.1. l Geology and Geological Hazards The project area surface is mainly ' a' a (clinkery) and pahoehoe (smooth or ropy) lava from Pleistocene and Holocene eruptions of the Northeast Rift Zone of Mauna Loa. The western (mauka) end of the Upper Portion passes over inclusions of pyroclastic material known as Pahala Ash. This project area (as all development in Hilo) would be subject to volcanic hazard, particularly lava inundation. The United States Geological Survey classifies the area as Lava Flow Hazard Zone 3, on a scale of ascending risk 9 to 1. Zone 3 is considered "less hazardous than [Z]one 2 [which is adjacent to and downslope of active risk zones] because of greater distance from recently active vents and/or because the topography makes it less likely that flows will cover these areas" (Heliker 1990:23). The Northeast Rift Zone of Mauna Loa has produced eruptions many times in the last century, sending flows towards Hilo in the years 1881, 1899, 1935, and 1942 (Macdonald et al 1986:64). A 22 -day eruption in 1984 again threatened Hilo, approaching within 10 km (6 mi.) of the Kaumana neighborhood before halting. The 1881 lava flows penetrated the City of Hilo. Much of the proposed roadway would lie on the 1881 Mauna Loa flow. Lava flow hazard is a fact of life for all who reside on the slopes of Kilauea, Mauna Loa, and Hualalai volcanoes, including the residents of Kaumana. Presently, the only practical escape routes from Kaumana are down Kaumana Drive, or via Akolea Road and Waianuenue Avenue. In terms of seismic risk, the entire Island of Hawaii is rated Zone 4 Seismic Probability Rating (Uniform Building Code, Appendix Chapter 25, Section 2518). Zone 4 areas are at risk from major earthquake damage, especially to structures that are poorly designed or built. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-1 Environmental Setting E Partly owing to the lack of unconsolidated sediments in the local substrate, none of the several earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6.0 or greater that have occurred in the Hilo area since 1950 has caused substantial damage to well -engineered roads or bridges. Lava tubes, which are the long cavities left behind by underground channels of lava, are common on pahoehoe lava flows. Road planners often seek to ascertain the location of lava tubes in order to avoid damage to personnel and equipment during construction. In some cases, lava tubes may also represent valuable geological, recreational or biological resources. Pahoehoe flows along the project corridor are known to contain lava tube systems. Although several lava tubes were encountered during reconnaissance of the corridor, the only commonly accessible lava tube in the project area is Kaumana Cave, which was a principal feeder of the 1881 pahoehoe lava flow from Mauna Loa and has been partially mapped. The location of an entrance to Kaumana Cave in a County Park on Kaumana Drive makes it one of the most visited and studied lava tubes in Hawaii. One of the objectives that guided Project design was avoidance of the accessible portions of Kaumana Cave. An accurate survey of the cave was conducted in order to meet this objective. Figure 3-1 shows a plan view of the relationship between Alignment 1 of the Upper Portion and the course of the cave, showing that the roadway as designed approaches no closer than 5 in (16 ft.) and generally maintains a much greater distance from the cave. The inset in the upper left of Figure 3-1 illustrates a profile section of the area of closest approach. The roof of the cave in this area varies from 5-6 in (16-20 ft.) beneath the surface. 3.1.2 Physiography and Soils The terrain of the project area is composed principally of the downslope segments of major basalt lava flows from Mauna Loa's northeast rift zone. Slopes range from 1 to 7 degrees and are not anticipated to pose major highway construction problems in themselves. Local relief across this generally uniform slope is minor. A few incipient drainage channels exhibit sharp elevational changes of up to 6 in (20 ft.), and thus would require limited terrain modification, such as grading, filling, and construction of culverts and bridges. Soil is an important consideration in roadway engineering, biological resources and the agricultural value of the land. The soils along most of the alternative alignments overlie recent lava flows and are thus acidic, poorly developed, shallow, and stony. Permeability and runoff are variable and erodibility minor to moderate. There are several pockets of better developed, agriculturally useful soils along the upper (mauka) section of both Alignments 1 and 2. These soils, derived from Pahala Ash, possess moderate flood and erodibility potential, particularly where slopes are steeper (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1973). The engineering properties (e.g., shrink -swell, bearing strength, and thixotropic characteristics) of the soils present are reasonably adaptable to road construction, and specific solutions are most appropriately addressed in road design and engineering work. The agricultural value of the soil is discussed in Section 3.3.7. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-2 Environmental Setting 92014/M/ EIS/E0-I.MG/S E1-1 Page 3-3 For biological considerations, there are three general soil types with the following characteristics: 1. Lava Lands The Lava Lands are found on the 1881 lava flow, vegetated with ' Ohi' a/Uluhe (Metrosideros polymorpha and Dicranopteris linearis) Forest or Closed ' Ohi' a Forest. The soil is .a very thin, discontinuous layer of organic matter. The surface may be 50 percent or more pahoehoe lava outcrop. 2. Tropofolists These are shallow, organic soils formed over prehistoric pahoehoe lava flows from Mauna Loa, generally covered with native ' Ohi' a/Uluhe Forest, variably undisturbed or disturbed. These soils are not in their entirety hydric, but have a tendency to become waterlogged when microtopography or compaction impede drainage. 3. Hydrandepts The Hydrandepts are relatively deep soils of Mauna Kea ash that have been cleared and cultivated, mostly for sugar cane. Now abandoned, these areas primarily support alien -dominated vegetation. These soils are moderately to well drained, and contain well developed gullies and intermittent streams. 3.1.3 Weather and Climate The climate of Hilo can be described as humid and tropical. Since the Project is aligned essentially parallel to the topographic gradient and encompasses 424 m (1,390 ft.) vertical elevation change, considerable climatic variation occurs. Average high temperatures in Hilo vary from approximately 26° Centigrade (78° Fahrenheit [F]) in the winter to 28° C (82° F) in the summer. Temperature lows average approximately 18° C (65° F) in the winter to 21° C (70° F) in the summer. Temperatures are approximately 2° C (4° F) lower at the highest elevation of the project area. Freezing temperatures or frost do not occur in the project area. Rainfall and fog are the elements of weather and climate most relevant to the design of a safe roadway for the proposed Project. Mean annual rainfall near the lower end of the project area is estimated at 330 mm (130 in), while the mean annual rainfall at the Project terminus on Kaumana Drive is close to 508 mm (200 in) (LTH-Manoa Dept. of Geography 1983). Fog is essentially absent at sea level in Hawaii because of the radiative properties of the ocean and the abundant wind mixing, which combine to prevent surface temperature inversions. (Fog should not be confused with driving rain, which can obscure vision.) The natural cooling that takes place as air is forced to higher elevations does permit fog development, and most locations over 244 in (800 ft.) in Hawaii experience some fog. Driving conditions at high elevations on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-4 Environmental Setting Is Saddle Road are notoriously dangerous due to frequent fog. The Lower Portion of the project area is below the minimum elevation for fog. The upper elevations of the Upper Project are subject to occasional fog, but data indicate that foggy conditions are rare even at the highest elevation in the project area and thus merit negligible consideration (personal communication with Dr. James O. Juvik, Sept. 1992). Wind is important for its effect on dispersion or concentration of pollutants. Trade winds with an east to northeast direction are present up to 90 percent of summer days and 50 percent of winter days. These winds are generally light and seldom exceed an average daily speed of 16 km (10 mi.) per hour. At night, a shallow mountain drainage wind from the southwest is usually present except during episodes of strong regional wind. Trades are occasionally replaced by light and variable "kona" winds, from a southerly direction, most often in winter. 3.1.4 Hydrology and Floodplains All drainage channels within the area potentially affected by the roadway eventually connect to the Wailoa River, an estuary of ponds and streams located in the middle of urban Hilo. Two major branches of perennial or intermittent stream systems are present: Alenaio (including Waipahoehoe/Kaluiiki) Stream and Waiakea Stream/Flood Channel (Fig. 3-2). The main portion of Alenaio Stream and associated tributary floodways are outside the project area. Alignments A and B of the realigned Lower Portion both cross the Waiakea Flood Control channel, but otherwise avoid the system of floodways associated with Waiakea Stream. However, the project area in the Upper Portion includes a number of floodways associated with unnamed drainage ways that are poorly organized and may not connect directly to intermittent or perennial streams. Such drainage features exist because in areas of lava flows younger than two thousand years, the permeability of the lava, shallow soil, and absence of organized drainage systems lead to percolation of surface flows. Water is transported laterally in subsurface flow and emerges downslope in streams or basal springs that feed the Wailoa River. Substantial amounts of surface flow occur only during heavy and sustained rainfall. Floodplain status for the planning area has been determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which has mapped the area as part of the National Flood Insurance Program's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) (see Figure 3-2). Applicable Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) designations are as follows: 1. Zone A. SFHAs subject to inundation by the 100 -year flood. Because detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed, no base flood elevation or depths are shown. 2. Zone AE: SFHAs subject to inundation by the 100 -year flood determined in a Flood Insurance Study by detailed methods. Base flood elevations are shown within these zones. In this area, there is a base flood elevation of 95 in (312 ft.) above mean sea level. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-5 Environmental Setting U ALENAIO STREAM p p E NMTH - - ® .�APPROXIMATE LIMITS, 0 R T 100 YR. FLOOD ZONE 5 i i i WAIPAHOEHOE "A IN X STREAM KALUIIKI $11$ BRANCH X" 21 A" 3 M )f APPROXIMATE LIMITS 100 YR. FLOOD ZONE PROJECT PLIAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION L HILO, HAWAII L 0 W E. R ® P 0 R T 1 0 N „ A>, / TRIB. NO. 3 \ m } „AH), 4 .0 p O 1f"H o 'Y` A WAIAKEA TRIB. N0. 2 WAIAKEA 1 TRIB. NO. 1 TERNATIVE ' y� 1> )) P y ALIGNMENT #1 AH UPPER PORTION �' X" f,AElf ALTERNATIVE WAIAKEA l ALIGNMENT #2 STREAM UPPER PORTION 1 „A f, . FIGURE 0 1 2 1: 3-2 scale in kilometers 0 2000 4000 DATE scale in feet 8/19/98 ALIGNMENT A �LO ER PORTION �"AH" ' W KEA STREAM NOTE: LETTERS REFER TO FLOOD ZONE TYPE C 9 � i 1 y9 z n Tz L EXISTING PUAINAKO STREET ALIGNMENT B LOWER PORTION 9201¢/M/ EIS/r3-MWG/SC I=1 Page 3-6 LEI Zone AH: SFHAs subject to inundation by 100 -year shallow flooding (usually areas of ponding where average depths are between 31 and 92 cm (1 and 3 ft.). Base flood elevations derived from detailed hydraulic analyses are shown in this zone. In this area, there is a base flood elevation of 106-113 in (348-372 ft.) above mean sea level. 4. Zone X: Areas identified in the community flood insurance study as areas of moderate or minimal hazard from the principal source of flood in the area. However, buildings in these zones could be flooded by severe, concentrated rainfall coupled with inadequate local drainage systems. In this area, such a zone may be inundated by the 500 year flood. Most of the areas upslope of Komohana Street in all projected alignments are classified as Flood Zone X or A. The areas on the eastern (makai) side of Komohana Zone are classified X, All, or AE. Several spots within the project area are known as problem areas for minor local flooding. Residents of Wilder Road and Uhaloa Road in Kaumana have reported repeated overtopping at street culverts and subsequent flooding laterally along the road. Minor flooding associated with paved areas with inadequate drainage capacity has occurred on or near Puainako Street near Santos Lane and Kuhilani Street. Flooding in the Lower Portion is not associated with a mapped Flood Zone. The entire State of Hawaii is part of the Coastal Zone as defined in Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (U. S.C. 1451-1464). Section 6.9 contains a discussion of the relationship of the Project to the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program objectives. 3.1.5 Water Quality Precipitation, runoff and groundwater entering the project area exit in one of three ways: into the atmosphere via evapotranspiration, through runoff into streams and flood control channels to Hilo Bay, or via groundwater transport into Hilo Bay. The water transports along with it a proportion of the pollutants derived from many sources, including highway runoff. Groundwater The aquifers underlying the project area consist of basal water floating on salt water, as well as water perched on ash, soil, or alluvium and underlain by basal water (Hawaii Water Resources Regional Study 1979). No aquifers designated as Principal or Sole -Source aquifers are located in or near the project area. There are no State Wellhead Protection Plans in force in or near the project area. Streams This discussion concerns water quality, particularly as related to recreation and habitat issues. The floodplain characteristics of project area streams are discussed in Section 3.1.4 above. Drainage systems in the project area are not well developed because of the relatively recent age and high permeability of the lava. The streams found inside are either intermittent or very flashy Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-7 Environmental Setting in discharge, and many disappear underground before reaching the sea. The major stream is the Wailoa River, which forms a broad estuarine pond. Its tributaries include Waiakea and Alenaio Streams, both of which are channelized or modified along much of their lower reaches. The Hawaii Stream Assessment (Hawaii State CWRM 1990) inventoried State streams for their resources, habitat, cultural and recreational value. The Wailoa River is largely channelized or artificially modified. Pollution associated with urban runoff and former industrial use is present. Although it is not assessed as an outstanding or substantial riparian habitat, it contains several native aquatic species and is considered part of the essential habitat for the recovery of endangered species and native ecosystems. Stabilization and improvement of water quality in the Wailoa River are vital for the preservation of native species habitat. Recreational fishing, gathering and boating also occur in the estuarine ponds at Wailoa River State Park. Coastal Waters Hilo Bay, where groundwater, stream flow and other runoff ultimately collect, supports fishing, gathering, boating, swimming and other water activities. The oceanic waters of Hawaii support a number of endangered and threatened mammal, and reptile species. Several of these, including the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretomochelys imbricata), and the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) have occasionally been recorded within Hilo Bay. Pollution in Hilo Bay is an ongoing problem. The primary source of damaging pollution is sewage (Dudley et al 1991). The sewage problem is principally derived from groundwater seepage from unsewered residences and businesses. The situation is undergoing gradual improvement through installation of sewage mains and mandatory property hook-ups. In addition to sewage, chemical and soil pollution also affect Hilo Bay. 3.1.6 Air Quality The report discussing air quality impacts in the project area is included as Appendix L and is summarized below and in section 4.1.5. Regional and local climate along with the type and amount of human activity generally dictate air quality of a given location. The climate of Hilo is discussed in Section 3.1.3, but it bears reiteration that the wind regime is dominated by light but persistent east to northeast trade winds, especially in summer. A shallow, low-velocity drainage wind from the opposite direction occurs at night. Humans impact air quality in many ways. Industrial activity outputs pollutants in smokestacks, and farming and construction activity may produce fugitive dust. Most important in Hawaii are the pollutants produced by motor vehicle engines. Harmful substances include particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03) and lead. Each of the regulated air pollutants has the potential to create or exacerbate some form of adverse Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-8 Environmental Setting 9 health effect or to produce environmental degradation when present in sufficiently high concentration for prolonged periods of time. Federal and state air quality standards limit ambient concentrations of particulate matter, SO2, NO2, CO, 03, and lead. In addition, there are state standards for hydrogen sulfide (112S). These ambient air quality standards (AAQS) are specified in Section 40, Part 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and Chapter 11-59 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules. Table 3-1 summarizes state and federal air quality standards. National AAQS are stated in terms of primary and secondary standards. National primary standards are designed to protect the public health with an "adequate margin of safety." National secondary standards define levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from "any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant." Secondary public welfare impacts may include such effects as decreased visibility, diminished comfort levels, or other potential injury to the natural or human environment. In contrast to the national standards, state AAQS are given in terms of a single standard that is designed "to protect public health or- welfare and to prevent the significant deterioration of air quality." State of Hawaii AAQS are in some cases considerably more stringent than comparable national AAQS, in particular, for 1 -hour carbon monoxide and ozone levels. The State and federal governments periodically monitor air quality to determine whether it meets the AAQ standards. Areas that do not meet these standards are termed non -attainment areas and are subject to Conformity Rules. These rules were issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to Section 176 of the 1977 Clean Air Act. Conformity Rules prohibit any federal agency from engaging in any actions that do not conform to a state's plan to correct nonattainment situations. The entire State of Hawaii is considered to have acceptable air quality and is thus an attainment area not subject to application of Conformity Rules. Air quality in the project area is currently mostly affected by emissions from motor vehicles, industry and natural sources. Volcanic emissions of sulfur dioxide convert into particulate sulfate which causes a volcanic haze (vog) to blanket the area during occasional episodes when trade winds are not present. The major industrial source is oil -fired power plants which emit SO2, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. Motor vehicles emit CO, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons (an ozone precursor), and smaller amounts of other pollutants. The State of Hawaii operates a network of air quality monitoring stations around the -State. Very little data are available for the Hilo area. In general, these data indicate that concentrations are well within State and federal air quality standards. The excellent air quality in Hilo is mainly influenced by the dispersive effects of the trade winds and the isolation of the island from any outside sources of pollution. The more stringent State standards pertaining to CO are probably exceeded on occasion near high-volume intersections during periods when traffic congestion and poor dispersion conditions coincide. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-9 Environmental Setting Table 3-1 Summary of State of Hawaii and National Ambient Air Quality Standards 'Particles less than or equal to 10 microns aerodynamic diameter bNot to be exceeded more than once per year 3.1.7 Noise Levels The report discussing the acoustic environment of the project area is included as Appendix K and is summarized below and in section 4.1.6.' Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Evaluation of noise requires a consideration of loudness at various pitches. Loudness is measured in units called decibels (dB). Since the human ear does not perceive all pitches or frequencies equally, noise levels are adjusted (or weighted) to correspond to human hearing. This adjustment is known as the A -weighted scale, abbreviated dBA. The specific sound level descriptor used in this study is the hourly energy equivalent sound level - Leq(h) - in decibels (dBA), which considers the combined effects of all noises near and far and includes background noise and noise fluctuation. In this document, all 'Appendix K consists of the original noise report finished in 1995, as well as 1997 and 1998 supplements that address the acoustic environment and potential impacts of alignment shifts and cross -street widening, which had been added to the project in the interval. The supplement also reassessed noise impacts on Lower Puainako in light of the adoption by HDOT in October 1996 of a noise policy defining "approach" as within 1.0 decibels of the applicable criteria. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-10 Environmental Setting Maximum Allowable Concentration National National State Averaging Pollutant Units Time Primary Secondary of Hawaii Particulate Mattera Ng/m3 Annual 50 50 50 24 Hours 150b 150b 150b Sulfur Dioxide Ng/m3 Annual 80 80 24 Hours 365' 365b 3 Hours — 1300b 1300b Nitrogen Dioxide Ng/m3 Annual 100 100 70 Carbon Monoxide mg/m3 8 Hours 10b — 5b 1 Hour 40b — 10b Ozone Ng/m3 1 Hour 235b 235b 100b Lead Ng/m3 Calendar 1.5 1.5 1.5 Quarter Hydrogen Sulfide Ng/m3 1 Hour — — 35b 'Particles less than or equal to 10 microns aerodynamic diameter bNot to be exceeded more than once per year 3.1.7 Noise Levels The report discussing the acoustic environment of the project area is included as Appendix K and is summarized below and in section 4.1.6.' Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Evaluation of noise requires a consideration of loudness at various pitches. Loudness is measured in units called decibels (dB). Since the human ear does not perceive all pitches or frequencies equally, noise levels are adjusted (or weighted) to correspond to human hearing. This adjustment is known as the A -weighted scale, abbreviated dBA. The specific sound level descriptor used in this study is the hourly energy equivalent sound level - Leq(h) - in decibels (dBA), which considers the combined effects of all noises near and far and includes background noise and noise fluctuation. In this document, all 'Appendix K consists of the original noise report finished in 1995, as well as 1997 and 1998 supplements that address the acoustic environment and potential impacts of alignment shifts and cross -street widening, which had been added to the project in the interval. The supplement also reassessed noise impacts on Lower Puainako in light of the adoption by HDOT in October 1996 of a noise policy defining "approach" as within 1.0 decibels of the applicable criteria. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-10 Environmental Setting I noise levels have been measured in terms of A -weighted decibels using the hourly energy equivalent sound level, i.e., dBA Ley(h), which is abbreviated as "dBA" or "Ley". Table 3-2 relates A -weighted sound levels at various decibel levels to representative sources and typical individual or community responses. Levels over 70 dBA are considered unpleasant by most individuals; levels under 50 dBA are generally perceived as acceptably quiet. State and Federal governments have cooperated to provide procedures for noise studies and noise abatement measures to help protect the public health and welfare. They have supplied noise abatement criteria (measured in decibels) for various categories of land use (23 CFR 772), as shown in Table 3-3 below. These criteria help to determine whether there is a noise impact, and therefore, whether noise abatement must be considered. - Existing traffic and background ambient noise levels were measured at ten locations (five in the Lower Portion, five in the Upper Portion) along the project corridor in May 1995 (Fig. 3-3a, 3- 3b). The acoustical study used existing traffic noise measurements to develop and calibrate a model that projected future traffic noise levels associated with the proposed Project under the No -Build and various improvement alternatives. The FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model was the primary method. The model incorporated parameters for terrain, ground cover, and local shielding conditions. The agreement between measured and predicted traffic noise levels was sufficiently accurate to formulate the Base Year (i.e., existing) and future traffic noise levels. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 provide the results of noise measurements for traffic and existing background noise, respectively, at sites depicted in Figures 3-3a and 3-3b. Ambient noise over the Lower Portion of the project area is influenced by the presence of a busy two-lane road with a moderate grade and several traffic signals. As detailed in Appendix K, existing traffic noise levels approach or exceed the 67 Ley FHWA noise abatement criteria at approximately ten homes mostly west (mauka) of Kawili Street. This level is not approached or exceeded at any of the churches or schools along the route. Also, due to the large setback from Puainako Street, traffic noise levels within the classrooms or churches do not currently approach or exceed the 52 Ley interior criterion. Although noise levels are below these levels, many people who work at or attend these sensitive sites perceive a noise problem. At areas removed from Puainako Street, such as the vacant lands west of Komohana Street, and the backyards of residences along Kaumana Drive and its side streets, existing traffic noise levels are very low, typically less than 57 Ley. In these areas, local or distant highway traffic, birds, dogs, and wind -rustled foliage tend to be the dominant noise sources. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-11 Environmental Setting B 'fable 3-2 A -Weighted Sound Level, in Decibels Noise Source or Response dBA Jet Takeoff - Threshold of Physical Discomfort 120 Rock Music Band 108 Ambulance Siren 100' 94 Diesel Bus 10' Hearing Damage Criteria for 8 -hour workday 90 Most Residents Highly Annoyed 80 Freight Train 100' 69 Car Passb (50'); Acceptable Limit for Residential Area 64 Inside Department Store; Goal for Urban Areas 55 Inside Home 40 Quite Rural Area; No Community Annoyance 30 Threshold of Hearing 0 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Policy and Procedure Memorandum 90-2. 3.2 Biological Environment 3.2.1 Flora and Plant Communities The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were consulted to determine whether rare, threatened or endangered animal or plant species are present within the project area, or might be affected by the development of the Project. See Appendix Al for the coordination letter with USFWS. A report describing the botanical survey of all alternative road segments and areas of cross -street widening is contained in Appendix B. The purpose of this study was to describe and evaluate the vegetation of the alternative alignments and to identify ecologically sensitive communities or valuable plants within the right-of-ways. Special attention was given to the search for rare or endangered species and for ecosystems that might be unique to the project area. If found, resources such as these might require mitigative planning. The study began with a literature search to determine which, if any, plant species listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service might occur within the project area. Such listed plants are legally protected by federal and State law. The lists of threatened and endangered plants were reviewed (Federal Register 1990a, 1990b; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996, 1997; and updated lists provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, Honolulu). The ranges of these listed and proposed plants were determined from the Manual of Flowering Plants of Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1990). Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-12 Environmental Setting d Table 3-3 Federal JHiAwav Administration Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Design Noise Level Leq Category Description of Activity Category A 57 Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet are of (Exterior) extraordinary significance and serve an important need, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks, or open spaces which are dedicated or recognized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet. B 67' Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, (Exterior) schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, and arks. C 72 Developed lands, properties or activities not included in Exterior categories A and B. D _ Undeveloped Lands E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, (Interior) I schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Policy and Procedure Memorandum 90-2, developed per requirements of 23 CFR 771, which regulates Environmental Impact procedures of the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA). Notes: Leq is the one-hour energy equivalent sound level measured in decibels on the A -weighted scale (see main text for definitions). ' Noise impacts occur when noise "approaches or exceeds" the Noise Abatement Criteria. The Hawaii State Department of Transportation defines "approach" as within 1.0 decibel of the applicable criteria. The botanists walked the entire length of all alignments, following the staked center -line, with excursions to either side to identify plants or vegetation within a 92 -meter (300 -foot) corridor surrounding the proposed 37 -meter (120 -foot) right-of-ways. Vegetation descriptions were recorded in all plant communities encountered along the alignments, and all plant species found were recorded. A list of plant species was prepared (Appendix B: Tables 1-4). 3.2.1.1 OriginaleRetation Originally, the natural vegetation of most of the project area was ' Ohi' a/Uluhe Metrosideros/Dicranopteris) Forest, which is a subtype of the Lowland Wet Forest (Gagne and Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-13 Environmental Setting Table 3-4 Traffic Noise Measurement Results Source: Appendix K Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-14 Environmental Setting Time of Ave. Hourly Traffic Volume Predicted Measured Day Speed (HRS) (MPH) AUTO MEDIUM HEAVY Leq (h) Leq (h) Location TRUCK TRUCK (dBA) (dBA) A 50 ft. from the center- line of 1615 Puainako St. TO (5/02/95) 1715 35 1,042 7 2 61.1 61.1 A 50 ft. from the centerline of 1055 Puainako St. TO (5/04/95) 1125 35 832 7 4 61.1 60.7 B 50 ft. from the centerline of 0645 Puainako St. TO (5/03/95) 0715 38 713 18 11 63.3 63.2 B 50 ft. from the centerline of 0820 Puainako St. TO (5/03/95) 0920 38 385 12 9 61.2 61.4 B 50 ft. from the centerline of 0645 Puainako St. TO (5/04/95) 0745 35 1,008 10 13 62.0 62.7 C 50 ft. from the centerline of 0830 Puainako St. TO (5/02/95) 0930 38 433 10 7 61.1 61.1 D 50 ft. from centerline of 1030 Kaumana Dr. TO (5/02/95) 1130 45 109 3 2 57.6 57.8 Source: Appendix K Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-14 Environmental Setting Table 3-5 Background Ambient Noise Measurement Results Source: Appendix K Cuddihy 1990). This ' Ohi' a/Uluhe Forest community is associated with young lava flows and shallow soils on the lower windward slope of Mauna. Loa. This community is dominated by a deep mat of uluhe, more or less scattered ' ohi' a trees, and relatively few other plant species. At a few sites within the project area with deeper soil, the vegetation has further developed into the ' Ohi' a (Metrosideros) Lowland Wet Forest or the Koa/' Ohi' a (Acacia/Metrosideros) Lowland Forest communities (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). These communities have a closed tree canopy, less uluhe ground cover, and a somewhat richer assortment of associated species. 3.2.1.2 Present Vegetation of Lower Portion The original vegetation of all the Lower Portion has been destroyed by intense human activity. Most of this area was formerly cultivated in sugar cane. The present vegetation is a secondary forest dominated by gunpowder trees (Trema orientalis) up to 18 m (60 ft.) tall. Other common trees, mostly alien, are octopus tree (Schefflera actinophylla), melochia (Melochia umbellata), Chinese banyan (Ficus macrocarpa), neneleau (a native, Rhus sandwicensis) and bingabing (Macaranaga mappa). The ground cover is also made up of alien plants, including oak fern Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-15 Environmental Setting Time of Day Measured Measured Measured Location HRS Lmax (dBA) Leq(dBA) Lmin (dBA) E 100 ft. From back of 0930 house at 334 Puainako TO St. (5/04/95) 1000 58.9 47.0 38.0 F Behind UH Hilo 1515 dormitories (5/03/95) TO 1545 63.0 47.9 35.7 G 0.22 mi. south of 1100 Kaumana/Wilder TO intersection (5/03/95) 1130 60.6 41.1 28.5 H At end of Puhili St. 1155 (5/03/95) TO 1225 58.4 38.6 26.8 1 150 ft. behind house at 1000 end of Uhaloa PI. TO (5/03/95) 1030 58.5 39.1 26.9 J At end of Wilder Rd. 1145 (5/02/95) TO 1215 57.2 35.4 24.1 Source: Appendix K Cuddihy 1990). This ' Ohi' a/Uluhe Forest community is associated with young lava flows and shallow soils on the lower windward slope of Mauna. Loa. This community is dominated by a deep mat of uluhe, more or less scattered ' ohi' a trees, and relatively few other plant species. At a few sites within the project area with deeper soil, the vegetation has further developed into the ' Ohi' a (Metrosideros) Lowland Wet Forest or the Koa/' Ohi' a (Acacia/Metrosideros) Lowland Forest communities (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). These communities have a closed tree canopy, less uluhe ground cover, and a somewhat richer assortment of associated species. 3.2.1.2 Present Vegetation of Lower Portion The original vegetation of all the Lower Portion has been destroyed by intense human activity. Most of this area was formerly cultivated in sugar cane. The present vegetation is a secondary forest dominated by gunpowder trees (Trema orientalis) up to 18 m (60 ft.) tall. Other common trees, mostly alien, are octopus tree (Schefflera actinophylla), melochia (Melochia umbellata), Chinese banyan (Ficus macrocarpa), neneleau (a native, Rhus sandwicensis) and bingabing (Macaranaga mappa). The ground cover is also made up of alien plants, including oak fern Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-15 Environmental Setting (Cyclosorus dentatus), palm grass (Setaria palmifolia), thimble -berry (Rubus rosifolius), and sensitive plant (Mimosa pudica). In openings, the vegetation is chiefly sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum), California grass (Brachiaria mutica), and wedelia (Wedelia trilobata). The vegetation in areas where cross -streets would be widened is either semi -natural alien assemblages similar to those described above or ornamental plantings in yards. 3.2.1.3 Present Vegetation of Upper Portion The vegetation over much of the Upper Portion still strongly reflects the original vegetation. However„human activity, especially agriculture, has substantially modified the vegetation in many areas. The botanical survey identified two communities that are dominated by native plants, one community that is predominantly alien, and one that is a variable mix of native and alien plants. 1. ' Ohi' a/Uluhe Forest The most extensive native community in the project area is an open ' ohi' a forest with the ground completely covered by a dense mat of uluhe. The ' ohi' a trees have narrow, columnar crowns up to 12 in (40 ft.) high. Three variants of this type were identified. Where the ' Ohi' a/Uluhe Forest occurs on the 1881 lava flow, the community is very simple with few species. The substrate is a very thin layer of organic matter over pahoehoe lava. ' Ohi' a/Uluhe Forest also occurs on older ,lava flows where the soil is a shallow organic layer mapped as Ke`ei or Keaukaha "extremely rocky muck.” On this slightly more developed soil, the open forest contains a few more species of native trees and ferns, widely scattered within the uluhe mat. These soils are classified as Tropofolists. The least common variant has scattered mature koa (Acacia koa) trees mixed with the ' ohi' a. Otherwise, the community is very simple and similar to the ' Ohi' a/Uluhe Forest on older lava flows as described above. 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Forest covers 36 percent or 2,593 linear meters (8,500 feet) of Alignment 1 between Kaumana Drive and Sunrise Estates, and 26 percent or 1,220 linear meters (4,000 feet) of Alignment 2 between these same two points. This community does not occur along the alignment from Sunrise Estates to Komohana Street. The koa variant covers 4 percent of Alignment 2 but was not found along Alignment 1 (Appendix B, Table 1). 2. Closed Canopy ' Ohi' a Forest The canopy here is about 15 m (50 ft.) high. This community has several more native species than the forest community described above. The most abundant of these additional trees is kopiko (Psychotria hawaiiense), with occasional pilo (Coprosma sp.) Hapu`u are fairly common. Some uluhe does grow in sunnier spots, but the ground -cover is generally dominated by alien swordferns (Nephrolepis spp.). The epiphytic flora is well-developed, including ' ie' ie Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-18 Environmental Setting 9 (Freycinetia arborea) and ' ekaha (Elaphoglossum spp.). Alien trees, are also common in this community, such as strawberry guava or wai'awi (Psidium cattleianum), which forms dense understory thickets in many places, common guava (Psidium guajava), African tulip tree (Spathodea campanulata), and Alexander palm (Archontophoenix alexandrae). Closed Canopy ' Ohi' a Forest was found only on the 1881 lava flow in the vicinity of Edita Street, covering 8 percent or 554 linear meters (1,800 feet) of Alignment 1 and 5 percent or 244 linear meters (800 feet) of Alignment 2 between Edita Street extension and Sunrise Estates (Appendix B, Table 1). 3. Savanna Dominated by Alien Plants This community now occurs on sites with deeper soil where the original vegetation has been removed for agricultural or other purposes in the recent past. The soils of these abandoned fields are mapped as Kaiwiki silty clay loam, Olaa extremely stony silty clay, Olaa silty clay loam or Panaewa rocky silty clay loam. All are classified as Hydrandepts, and are well -drained to moderately well -drained. Presumably, the vegetation of the savanna would develop into a secondary forest given time. The savanna vegetation is highly variable and includes many species of alien plants and a smaller number of native plants as well. Generally, the ground -cover is tall, dense grass with widely scattered trees of many species. Common grasses include two mat -forming grasses: Wainaku grass (Panicum repens) and California grass (Brachiaria mutica), and two tall, bunch grasses: little bluestem (Schizachyrium condensatum) and broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus). Trees occur singly or in groves or thickets, including albizia (Albizia falcataria), common guava, wai'awi, melochia (Melochia umbellata), gunpowder tree (Trema orientalis), and the native koa. In many areas, the native'Ohi'a/Uluhe community still persists or is re -invading. `Ohi`a, hapu`u and uluhe are commonly seen in gullies where they may have survived land clearing. In other places, it is clear that ' ohi' a saplings are becoming reestablished and uluhe mats are spreading into the grasslands of the savanna. The Savanna community covers 11 percent or 793 linear meters (2,600 feet) of Alignment 1 and 13 percent or 610 linear meters (2,000 feet) of Alignment 2 between the Edita Street extension' and Sunrise Estates. 4. Mixed'Ohi'a/Wai'awi Many areas are a mix of dense wai'awi thickets intermingled with ' ohi' a and uluhe. The presence of other native and alien plants is also variable. Some of these areas appear to be native vegetation that was not completely cleared but has been degraded and invaded by wai'awi and other alien species. Other areas appear to have been cleared but then partially reinvaded by ohi' a and uluhe. In either case, these communities may contain any of the species of the savanna and of the ' ohi' a/uluhe communities described above, and occur on both the Tropofolist and Hydrandept soils described above. The Mixed 'Ohi'a/Wai'awi community covers 29 percent or 2,044 linear meters (6,700 feet) of Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-19 Environmental Setting Alignment 1 and 56 percent or 2,654 linear meters (8,700 feet) of Alignment 2. The vegetation of the entire alignment (1,555 linear meters (5,100 linear feet)) between Sunrise Estates and Komohana Street is Mixed ' Ohi' a/Wai'awi. A more detailed discussion of vegetation along the alignments can be found in Appendix B. 3.2.1.4 Biological Resource Values of the Ve eta For the purposes of this assessment, alien plants and communities dominated by alien plants are considered to have only negligible biological resource value. Vegetation attributes that are valued are (1) rare or endangered native plants; (2) plant communities dominated by native plants, especially if the community is a combination of plant species found only in that area; and (3) plant communities dominated by aliens but offering habitat to native fauna. However, even alien -dominated vegetation without such attributes may have general resource value for other purposes, such as controlling erosion, aesthetics/open space, and microclimatic cooling effects. No legally protected threatened or endangered plant species were found, nor is it considered likely that any such plants occur in or near any of the alignments. The natural vegetation of the entire Lower Portion has been replaced with alien secondary forest. This vegetation has almost no biological resource value. Much of the natural vegetation within the Upper Portion has been heavily disturbed by land -clearing and is dominated by communities of alien plants. In some other areas, alien plants, especially wai'awi and melastoma, have heavily invaded the natural vegetation and compromised its native character. There are, however, stretches on each alignment where the vegetation is near its natural state, but no area is outstanding in terms of the diversity of plant species nor particularly unique to the project area. Similar communities occur elsewhere in the South Hilo and Puna districts on relatively young lava flows. 3.2.2 Wetlands 3.2.2.1 Wetland Determination and Delineation Methodology Overview Analysis of wetland habitats was guided by the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (US-COE 1987) and the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Hawaii (Region H) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). The vegetation, soil and hydrological criteria defined in the Delineation Manual were used to determine the parts of the project area that have one or more strong indicators of wetland habitat. Precise delineation of the extent of wetland habitat in Hawaii on moderate to high slopes in areas of rainforest climate is highly problematic. Quite often, areas with basically, upland characteristics contain scattered pockets of tiny "wetlands," often with borderline wetlands indicator characteristics. This is the case for much of the project area. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-20 Environmental Setting A Therefore, in consultation with the US-COE, Honolulu District, the analysis of wetland habitat was done in two steps. First, in order to generate an estimate of the maximum area that might be wetlands under the jurisdiction of the US-COE (the "worst-case" area of disturbance), all areas that field surveys and map data determined to possess one strong indicator of the presence of at least one of the three required criteria were determined to be jurisdictional wetlands. This determination was made for all alternative alignment segments and provides a consistent basis of comparison between alternatives. Second, where feasible, a site-specific formal delineation measured the actual wetland areas. This was done for Alignment A and Alignment 1 (Alignment B contained no wetlands). Alignment 2 contains hundreds of small, poorly drained pockets, mostly less than 5.0 sq. meters (55 sq. feet) in a dominantly upland matrix. This situation precluded actual delineation of individual wetlands. Therefore, the "worst-case" figure was used as the estimate of wetlands for Alignment 2. In accordance with 40 CFR 230 Subpart E, the project area was inventoried for special aquatic sites, such as sanctuaries and refuges, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes. No such sites are present or would be affected by the Project. Wetlands Determinations The estimates generated during the determination were derived from a percentage estimator model based on the soil types of the project area. Three general soil types occur within the project area (Fig. 3-4). The distributions of the three major soil types are easily recognized in the field: 1. LAVA LANDS. The Lava Lands are the 1881 lava flow and other young flows, vegetated with `Ohi`a/Uluhe Fern Forest or Closed o`hi`a Forest. The soil is a very thin, discontinuous layer of organic matter. The surface may be 50 percent or more pahoehoe lava outcrop. No wetlands were found on these lava lands. 2. TROPOFOLISTS. The Tropofolist soils are shallow, organic soils formed over prehistoric pahoehoe lava flows from Mauna Loa. These soils are not in their entirety hydric, but have a tendency to become waterlogged when microtopography or compaction impede drainage. Many parts of these soils are covered by native vegetation; other areas have been degraded by grazing or other human activity, and support the Mixed o`hi`a and Wai`awi Shrubland. 3. HYDRANDEPTS. The Hydrandepts are relatively deep soils of Mauna Kea ash that have been cleared and cultivated, mostly for sugarcane. They are present in the western portions of Alignments 1 and 2. Now abandoned, these areas primarily support alien - dominated vegetation. These soils are moderately well -drained to well -drained, and contain well-developed gullies and intermittent streams that drain through a main channel, also intermittent. Wetlands were not found within this soil type, except within stream channels. Within the project area, only the shallow Tropofolists on prehistoric pahoehoe lava flows contain the dispersed wetland patches. Other soil types may contain wetlands, but they are more typical discrete, low -slope bodies with reasonably clear boundaries. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-21 Environmental Setting G Field, airphoto and map analysis determined that no Tropofolist soils are present on Alignments A or B, and that little occurs along Alignment 1. Alignment 2, by contrast, is largely situated on Tropofolist soils. Detailed observations of vegetation, soil and hydrology were made on a 854 - meter (2,800 -ft) long segment of Alignment 2. These observations revealed that approximately 20 percent of this sample distance had indicators of hydric soil or wetland hydrology. This 20 percentage factor was used to estimate the maximum probable area wetland habitats within portions of the alignments that cross Tropofolist soils. Wetlands Delineations Following the determination, a formal delineation was conducted for Alignments A and 1, which contained discrete wetlands. As discussed above, delineation is not feasible for Alignment 2. The delineation process involved field sampling of delineation points as well as map and airphoto analysis. Correspondence related to the U.S. Army COE review of and concurrence with the wetland delineation is contained in Appendix Al. 3.2.2.2 Distribution of Streams and Wetlands Figure 3-4 illustrates the wetlands and Tropofolist soils of the project area. Table 3.6 summarizes the locations and areal extent of all wetlands on an alignment by alignment basis. Lower Portion East of Alignment A and B Divergence This entirely urbanized area contains moderate to high slopes and no streams or wetlands. Alignment A Alignment A crosses some Tropofolist soils but does not contain scattered wetland patches. It crosses the channelized Waiakea Stream and traverses a small wetland seep of 2 sq. meters (20 square feet). Alignment B Alignment B contains no wetlands area. Alignment I Using the 20 percent estimator described above, an estimate of 5,400 square -meters (57,064 square feet) was derived for the maximum wetland area within this segment. This maximum estimate can be used for comparison with Alignment Two, where the maximum wetland area was estimated by the same methods. Following the determination, the wetlands of Alignment 1 were fully delineated by field surveys. Two jurisdictional wetlands were found. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-22 Environmental Setting The first is on the west side of Wilder Road, at the 1,495 -meter (4,900 -foot) marker, within a man-made drainage ditch that originates within the right-of-way and drains to the north. The ditch has a broad bottom vegetated with alien grasses and herbs. Flowing water can usually be detected under the grass. Since no high-water mark is visible, this 298 square -meter (3,150 square -foot) area is delineated as a wetland. The second, south of Uhaloa Street, is a large grass -covered depression that appears to receive water from the intermittent stream drainage system previously described. The stream channel appears to end in this vicinity, perhaps blocked by the 1881 lava flow (see Section 4.1.3 for hydrology discussion). Measurement from an aerial photograph shows that this wetland covers 2.1 hectare (5.04 acre); the proposed right-of-way crosses the wetland and would occupy 2,474 square -meters (26,136 square -feet). The wetland vegetation is predominantly two alien grasses, Wainaku grass (Panicum repens) and California grass (Brachiaria mutica). Alignment 2 The western portion crosses a number of gullies, swales and intermittent streams that are part of the same drainage system described on Alignment 1. Alignment 2 crosses most of these water courses perpendicularly and no associated wetlands were found. r Alignment 2 crosses 3,904 meters (12,800 feet) of tropofolist soil. Much of this area is O`hi`a/Uluhe fern forest, or the degraded native forest type, Mixed O`hi`a/Wai`awi. These areas contain several types of wetlands. Some are small, undrained pockets I to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) in diameter. The ground cover of these is dominated by obligate wetland plants: i.e., spikerush (Eleocharis obtusa) and kamole (Ludwiia octovalis). The canopy species are usually the same as the surrounding community. Other, larger, wet areas (roughly 30 in [100 ft] in diameter) are characterized by much reduced canopy cover of `ohi`a. The trees are scattered and appear somewhat stunted. The ground cover is dominated by uluhe and Wainaku grass, rather than distinct obligate or facultative wetland species. Much of Alignment 2 is a mosaic of these two types of wetlands interspersed within much larger upland (non -wetland) sections. In some areas, water flows over the surface or in poorly developed drainageways. When the 20 percent wetland estimator is applied to the total area of Tropofolist soil, it is estimated that a maximum of 29,084 square -meters (307,200 square -feet) of wetlands within Alignment 2. 3.2.2.3 Wetland Functions Biological Functions r - The very small wetland of Alignment A consists of a seep or a small pocket of undrained soil and is dominated by alien plants. The surrounding upland community is a secondary forest of alien trees and plants with little conservation value. No biological function of this wetland has been identified. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-23 Environmental Setting \; \ 77 ALT[ ALIG \ 1 LIPPE ALTEF TITLE STREAMS AND WETLANDS PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HILO, HAWAII 9Y014/Y/ .EIS/F3-4. W /S 1=1 U p P:. -E TIVE TIVE JT #2 0 1 2 3-4 scale in kilometers 0 2000 4000 DATE scale in feet 8/19/98 O R 1 L p W E R 0 N p p R T I 0 N 0 :NT A \ \ PORTION , \. \ \ LEGEND --- APPROX. LIMIT OF 100 YR. FLOOD ••••• 1881 LAVA FLOW • INTERMITTENT STREAM ® DELINEATED WETLANDS D TROPOFOLISTS - ORGANIC SOILS D HYDRANDEPTS - DEEP ASH SOILS D LAVA FLOWS Page 3-24 0 Table 3-6 Distribution of Wetlands Alignment Total Wetland Area 1 0.28 ha (0.68 acres) 2 2.91 ha (7.19 acres) A 2.0 square meters (20 sq. ft). e ative Combinations Altrn 1-A 0.28 ha (0.68 acres) 1-B 0.28 ha (0.68 acres) 2-A 2.91 ha (7.19 acres) 27B 2.91 ha (7.19 acres) Note: Estimate for Alignment 2 is based on determination (worst-case) method. Corresponding figure for Alignment 1 (for comparison only) is 0.54 ha (1.3 acres). The two wetlands intersected by Alignment 1 are of two different types. The first, west of Wilder Road, is within a drainage ditch and consists of a thick stand of the alien grasses, Wainaku grass and California grass, growing within the flowing water. Small areas of open water can sometimes be seen. No native plants or other important plant resources occur in this area. Alien aquatic animals, such as tadpoles and prawns, can sometimes be found. There is no known use of the area by native animals. The second wetland intersected by Alignment 1, near Uhaloa Street, is much larger, totaling 2.1 hectare (5.04 acre), with 2,474 square -meters (26,136 square -feet) within the proposed right-of- way. The water level apparently fluctuates between being subsurface to up to a meter (3 feet) deep in some places. This is a broad area also dominated by the two alien grasses, Wainaku grass and California grass. A few other alien plant species occur here, but no native plants or other important plant resources are present. The vegetation on the north side is highly modified by homes and small farms and includes bamboo thickets and stands of tall alien trees. The south side is generally vegetated by Mixed O`hi`a/Wai'awi thickets, and is partly native in character. This wetland provides an open -space area within the region, but a large extent of open space also occurs on the east, west and south sides. Along Alignment 2, on Tropofolist soils (Fig. 3-4), wetlands are dispersed in an irregular mosaic within mostly upland vegetation. Much of the surrounding vegetation is predominantly native in character. Some areas are intact O`hi`a/tJluhe fern forest with few alien plants present. Most, however, is degraded Mixed O`hi`a/Wai'awi thickets. Generally the wetland areas are dominated by alien ground cover species. Some small pockets, 1-2 meters, (3-6 feet) diameter, of submerged soil occur where the ground cover is dominated by spikerush, an indigenous sedge and obligate wetland plant. No endemic wetland plants characterize these pockets. The tree layer above does not appear to be affected by these small wetland pockets. Larger undrained areas, 30 Draft°Environmental Impact Statement 3-25 Environmental Setting 0 meters (100 feet) in diameter also occur. These resemble "bog -formation dieback" areas that naturally occur in some o`hi`a forests at higher elevations (Stone and Scott 1985:405-406). The ohi' a trees are scattered and stunted in appearance. The ground cover tends to be dominated by alien grasses rather than native plants, leading to a generalization that within the project area, the wetlands are often more alien than native in plant composition. It is difficult to determine if these various types of wetlands are natural inclusions in these forests, or if they are the result of soil compaction and drainage impedance by pig activity or other human -induced disturbance. The wetlands of Alignment 2, being mostly dominated by the same plant species that are common in the surrounding• vegetation, do not include any important native plant resources. No special biological function of these areas are known. These small wetland inclusions appear to be widely distributed within the region. The wetlands- within the proposed right-of-way are not essential for the well-being of the surrounding ecosystem. There are no permanent streams, and the intermittent streams do not contain native aquatic fauna, and little native flora, none of which is valuable from a conservation perspective. Hydrological Functions On Alignment 1, the wetland west of Wilder Road is within a drainage ditch that lacks a high- water mark. The wetland near Uhaloa Street appears to receive and store water from the drainage system of intermittent streams. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) map shows that the major collector of the intermittent stream ends in this vicinity, with no visible channel leaving the area. This phenomenon is probably associated with the presence of the 1881 lava flow blocking the normal downhill path of the stream. Water within the wetland probably slowly infiltrates to the groundwater. Sedimentation during storm runoff probably also occurs. The wetlands of Alignment 2 appear to have less distinct function and are associated with a young lava surface with only incipient stream formation. Water infiltration through the shallow organic (Tropofolist) soil is slowed by underlying pahoehoe lava bedrock. The wetlands are generally too shallow to store appreciable volumes of water, but probably do permit some sedimentation from surface flowing water. The wetlands being small and scattered within better - drained uplands, it is probable that water leaving the wetlands infiltrates to the groundwater at more permeable locations rather than continuing as surface flow. 3.2.3 Fauna The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) were consulted to determine whether rare, threatened or endangered animal or plant species are present within the project area, or might be affected by the development of the Project. See Appendix Al for the coordination letter with USFWS. In addition, field studies and scientific literature reviews of the flora, avifauna, terrestrial vertebrate, and cave invertebrate species found within the project area were commissioned specifically for the EIS. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-26 Environmental Setting C 3.2.3.1 Mammals Hawaii's sole extant endemic terrestrial mammalian species, the Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), or ope `ape `a, is listed as endangered by both the USFWS and the DLNR. It is locally abundant in the lowlands of the Hilo area and has been recorded within the project area. All other mammal species found on the island are alien species (introduced to Hawaii by man). 3.2.3.2 Birds A reconnaissance survey of the avifauna present within the project area was undertaken. A review of the ornithological literature pertinent to the project area was a component of the faunal report attached as Appendix C. The avifauna currently found within the project area is dominated by introduced species, as are the avifauna found in most of the ecological disturbed lowland areas in East Hawaii. No rare, threatened or endangered avian species were encountered during the faunal survey. However, it is likely that the Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius), known locally as the `io, occurs within the project area. The `io is listed as an endangered species by both the USFWS and the DLNR. Additionally it is probable that the site is overflown by the threatened Newell's Shearwater (Pufnus newelli), or a `o, as well as the endangered Dark-rumped Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis), or ua `u. There is no suitable nesting habitat within the project area for either the Newell's Shearwater or the Dark-rumped Petrel. The project area is within the normal breeding range of the Hawaiian Hawk. There is no documented record of this species nesting within the project corridor, however, Hawaiian Hawks may nest within the project area. 3.2.3.3 Invertebrates The invertebrate fauna of the project area, or for that matter of most of the Island of Hawaii, has not been studied scientifically or completely described. In general, native invertebrate species are associated with native vegetation. Areas dominated by native plant cover, such as the 1881 lava flow, may provide corridors connecting pockets of lowland vegetation with larger areas of native vegetation upslope. These corridors may have major survival value for some species. No invertebrate species listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed by the USFWS is likely to occur in the project area. The endemic invertebrate fauna of Kaumana Cave has been studied and partially described. Native species of crustaceans, spiders, and insects have been found, and some populations or species may be unique to this cave (Hoch and Howarth 1993). This ecosystem is important for evolutionary studies because related surface -dwelling species still live in the native forest above the cave. The native vegetation above the cave is also essential for the well-being of the cave species since roots of ' ohi' a trees are the food source for herbivorous species (See Appendix D: Kaumana Cave Report). Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-27 Environmental Setting 0 3.3 Socioeconomic Environment The proposed Project would most directly affect the neighborhoods of Waiakea and Kaumana, and would have lesser but still substantial effects on much of Hilo. To the extent that the Project effectively connects the -State Highway system, effects would be felt island -wide. The level of information in Section 3.3 is geared to reflect this hierarchy of effects. 3.3.1 Existing, Land Use and Planning Planning responsibility for the entire Island of Hawaii area rests with the Hawaii County Planning Department and the State Land Use Commission (LUC). County Planning Designations The General Plan for the County of Hawaii is a policy document expressing the broad goals and policies for the long-range development of the Island of Hawaii. The plan was adopted by ordinance in 1989. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map component of the General Plan is a graphic representation of the Plan's goals and policies. The Facilities map of the General Plan' identifies existing and proposed roads and existing government facilities. These maps together establish the basic urban and non -urban form for areas within the planned public and cultural facilities, public utilities and safety features, and transportation corridors. The Puainako Extension links areas identified as High- and Medium -Density Urban in the eastern (makai) portion to areas identified as Medium- and Low -Density Urban, as well as land slated for Urban Expansion. The proposed Project is thus an appropriate corridor for traffic between areas designated for urban uses. The Facilities Map (effective date 14 November 1989) explicitly identifies the Lower Portion of Puainako Street as a primary arterial to be improved. The Upper Portion of the proposed Project is designated as a planned primary arterial. State Land Designations All land in the State of Hawaii is classified into one of four land use categories --Urban, Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation --by the State Land Use Commission. The Lower Portion of the project area is entirely Urban. West (mauka) of Komohana Street, the designation is Agriculture. The proposed Project is a permitted use in both of these classifications; and no Petition to Amend State Land Use District Boundaries is anticipated or necessary for the Project. Existing Land Use Existing land usein the project area consists primarily of residential and open space. The Lower Portion of the proposed project area passes through Waiakea, a primarily residential neighborhood. The segment between Kilauea Avenue and Kawili Street passes through a heterogeneous mixture of homes from various dates. Non-residential land uses include the Waiakea School Complex (which contains the Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate Schools); three churches; one family general store and one barber shop. Draft`Environmental Impact Statement 3-28 Environmental Setting 6 The segment between Kawili Street and Komohana Street would pass between a State Housing Project built in the 1970s and an apartment complex that serves as a component of the student housing for the University of Hawaii at Hilo. The lands in this area are currently vacant but have been reserved for expansion of the University of Hawaii at Hilo by the State of Hawaii. All other land use in this area is residential. The Upper Portion passes primarily through undeveloped forest land or unutilized agricultural land. The area immediately west (mauka) of Komohana Street is currently vacant and has also been reserved for university expansion. There is a number of existing residential and small lot agricultural subdivisions adjacent to the alternative alignments, including Sunrise Estates, Pacific Plantations, and Park Hokulani (see Figure 2-1.) Depending on the alignment chosen, a varying number of residents of Kaumana Drive and side -streets that branch off towards the southeast would be within 92 in (300 ft.) of the proposed roadway. The sections of Kaumana Drive affected by the proposed Project are entirely residential in land use. 3.3.2 Demography County Patterns The population of the island has grown in tandem with visitor industry growth, increasing by 45.0 percent from 63,468 in 1970 to 92,053 in 1980, and by 30.7 percent to 120,137 between 1980 and 1990. These growth rates exceed the state-wide growth rate of 14.9 percent in the 1980s. According to a State population projection, Hawaii County will grow at an annual average of 3.56 percent into year 2010, reaching 206,000 by 2010. Much of this growth is concentrated in West Hawaii, particularly the North Kona and South Kohala Districts. Many new residents are relatively well-off in -migrants from the U.S. mainland.' Waiakea, Kaumana and Hilo The population of East Hawaii has also experienced growth, particularly in the Puna District. Population in the city of Hilo has increased somewhat more slowly, from 26,353 in 1970 to 35,269 in 1980 to 37,808 in 1990. Forecasts call for East Hawaii's population (including Hilo, Hamakua and Puna) to grow at an estimated annual rate of 2.24 percent, reaching 95,385 by the year 2010. East Hawaii retains a socioeconomic and ethnic structure more similar to pre -1960 patterns than does West Hawaii, the demography of which has been transformed by in -migration of job -seekers and retirees from the U.S. mainland. Issues. of Environmental Justice Environmental justice is a term that refers to social inequity in bearing the burdens of adverse environmental impacts. Certain socioeconomic groups in the United States, including ethnic 'Source: 1990 U.S. Census of Population; Hawaii State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT), M -K Population projection series. A 1996 study by DBEDT (Hawaii 2020 Revised Long Range Projections) predicts a population of 205,400 in Hawaii County by the year 2020, assuming a slightly lower rate of annual growth. No district -by -district projections were developed. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-29 Environmental Setting M minorities and low-income residents, have historically experienced a disproportionate share of undesirable side-effects from locally undesirable land uses such as toxic waste dumps, landfills, and freeway projects (Cutter 1995). The policy of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with regard to environmental justice is to ensure that an EIS shall address whether any low-income or minority population is disproportionately impacted by a proposed project and to identify possible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any adverse social impacts. The most recent and comprehensive data set with information on these variables is the U.S. Census of Population in 1990. The U.S. Census Bureau's poverty thresholds are used in this EIS to define low income. Census information, which is based upon self -identification of census respondents, is also used to determine membership in a minority group. Minority is defined as black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander (including Native Hawaiian), American Indian, or Alaskan Native. Minorities make up 63.1 percent of Hawaii County residents and 75.8 percent of Hilo residents. It should be recognized that more than half of all births in Hawaii since 1970 involve parents of different and/or mixed ethnic backgrounds. The following discussion, which compares neighborhoods in the vicinity of the project area with the rest of Hilo, includes information on the presence of low-income and minority groups. Census Tract and Block Group Data Figure 3-5 illustrates the census tracts that comprise the city of Hilo. Block groups, which are smaller census units, are also illustrated for the portion of Hilo directly affected by the proposed Project. Socioeconomic data for Hilo and the census tracts containing the project area are presented in Table 3-7. Block group data is presented in Table 3-8. Data from these tables reveal characteristics of the neighborhoods most affected by the Project, which would most benefit (through better traffic flow and traffic safety), and at the same time would experience most of the adverse impacts, such as loss of property for rights-of-way and noise increases. The following comparisons can be made: 1. Census Tract 207.01 Puainako Street forms the northern boundary of an area known as Waiakea Homesteads, which was formerly part of the Waiakea Sugar Plantation. Beginning in the late 1940s, homes and residential subdivisions were constructed and settlement moved up the slopes to Komohana Street, an infilling process that is still continuing. The neighborhood contains almost exclusively single-family homes. This area is largely coincident with Census Tract 207.01. The older, more eastern (makai) section is in Block Group 1, the central section in Block Group 2, and the most western (mauka) section is in Block Group 3. The tract as a whole has relatively high home values and rent prices, which reach their peak in Block Group 2. This is the Census Tract that would be most affected by the construction activity and right-of-way takes associated with widening of Puainako Street. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-30 Environmental Setting 8 7 208.02 U P P E R o `fF PJ�•1 " a P 0 R T 1.0 LIMITS, N a 8 TITLE FIGURE PROJECT AREA CENSUS TRACTS �o� AND BLOCK GROUPS PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE 6 HILO, HAWAII 10/26/ 92014/B / .US/F3-5 DWG/SG I -I L 0 W E R 0 R T 1 0 N 205 r J 209 �4 Q 0 1 2 scale in kilometers 0 4000 8000 scale in feet I PACIFIC OCEAN LELE1W 4 �Y h LEGEND CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY 0.00•0•090 BLOCK GROUP BOUNDARY 207.02 CENSUS TRACT NUMBER !1; BLOCK GROUP Page 3-32 1 7 208.02 s �a � t P�P•� ^'r `.l ..,. any 3 i o `fF PJ�•1 " a a �,,..• v NN N . PROJECT LIMITS, o DRIVE 2 H P I• �� �--- f 208.01 � f JA 7 I E P�p�NPKO • x � I � � • \�' P { I le/ TITLE FIGURE PROJECT AREA CENSUS TRACTS �o� AND BLOCK GROUPS PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE 6 HILO, HAWAII 10/26/ 92014/B / .US/F3-5 DWG/SG I -I L 0 W E R 0 R T 1 0 N 205 r J 209 �4 Q 0 1 2 scale in kilometers 0 4000 8000 scale in feet I PACIFIC OCEAN LELE1W 4 �Y h LEGEND CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY 0.00•0•090 BLOCK GROUP BOUNDARY 207.02 CENSUS TRACT NUMBER !1; BLOCK GROUP Page 3-32 1 g � � l The proportion of the population classified as minority is 84.4 percent (somewhat greater than the average for Hilo, 75.8%), and low-income residents make up 6.2 percent (much lower than the 14.5% for Hilo as a whole). The Tract contains the highest proportion of the Japanese - American ethnic group of any Tract in Hilo, but in other ways has an ethnic distribution similar to that of Hilo in general. A relatively large percentage of the population is over age 59. Native Hawaiians make up 15.6 percent of the population here, somewhat less than the 20.0 percent for Hilo as a whole. 2. Census Tract 205 Socioeconomic measures for Tract 205 closely match the characteristics of Hilo as a whole, revealing that the area is a microcosm of Hilo. However, since the area contains the University of Hawaii at Hilo and much of the associated off -campus housing, some categories are skewed. This is particularly evident by examining the data for Block Group 5, which contains the campus area. There, the proportion of the population between 18-29 is the highest of all groups and tracts in Hilo, and rents and incomes are the lowest. This Census Tract contains most of the relocations associated with the Project. The proportion of the population classified as minority is 76.4 percent, almost identical to that of Hilo as a whole, and low-income residents make up 22.5 percent, greater than average for Hilo. Native Hawaiians are 19.7 percent of the population in this tract, with similar proportions in Block Groups 5 (17.1 percent) and 6 (19.7 percent) that would be directly affected by the proposed Project. 3. Census Tracts 208.01 and 208.02 Kaumana, which borders the north side of the Upper Portion, was one of the original suburbs of Hilo. It has a mixture of high-value older homes, newer homes that span the market range, and a remnant of original plantation cottages from the era when sugar was grown in Kaumana. The area is divided into Tracts 208.01 and 208.02 above and below Akolea Road, respectively. These areas are very similar to each other demographically. They are relatively affluent, similar to Waiakea. Ethnically they are not markedly different from Hilo as a whole, although the Caucasian population is approximately 20 percent above its average value for Hilo and the Hawaiian population is about 30 percent lower than the average for Hilo. In Tract 208.01, the proportion of the population classified as minority is 74.7, and low-income residents make up 7.6 percent. For Tract 208.02, these figures are 72.5 and 10.9 percent, respectively. Although the percentage of minorities varies slightly among census tracts in the project area and between these tracts and Hilo in general, such variation is not enough to represent a disproportionate impact to minorities. The project generally is beneficial to local residents, the same population that also experiences some adverse impacts through construction -phase impacts, right-of-way taking, long-term noise and air quality effects, and similar direct impacts. The characteristics of the residents who must be relocated as a result of this Project are discussed in Section 4.3.2. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-31 Environmental Setting Table 3-8 1990 U.S. Census Data, Census Block Groups Trait/Unit 1 205 207.01 208.01 208.02 BG5 BG6 BG1 BG2 BG3 BG1 BG2 BG1 BG2 PERSONS 1745 1226 990 896 1294 935 2127 920 1740 FAMILIES 345 311 270 282 359 237 498 270 488 HOUSEHOLDS 630 399 361 338 418 294 574 337 597 %Female 51.4 52.4 50.1 50.0 48.1 49.9 52.3 48.4 52.6 %Low Income 44.0 18:4 16.2 0.0 4.1 5.6 8.6 10.9 12.1 ETHNIC .; %Cauc 25.6 25.9 19.1 11.9 15.8 34.9 25.0 39.7 26.6 %Fili 10.2 8.5 13.1 6.7 9.9 9.3 8.8 6.1 11.1 %Hawa 17.1 19.7 14.6 11.0 15.4 17.6 12.4 9.7 11.1 %Ja a 33.0 33.5 44.8 66.4 51.9 ' 31.9 45.4 35.1 42.5 %MINORITY 77.5 76.0 81.9 89.1 84.9 79.1 77.0 61.3 76.7 AGE .,.. . %<18 24.1 28.6 22.4 18.3 26.3 34.0 29.7 24.1 26.8 %18-29 32.4 18.7 12.9 12.3 12.3 12.5 10.4 10.4 11.8 %30-59 25.6 32.9 34.6 37.2 40.4 41.9 39.0 40.4 36.3 %>59 17.9 19.8 30.1 32.2 21.2 11.6 20.9 25.1 25.1 HOUSEUNITS 641 419 372 343 418 305 587 342 623 %Own-Occu 31.0 37.2 58.8 82.8 85.6 75.1 84.2 79.5 71.9 %Vacant 1.7 4.8 3.0 1.8 0.0 3.6 2.2 1.5 4.2 MED. HOME VALUE $000,000 1.24 1.09 1.09 1.23 1.17 0.94 1.31 1.23 0.97 Q1 $RENT 146 258 302 296 368 310 398 365 340 MED $RENT 279 387 380 465 488 514 517 446 477 Q4 $RENT 472 518 488 635 625 625 598 536 589 Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1990 STF1-A. Note: Refer to Figure 3-4 for Census Tract boundaries. Key: ETHNIC: CAUC=Caucasian (includes Hispanic Caucasians, who are included in Minority category below), FILI=Filipino, HAWA=Hawaiian; JAPA=Japanese; RENT: Q1=Average of rents in 1 st quartile; MED=Median rent: Q4 =Average of rents in 4th quartile Low income is defined as below Census Bureau poverty threshold. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-34 Environmental Setting 3.3.3 Public Services Police Protection The Hawaii County Police Department, headquartered in Hilo, provides police services to the project area. Fire Protection The Hawaii County Fire Department serves the project area. Four stations are located in Hilo, at Lower Kaumana, Waiakea, Downtown Hilo and near Hilo Airport. Emergency Services The emergency center for Hilo is the Hilo Medical Center, located near Lower Kaumana on Waianuenue Avenue. Schools The project area is served by a number of public schools: Upper Portion students attend Ernest B. De Silva and Hilo Union Elementary Schools, Hilo Intermediate School, and then Hilo High School. Lower Portion students attend Waiakea Elementary and Waiakea Intermediate Schools, both located directly on Puainako Street, and then Waiakea High School, located on Kawili Street approximately 0.6 km (0.3 mi.) from Puainako Street. Utilities Adjacent to or underneath Puainako Street are a number of utility structures. Water mains varying in size from 15 cm (6 in) to 46 cm (18 in) line both sides of Puainako. One gas main extends from Kilauea Avenue to Kawili Street. Electricity/telephone transmission lines and poles are located along the entire length of Puainako Street. No sewer lines are currently present, although sewer service is planned to extend eventually along Puainako Street and adjacent areas. Gas and water mains along with electricity/telephone transmission lines extend along the areas that would be affected by intersection expansion both north and south along Kilauea Avenue and Kinoole Street. The corridors associated with Alignments A and B do not cross utilities except at Komohana Street, where transmission lines and two water mains are present. Alignment 1 crosses transmission lines and a water main at Wilder Road. Alignment 2 crosses an electrical transmission line in the vicinity of Pacific Plantations Subdivision. 3.3.4 Parks and Recreation There are no county, state, federal or private parks within or adjacent to the 37 -meter (120 -foot) wide corridors associated with any of the proposed Project's alternative alignments. Lokahi Park, part of the County Neighborhood Park system, is located approximately 150 m (500 ft.) from the proposed right-of-way edge north of Puainako Street near the eastern terminus of the project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-35 Environmental Setting 0 area. Also located within approximately 150 in (500 ft.) of the edge of the Kaumana Drive right- of-way is Kaumana Caves County Park. This park consists of minimal parking facilities and steps that descend into the cave entrance. Kaumana Cave (as distinct from the County Park which provides one access to the cave) is discussed in Section 3.1.1, above. The Project completely avoids both parks and neither would be affected by the proposed Project. 3.3.5 Visual Resources The primary viewsheds that can currently be observed from areas adjacent to the proposed corridor in the Upper Portion of the project area are the following: o Seaward (makai) background views of the Hilo/Puna seacoast; o Upslope (mauka) background views of Mauna Loa and particularly Mauna Kea; and o Foreground views of forests and grasslands alongside the roadway. The relatively gentle slope and lack of local relief features in the project area leads to subtle viewsheds in which the more dramatic background elements are often not visible. The makai (seaward) view contains both natural landscape elements, such as the seacoast, open ocean and swaths of lowland forest, and manmade elements, such as housing tracts, commercial areas, the airport, and parks. Upslope (mauka) views are primarily of wilderness, including the upper forested and bare slopes of the mountains. In the Lower Portion, views from the road are of urban housing tracts. The view of the road from adjacent properties is currently not shielded by landscaping except where homeowners have provided their own vegetation screens. No viewplanes mentioned as sensitive or important for preservation in the Hawaii County General Plan or any other County or State plan are present in the area. 3.3.6 Historic Sites/Archaeological Resources The cultural resources in the project area consist of archaeological sites, some of which have been researched and identified as historic sites. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is meant to provide protection of historic sites that are on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This law designates the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in each state as the entity responsible for coordination and consultation on historic sites. The Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) has been consulted continuously during Project planning (see Section 9.4) and has reviewed and approved the findings of the archaeological research discussed in this section (and contained in Appendices EI and E2). Prior to historic site investigations for this Project, no sites were listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places in or near the project area. In order to determine if eligible historic sites would be affected, two archaeological investigations of the project area have been conducted. The first was performed in 1993 and is included as Appendix El. A subsequent study Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-36 Environmental Setting to investigate features that were included in the widened Project and study corridors was performed in 1995. The report of that study is included as Appendix E2. Both studies include a review of previous archaeological work, a historical literature and documents search, and an inventory -level field survey of all proposed right-of-way alignments. Both studies are summarized below. A resurvey of a length of approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi.) of Alignment 1, which has been necessitated by a design shift made in July 1998 in order to reduce the number of stream crossings, is currently being conducted. Reconnaissance survey has determined that no significant historic sites are present. The results of the inventory level survey will be discussed in the Final EIS. Prehistoric and post -contact land uses of the project area are classified as "upland agricultural" and "lower forest." The upland agricultural zone extended above (mauka) to the lower edge of the forest and was characterized by scattered habitations and garden plots. Archaeological resources are sometimes abundant in this zone. The lower forest zone probably lacked permanent habitation, but was used for cultivation and gathering forest products. Temporary huts and small religious shrines may have been utilized by family units. By the late 1800s, large tracts of land in the Hilo area were converted to sugar cane cultivation, followed by settlement and urbanization. All Project alignments cross through this traditional Hawaiian land use zone once utilized for extensive agriculture and habitation. The overlay of 19th and 20th century sugar cane cultivation and ranching on*the remnants of traditional (i.e. pre -Western contact) land use that probably existed on these lands have destroyed most evidence of earlier use. The original Project archaeological study corridors done in 1993 measured 37 m (120 ft.) wide. A total of 13 sites were identified in these corridors. This survey work and resulting report were accepted by the Department of Land and Natural Resources/State Historic Preservation (DLNR/SHPD letter to D. Kiyosaki, dated July 20, 1994, see Appendix Al). The subsequent archaeological survey expanded the width of the corridors to 92 m (300 ft.) along a slightly realigned course. In general, the latter survey area extended roughly 27 in (90 ft.) beyond the outer course of the first survey. The second survey identified and evaluated a number of additional features, most of which were interpreted as elements of the 13 originally identified sites (designated Site Nos. 50-10-35-18911 through 18923; See Table 3-9, Figure 3-6). One additional site was designated. The majority of the 14 total sites (85 percent) are located in Alignments A and B. One site (site 18921) is located in Alignment 1 and one site (site 18920) is located in Alignment 2. The remaining 12 sites occur between approximately the 61 m (200 ft.) contour and 104 in (340 ft.) contour. Four of the sites are located makai (east) of where Alignment A and B diverge, five sites (sites 18913, 18914, 18915, 18917, and 18918) are located in Alignment A; and three sites (sites 18916, 18919 and 2068 1) are in Alignment B. These 14 sites comprise 136 component features. The individual site features include a range of architectural types: platforms, mounds, terraces, modified outcrops, and walls. The sites range from single -feature sites (e.g., sites 18922 and 18933) to a complex of 58 structures (Site 18919) that covered roughly 16,722 m2 (180,000 sq. ft.) of Alignment B. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-37 Environmental Setting 4 A model was generated based on previous archaeological studies that interpreted the 14 sites as associated primarily with the commercial cultivation of sugar cane. The model consists of the following site qualifications: (1) sites are located within or adjacent to designated historic cane fields; (2) site structures match cane -related structures anticipated in the historic research and are comparable to other known sugar plantation sites; (3) site structures have architecture atypical of traditional Hawaiian structures; and (4) sites are associated with historic -era artifacts or contain elements of historic constructions that are specific to sugar plantation or ranching activities. Archaeological analysis indicates that the 90 component features functioned either as cane field or pasture clearing piles, cane hauling ramps, water tank foundations, a railroad bed, and sometimes a combination of these uses. Seven of the sites (sites 18911, 18913, 18917, 18920, 18921, 18922, and 18923) are composed primarily of field clearing structures ranging in size from 6.5 sq. meters to 96.0 sq. meters (78 sq. feet and 1,152 square feet). The larger of the field clearing structures consisted of terraces and linear mounds identified at sites 18911 and 18921. The smallest of the clearing structures, measuring between 6.5 and 8.5 sq. meters (78 sq. feet and 102 sq. feet), were represented by circular mounds at Site 18920. Five of the sites (sites 18911, 18912, 18914, 18915, and 18919) contain a combination of field clearing features and foundations for ramps or water tanks. The foundation structures range between 7.5 sq. meters and 60.0 sq. meters. (90 sq. feet and 720 sq. feet) Water tank foundations are typically circular, while ramps are rectangular in shape with at least one vertically -faced side. Historic sources reveal that most of the sites are located in cane fields once under cultivation by the sugar plantation of Waiakea Mill Company. The sites were probably constructed and continually modified while the Waiakea Mill Company was in operation between 1897 and 1947. Only two sites identified in the project corridors are located outside of the historically designated cane fields: Site 18918 is located within pasture land, and Site 18919 is on the boundary between the cane lands and historic pasture. Site 18918 is associated with historic ranching activities specifically related to land clearing. Site 18919 contains structures (clearing mounds, field walls, ramps and foundations) that are comparable in construction and function with the other 13 sites in the project corridors. Site 18919 illustrates that peripheral lands of the historic cane fields were also utilized by the sugar plantation for less extensive cultivation of sugar and as a location for plantation infrastructure, such as water tank foundations and ramps for hauling the harvested cane from the fields. Similar structure types are found among the 14 sites, especially substantially constructed mounds and platforms, many of which are vertically faced or leveled on the surface. This structure type has been identified in historic cane lands in other regions of the Hawaiian islands and are commonly considered to be field clearing mounds that were built up and subsequently utilized as foundations or ramps by the various historic sugar plantations. Sites 18914 and 18915 contain the best examples of this particular structure type. The most obvious sugar plantation structures present at the sites consist of foundations composed of stone -mason or concrete surfaces (sites 18912 -Fe. 1 and 18915 -Fe. A ) and a railroad bed with in situ railroad ties (Site 18915 -Fe. B). The foundations are considered to have been used for water tanks. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-38 Environmental Setting a In contrast to traditional Hawaiian sites, a type more stable in construction, the site structures in the project corridors were indiscriminately assembled. Subsurface testing at 11 structures (of 3 sites) revealed that they were constructed with a loose, internal fill that was typically retained by a sturdy facing; thus, evidencing that these structures were originally assembled as clearing piles. The presence of associated historic material with the 14 sites attests to the sites' historic plantation era origin and use. The absence of prehistoric construction components (e.g., pavements and fire hearths) and associated cultural materials provides evidence that the 14 sites are not traditional Hawaiian sites. The recovery of three volcanic glass flakes from a subsurface context predating the construction of Site 18915 Feature H corroborates that the area was utilized by traditional Hawaiians; however, the degree of plantation -era land alterations, as well as evidence that the site area was continuously flooded by an adjacent stream, suggests that the volcanic flakes had been displaced from their original context. The presence of historic material incorporated into the construction of some of the features of the 14 sites supports the interpretation that they are historic in construction and use. This historic material includes barbed wire fencing within a wall (Site 18919 Feature E) and in situ railroad ties on a railroad bed (Site 18915, Feature B). Various other historic artifacts, metal strapping, and railroad ties, were found on or nearby some of the 14 sites. Determination of Significance Among the purposes of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is the protection of sites important in archaeology. The goals are to determine the significance of subject sites, identify the effects of actions upon these sites, and avoid or mitigate damage to significant sites to the greatest extent possible. Criteria by which historic sites are considered to be "significant" are contained in 36 CFR Part 60 and consist of the following: o Site reflects major trends in the history of the state or nation; o Site is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; o Site is an excellent example of a site type; o Site may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory; o Site has cultural significance to particular ethnic groups. Sites considered significant are recommended for various treatments. Data recovery may be recommended, after which a site may be considered "no longer significant." Other sites may be recommended for preservation. Of the 14 sites identified in the project corridors, 12 are considered significant for information content (criterion D) and two of these 12 sites (sites 18914 and 18915) are also considered excellent site types (criterion Q. The remaining 2 sites are considered no longer significant. These significance assessments were established by the SHPO upon review of the original 1993 inventory survey report and were confirmed after review of the 1995 report. Impacts and mitigation for these sites are discussed in Section 4.3.7. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-39 Environmental Setting V Table 3-9 Archaeological Site Summary and 18911 Shared Lower 11 Complex Historic agriculture D 18912 Shared Lower 5 Complex Historic agriculture D 18913 A 1 Mound Historic agriculture NLS 18914 A 12 Complex Historic agriculture C, D 18915 A 9 Complex Historic agriculture C, D 18916 B 2 Complex Historic agriculture D 18917 A 3 Complex Historic agriculture D 18918 A 4 Complex Historic a riculture/ asture D 18919 B 58 Complex Historic agriculture/pasture D 18920 2 1 8 1 Complex Historic aariculture I NLS 18921 1 5 Complex Historic agriculture D 18922 Shared Lower 1 Modified outcrop Clearing D 18923 Shared 1 Modified Clearing D Lower j outcrop j 20681 Historic agriculture B 1 16 1 complex D Notes: National Register of Historic Places/Hawaii Register of Historic Places eligibility criteria. From 36 CFR 60 A Site reflects major trends or events in the history of the state or nation 8 Site is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past C Site is an excellent example of a. site type D Site is likely to yield information important to prehistory and history E Site has cultural or religious significance Recommended treatments are discussed in Section 4.3.7. NLS means no longer significant (sufficient data recovery has been accomplished) Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-40 Environmental Setting :4 ac ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES �OJECT PLIAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HILO, HAWAII M 20 U p P E p 0 R ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT #1 UPPER PORTION ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT #2 UPPER PORTION 0 1 2 3-80 scale in kilometers 0 2000 4000 DATE scale in feet 8/19/98 L O W E R N P 0 R T 1 0 N ALIGNMENT A LOWER PORTION a 18917 0 915 II o "18914 ; X18922 18918 18916 LEGEND HISTORIC 18920 SITE NUMBER -18923 1 189119 18912 ALIGNMENT B LOWER PORTION Page 3-41 3.3.7 Agricultural Land The U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (USNRCS - formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) was consulted to determine the soil and agricultural resources present in the project area. This consultation included formal assessment of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating evaluation process (see Appendix 7 for documentation). The agricultural utility of the land was assessed in the 1970s by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and mapped as part of the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) map series. Three categories of valuable agricultural land are identified: Prime, Unique, and Other (Baker 1976:4). Prime Land "has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops economically when treated and managed ... according to modern farming methods" (Ibid:2). Island -wide, Prime Lands constitute about 4 percent of the surface, Unique Lands less than 1 percent, Other Lands about 18 percent, and Unclassified the remaining 78 percent. (See Figure 3-7) Only the western (mauka) section of the Upper Portion in the Project contains agricultural lands identified as Prime, Unique or Other Important Agricultural land i.e., especially important for preservation). Both Alignment I and Alignment 2 cross approximately 915 in (3,000 ft.) of better -developed soil that was once used for sugar cane cultivation but is now fallow. Calculations show that each alignment displaces approximately 3.2 ha (7.9 acres) of Prime Agricultural Land. No Unique or Other Important Agricultural Land is present or affected. One farm, located in upper Kaumana west of Kaumana Drive, would be affected by the proposed Project if Alignment 1 were chosen. The farm occupies somewhat less than half of a 2.10 ha (5.25 acres) leased area on which a variety of vegetables are grown for both home consumption and market. 3.3.8 Transportation Patterns A detailed description of traffic volumes and safety characteristics specific to the immediate project area is contained in Section 1.4. This section discusses regional traffic patterns and the existing use of the project area by pedestrians and bicycles. 3.3.8.1 Regional Transportation Network The transportation network of the Project region consists of three major state highways which converge in Hilo, secondary arterials which connect these highways, and minor feeder roads. Figure 3-8 depicts the roadway system and the 1994 average daily traffic associated with each -link, if measured. The function of individual roads is described below: State Highway 11 Volcano Highway/Kanoelehua Avenue), a four -lane divided highway, is the primary arterial in the vicinity of the project area and is a segment of the round -the -island "Belt Highway" carrying traffic into Hilo from all parts of the island to the south, terminating in Kailua-Kona. Within Hilo, Highway 1 I carries traffic from the port and hotel areas of Hilo and Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-42 Environmental Setting a the Hilo Bayfront Highway (State Highway 19) through Hilo's industrial district. Highway 11 provides the only public access to Hilo International Airport. The eastern terminus of Puainako Street is at Railroad Avenue to the east of Highway 11. State Highway 19 (Kamehameha Avenue/Bayfront Highway) is a two -to -four lane, partially divided highway within urban Hilo and then a two-lane highway from Hilo northwest to Honokaa, Waimea and beyond. It meets Highway 11 in Kailua-Kona. State Highway 200 (Saddle Road) begins at the western (mauka) end of Kaumana Drive and crosses the island, intersecting with Mamalahoa Highway south of Waimea, South Kohala, and connecting the Kona and Kohala districts with East Hawaii. Improvements of Saddle Road that are underway or planned would increase traffic on the roadways connecting it to arterial roads of Hilo and East Hawaii. Puainako Street now carries traffic destined for Kaumana Drive/Waianuenud Avenue and Saddle Road via Komohana Street. Kilauea Avenue runs along the long axis of the older sections of Hilo, connecting the southern part of the city and the Puna District with downtown. Kilauea Avenue intersects Puainako Street near its eastern terminus at Highway 11. Komohana Street directly connects the two major upland (mauka) Hilo neighborhoods, Waiakea Uka and Kaumana, and provides the most direct cross-town route for the residents of those two districts. Currently, the western terminus of Puainako Street is at Komohana Street. Kaumana Drive/Waianuenue Avenue connects downtown Hilo with Kaumana and Saddle Road. Kaumana Drive is a two-lane roadway with a curvilinear horizontal alignment and rolling vertical alignment. At the eastern (makai) end, Kaumana Drive connects to Waianuenue Avenue, which passes Hilo High School and terminates at the Hilo Bayfront Highway. Trucks represent 3.0 to 6.0 percent of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) at various locations within the network. Neither ADT nor peak hour traffic volumes are markedly seasonal. 3.3.8.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic Survey counts of pedestrian and non -motorized traffic were not undertaken as part of research for this EIS. However, observations of general patterns reveal that in the Lower Portion, the principal pedestrian traffic consists of school children who live in the vicinity of the Waiakea school complex. The existing Puainako Street has dual asphalt sidewalk/bikeways separated from the roadway by intermittent raised asphalt curbing. Most of the local cross -streets have pedestrian crosswalks. Meetings between the EIS team and administrators from the Waiakea Intermediate and Elementary Schools have identified pedestrian safety as a major concern in planning for roadway improvements. Although bicycles are not a major component of traffic on Puainako Street, there is some use. Kaumana Drive sees little use by pedestrians and only limited bicycle use. The lack of sidewalks, bike lanes or wide shoulders coupled with relatively high traffic volumes discourage such use. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-43 Environmental Setting 1,630 KPJMP"P_ O \ Jm ALTERNATIVE V ALIGNMENT M1 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT N2 , 3,700 KAUMANA DR U P P E R 1 L 0 W E R P O R T I O N P O T I O p� oR R 'e PROPOSED 0 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT #2 ST (FUTUUE) 1 O ti/ In �W Q w•' y � 3 o ,6 PJ�pNp Q I o o�6I a o _ E%TEN510N 120' R PUAINAKO o Y `� ' PR JECTCIMITS.= P ALTERNATIVE Q% ALIGNMENT MI / KAWAILANI KG - O 6. / %— 0 PUAINAKO STREET TITLE FIGURE 1994 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3 o MAJOR PROJECT AREA ROADWAYS PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE HILO, HAWAII 10/26/98 92014/M/ .EIS/F3-8 DWG/SCALE I - I STREET i 6 9 O � G Q Z \ \ O11,580 20,164 PUAINAKO 0 1 2 scale in kilometers 0 4000 8000 scale in feet LEGEND 27,246 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC LOCATION & COUNTS Page The Bike Plan Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan (Hawaii Department of Transportation 1994), lists bicycle paths, lanes and routes that exist, are in design, or are proposed for the future. No bicycle facilities exist or are planned for Puainako Street. In the general project area, an existing route is present on Kawili Street. Routes are proposed for portions of Kaumana Drive and Komohana Street. 3.3.9 Hazardous Waste The Hawaii State Department of Health, Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HERR), maintains several databases that compile the following information: o Hazardous material releases reported to HERR since 1988; o List of facilities that have submitted Tier H and Form Rs as a reporting requirement of the Hawaii Emergency Planing and Community Right -to -Know program; o A list of the potential hazardous waste sites which are undergoing evaluation or have been evaluated as part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). Consultation with HERR determined that according to information in these databases, no known hazardous waste sites are present, no active or former generators of hazardous waste are or were present, and no releases of hazardous materials have been reported along the project corridor. Although this information cannot be regarded as definitive (hazardous waste or releases are not necessarily discovered or reported for all locations), it is consistent with the lack of potential hazardous waste generators in the land use history and ongoing use of the area. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-46 Environmental Setting 0 c .44- ,C-- �* -5 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND PROPOSED MITIGATION This chapter discusses the potential beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed action and the mitigation measures proposed to reduce adverse impacts, and then compares the relative impacts of the No Build Alternative and the various Build Alternative alignments. 4.1 Physical Environment 4.1.1 Geology and Geological Hazards 4.1.1.1 Impacts Any roadway that serves Hilo south of the Wailuku River is subject to the hazard of lava flows. There are no practical measures to avoid this impact. Lava tubes are associated with pahoehoe lava flows. Some of the lava tubes are large enough and have openings for human entry, and may thus be classified as caves. Lava tube caves in Hawaii may have value as historic sites, recreation areas, or unique geological features. Because of the multiple resources afforded by such caves, they are discussed in several sections of this EIS. Section 4.2.3 discusses Kaumana Cave, and Section 4.3.7 discusses impacts to historic sites or burials that may be found in caves. The 1881 lava flow is known to contain many such lava tubes, including Kaumana Cave. While the mapped segments of Kaumana Cave will be avoided by all alignments, other lava tubes may be disturbed directly or indirectly by the road project. Because of the recent date, caves on the 1881 lava flow are unlikely to contain burials or other historic sites. Initial reconnaissance of several caves revealed no cultural material. There is no information indicating that the caves in this area (other than Kaumana Cave) are used for recreation. In that these caves have probably never been systematically explored, their value as geological features is unknown, but as lava tube caves are common in pahoehoe flows in lowland East Hawaii, they are unlikely to have important, unique geological value. 4.1.1.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No Build Alternative This alternative would avoid construction in a geologically hazardous zone. The continuing absence of a major road serving upper Kaumana would perpetuate the vulnerability to severe traffic blockage during evacuations or as a result of major traffic accidents. No lava tube caves would be affected. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-1 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation *'h ..-ter Lower Portion: Alignment A vs. B The improvement of the Lower Portion would accommodate greater volumes of traffic from Kaumana in case of emergencies. No difference in exposure to hazards exists between Alignments A and B. No known.difference with respect to lava tube caves exists. Upper Portion: Alignment I vs. 2 Both alignments are equally exposed to lava flow hazard. Alignment 1 offers a more direct route with more numerous and shorter connections between existing and future roads in Kaumana. Therefore, Alignment 1 is marginally preferable for use during evacuations. Both routes are likely to contain lava tube caves, although the cave openings discovered so far have all been associated with Alignment 1. 4.1.1.3 Miti ag tion A built-in mitigation measure of the road is the reduction of hazard exposure for the residents of Kaumana by providing an alternate escape route in the event of natural disasters or accidents. Unlike the existing Akolea-Waianuenue escape route, the Puainako Extension would have several access points to Kaumana Drive. At a minimum, these would include Wilder Road, Edita Street, and at the terminus near Country Club Drive. This street network would more efficiently conduct traffic away from Kaumana. The wider roadbed and shoulders of the proposed highway would also be less likely to become completely blocked in case of a traffic accident or hazardous substance incident. Special Contract Requirements that will be incorporated into the construction contract documents will stipulate that in case a lava tube is breached during construction, the Hawaii County Department of Public Works (DPW) will implement a contingency plan in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Division: 1. Contractors will be supplied with maps identifying general areas where lava tubes are known to exist; 2. If a lava tube is encountered, all construction with the potential to impact the lava tube will immediately cease; 3. The appropriate personnel at DPW will be contacted; 4. These personnel will contact SHPD to determine whether historic sites or burials are present; 5. Organizations with an interest in lava tube caves will also be consulted. Depending on the context and resources associated with the cave, several alternative courses of action may be pursued: 1. If burials or historic sites are present, the mitigation directed by the State Historic Preservation Division and Hawaii Island Burial Council will be followed, in Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-2 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation .yp.. ..im accordance with Chapter 6E, HRS, Section 106'of the National Historic Preservation Act, P.L. 101-85, and P.L. 101-601. In addition, if the historic sites are determined to be important for preservation in place, Section 4(f) will be triggered (see Section 5 for explanation). All work on that portion of the project will cease while the State evaluates measures to avoid the significant site. 2. If no historic sites are present, the disposition of the cave will be as follows: a. If appropriate and feasible, the cave will be disturbed as little as possible and left as -is. b. If the cave poses a structural hazard to the road or related features, appropriate actions will be taken to produce a structurally sound surface for construction. 4.1.2 Physiography and Soils 4.1.2.1 Impacts Road construction would have varying impacts on the topography and natural landforms because of excavation and fill necessary to meet design standards for grades, curves, sight distance and speeds. Many driveway and side road grade levels would require adjustment. Although substantial earthwork would be required in several locations, little noticeable alteration of natural landforms would occur because of the existing low -relief topography. Because of incipient soil development in project area soils and shallow depth to bedrock, soil disturbance and stability are not substantial issues in project design. There is negligible potential for landslides or subsidence. Similarly, if Best Management Practices are followed, soil erosion potential is minimal. Mitigation measures to avoid erosion are discussed in Section 4.1.3. 4.1.2.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No -Build Alternative This alternative may or may not impact physiography or soils, depending upon what improvements are made. Lower Portion Some excavation of the existing roadway and adjacent right-of-way would be necessary in order to achieve design grades and sight distances. This would alter topography, with the principal impact of lowering or raising driveway approaches. Alignment A vs. B No substantial difference exists between the topographic impacts due to grading on these alignments. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-3 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation CMR Upper Portion: Alignment I vs. 2 No substantial difference exists between the topographic impacts due to grading on these alignments. 4.1.3 Hydrology and Floodpllains 4.1.3.1 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Construction of the roadway would involve several categories of hydrologic effects: encroachments on floodplains; alteration of minor stream channels and existing drainage patterns; and disturbance of ground surface. Impacts and mitigation in each category are discussed in detail below Encroachments on Floodplain: Impacts Route design for all alignments had among its goals directing the road around floodplains where practical and avoidance of longitudinal crossings of floodplains where practical. Nevertheless, all Build Alternative alignments involve several crossings of areas identified as within the 100 -year floodplain (see Fig. 3-2). Alignments A and B each encr"oach once on a floodplain, for a total of 0.31 ha (0.75 acres) and 0.09 ha (0.22 acres), respectively. Alignment 1 makes a total of 6 floodplain crossings, with a total area of 2.17 ha (5.36 acres), while Alignment 2 would involve 9 floodplain crossings, with a total area of 2.93 ha (7.25 acres). Location hydraulic studies were conducted for each encroachment in all alignments under consideration (see Appendix F). In all cases, no substantial increase to the base flood (100 year) backwater elevations is anticipated. There is low risk of overtopping the highway or damaging adjacent property. Impacts to the natural and beneficial aspects of the floodplains would be minimal. No permanent streams would be affected in any way. Few native plant species, little wildlife, and no native or valuable aquatic fauna are present. The area is not used for recreation, scientific study, forestry, agriculture, or hunting. The floodplains do have value as open space and as areas for flood moderation and groundwater recharge. The alteration of the natural surface will be minimal - consisting principally of elevating the area immediately under the right of way and supplying culverts to pass flows during flood events. The ability of the floodplains to moderate floods and recharge groundwater would be essentially undiminished. The Project would not support development incompatible with preserving the natural and beneficial values of the floodplain. The land within the floodplain makes up a relatively small proportion (less than 25%) of available land in this area of Hilo. In addition, considerable developable land exists within and immediately adjacent to Hilo that lacks the severe constraints imposed when developing within a floodplain. In terms of opening up access to properties within the floodplain, virtually every property crossed by the roadway has alternate means of access. Furthermore, HDOT plans to limit the ability to take access from the Puainako Street Extension, in keeping with its function as a primary arterial transporting traffic from the Saddle Road and Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-4 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ce Kaumana to Waiakea. Permitted accesses other than the major streets identified in the Hawaii County General Plan (Kaumana Drive, Wilder Road, Edita Street [Alignment 1 only]; in the future: Kukuau Street, Kupulau Street) will be few or none. Encroachments on Floodplain: Mitigation Measures In locations where the proposed roadway crosses flood hazard zones, several measures will be taken as part of implementing Chapter 27 of the Hawaii County Code, in order to ensure sound floodplain management and construction practices within the flood hazard areas. 1. The County of Hawaii will require a flood zone determination and study during the design phase of the project to locate the actual limits of the floodplain and determine the expected flood water elevations. 2. The County of Hawaii will require a final drainage plan that integrates flood water elevation and flow characteristics into the design of flood zone crossings to determine the best final design, and at the same time, evaluate upstream areas for potential flood damages. Floodplain management strategies would include sizing culverts at the floodplain crossings to allow the passage of 50 -year frequency of return flood waters and to prevent any increase in the flood water elevations or limits of inundation. This could also include replicating flood storage volumes in areas where it is necessary to fill floodways to construct the roadway embankment. The drainage plan for the road will undergo review, revision and approval by the Hawaii County Department of Public Works (DPW) to ensure compliance with standards related to storm runoff containment and activities within designated flood zones. The review will require that all storm runoff is contained onsite as required in the County's Storm Drainage Standards (1970). 3. The drainage plan will restrict the zone of disturbance to the smallest possible area in order to preserve the natural and beneficial values of the floodplain. Included as Special Contract Requirements that will be incorporated into the construction -contract documents will be specifications for the limits of disturbance and requirements that in disturbed areas outside the roadway, the surface will be replanted with appropriate native vegetation to preserve open space, runoff buffering and groundwater recharge values. Alteration of Stream Channels and Existing Drainage Patterns: Impacts The only crossing of a stream identified as permanent or intermittent on USGS maps occurs at the Waiakea Flood Control channel. Triple box culverts are proposed for this crossing. However, a number of crossings of smaller, intermittent, unnamed drainage ways would also occur. Neither Waiakea Stream nor the unmapped drainages are known to contain aquatic resources. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-5 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Alteration of Stream Channels and Existing Drainage Patterns: Mitigation Measures 1. The project would require a Stream Channel Alteration Permit (SOAP) for all activities that take place within an identified permanent or intermittent stream, i.e., at the Waiakea Flood Control Channel. This permit is administered by the Hawaii State Commission on Water Resources Management (CWRM). The permit review process considers impacts to the hydrological and biological values of the stream and may specify mitigation measures for impacts to these resources. Since the flow of this stream is highly intermittent and the stream contains no aquatic resources, no mitigation measures other than BMPs to reduce sedimentation are expected to be required. 2. In areas where the proposed roadway traverses minor drainage courses, the drainage plan referenced above will specify that drainage culverts will be installed to pass the runoff beneath the roadway. The location, alignment and hydraulic design of these structures will seek to prevent alterations to the general drainage and flood patterns within the project limits. The culverts would be sized to allow the passage of the normal or base flow of the stream along with the runoff associated with the design rain storm. The design storm would have a frequency of return of 50 years or less. In the final design stage, the proposed culverts would be checked against a design storm having a frequency of return of 100 years and recommendations made based upon their performance. Disturbance of Existing Ground Surface: Impact The construction activities for the extension of the roadway would include clearing and grubbing, excavation, embankment construction and paving of the roadway and associated structures. The reader is referred to Section 4.4.1 for Construction -phase impacts and mitigation measures. On a permanent basis, paving of the roadway would increase the amount of impervious surface area within the project limits. This increased impervious area has the potential to increase the amount of rainfall runoff within the project limits. Disturbance of Existing Ground Surface: Mitigation Measures The final roadway design will specify a roadway typical section that is crowned to shed water and prevent standing water on the roadway. This runoff will be collected in roadside ditches and drainage structures (i.e. drywells, retention ponds and/or detention ponds) and disposed of by both infiltrating it into the ground and discharging it into the natural drainage paths. This mitigation measure will ensure that any increase from storm runoff due to greater impermeable surface will be contained onsite. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-6 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 1 46 4.1.3.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No Build Alternative This alternative would avoid impacts to the current, semi -natural hydrological system in the area. Lower Portion: Alignment A vs. B In the Lower Portion, drainage mitigation would consist mainly of designs and structures to collect roadway runoff in roadside ditches and drywells. Mitigation on Alignments A and B is essentially similar and is projected to cost roughly the same, approximately $4.6 million. Appendix F contains more information on the projected drainage structures. Upper Portion: Alignment I vs. 2 In the drainage study (see Appendix F), the proposed roadway alignments were delineated on topographic maps and then tributary drainage areas to each required drainage structure or culvert were determined. The corresponding quantity of runoff for each of the sub -areas was calculated using the Rational Method and the drainage structures sized accordingly. Detailed information (including maps and tables) of the drainage areas and structures is contained in Appendix F. Although the precise design of drainage structures will, occur during final design, it appears that a series of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and steel arch culverts varying in diameter between 0.6 m (2.0 ft.) and 3.7 m (12.3 ft.) would be required. In addition to the preliminary design of the proposed roadway culverts, the existing 2.4 in (8.0 - ft.) diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and the 1.5 -meter (5.0 -foot) diameter (RCP) culverts along Wilder Road were checked for their capacity to ensure proper drainage of the proposed roadway. Upgrades to these structures would be undertaken during construction. Drainage mitigation costs on Alignments 1 and 2 are projected at $4.968 million and $7.463 million, respectively. 4.1.4 Water Quality 4.1.4.1 Impacts A report discussing water quality impacts and mitigation measures for the project is included as Appendix H. Impacts related to highway utilization are summarized below, while construction - related impacts are discussed in Section 4.4.1. Stormwater discharges to intermittent stream channels are regulated by the EPA through the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Impacts to water quality from a highway project, including construction, use and maintenance, contribute to non -point source pollution. Detrimental effects from this pollution may occur far Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-7 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation e from the source. The Project's potential areas of impact are Wailoa Estuary, greater Hilo Bay, and the subsurface aquifer. Potential impacts to water quality occur from the following sources: o Soil erosion during construction and highway utilization. o Contaminants associated with heavy equipment and other sources during construction. o Chemical pollutants during utilization of highway, including hydrocarbons (gas, grease, oil, etc.) and heavy metals. Petroleum hydrocarbons can include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), which are known to bioaccumulate. o Solids from tire and pavement wear, brake shoe and drum wear, rust, car exhaust, mud and dirt from vehicle bodies, erosion from highway right-of-way, pavement maintenance, litter, and spilled loads. o Herbicides applied along road verges. The construction and use of any highway inevitably entails at least minimal levels of chemical pollution. Without mitigation, construction and utilization of highway projects can have serious adverse impacts on the quality of groundwater, streams and coastal waters. All Build Alternatives would increase the area of impermeable surface in the immediate area due to widening the road and construction of sidewalks (Table 4-1). Enlarging the area of impermeable surface increases surface -water runoff during precipitation events and potentially increases the speed of delivery of polluted surface floodwater. Table 4-1 Change to Impermeable Surface Alignment Current Proportion of Imper- meable Surface Within 250 Meters of Proposed Centerline With Project Proportion of Imper- meable Surface Within 250 Meters of Proposed Centerline A Medium Medium High B Medium Medium 1 Low Medium Low 2 Very Low Low Notes: Very Low < 5% impermeable; Low = 5-15%; Medium Low = 15-25%; Medium = 25-40%, Medium High = 40-55%; High = 55-75%; Very High = 75-100%; Determinations are estimates based on airphoto and map analysis; Impermeable areas included paved streets, driveways, and parking lots, as well as structures. Future condition assumes conversion of entire 37 meters (120 -foot) right-of-way to impermeable. Uncontrolled or large releases of these pollutants may seriously impact water quality, including the quality of groundwater, as well as the organisms, ecosystems and recreational activities dependent on clean water. Sediments may choke streams and alter the biological and recreational value of stream and ocean water (flood control is treated above in Section 4.1.3). Chemical pollutants may inhibit reproduction and growth and may kill organisms. Through organism -selective effects, this can alter the composition of ecosystems. An excess of nutrients such as nitrogen or phosphorus can lead to eutrophication. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-8 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Without mitigation, increased areas of low permeability surface created by the proposed project also may increase the volume of total runoff, the size of peak flood, the size of peak flood, increase channel sizes through scouring, decrease the lag -.time to discharge peak, and decrease groundwater infiltration. Because percolation of the water through the substrate has a mitigating effect on water pollution, the increased speed of delivery of runoff into the receiving waters (Wailoa Estuary and Hilo Bay) can also affect the concentration of particulate matter, and microbial, as well as chemical, pollution. 4.1.4.2 Comparison Among Alternatives Traffic volumes, and thus the potential for highway operation pollution, would increase regardless of the alternative selected. The decrease in traffic flow efficiency associated with the No -Build Alternative would lead to increases in highway -related pollutants. The reduction in pollution gained by more efficient traffic flow in the Build Alternative would be partially offset by a slight increase in total traffic volume. In addition, with increased traffic volumes and reduced traffic -flow efficiency under the No Build alternative, automobile accidents and vehicle breakdowns would expected to increase, although to a lesser extent than with the Build Alternative (which involves more total traffic). With an increase in vehicle incidents under both alternatives, the potential for chemical and petroleum residues to be deposited on the roadway would be expected to increase. Stormwater flowing over impermeable surfaces may pick up such residues, and if not controlled, transport them off site. Contaminated stormwater could degrade the quality of surface waters. Groundwater quality is not expected to be affected under either the No Build or the Build Alternatives. Soil materials naturally filter and clean runoff as it filters to the groundwater. Recent studies conducted for the Saddle Road EIS (USDOT 1997) of existing wells and well shafts adjacent to major highways on the Big Island showed no detrimental effects from surface runoff contamination. Under the Build Alternative, mitigation measures to be employed to control runoff will further reduce the likelihood of impacts to groundwater. Selection of Alignment A would increase the area of impermeable surface at a level marginally greater than Alignment B (Table 4-1). Alignment 2 would necessitate considerably greater conversion to impermeable surface than Alignment 1. While the area of impermeable surface would increase under any combination of alignments in the Build Alternative, the overall addition of paved area in relation to the size of the Hilo Bay watershed is quite small, and the increase in the area of impermeability is not a significant consideration. Any potential for contamination of stormwater under the Build Alternative will be reduced through mitigation measures, and the risk of contaminated waters reaching offsite locations will be slight. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-9 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 4.1.4.3 Miti ag tion In order to comply with the CWA, measures must be taken during and after construction, to prevent pollutants, including sediment and hazardous chemicals from degrading the quality of stormwater runoff. As required by EPA regulations on stormwater discharges, measures to prevent stormwater pollution will be required for the Project both during and after construction. Special Contract Requirements which will be incorporated in the construction contract documents will require the following permanent pollution control measures in order to minimize degradation of stormwater quality after construction of the road is completed: o Minimizing the steepness of slopes where possible o Vegetating slopes to filter out silt and chemical pollutants o The use of drywells and percolation ponds to reduce siltation of receiving waters o Providing velocity reducers and/or settlement basins at culvert outlets o Stabilizing stream banks in appropriate locations o Use of mowing and minimization of herbicides to control roadside weeds. It should be recognized that under any Build Alternative, a substantial portion of the traffic on the roadway would simply be diverted from other locations, and not generated by the roadway itself, tempering the increase in net impact to the region. Despite all mitigation measures, residual impacts involving sediment impact and chemical contaminants would occur. However, these impacts would be minimal, and it is expected that all standards of the Department of Health regarding impacts to groundwater, streams and coastal waters would be met. If a major hazardous spill were to occur within the Project limits, clean-up efforts would be coordinated through the Hawaii County Civil Defense Agency and the Hawaii State Department of Health. 4.1.5 Air Quality 4.1.5.1 Impacts and Alternative Comparisons Impacts to air quality in the project area are covered in a report included as Appendix L and summarized below. Refer to Section 3.1.6 for discussion of the source, health effects and regulation of various air pollutants. Construction -phase impacts are discussed in Section 4.4.2. An emission burden analysis was performed to provide estimates of existing and future air pollution emissions from traffic operating within the project corridor. An emission burden analysis provides an overall assessment of the potential impact of a roadway project, called a mesoscale analysis. A microscale air quality analysis was conducted at five intersections along Puainako Street. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-10 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation r - P Mesoscale Air Quality Analysis The analysis divided the project area into four segments, based on differing traffic characteristics. The segments were (1) Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street, (2) Puainako Street between Komohana Street and Kaumana Drive (if project is constructed), (3) Komohana Street between Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive, and (4) Kaumana Drive between Komohana Street and Country Club Drive. The M0B11L5A emissions computer model calculated emission burdens based on several factors including vehicle miles traveled (VMT; based on the roadway length and the average daily traffic counts and projections derived for this EIS), average travel speeds (ATS), and other climatic and vehicular factors. Emission estimates for future (Project Year 2020) with project and without scenarios were done for the primary three air pollutants emitted by motor vehicles: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. As a baseline estimate for comparison, 1994 emissions were also calculated. The final results of the analysis are presented in Table 4=2. It was estimated that in 1994 hydrocarbon emissions from traffic traveling within the project corridor amounted to 64 tons. Carbon monoxide emissions were estimated at 510 tons and nitrogen oxide emissions were calculated at 41 tons. Most of the emissions occurred along the Puainako Street and Komohana Street segments. Table 4-2 HC. CO and NO, Emissions (Tons Per Year) Source: Appendix L Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-11 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 2020 2020 1994 Without Project With Project HC CO NO% HC CO No, HC CO NO. Puainako St: Kilauea Ave to Komohana St 28 231 15 91 811 20 37 387 19 Puainako St: Komohana St to Kaumana Dr — — — — — — 30 231 25 Komohana St: Puainako St to Kaumana Dr 27 209 20 31 262 23 33 279 25 Kaumana Dr: Komohana St to Country Club Rd 9 70 6 144 1,274 1 31 20 1 200 9 Total 64 510 41 266 2,347 74 120 1,097 78 Source: Appendix L Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-11 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation s Build vs. No Build In the year 2020 without the Project, emissions are estimated to increase substantially (Table 4-2). This is due to the expected increase in traffic volumes and decrease in average travel speeds (ATS). Traffic moving less efficiently produces far more pollutants per vehicle mile traveled. Much of the increase is predicted to occur along the Kaumana Drive segment due to very slow ATS. In the year 2020 with any combination of build alignments, hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions would also increase, but by a smaller factor. Compared to the No Build case, emissions along the Kaumana Drive segment would be substantially reduced due to lower ADT and higher ATS. On Puainako Street, despite the increase in ADT, emissions would increase only slightly because of better traffic flow. Emissions would increase slightly on Komohana Street and Kaumana Drive, again despite great increases in estimated ADT. Quite obviously, emissions would rise in the currently vacant land where the Puainako Extension would be located. Alternative Comparison In terms of total emissions, the model did not predict much difference between the alternative alignments. However, based on air quality considerations, the alignments offering the greater buffer distance between the roadway and the existing homes (Alignments A and 2) are preferable. Table 4-2 illustrates that emissions in the year 2020 are calculated to rise from current levels by factors ranging between approximately 1.2 to 15.0, depending on the pollutant measured and the alternative selected. Note that emission levels would be far greater without the project than with it. This is because motor vehicles traveling in congested conditions burn fuel less efficiently. Without the Project, carbon monoxide levels and hydrocarbon emissions would be over twice as high, although nitrogen oxides would be slightly lower. Microscale Air Quality Analysis Despite the benefit to overall (regional) air quality, vehicles on Puainako Street would contribute to a long-term increase in air pollution emissions along the actual project corridor — what air quality specialists call microscale impacts. To evaluate the potential impact, an air quality specialist employed computerized emission and atmospheric dispersion models that estimate ambient carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations along roadways leading to and from the project area. CO was selected for modeling because it is the most stable and abundant of the pollutants generated by vehicles (see Appendix L). Generally speaking, roadway intersections are the primary locations of concern because of vehicular emissions associated with traffic queuing in congested conditions. The study focussed on four intersections that are now or would be signalized on the existing portion Puainako Street because these intersections will be the most affected by the proposed project. Also studied were the intersections near the Waiakea School complex. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-12 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation The main objective of the modeling study was to estimate maximum 1 -hour and 8 -hour CO concentrations for the four intersections at the present (1998) and the future (2020) for both the Build and No -Build Alternatives. Maximum concentrations were calculated for both morning and afternoon peak hours, using the MOBI1L5A computer model. The model incorporates terms for traffic volume, average speed, vehicle mix (i.e., different types of motor vehicles and engines), cold/hot start modes (i.e., whether most vehicles will be "warmed up" and burning fuel efficiently), and other factors. After emissions were calculated, a dispersion model (CAL3QHC) was used to determine how CO would disperse away from the intersection. "Worst case" meteorological conditions (wind speeds of less than 1 meter/second, blowing towards the most sensitive areas) were used in order to arrive at a conservative estimate. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 provide. the results of the analysis for four intersections (Waiakea School complex is discussed at the end of this section). Table 4-3 Estimated Worst -Case 1 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (milligrams per cubic meter) Roadway Intersections with Puainako Year/Alternative 1998/Present 2020 No -Build 2020 Build AM PM AM PM AM PM Kilauea Ave. 13.1 9.8 10.6 8.7 10.1 9.6 Kinoole Street 6.2 5.8 7.5 7.2 9.2 7.8 Iwalani/Kawili Streets 8.9 6.1 8.0 6.8 11.0 8.9 Komohana Street 7.8 6.1 11.6 13.2 9.8 8.2 Source: Appendix L Notes. Concentrations are estimated for areas 3 m away from traveled portion of roadway at 1.8 m height. Hawaii State Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO: 1 Q Federal Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO. 40 As shown in Table 4-3, the predicted worst-case for the 2020 Build Alternative ranged between 7.6 and 11.0 mg/m3. In general, air quality would be similar in the Build and No Build scenarios, with the most frequent exceedance occurring in the No Build situation. All of the locations studied were predicted to meet the National AAQs, but the more -stringent State Standard was predicted to be exceeded near the Puainako Street - Kilauea Avenue and the Puainako - Iwailani/Kawailani Street intersections. Table 4-4 supplies the worst-case 8 -hour concentrations for these intersections. For the 2020 scenarios, all predicted low concentrations that were within the National AAQs, but concentrations that equaled or exceeded the more -stringent State AAQs near the Puainako Street Intersection with Kilauea Avenue and with Iwailani/Kawailani Streets. Draft Environmental Impact Statement " 4-13 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation s The projected microscale impacts of the proposed project are not significant in terms of compliance with the National AAQS. Existing CO concentrations in the project area may exceed the more -stringent State ambient air quality standards at times. This exceedance is likely to occur in the future with or without the Project. With the Project, however, the highest concentrations in the project area will likely be lower, compared with either the existing case or with the No Build scenario. Table 4-4 Estimated Worst -Case 8 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations milligrams Der cubic meter Roadway............................................... Intersections Year/Scenario with Puainako 1994/Present 2020/Without Project 2020/With Project Kilauea Ave. 6.6 5.3 5.0 Kinoole St. 3.1 3.8 4.6 Iwailani/Kawili Streets 4.4 4.0 5.5 Komohana St. 3.9 6.6 4.9 Source: Appendix L Notes: Concentrations are estimated for areas 3 m away from traveled portion of roadway at 1.8 m height. Hawaii State Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO: 5,Federal Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO: 10 Currently, four driveways access the Waiakea School Complex. In consultation with school officials, final design will determine the number and location of access points for these intersections. Therefore, precise modeling of microscale air quality impacts at future intersections is not possible. The model estimated existing conditions at one intersection and future conditions at another, and determined that in no cases would 1 -hour or 8 -hour State or national AAQs be exceeded. Alternative Comparison The Build Alternative results in slightly better microscale air quality at the subject intersections than the No Build Alternative. No difference exists among any of the Alignments with respect to microscale air quality impacts. 4.1.5.2 Mitigation Impacts to regional air quality will be less severe if the Build Alternative is selected. Furthermore, any potential impacts are not significant in terms of compliance with the National AAQs. Since no mitigation measures would be enforceable under the No Build Alternative, none are suggested here. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-14 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 4 4.1.6 Noise Levels A report analyzing the noise impacts of the various alternatives is included as Appendix K and is summarized below and in Section 3.1.7. Construction -related impacts are dealt with in Section 4.4:3. Refer to Section 3.1.7 for a discussion of the methodology involved in the measurement of existing noise and the FHWA Traffic Noise prediction model used to estimate impacts. 4.1.6.1 Impacts Federal and state regulations and policies (23 CFR 772; U.S. Transportation Policy and Procedure Memorandum 90-2; HDOT's Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy) define a traffic noise impact as occurring when the predicted noise levels for the project year either: o Approach or exceed FHWA's noise abatement criteria (NAC), or o Substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NAC for residences, schools, churches, and similar land uses - i.e., the entire project area - is 67 Ley (equivalent sound level, A -weighted scale - see Table 3-3). Approach is defined in the MOT policy as withinl.0 decibels of the applicable NAC, i.e., 66 Leg or greater. Substantial exceedance is defined as an increase of at least 15 dBA over existing noise levels. When noise impacts occur, reasonable and feasible mitigation measures must be considered. A noise mitigation measure is considered feasible and reasonable if it accomplishes a substantial noise reduction (at least 5 dBA) while meeting constraints of cost, safety, drainage, access, maintenance, viewplane preservation, etc. According to State policy, the price of mitigation should not exceed $35,000 per affected residence. It is also important to weigh the overall magnitude of noise impacts and the contribution of other noise sources, as well as the benefit to all nearby residences (not just those defined as impacted by noise increases above criteria), when judging if a mitigation measure is "reasonable". Furthermore, State policy stresses that the opinion of impacted residents will be a major consideration in determining the reasonableness of the noise abatement measures. Finally, it is recognized that it is the policy of Hawaii County to discourage walls higher than 1.8 meters (6.0 ft) in order to preserve viewplanes. According to Section 25-4-43 of the Hawaii County Code, any proposed wall higher than 1.8 meters (6.0 ft) requires a building permit and is subject to 9 in (30 ft) property -line setback requirements. Exceptions to such setback require variance applications on a property -by -property basis. Because of the way noise impacts on the Project are spatially distributed, the discussion for the noise section divides the project area in a slightly different manner than for other impacts. For the No Build Alternative, the area under consideration is the existing Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street. For the Build Alternative, three sub -areas are identified: the segment of the Lower Portion where the existing Puainako Street will simply be widened (Kilauea Avenue to the Waiakea School complex); the segment of the Lower Portion where the proposed Alignments A and B "bypass" the existing Puainako Street; and the Upper Portion. Future noise impacts were estimated for all existing residences, residences under construction, and public -use structures along all alternative alignments. Because of the prevailing custom of free air Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-15 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 4 C. circulation through louvered windows in East Hawaii homes, noise mitigation barriers rather than air conditioning and soundproofing are generally preferred when noise abatement measures are required. At all properties where noise impacts were predicted, the location and size of noise mitigation barrier walls necessary to reduce sound levels by at least 5 dBA were determined. Finally, a preliminary evaluation of whether these measures were "feasible and reasonable" was done. Table 4-5 provides an overall tally of properties that would be impacted by the No Build Alternative. Because no funding for noise mitigation would be available if the Project is not implemented, no further information is provided. Figures 4 -la -h depict noise -impacted properties, i.e., residences and public use structures, under the various alignments of the Build Alternative. The figures also show the sound reduction barriers proposed to mitigate these impacts. For each noise impacted property identified in Figures 4-la—h, Tables 4-6a—e provide information the nature and level of the impact and the amount of sound reduction achieved by the barriers. The reader is referred to Appendix K for more detailed discussion of methodology along with tables and maps of noise impacts. Table 4-5 Noise Impacted Properties, No -Build Alternative, Kilauea Avenue to Komohana Street SEGMENT IMPACTED STRUCTURES Kilauea Ave. to Kinoole St. 2 homes Kinoole Street to Lokahi St. 3 homes Lokahi St. to Naniakea St. 7 homes Naniakea St. to Anela St. 1 home Anela St. to Kanoelani St. None Kanoelani St. to W. Kawili St. 1 home W. Kawili St. to Kapualani St. 7 homes Kapualani St. to Komohana St. 2 homes Komohana St. to W. End of Puainako St. None Kilauea Street 2 homes Kinoole Street 1 church building TOTAL 25 homes, 1 church building Source: Appendix K, Table 9. Number for each segment is the maximum of the number impacted at either the AM or PM peak hour. Notes: Impact is defined as increase that: 1) approaches (defined as 66 L..) or exceeds FHWA NAC of 67 Leq for residences, schools, churches, or similar land uses, 2) exceeds HUD's 65 Ld„ criterion for residences; or 3) equals or exceeds 15 d8A above existing noise levels. All listed structures are private; no public use or park lands are impacted. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-16 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 4 „ PACmc OCEAN \ I\ / .C11 Y'/ I \ _ O •}r nolRilin � .ao-. .0 souw HAWAIIAN ISLANDS-\-� ONAEA LocnnoN MAP 19 NAMAHUA PROJECT LOCATION sounl wEo 'I - r ( n \ Q . 1F[✓' ✓ .I 1..1 rl v I■ . NOlIIR KO \ 1 P• I ..L+wc�r. �of:H ji+i�.� �♦ KONA Qw KA NORTH `= PORT_I Ir \ -/\Jl' r/''•. I t'�r41 /' /yam ,I 'u 1 IC ,tea f�l l � j�` •-.y �i I 1� I � r ��AA /ld ♦.� .--__I \ '� � � I :��':.• - / 1` _ �.'� I ~�e I\!'f —'. .• ;p ',/ \ I I , r-` 1 : o -. ) "I I `rum•\' �.. _' 1 _ f— . — - �. ' n '" �In f - _zKSI ;vo%�' El I 1 I� ! Ii•y(�r_.i I '\• l �� 1 � ` � - \ ' � I'` '. P, Wi ,`I - r;'I � ,SJ ; �` /"..r' d IZ o { / A IGNM N ao�4 , , '•�,�' I �\ �' I ' I '� o � ; \,.- I. 1� ¢ I I LI R P R 1,P 1� o II I`�-�' I r l I /i' 1 � J-•=�-7N / i � r I =« }' � • • ., 'I I (sch � ��: ! t. _ a I) ''( � I 0.. r � `'� ao ' ` 1 \ /rir G nal ••� .f I \ Y� II I 1 '_i Y - i .' r�; . b 1 13/ _ 1 `� a N { Q C ;L •)�_-1, '�� 2 P 1 �7�G/ i�KpWu• Al �'. �sT /r �.� ,J� �o .I \ _ I� .fir �I 1 I I TOit " r l K ` Y',.,'`� NORTH ; n�" _ CR0 5 '(3 \\ i - f ` AL ERNAT �oE�°� KA - A NMENT�' I! ! ALTERNATIVE ROADIE, ' FIG:I € i' i 1H� r�'. y' U ER,IP, ITtON \ ALIGNMENT #1 ; . } :',' / ,' c" - _ UPPER PORTION aoo� ALT 1`1 NATI NMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE x ! L, \ 1 ., 2_, ',1 11\ UP R .'POR N / IALIGNMENT #2 TO UPPER PORTION sc. I Ikiloine ers ' -,i ` 1 I'I `1 \ e _� SADDLE aP j 1 s I _ �P 0 Ks2000 400 �' �I �A ROAD i t I r :w' KAWAR se in' f., 't 11 ) I TITLE FIGURE ° HAW NOISE IMPACTS & MITIGATION W x AIAKEA //�� KEY TO MAPS ` — a UKA I PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE HILO, HAWAII 10/26/98 92014/M:/ EIS/SCANS/F4-1o.0WG/SCA_E1=1 \.) XIS�tN � 'UA1N 0 PL I TO KEAUKAHA HA H . o0 N/ v TO t1 VOLCANO Page 4-17 ��� o O rE� 2 ! TI TLE WAIAKEA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0 �^�illiliiilinn� 111 a O O • ■UMIN If 0 0�'D 0 N NOISE _ o MITIGATION BARRIER (TYP.) w 0 100 200 scale in meters 0 200 400 scale in feet PROPOSED' PUAINAKO ST. WIDENING NOTE: SEE FIG. 4-1a FOR LOCATION NOISE IMPACTS & MITIGATION KILAUEA AVE. TO WAIAKEA SCHOOLS PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HIO, HAWAII 71 HER PI'' I� Ll a� + —43 s FT. < WALL Z HEIGHT m M M LEGEND: Alb NOISE IMPACTED STRUC UR NOISE IMPACTED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 9 —ao Page 4-18 0 0�'D 0 N NOISE _ o MITIGATION BARRIER (TYP.) w 0 100 200 scale in meters 0 200 400 scale in feet PROPOSED' PUAINAKO ST. WIDENING NOTE: SEE FIG. 4-1a FOR LOCATION NOISE IMPACTS & MITIGATION KILAUEA AVE. TO WAIAKEA SCHOOLS PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HIO, HAWAII 71 HER PI'' I� Ll a� + —43 s FT. < WALL Z HEIGHT m M M LEGEND: Alb NOISE IMPACTED STRUC UR NOISE IMPACTED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 9 —ao Page 4-18 UP P E R p 0 R T I 0 L 0 W E R O R T` I O N ` OWER PORTION 4 to 6 6 to 7 FT - BARRIER 'I. H BARRIER HEIGHTS1 L_ -- 0 0 IS AKO ST. 0 �"� 0 z0 ,O R' 0 ED O h o NOTE: SEE FIG. 4-1a FOR LOCATION i Tl TLE 0 100 200 scale in meters 0 250 500 scale in feet ALIGNMENT B LEGEND: NOISE IMPACTED STRUCTURE —as NOISE IMPACTED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER NOISE IMPACTS & MITIGATION I �o�� BYPASSES A & B PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DAT HILO, HAWAII 819 92U16/M/. LIS/IV-ICMQ/S E.1=1 �y 0 MITIGATION :RS (TYP.) to S FT. v ALIGNMENT A LOWER PORTION ONOISE MITIGATION BARRIERS (TYP.) t��= 00000000 0 0 �O OO 6 FT. L HEIGHT X000 = 10 FT IN 0 (00 �gIO oDoO D ' D ' 0 z �❑� ["n 0 ED L� 6 FT. L HEIGHT NOISE IMPACTED STRUCTURE PUAINAKO ST. ALIGNMENT A —as NOISE IMPACTED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER Page 4-19 1% / 1-1 1-4 1-3 _ 1 ,0 1-6 1-5 NOISE BARRIERS I TYP.)N 11 _ _ 8 2 1-9 BARR R HEIGHT 1-8 $ 8 FT. 10 t 1 FT. BA RIER HEIG T 1-2 RIER HEIGHT A -HIGH S 200+p0 170+- - I — — — G/ ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT #1 UPPER PORTION LEGEND: NOTE: SEE FIG. 4-1a FOR LOCATION !° NOI/PACTED RUCTURE TITLE F;; IGURE ® APPE LOCATION NOISE IMPACTS &MITIGATION (LO) 0 , 00 200 UPPER PORTION TO SUNRISE ESTATES —1� as scale in meters NOIROPERTY o 250 500 IDEBER scale in feet PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION ATEHILO, HAWAII g�98 92014/M /.es/F4-1a DK/s E1=i Page 4-20 r, It TI TLE C� 130+00 - I— I C3 0 12 to 14 FT. _ 15 1-14 BARRIER HEIGHT 140+00 I I I- �----I —1 NOISE MITIGATION BARRIERS (TYP.) T n a 1-20 1-16 /x`00 W 1 FT. BA RIER j IGHT BARRI R HEIGHT 0 0 O F8/1 NOISE IMPACTS & MITIGATION UPPER PORTION , ALIGNMENT 1 — EDITA ST. AREA PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HILO, HAWAII NOTE: SEE FIG. 4-1a FOR LOCATION LEGEND: NOISE IMPACTED STRUCTURE -4a NOISE IMPACTED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ALTERNATIVE J ALIGNMENT #1 UPPER PORTION 0 100 200 scale in meters 0 200 400 scale in feet Page 4-21 Page 4-22 PNP IEA LIE] UHALOA ROAD a� ----------- --Q -Q - - per C� OO E=1 / n 0 0 Q 9 FT. BARRIER HEIGHT C] W w J D 0 ry- w NOISE MITIGATION BARRIER (TYP.) 1 j tO 13 FT. BARRIER HEIGHTS +— 60+Oo k" - NOTE: SEE FIG. 4-1a FOR LOCATION / FIGURE NOISE IMPACTS & MITIGATION UPPER PORTION, ALIGNMENT 1 - WILDER ROAD AREA 4 -Ig Ug �OJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HILO, HAWAII 93014/M/.DS/F4-Ig DWG/S E1-1 1-7 8/19/98 s O O 0 i� QO a_ I I I � \ `ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT #1 \ \ \ / UPPER PORTION LEGEND: NOISE IMPACTED STRUCTURE S�REE� - NOISE IMPACTED PROPERTY - IDENTIFICATION NUMBER O0 100 200 jscale in meters 0 200 400 scale in feet Page 4—z.s sm i o / i o \oxo ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT #2 UPPER PORTION 60+00 NOTE: SEE . 4-1 a FOR LOCATION NOISE MITIGATION BARRIERS (TYP.) FE -11 10 ko a NE\G TITLE FIGURE LEGEND: NOISE IMPACTS & MITIGATION d q NOISE IMPACTED STRUCTURE UPPER PORTION, ALIGNMENT 2 4— u� -43 NOISE IMPACTED PROPERTY PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER HILO, HAWAII 8�19�98 vzma/u /. eis/r4-m MG/sca.e 1-1 NWTH 191 0 100 200 scale in meters 0 200 400 scale in feet Page 4-24 r F - c o M ;7 D 70 ;a O 10 ko a NE\G TITLE FIGURE LEGEND: NOISE IMPACTS & MITIGATION d q NOISE IMPACTED STRUCTURE UPPER PORTION, ALIGNMENT 2 4— u� -43 NOISE IMPACTED PROPERTY PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER HILO, HAWAII 8�19�98 vzma/u /. eis/r4-m MG/sca.e 1-1 NWTH 191 0 100 200 scale in meters 0 200 400 scale in feet Page 4-24 Table 4-6a Noise Impacted Properties, Build Alternative, Kilauea Avenue to Waiakea Schools TMKT Street Address Property 1. D. Future Leq Modeled Wall Height Sound Level Reduction 2-2-39:58 22. W. Puainako St. A-37 66.9 6.0 -Foot wall* -5.9 Le 2-2-39:11 1815 Kinoole St. A-38 66.9 6.0 -Foot wall* -5.9 Le 2-2-39:11 1815 Kinoole St. A-39 66.4 6.0 -Foot wall* -5.8 Le 2-2-39:31 1957 Kilauea Ave. A-42 67.6 N/a N/a 2-2-39:55 1975 Kilauea Ave. A-41 67.4 N/a N/a 2-2-39:84 1983 Kilauea Ave. A-40 68.3 N/a N/a 2-2-40:42 1842 Kinoole St. A-43 66.1 6.0 -Foot wall* -6.8 Le Notes: Impact is defined as increase that at project year either: 1) approaches defined as 66 Leq) or exceeds FHWA NAC of 67 Leq for residences, schools, churches, or similar land uses; or 2) equals or exceeds 15 d8A above existing noise levels. Levels constituting impacts are in boldface. See Figure 4-1a,b. We = not applicable (no mitigation proposed) * = Cost of mitigation exceeds guidelines and is not considered reasonable. Table 4-6b i'Noise im acteu rro ernes, nuua Alternatnve; Au nment A is ass section TMK Street Address Property 1. D. Future Leq Leq Increase lin Noise Level Modeled Wall Height Sound Level Reduction UHH ASH (28 Units) 2-4-10:162 430 W. Kawili Street A-36 64-06 (approx ) +17-19 Leq (approx.) 6.0 -foot wall -8 to, -10 Leq (approx.) 2-4-01:125 308 W. Puainako St. A-33 63.8 +16.8 Leq 11.0 foot wall -5.6 Leq 2-4-01:126 312 W. Puainako St A-32 63.0 +16.0 Leq 10.0 foot wall -5.5 Leq 2-4-01:127 316 W. Puainako St A-31 64.0 +17.0 Leq 7.0 foot wall -5.1 Leq 2-4-01:128 320 W. Puainako St A-30 62.6 +15.6 Leq 6.5 -foot wall -5.1 Leq 2-4-01:129 324 W. Puainako St A-29 63.5 +16.5 Leq 6.5 -foot wall -5.3 Leq 2-4-01:130 328 W. Puainako St A-28 63.2 +16.2 Leq 6.0 -foot wall -6.4 Leq 2-4-01:131 330 W. Puainako St A-27 64.0 +17.0 Leq 7.5 -foot wall -6.8 Leq 2-4-01:132 334 W. Puainako St A-26 64.0 +17.0 Leq 6.0 -foot wall -6.8 Leq 2-4-01:133 338 W. Puainako St A-25 63.6 +16.6 Leq 7.0 -foot wall -5.2 Leq 2-4-01:134 342 W. Puainako St A-24 62.4 +15.4 Leq 6.5 -foot wall -5.9 Leq 2-4-01:135 344 W. Puainako St A-23 62.2 +15.2 Leq 6.5 -foot wall -5.4 Leq 2-4-01:136 348 W. Puainako St A-22 1 62.3 +15.3 Leq I 6.0 -foot wall -5.4 Leq Notes: Ambient noise assumed to be 47 Ley at all lots. Impact is defined as increase that at project year either: 1) approaches (defined as 66 Leq) or exceeds FHWA NAC of 67 Ley for residences, schools, churches, or similar land uses); or 2) equals or exceeds 15 d8A above existing noise levels. Levels constituting impacts are in boldface. Heights of walls are above wall -base elevations along lot boundaries. Roadway Alignment 8 profile assumed for Alignment A. See Figure 4-1b Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-25 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Table 4-6c Noise Impacted Properties, Build Alternative, Alignment B Bypass Section TMK Street Address Property 1. D. Future Leq Leq Increase in Noise Level Modeled Wall Sound Height Level Reduction UHH ASH (28 Units) 2-4-10:162 430 W. Kawili Street A-36 64-66 (approx.) +17-19 Leq (approx.) 6.0 -foot wall -8 to -10 Leq (approx) 2-4-01:123 W. Puainako St A-35 62.3 +15.3 Leq 5.0 foot wall -7.3 Leq 2-4-01:124 W. Puainako St A-34 65.1 +18.1 Leq 10.0 foot wall -5.0 Leq 2-4-01:125 308 W. Puainako St. A-33 66.1 +19.1 Leq 10.0 foot wall -5.0 Leq 2-4-01:126 312 W. Puainako St A-32 66.5 +19.5 Leq 9.0 foot.wall -5.2 LeQ 2-4-01:127 316 W. Puainako St A-31 66.2 +19.2 Leq 7.0 foot wall -5.5 Leq 2-4-01:128 320 W. Puainako St A-30 66.3 +19.3 Leq 6.5 foot wall -5.9 Leq 2-4-01:129 324 W. Puainako St A-29 66.3 +19.3 Leq 6.5 foot wall -5.6 Leq 2-4-01:130 328 W. Puainako St A-28 66.5 +19.5 Leq 6.5 foot wall -6.2 Leq 2-4-01:131 330 W. Puainako St A-27 66.5 +19.5 Leq 7.5 foot wall -5.2 Leq 2-4-01:132 334 W. Puainako St A-26 66.6 +19.6 Leq 6.5 foot wall -6.8 Leq 2-4-01:133 338 W. Puainako St A-25 67.6 +20.6 Leq 6.5 foot wall -6.1 Leq 2-4-01.134 342 W. Puainako St A-24 67.2 +20.2 Leq 6.5 foot wall -7.3 Leq 2-4-01:135 344 W. Puainako St A-23 66.9 +19.9 Leq 6.0 foot wall -6.7 Leq 2-4-01:136 348 W. Puainako St A-22 66.5 +19.5 Leq 6.0 foot wall -6.1 Leq 2-4-01:137 352 W. Puainako St A-21 66.4 +19.4Leq 6.0 foot wall -7.7 Leq 2-4-01:138 356 W. Puainako St A-20 66.4 +19.4Leq 7.0 foot wall -&2 Leq 2-4-01:139 358 W. Puainako St A-19 66.7 +19.7 Leq 7.5 foot wall -5.7 Leq 2-4-01:140 362 W. Puainako St A-18 66.6 +19.6 Leq 7.5 foot wall -6.5 Leq 2-4-01:141 366 W. Puainako St A-17 66.5 +19.5 Leq 7.5 foot wall -7.0 Leq 2-4-01:142 370 W. Puainako St A-16 66.1 +19.1 Leq 5.5 foot wall -7.9 Leq 2-4-01:144 376 W. Puainako St A-15 67.6 +20.6 Leq 4.0 foot wall -7.8 Leq 2-4-01:145 380 W. Puainako St A-14 68.2 +21.2 Leq 4.0 foot wall -7.0 Leq 2-4-01:146 384 W. Puainako St A-13 68.2 +21.2 Leq 4.0 foot Leq 2-4-01:147 388 W. Puainako St A-12 68.3 +21.3 Lq 4.0 foot -7.4 Leq 2-4-01:148 390 W. Puainako St A-11 67.9 +20.9 Leq dwall-7.9 4.0 foot -6.6 Leq 2-4-01:149 394 W. Puainak0 St A-10 67.0 +20.0 Leq 4.0 foot -6.8 Leq 2-4-01:150 398 W. Puainako St A-9 66.3 +19.3 Leq 5.5 foot wall -6.4 Leq 2-4-01:151 400 W. Puainako St A-8 66.5 +19.5 Leq 6.5 foot wall -6.0 Leq 2-4-01:152 404 W. Puainako St A-7 66.5 +19.5 Leq 6.5 foot wall -6.3 Leq 2-4-01:153 408 W. Puainako St A-6 66.5 +19.5 Leq 7.0 foot wall -5.5 Leq 2-4-01:154 412 W. Puainako St A-5 66.2 +19.2 Leq 6.5 foot wall -5.9 Leq 2-4-01:155 416 W. Puainako St A-4 66.0 +19.0 Leq 6.5 foot wall -5.7 Leq 2-4-01:156 424 W. Puainako St A-2 66.0 +19.0 Leq 6.0 foot wall -5.7 Leq Notes: Ambient noise assumed to be 47L., at all lots. Impact is defined as increase that at project year either. 1) approaches (defined as 66 L4 or exceeds FHWA NAC of 67 Leq for residences, schools, churches, or similar land uses, or 2) equals or exceeds 15 d8A above existing noise levels. All listed structures are private; no public - use or park lands are impacted. Heights of walls are above wall -base elevations along lot boundaries. See Figure 4-1 c. ). Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-26 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Table 4-6d Noise Impacted Properties, Build Alternative, Alignment 1 TMK Street Address Property 1. D. Future Leq IL,,, Increase in Noise Level JModeled ISound Level Wall Height Reduction 2-4-75:31 no number Puloku St 1-1 54.3 +19.3 Leg 8.0 foot wall -5.1 Le 2-4-75:35 513 Puloku St 1-2 59.4 +24.4 Leg 8.0 foot wall -7.5 Le 2-4-75:25 517 Puloku St 1-3 52.8 +17.8 Leg 8.0 foot wall -5.6 Le 2-4-75:24 541 Puloku St 1-4 52.8 +22,7 Leg 8.0 foot wall -5.8 Le 2-4-75:22 527 Puloku St 1-5 52.1 +17.1 Leg 8.0 foot wall -5.5 Le 2-4-75:20 517 Puloku St 1-6 52.4 +17.4 Leq 8.0 foot wall -5.9 Le 2-4-75:19 513 Puloku St. 1-7 52.6 +17,6 Leg 8.0 foot wall -5.3 Le 2-4-75:43 510 Puloku St 1-8 60.2 +25.2 L,q 8.0 foot wall -6.9 Le 2-4-75:44 504 Puloku St 1-9 58.0 +23 Leq 10.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-4-75:49 1070 Kukuau St. 1-10 50.4 +15.4 Leg 8.0 foot wall -5.1 Le 2-4-75:48 1072 Kukuau St. 1-11 51.0 1 +16 Leq 11.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-4-75:47 1078 Kukuau St. 1-12 53.2 +18.2 Leg 11.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-27:67 1265 K Kaumana Dr 1-13 59.7 +17.7 L,q 8.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-27:66 1265 L Kaumana Dr. 1-14 58.7 +16.7 Leg 13.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-27:65 1265 M Kaumana Dr. 1-15 58.9 +16.9 Leg 14.0 foot wall -5.0 Leq 2-5-61:33 282 Edita St. 1-16 1 62.8 +20.8 Lq 11.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-61:01 281 Edita St. 1-20 59.8 +17.8 L,q 14.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-61:19 1414 C Mele Manu St. 1-26 64.1 +22.1 L,q 10.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-61:20 1414 C Mele Manu St. 1-28 •67.7 +25.7 L,q 10.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-61:43 1488 Mele Manu St. 1-31 59.4 +17.4 L,q 8.0 foot wall -5.5 Le 2-5-61:48 1540 Mele Manu St. 1-34 58.7 +16.7 L,q 12.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-61:49 no number Edita St. 1-35 1 57.7 +15.7 Leg 13.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-61:51 1540 Mele Manu St. 1-37 57.3 +15.3 Leg 10.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-61:53 1610 Mele Manu St. 1-39 58.9 +16.9 Leq 11.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-61:54 1616 Mele Manu St. 1-40 62.6 +20.6 Leg 8.0 foot wall -7.2 Le 2-5-61:56 1628 Mele Manu St. 1-41 58.6 +16.6 L,q 8.0 foot wall -5.1 Le 2-5-61:55 1620 Mele Manu St. 1-42 63.6 +21.6 Leg 8.0 foot wall -6.1 Le 2-5-51:40 92 Puhlli St. 1-47 1 61.5 +22,5 Leg 11.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-51:41 91 Puhlll St. 1-48 56.6 +17.6 Leq 13.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-51:42 93 Puhlll St. 1-49 55.7 +16.7 Leg 12.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-51:43 97 Puhlll St. 1-50 54.4 +15.4 Leg 12.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-51:38 98 Puhlll St. 1-51 57.7 +18.7 L.q 11.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-51:36 102 Puhlll St. 1-52 56.0 +17.0 Leg 12.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-51:34 103 Puhlli St. 1-53 56.0 +17.0 Leg 12.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-51:33 101 Puhlll St. 1-54 55.2 +16.2 Leq 12.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-51:32 100 Puhill St. 1-55 54.5 +15.5 Leg 11.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-51:14 101 Lukla St. 1-57 54.2 +15.2 Leg 11.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-46-06 91 S. Wilder Rd. 1-61 61.4 +22,4 Leg 12.0 foot wall -5.0 Le 2-5-45-14 90 S. Wilder Rd. 1-62 1 64.3 +25.7 Le 9.0 foot wall -5.0 Le Notes: Ambient noise assumed to be 47 L., at all lots. Impact is defined as increase that at project year either: 1) approaches (defined as 66 L,.) or exceeds FHWA NAC of 67 Leq for residences, schools, churches, or similar land uses; or 2) equals or exceeds 15 d8A above existing noise levels. Levels constituting impacts are in boldface. All listed structures are private; no public -use or park lands are impacted. Heights of walls are above wall -base elevations along rights-of-way. See Figures 4-1c,d,e. NOTE: Cost of mitigation exceeds guidelines for all impacted structures and is thus not considered reasonable. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-27 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Table 4-6e Noise Impacted Properties, Build Alternative, Alignment 2 TMK Street Address Property I.D. Future Leq Leq Increase in Noise Level Modeled WallSound Height' Level Reduction 2-4-75:31 (no number) Puloku St. 1-1 54.3 +19.3 Leq 8.0 foot wall -5.1 Leq 2-4-75:35 513 Puloku St 1-2 59.4 +24.4 Leq 8.0 foot wall -7.5 Leq 2-4-75:25 517 Puloku St 1-3 52.8 +17.8 Leq 8.0 foot wall -5.6 Leq 2-4-75:24 541 Puloku St 1-4 52.8 +22.7 Leq 8.0 foot wall -5.8 Leq 2-4-75:22 527 Puloku St 1-5 52.1 +17.1 Leq 8.0 foot wall -5.5 Leq 2-4-75:20 517 Puloku St 1-6 52.4 +17.4 Leq 8.0 foot wall -5.9 Leq 2-4-75:19 513 Puloku St. 1-7 52.6 +17,6 Leq 8.0 foot wall -5.3 Leq 2-4-75:43 510 Puloku St 1-8 60.2 +25.2 Leq 8.0 foot wall -6.9 Leq 2-4-75:44 504 Puloku St 1-9 58.0 +23 Leq 11.0 foot wall -5.0 Leq 2-4-75:49 1070 Kukuau St. 1-10 50.4 +15.4 Leq 11.0 foot wall -5.1 Leq 2-4-75:48 1072 Kukuau St. 1-11 51.0 +16 Leq 8.0 foot wall -5.0 Leq 2-4-75:47 1078 Kukuau St. 1-12 53.2 +18.2 Leq 11.0 foot wall -5.0 Leq 2-5-49:33 201 Lukla St. 2-1 55.4 +16.8 Leq 8.0 foot wall' -7.8 Leq 2-5-49:34 195 Lukla St. 2-2 54.0 +15.4 Leq 8.0 foot wall -5.2 Leq 2-5-49:32 202 Lukla St. 2-3 55.6 +17.0 Leq 8.0 foot wall -9.7 Leq 2-5-49:31 198 Lukla St. 2-4 54.0 +15.5 Leq 11.0 foot wall -5.0 Leq 2-5-49:04 205 S. Wilder Rd. 2-5 1 55.9 +17.3 Leq 8.0 foot wall -6.6 Lep 2-5-49:05 201 S. Wilder Rd. 2-6 53.9 +15.3 Leq 11.0 foot wall -5.0 Leq 2-5-49:01 206 S. Wilder Rd. 2-7 56.5 +17.9 Leq 8.0 foot wall -6.8 Leq 2-5-49:02 204 S. Wilder Rd. 2-8 54.9 +16.3 Leq 20+ foot wall -5.0 Leq Wall heights are above estimated lot elevations. Notes: Ambient noise assumed to be 38.6 Leq at all lots. Impact is defined as increase that at project year either: 1) approaches (defined as 66 Leq) or exceeds FHWA NAC of 67 Leq for residences, schools, churches, or similar land uses, or 2) equals or exceeds 15 dBA above existing noise levels. Levels constituting impacts are in boldface. AU listed structures are private, no public use or park lands are impacted. See Figures 4-1c, f. NOTE: Cost of mitigation exceeds guidelines for all impacted structures and is thus not considered reasonable. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-28 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 4.1.6.2 Comparison Among Alternatives (Including Miti ag_tion� No -Build Alternative: If Puainako Street is not widened and/or re-routed behind the State Housing Project above Kawili Street, increasing traffic would generate elevated noise levels. The noise model calculated a potential increase of 1.4 to 3.3 dBA Ley (h) (abbreviated hereafter Leq) for most locations along Puainako Street. Because increasing congestion would result in slower traffic movement, actual increases during peak traffic may not be this large. However, off-peak noise levels may increase at this magnitude. As many as one hundred homes would be affected to some degree. At least 25 homes and .l church would be impacted such that noise would approach or exceed the 67 Leq Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) (Table 4-5) Noise levels in the areas proposed to be traversed by Alignments 1 and 2 in the Upper Portion would remain similar to current levels. However, noise levels at several hundred homes on the existing Kaumana Drive, although not modeled as part of the study, would increase under the No Build Alternative. This would occur because if the Project is not built, traffic is expected to triple on this section of Kaumana Drive by the year 2020. It is likely that a large portion of the several hundred homes along Kaumana Drive would experience noise levels approaching or exceeding 67 Leq under the No Build Alternative. Importantly, none of the homes or lots that would come to be impacted by increasing traffic levels would be eligible for mitigation measures under the No Build Alternative. Therefore, these increases would not be mitigated unless private owners undertook their own measures, such as building sound barrier walls, or unless separate road improvement projects undertaken by the State or County incorporated noise mitigation measures. Build Alternative: Lower Portion East ofKawili Street Widening of Puainako Street east (makai) of Kawili Street would also increase noise by approximately 3.0 to 4.2 Leq above current levels. This increase would approach or exceed 67 Leq at four homes, three church buildings, and two other public use (Salvation Army) structures (Table 4-6a and Fig. 4-1a). Consultation with the Salvation Army management has determined that these buildings are not noise -sensitive, and therefore are not considered impacted. At the homes on Kilauea Avenue (Fig. 4 -lb), there is no design for noise mitigation walls that could reduce noise levels by at least 5.0 Leq without also eliminating the access to the homes. No feasible and reasonable mitigation noise measure would be effective here, and none is proposed. As illustrated in Fig. 4 -lb, two traffic noise barriers 1.8 in (6.0 ft) high with a total length of approximately 245 in (800 ft.) would be capable of reducing sound levels by at least 5.0 Ley at the four noise -impacted properties near the intersection of Puainako and Kinoole Streets. However, with a total cost of $164,000, the average cost per benefited structure of $41,000 would exceed the cost limit of "reasonable" mitigation measures, which according to State DOT policy is $35,000 per protected structure. Therefore, no feasible and reasonable mitigation noise measure would be effective here, and none is proposed. A final decision on the installation of these mitigation measures will be made upon completion of project design and the public involvement process. If during final design conditions substantially change, these mitigation measures may be reconsidered. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-29 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation The grounds at Waiakea Intermediate and Elementary Schools would experience an increase in noise because of increased traffic and a shorter setback distance to Puainako Street. However, the 66 Ley contour is expected to be at approximately 12 in (40 ft) from the street centerline; i.e., near the sidewalk. The nearest structure is found at approximately 31 in (100 ft) from the new centerline, while most of the structures would be considerably more distant. Therefore, no noise impacts are expected at the schools. Build Alternative: Alignment A vs. B Re-routing Puainako Street between Kawili Street and Komohana Street would raise noise levels at the backyards of homes on the existing Puainako Street and lower noise levels in the front yards. Noise levels at the University of Hawaii Adult Student Housing (ASH) would increase. As shown in Table 4-6c, the construction of Alignment B would cause noise impacts at 61 homes, including 28 apartment units at ASH housing. Construction of Alignment A would result in impacts at 40 residences, including 28 apartment units at ASH housing (Table 4-6b). If Alignment B is selected, as illustrated in Fig. 4-1c, a series of five noise barrier mitigation walls varying between 1.3 and 2.4 in (4.0-8.0 ft) in height and totaling approximately 800 in (2,600 ft) in length would be capable of reducing sound levels by at least 5.0 Ley at all noise - impacted properties. The total cost of noise mitigation would be approximately $836,200, with an average cost per benefited structure of $13,710. Based on cost, sound reduction and other factors, the use of noise mitigation barriers for Alignment B would appear to be reasonable and feasible, and the State intends to build them if this Alignment is selected. A final decision on the installation of these mitigation measures will be made upon completion of project design and the public involvement process. If during final design conditions substantially change, these mitigation measures may not be provided. Because Alignment A veers away from the row of houses in this area, its selection would reduce the number of residences impacted by noise to 40 (Table 4-6b). Construction of approximately 250 in (800 ft) of walls 1.8-2.4 in (6.0-8.0 ft) in height, as illustrated in Fig. 4-1c, would reduce sound levels by at least 5.0 Ley at all noise -impacted properties. The total cost of noise mitigation for Alignment A would be approximately $428,000, with an average cost per benefited structure of $10,700. Based on cost, sound reduction and other factors, the use of noise mitigation barriers for Alignment B would appear to be reasonable and feasible, and the State intends to build them if this Alignment is selected. A final decision on the installation of these mitigation measures will be made upon completion of project design and the public involvement process. If during final design conditions substantially change, these mitigation measures may not be provided. Whether Alignment A or Alignment B is selected, the visual impact of noise barrier walls in this section would be minimal. The walls could easily be hidden from the view of motorists through landscaping on the edge of the right-of-way inside the noise walls. It is noteworthy that after, mitigation of noise impacts, overall noise levels to homes on Puainako Street between Kawili and Komohana Streets would decrease, no matter which alignment is Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-30 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation chosen. The existing Puainako Street would become a minor feeder road with light traffic. The greatest benefit would be for the four dozen homes on the south side of existing Puainako Street. Build Alternative: Upper Portion: Alignment I vs. 2: Alignment 1 would result in increased traffic noise at existing residences northeast of the Edita Street crossing, Uhaloa Road cul-de-sac, south of Wilder Road crossing, at existing and future residences of the new Pacific Plantation Subdivision, and at future residences of the upper portion of Sunrise Estates Subdivision (Table 4-6d). Although future traffic noise levels are not expected to approach or exceed 67 Leq, increases in background ambient noise levels due to the new roadway are predicted to exceed the State DOT "15 dBA" increase criterion in these areas. A total of 39 homes would be impacted. The noise analysis concluded that noise barrier walls of 1.8-2.4 in (6.0-8.0 ft) could not achieve a substantial reduction (i.e., greater than 5.0 Leq) at most of the impacted homes. Walls between 9.0 and 14.0 feet (2.8 to 4.3) would be required to meet this goal (Table 4-6d and Fig. 4-ld-g). The total cost of noise mitigation barriers required to reduce noise levels 5.0 Leq or more for Alignment 1 would be approximately $5,098,500. The average cost per benefited structure is $130,730. Because the cost greatly exceeds $35,000 per residence, the use of noise mitigation barriers in this section does not appear to be reasonable and feasible, and the State does not intend to build them if Alignment 1 is selected. A final decision on the installation of these mitigation measures will be made upon completion of project design and public involvement. On Alignment 2, the Project would increase noise levels more than 15 dBA Leq at 20 existing residences at the south end of Wilder Road and at Sunrise Estates subdivision (the common portion with Alignment 1) (Table 4-6e and Fig. 4-ld & h). Adverse noise impacts are less than those along Alignment 1 due to the much larger setback from existing and planned residences. The total cost of noise mitigation barriers required to reduce noise levels 5.0 Leq or more for Alignment 2 would be approximately $1,915,300 (excluding the common portion with Alignment 1, which is discussed above). The average cost per benefited structure is $95,760. Because the cost greatly exceeds $35,000 per residence, the use of noise mitigation barriers in this section does not appear to be reasonable and feasible, and the State does not intend to build them if Alignment 2 is selected. A final decision on the installation of these mitigation measures will be made upon completion of project design and the public involvement process. 4.2 Biological Environment 4.2.1 Flora and Plant Communities 4.2.1.1 Impacts Construction of this project would result in the unavoidable destruction of some or all the existing vegetation within the right-of-way. However, the flora and vegetation of the project area were found to have minimal conservation value for the following reasons: Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-31 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation o No plant species listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed for listing, by the U.S. Department of the Interior or the State of Hawaii, are known to occur in the project area; o No unique or high -diversity native plant communities occur in the project area; and o Construction of this project would not eliminate any plant community type from the region. Therefore, it is concluded that the impact on native species and vegetation is minor. Construction and operation of this project may lead to the spread of alien plant species along the right-of-way. Some of these species may invade and degrade native plant communities along the right-of-way. This impact is considered to be negligible because most of the native vegetation has already been degraded by alien plant invasion and because the vegetation has little conservation value for the reasons listed in the above paragraph. 4.2.1.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative would avoid disturbance to all plants and vegetation communities found within the proposed road corridors. Build Alternatives The Lower Portion contains little native vegetation in either alignment, although some native plants are present. Native vegetation of varying quality covers part of both proposed alignments in the Upper Portion. Because of low species diversity and a lack of rare plants or unique character, these plant communities are judged to have no special conservation value. Alignment 1 supports slightly more early succession ' Ohi' a/Uluhe Fern Forest that is nearly free of alien species than Alignment 2. However, Alignment 2 has somewhat higher diversity of vegetation types and species. Given that the value of this vegetation is judged to be unimportant on a regional scale, no recommendation of alignments based on vegetation character is justified. Natural vegetation along the portion of Alignment 1 has potential habitat value for organisms inhabiting Kaumana Cave. Impacts to this vegetation and mitigation are discussed in Section 4.2.3, below. 4.2.1.3 Mitigation Even alien -dominated vegetation without conservation value for native flora or fauna may have general resource value for other purposes, such as controlling erosion, aesthetics/open space, and microclimatic cooling effects. Special Contract Requirements that will be incorporated into the construction -contract documents will specify that vegetation will be left undisturbed adjacent to the right-of-way to the greatest extent practicable. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-32 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 4.2.2 Wetlands 4.2.2.1 Impacts A detailed discussion of wetlands delineation, extent and function is contained in Section 3.2.2. To reiterate, Alignment A contains a tiny wetland of approximately 2 sq. meters (20 sq. ft.), Alignment B contains no wetlands; Alignment I contains two discrete wetlands totaling 0.28 ha (0.68 acres); and Alignment 2 contains scattered pockets of wetlands typically less than 1 meter (3 ft.) in diameter estimated to total to 2.91 ha (7.19 acres). Any Build Alternative would involve disturbance to wetlands, including filling wetlands with road -building materials, directing intermittent streams through culverts and other minor alterations of drainage patterns. It was determined that the amount of wetlands that would potentially be disturbed by project activities would be sufficient to require a Section 404 Individual Permit. Therefore the FHWA implemented the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement jointly the NEPA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In accordance with the MOU, signatory agencies including FHWA, HDOT, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviewed the alternatives. Based on this review, one No -build Alternative and one Build Alternative with four alternative alignments were advanced for detailed engineering and environmental studies. Appendix Al contains correspondence related to this analysis. Impacts to Biological Function No known unique biological resources or faunal relationships are associated with the wetland areas or intermittent stream channels and banks. The wetlands and banks are mostly vegetated with alien plants and do not appear to offer important habitat for native organisms. However, in some areas they appear to be naturally occurring elements within the native forest community. Impacts to Hydrologic Function Alignment A The 2 square meters (20 square feet) of wetland have negligible function and no adverse impacts will occur. Alignment I The two wetlands are of different types. The wetland west of Wilder Road is within a broad (9 meters: 30 feet) drainage ditch. This area is delineated as a wetland because it is vegetated and no usual high-water mark is discernible (Figure 3-4, above). Culverts proposed as part of the drainage plan will mitigate impacts to hydrologic function of this wetland. The wetland near Uhaloa Street may function as a water storage area for an adjacent intermittent drainage. Presumably, water from the wetland infiltrates into the groundwater or moves into subsurface channels, such as lava tubes. Alignment 2 As the wetlands in this area consist of scattered pockets and are not a component of organized drainage systems, no impact to such systems would be expected to occur as a result of filling the pockets. Some groundwater recharge function will be lost, although the underlying pahoehoe generally retards recharge in these Tropofolist soils and such areas are not major recharge areas. In any case, the disturbed area represents only a negligible proportion of the total area that functions for groundwater recharge in the Hilo area. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-33 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 4.2.2.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No -Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative would avoid disturbance to any wetland within the proposed road corridors. Build Alternative Lower Portion: Alignment A vs. B Alignment A would disturb 2 square meters (20 square feet) of wetland near the Waiakea channel. No jurisdictional wetlands occur within Alignment B. Upper Portion: Alignment 1 vs. 2 For comparison between the alternatives, an estimate of the maximum area of wetlands was made using a soil -type model. Based on this model, Alignment 2 would disturb a much larger area of scattered wetlands (29,084 square-meters:307,200 square -feet) than the same model estimates to occur on Alignment 1 (5400 square-meters:57,064 square feet). A detailed delineation of Alignment 1 found that actual wetland area within the right-of-way totaled 2,772 square meters (29,286 square feet). Most of this area (2,474 square meters:26,136 square feet) was in a single wetland, not of the mosaic type found within Alignment 2. Based on this observation, it is anticipated that if it were feasible, a more detailed study of Alignment 2 would find that the actual wetland area would be considerably lower than the figure given above, but still several times greater than the wetland area of Alignment 1. 4.2.2.3 Mitigation Construction of any Build Alternative would require a Department of the Army Permit for dredge and fill in the waters of the United States. The project was granted a provisional Nationwide Permit No. 26 for the construction of Alignments A and 1 on September 10, 1996. This Nationwide Permit lapsed on January 21, 1997 due to a periodic review of this permit type (see Appendix Al for documentation). A renewed application is underway concurrent with the EIS. It is expected that a Nationwide Permit would be granted if Alignment 1 is selected. The following conditions, which were specified in the lapsed permit, are also anticipated to be imposed if the current permit application is granted: o Obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver thereof from the Hawaii State Department of Health; o Provide adequate drainage through the wetland areas; o Significant earth -moving activities will occur only during periods of no or low rainfall; the County of Hawaii will make every effort to conduct construction activities during the "dry season" (May through September), Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-34 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation o Construction activities will be conducted in a manner as to minimize and control erosion and sedimentation; o All fill and other construction material will be clean, uncontaminated and free of deleterious substances, including toxic chemical, debris and fine grained material; o Particular care will be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, trash or other debris enter the water, o No construction or excavated materials will be stockpiled in the aquatic environment. If Alignment 2 is selected, it is expected that an Individual Permit will be required. Additional mitigation measures are expected to be imposed because it would involve a much greater area of fill. The precise nature of the mitigation would be determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and will be specified only in the event that Alignment 2 is advanced as the Recommended Alternative in the Final EIS. It is currently proposed that enhancement of wetland -containing areas outside the currently proposed ROW at a proposed ratio of 4:1 (enhanced to filled area) be considered. These enhancements are proposed to consist of "beautification strips", water storage areas, swales or sediment retention areas that will be allowed to revegetate to natural conditions. 4.2.3 Fauna 4.2.3.1 Impacts Vertebrates Although the Hawaiian hoary bat does occur within the project area, the construction of this project does not pose a threat to this endangered species. This species is well established in the lowlands in and around Hilo, and readily forages around lighted structures. The construction of this project has the potential to impact two listed seabird species, the Newell's Shearwater and the Dark-rumped Petrel. The installation of exterior lighting along the roadway, or the use of external lighting in the construction phase of the Project, poses a threat to both seabird species during the breeding season, especially to fledging birds, which can become disoriented by exterior lighting on their way to sea in the fall months. When disoriented, seabirds often collide with man-made structures. If not killed outright, the dazed or injured birds are easy targets of opportunity for feral mammals. Collision with utility structures is considered by many to be the second most significant cause of mortality of these two seabird species in Hawaii. The physical actions of clearing and grubbing the selected alignment have the potential to disturb nesting endangered Hawaiian Hawks if there are any present within the right-of-way at the time of clearing. It is unlikely that the construction of the roadway will have a significant impact on this endemic species. This species has seemingly adapted better than any other endemic avian species to the alien -dominated lowland areas of the Island. Hawaiian Hawks occupy a wide variety of habitats and are found in almost all habitats with trees. They are all but absent from treeless or close to treeless grasslands and lava fields. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-35 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation The project will not impact any other proposed, threatened or endangered avian species since there are no others currently known from within the proposed corridors. Invertebrates No listed endangered invertebrate species are known to exist within the project area. However, endemic invertebrate cave species, new to science, are periodically described, and some of these species may later become candidate or listed endangered species. The impact of construction projects on native invertebrate species is not generally known because populations of above -ground invertebrate species are poorly known to science. It is assumed that there would be some loss of invertebrate individuals and habitat since the Project would result in the destruction of some native plants and native vegetation. It is considered highly unlikely that this project would seriously threaten the existence of a single species or an entire population because this action, by itself, would not eliminate or even substantially reduce the extent of any native plant community type. Project design has routed the right-of-way to approach no closer than 4.6 in (15 ft.) of Kaumana Cave (see Section 3.2.3.3). This was done in order to avoid impacts to the structural integrity, groundwater, or native vegetation above the cave, which supports a largely endemic ecosystem dominated by invertebrates. The degree to which the fauna in this cave is similar to that occurring in other lava tube caves, cracks and other interstitial spaces in lava is not yet known. However, Kaumana Cave has special value for research and teaching about such fauna. 4.2.3.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No -Build Alternative This would avoid an increase in impacts to native fauna. Build Alternative Lower Portion There will be potential indirect impacts to Newell's Shearwaters, and Dark -pimped Petrels as a result of increased lighting. There is no difference in potential impacts between Alternative A and B. Build Alternative Upper Portion Alignment 2 contains somewhat more diverse and mature native or semi -native forest and may offer greater habitat potential for native fauna. Each alignment poses similar potential indirect impacts to Newell's Shearwaters, and Dark-rumped Petrels as a result of increased lighting. The endangered Hawaiian Hawk may nest within the project area. Alignment 2 has more area with trees tall enough to be used for nests by Hawaiian Hawks than does Alignment 1; however, none of the project area represents high quality nesting habitat for the Hawaiian Hawk. Impacts to this species resulting from the selection of either alignment are estimated to be negligible. The edge of Alignment 1 approaches Kaumana Cave in two locations (see Figure 3-1). As discussed in Chapter 3, this EIS commissioned the first accurate mapping of the cave by professional surveyors. The final alignment affords sufficient undisturbed buffer between the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-36 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation road and the cave, with the road approaching no closer than 4.6 horizontal meters (15.0 feet) and generally passing much farther away (see Figure 3-1). This in turn will avoid substantial impacts on cave organisms. No disturbance to the vegetation above Kaumana Cave or to the structural integrity of the cave will occur. Alignment 2 completely avoids the vicinity of Kaumana Cave. 4.2.3.3 Miti a tion To avoid the potential disorientation of Dark-rumped Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters by their interaction with external construction lighting, no construction or unshielded equipment maintenance lighting will be permitted after dark between the months of April and October. This prohibition will be one of the Special Contract Requirements that will be incorporated in the construction -contract documents. All street lights installed along the roadway will be shielded, so as to minimize the potential for disorientation of Newell's Shearwaters and Dark-rumped Petrels. In order to avoid impacts to nesting Hawaiian Hawks, a nest search of the right-of-way and surrounding environs will be conducted by a qualified ornithologist immediately prior to the onset of construction. Hawaiian Hawks nest between May and October. If an active nest is detected during construction, construction activity shall be halted within 500 meters of the nest until a consultation with the USFWS, under the terms of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, can take place and appropriate mitigation measures implemented. The impacts to this species following the completion of construction efforts will be negligible. In order to minimize and compensate for impacts to fauna of Kaumana Cave, Special Contract Requirements will strictly limit construction activity (e.g., staging, clearing, cut and fill, slope easements) to the area within the right-of-way (ROW) in -the section between Station 114 and 130, where the ROW approaches the cave most closely. Furthermore, the following mitigation measures are proposed: 1) the County of Hawaii will commit to providing an informational kiosk at Kaumana Caves County Park that will inform visitors about the unique fauna of the cave prior to completion of Project construction; and 2) FHWA will devise and fund a monitoring study of cave fauna, in consultation with the USFWS. Included will be one pre -construction and two post -construction surveys, separated by at least one year, covering the section of the cave where the ROW approaches within 15 in (50 ft.). A Memorandum of Agreement will be developed between the USFWS and the FHWA as part of the Record of Decision to guarantee implementation of these measures. 4.3 Socioeconomic Environment As discussed in detail in Section 3.3.2, minority or low-income groups in the project area will not experience disproportionately high and adverse impacts from construction, right-of-way taking, long- term noise and air quality, and other direct, indirect or cumulative impacts of the Project per Executive Order 12898 regarding environmental justice (refer to Section 4.3.2 for discussion of characteristics of the residents who must be relocated). Although the percentage of minorities varies slightly among census tracts in the project area and between these tracts and Hilo in general, such variation is not enough to represent a disproportionate impact to minorities. The Project generally is beneficial to local residents, the same population that also experiences some adverse impacts. 4.3.1 Consistency with Local Land Use and Planning Chapter 6 contains a detailed discussion of the Project's relationship to relevant plans, policies and regulations. Two specific policies relate the Project to its immediate socioeconomic environment. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-37 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation The Puainako Road Extension was first identified in 1961 as part of A Plan for Metropolitan Area of Hilo, prepared by Belt Collins and Associates for the County of Hawaii. This corridor was subsequently identified as part of the roadway network for the City of Hilo with the adoption of the Hawaii County General Plan, which designated Puainako as a secondary arterial street. It was planned that the Puainako Corridor would ultimately connect the Saddle Road to the Hilo International Airport. Most of the right-of-way in the Lower Portion (east of Komohana Street) has been owned by the State of Hawaii for several decades and is dedicated to eventual use by the highway. Housing developments have been granted approval with the ultimate development of the highway in mind. Affected property owners have built knowing that a highway would eventually be built nearby. Thus, while some negative impacts to landowners immediately adjacent to the right -of --way are unavoidable, they have been anticipated for several decades. The project is consistent with the County General Plan and Hilo Zone Map and all other State and County Plans (see Chapter 6). Consequently, the Project would not result in any unanticipated development within the Hilo area. However, the highway might accelerate the pace of development in Kaumana by providing quicker access to planned housing subdivisions (see Section 4.5). 4.3.2 Relocation 4.3.2.1 Impacts Residential Relocation Widening the existing Puainako Street between Kilauea and Kawili Streets would necessitate the acquisition of five (5) single family residential units. No other relocations are associated with the Project. Table 4-7 summarizes the potential relocation impacts to impacted residences, which are indicated in Figure 4-2. A field survey was conducted to identify and record the basic characteristics of each residence. Three of the existing residential units impacted by this project are vacant, and all but one of these three is likely to remain so or even be dismantled before commencement of the Project. Consequently, potential displacement of residents is limited to a total of two households within the entire project corridor. These two households have a total of four occupants. Two of these occupants are over 65 years of age, and none are reported to be disabled. Following selection of a preferred alternative, each unit identified for actual relocation will be subject to an assessment to determine its individual characteristics and value before acquisition proceedings are initiated. All households affected under the selected alternative will be interviewed to determine their specific requirements before any acquisitions are made or relocations are begun. Each non-residential relocation will be similarly assessed for specific value and characteristics before acquisition. Property values for residential and nonresidential properties from current records of Hawaii County Real Property Tax records do not adequately reflect current market values. Therefore, the data were supplemented from discussions with local real estate professionals to obtain current market values for comparable sales and rental prices in the project area. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-38 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation a Table 4-7 Potential Displaced Residential Units Location/ 18.5 ha (45.7 acres) Total Owner or Number of Number Home 1.4 ha (3.5 acres) Number of Renter Disabled Over 65 Occupants Years Lower Portion Home 1 2 Renter 0 2 Home 2 0 n/a n/a n/a Home 3 0 n/a n/a n/a Home 4 0 n/a n/a n/a Home 5 2 Renter 0 0 Note. Home numbers are arbitrarily assigned for reasons of confidentiality. The 1998 median sales price for three-bedroom homes in Hilo was approximately $155,000. The average price for homes sold within a 1.7 km (1.0 mile) radius of the affected area was approximately equal to this value, according to Multiple Listing Service (NILS) listings in 1998. The homes to be relocated are relatively old homes compared to the average home in the neighborhood and contain between one and three bedrooms. The value of these homes is estimated to range between $100,000 and $175,000. Nonresidential Relocations One business, a barber shop, would be displaced by this project. The widening of the Kilauea Avenue-Puainako Street intersection would require the displacement of a 60 mz (600 sq. ft.) free- standing structure within which this business is located. The proprietor leases this structure in order to conduct her business. The structure is within a residential zoned area and is therefore considered an existing non -conforming use. In addition to actual relocation, right-of-way must be acquired from between 100 and 135 individual properties, depending on the precise combination of alignments chosen. At least 17 of these parcels (and most of the length of Alignments 1 and 2) currently belong to the State of Hawaii. The following areal amounts would be required: Alignment 1 18.5 ha (45.7 acres) Alignment 2 23.0 ha (56.8 acres) Alignment A 1.4 ha (3.5 acres) Alignment B 1.4 ha (3.5 acres) 4.3.2.2 Comparison Between Alternatives No -Build Alternative This alternative would avoid all relocation impacts. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-39 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation WAIAKEA o ELEMENTARY SCHOOL >/ < >< 0 7 E--] C 0 O ❑ m _ a: M j D D V z L --i 0 100 200 scale in meters 0 200 400 scale in feet PROPOSED PUAINAKO ST. WIDENING 13 RESIDENTIAL RELOCATIONS 1 4-2 PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DA1 HILO, HAWAII 8/19 ervir/rn/ m/re—z uwc/su¢i=1 0 M M —I ® RESIDENCES TO BE RELOCATED I Ev <I M z c e 11n Hwse m C3 C3 0 ■M Page 4-40 Lower Portion: Alignment A vs. B The relocation impacts occur in the section of Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue and Kawili Street. According to current project design, five homes would be affected. Choice of alignments would not affect relocation impacts. Upper Portion: Alignment 1 vs. 2 No relocation would occur in the Upper Portion. Right-of-way requirements would be approximately 25 percent greater under Alignment 2. 4.3.2.3 Miti atg tion Relocation will be in accordance with federal Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646), as amended as well as State regulations. In relocating households and businesses, full advantage will be taken of all resources available to affect the successful relocation of those concerned. These include but are not limited to the following: For residential displacements, all households will be provided with advisory assistance. This includes distribution of available rental listings specific to their needs and assistance in searching for and securing replacement dwelling units. All eligible households will be provided with a moving assistance payment. This may be in the form of actual reasonable moving costs, related expenses, or under certain circumstances, a fixed payment. All eligible rental households will be provided with Relocation Assistance housing payments to supplement differences between the rent they currently pay and the calculated cost of their replacement unit. Rental households will be advised that they may convert any rental supplement payments to a down payment for the purpose of purchasing a replacement dwelling. Exercising this option is contingent on each household's ability to qualify for the needed financing on a replacement unit. All eligible home owners will be provided with a housing payment supplement should the replacement cost exceed the acquisition cost of the displaced dwelling. For non-residential displacements, all impacted entities will be provided with advisory assistance. All eligible entities will be provided with funds for moving their personal items to their new location. Search expenses in locating a new site may be compensated if properly documented. Re-establishment costs for expenses such as carpets, advertisement, etc., may be eligible for payment under the "Re-establishment" expense rule. Eligible non-residential displaced persons may be entitled to an increased cost of operating payment which could offset higher lease rates paid at a new location. All entities may be eligible for a fixed payment in lieu of actual moving expenses, personal property losses, re-establishment payments, and searching expenses. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-41 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation r. Residential Relocation Resources Table 4-8 provides a summary of the number of available homes currently available for sale and rent within Hilo in various price ranges. This information, supplemented by discussions with local real estate professionals, indicated that the Hilo area contains and will contain at the date of the Project implementation, a sufficient supply of vacant housing and commercial property with similar characteristics to absorb any displaced households within the five residential units and the one business. Table 4-8 Availability and Price of Rental and Purchase Homes, Hilo, April 1998 Sources: Sales figures from Multiple Listing Service March 1998 data. Rental figures from July 5, 1998 Hawaii Tribune Herald classified ads. First range pertains to 3 -bedroom homes, second range to 2 -bedroom. A full inventory of available relocation housing will be conducted prior to acquisition. The inventory will identify the most recent vacancy and market values of relocation housing in addition to other factors. Detailed inspection of the affected households and businesses and interviews of residents to be relocated will be conducted after the preferred alternative is selected and the construction schedule is determined. Specific housing and community characteristics will be determined based upon the requirements of those households identified for actual relocation. Replacement housing will be determined on the basis of current market availability and costs for the relocation resource area. In order to facilitate this process, the State Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Works initiated meetings with the potentially displaced residents and business owners see Appendix for coordination letters). These meetings were conducted on September 11, 1995, and were intended to gather information about the household characteristics of the residents and the activities of the businesses and to provide information about their rights and benefits in the event they are displaced. 4.3.3 Community Cohesiveness and Identity 4.3.3.1 Impacts The County of Hawaii invited public participation in the Puainako Street project by holding a series of meetings with the general community or special interest segments between 1992 and 1997 (see Chapter 8 for discussion of public consultation). The purposes of the meetings included gauging support for the general idea of the Project, assessing priority needs of the community, and identifying environmental issues. The process has generated evidence of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-42 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation perceived effects of the Project — or the lack of it — on neighborhood issues such as identity, cohesion, and safety. The meeting drawing the largest attendance occurred on July 20, 1992 at the Waiakea Intermediate School cafeteria (transcripts from this meeting are contained in Appendix A). A majority of residents testifying at the public meeting from the affected neighborhoods of Kaumana, Waiakea Homesteads and Waiakea Uka urged construction of both the widening and extension components of Puainako Street. Concerns about adverse impacts generally fell into three categories: o The impact on current residents of Puainako Street, especially those on the north side of the street between Kawili Street and Komohana Street; o The impact of the completed project on traffic levels and safety at and near Waiakea Elementary and Waiakea Intermediate schools; and o The phasing of the Project construction to maximize benefit. A concern of some members of this audience, which was later reiterated during meetings with the Ho`oikaika Hawaiian Awareness Organization, of the University of Hawaii at Hilo, was the preservation of archaeological features. The widening and extension of Puainako Street is unlikely to have major impacts on neighborhood or community cohesion. Puainako Street serves as a boundary to the Waiakea Homestead neighborhood and as an artery for access to and from Waiakea Uka. The extension would allow Puainako Street to serve the same role for the Kaumana community. Given that the road would facilitate access to and from the neighborhoods but not through many of the neighborhoods, it would not create many additional divisions within the neighborhoods. 4.3.3.2 Comparison Between Alternatives No -Build Alternative Although little change to the physical elements of the roadway would occur under this scenario, the substantial increase in traffic would have the effect of making the road more of a barrier within the community, thus slightly reducing community cohesiveness. Lower Portion The Build Alternative in the Lower Portion would impose a road three times the width of the current road. Although traffic volumes would not rise substantially solely as a result of the Project (volumes are forecasted to rise regardless of improvements), the width of the road would tend to isolate at least marginally those on one side of the road from those on the other. However, the residential areas below Kawili/Iwalani Streets are mostly confined to the south side of Puainako Street, minimizing the barrier effect. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-43 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Above Kawili/Iwalani Street, the proposed re-routing of the road would have the beneficial impact of reinforcing community cohesion by allowing more interchange across a road segment with much -reduced traffic. Alignment A vs. B Selection of Alignment A or B would have equally negligible impact on the community cohesion and related issues for Waiakea. Upper Portion The impacts on community cohesion in Kaumana would probably be minor, but would vary in terms of separating certain housing developments south of Kaumana Drive from the rest of Upper Kaumana. Alignment 1 would separate Pacific Plantation subdivision and the Wilder Road subdivisions from the rest of the Upper Kaumana neighborhood. Alignment 2 passes south of all the housing developments in Kaumana, thus encircling rather than separating the housing south of Kaumana Drive. Selection of Alignment 2 would slightly increase traffic on Wilder Road (and on Edita Street, if and when an extension is constructed), which has numerous driveways, leading to increased safety concerns. Project Phasing The public expressed opposing views regarding which part of the Project to complete first. Kaumana residents felt that the need for a second access route should give the Upper Portion priority. Waiakea residents felt that the traffic congestion on the current road gave the Lower Portion priority. Ideally, both sections would be completed concurrently. 4.3.3.3 Miti ag tion The mitigation measures proposed in Section 4.3.11 for impact to pedestrians and bicycles would have beneficial impacts for neighborhood cohesion as well. 4.3.4 Community Facilities and Public Services No permanent impact to any utility (water, electricity/phone transmission lines, gas) would occur as a result of any alternative action. Construction impacts are discussed in Section 4.4. Discussed here are impacts to schools and public services. 4.3.4.1 Impacts Right-of-way acquisition (approximately 24 in (80 ft.) in width) from both Waiakea Elementary and Waiakea Intermediate School would be necessary under the Build Alternatives. This area is currently unused but its open landscaping and stands of eucalyptus trees add to the aesthetics of the school grounds. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-44 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation A wider roadway would provide better access for police, fire and medical emergency services in the Lower Portion. The Upper Portion would provide a much shorter access route for such services to the Upper Kaumana area. 4.3.4.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No Build Alternative No impact to Waiakea School Complex property would take place. Redesign and construction of access to the complex would be needed in response to the expected increase in traffic. This would have to be funded from some other source. Police, fire and emergency services would have to contend with a congested and crowded roadway with only two through lanes. No alternative access to Kaumana would be available. Build Alternatives The Build Alternatives, whatever the combination of alignments used, would consume some school property, but would also help provide needed access redesign and construction. Police, fire and emergency services would be improved under these alternatives. 4.3.4.3 Miti ation Initial discussions with school officials indicate that the benefits of redesigning the driveway at the Waiakea School Complex would offset the impact of lost property area. 4.3.5 Parks and Recreation None of the proposed alternatives would require any taking of or impact to public or private parks or recreational land, facilities or activities. A beneficial impact of mitigation related to Kaumana Cave would be enhancement of interpretive facilities (see Section 4.2.3.3). 4.3.6 Visual Resources 4.3.6.1 Impacts Visual impacts on the Lower Portion, where an existing road would be widened and realigned, would differ from those on the Upper Portion, where a new road would be created. If the proposed project were constructed, the existing Puainako Street would take on a more urban character in contrast to its suburban (although often congested) appearance. The road currently offers little of scenic interest for a driver whose attention, for reasons of safety, must be clearly focused on the roadway. The topography in the Upper Portion of the project area lacks large promontories or depressions and is for the most part heavily covered with scrub or forest. These conditions would tend to obscure the road from the view of most nearby streets and the houses that front them. Exceptions Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-45 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation e would be a few houses with second stories facing the roadway, a few houses very close to the new road, and several houses on small hills near the road. Initially, the roadway would have little other development associated with it, and the road would thus pose little problem for residents of houses that can view it. Later, as housing density increases in subdivisions near the road, views could become more urban than pastoral. The surrounding terrain, from the perspective of a driver on the new road, would initially consist of pleasant vistas of low forest with many native trees in places. Little in the way of landscaping would thus be required until residences are constructed in planned or existing subdivisions. Street lighting along the Widening and Extension sections would add to the total night luminance of Hilo. All lighting will be in compliance with the outdoor lighting code. 4.3.6.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No Build Alternative The No -Build alternative would avoid visual impacts. Lower Portion Along the Lower Portion, expanding the right-of-way, creating turning lanes and signals, regrading the road, and noise mitigation barriers would cause noticeable differences in the appearance of the roadway. Adverse visual impacts would be borne by residents of the State Housing Project on the north side of Puainako Street who would have roadways on either side of their houses. Alignment A vs. B Within the Lower Portion, Alignment B passes very near the houses along the north side of the existing Puainako Street. Alignment A is farther north from Puainako Street, crossing open land. Selection of Alignment A would reduce the visual impact of the roadway on residents on the north side of Puainako, and the greater distance from the houses may provide motorists a less congested landscape. Upper Portion: Alignment I vs. 2 Along the Upper Portion, Alignments 1 and 2 offer slightly different visual characteristics. Much of Alignment 1 parallels Kaumana Drive and passes near some developed areas, notably at Edita and Pamoho Streets and Wilder Road. Alignment 2 avoids these and adjoining developments by taking a more southeasterly route. The levels of impact of these two alignments on several aspects of the visual environment would be different. Selection of Alignment 2 would have less adverse visual impact for residents of existing developments and may provide a more pleasant, open landscape for motorists. However, from a regional perspective, selection of Alignment 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-46 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation would extend the boundary of urbanization further into open space lands of southwest Hilo. Selection of Alignment 1 would have less adverse aesthetic impact on the rural surroundings. Choice of alignment would not alter the visual impacts for future residents of Sunrise Estates since both alternatives share the same alignment along the southern side of this subdivision. 4.3.6.3 Miti a tion Views From Adjacent Residences The mitigation structures described in Section 4.1.6, Noise Impacts, would partially screen residents of the Lower Portion from visual impacts as well. In order to ensure that visual impacts are minimized, Special Contract Requirements that will be incorporated into the construction - contract documents will specify that trees and shrubbery will be planted in a manner consistent with public safety on the edge of the right-of-way. In addition, the residents would be aware of the construction of the highway and would be able to take measures for themselves to screen out the highway with plantings or structures on their own property if they wish to. Views from the Highway The visual impact of noise mitigation barriers as viewed from the road would be mitigated by landscaping. However, there would be some unmitigable loss of the open character of the residential neighborhoods on Kilauea Avenue and Kinoole Street where fences and walls are largely absent and residents' yards are part of scenery. Outdoor Lighting Mitigation for the addition to Hilo's output of light would occur through full conformance with the Hawaii County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. This law requires low pressure sodium lights with shields that prevent light from escaping upwards. This minimizes impacts to both the telescope facilities on Mauna Kea and night -flying seabirds that may become disoriented by upward shining lights. 4.3.7 Historic/Archaeological Resources The reader is referred to Section 3.3.6 for full description of existing historic site resources. 4.3.7.1 Impacts As indicated in Table 3-9, 14 historic -era plantation sites are located within the four separate road alignments and intervening segments under consideration for the proposed extension and widening of Puainako Street. One site (site 18921) is located in Alignment 1 and one site (site 18920) is located in Alignment 2. The remaining 12 sites occur between approximately the 61 in (200 ft.) contour and 104 in (340 ft.) contour. Four of the sites are located east (makai) of where Alignment A and B diverge; five sites (sites 18913, 18914, 18915, 18917, and 18918) are located in Alignment A; and three sites (sites Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-47 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation C 18916, 18919 and 20681) are in Alignment B (see Figure 376). The significance of each site as determined by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is listed.above, in Table 3-8. Impacts to the historic sites would consist of full or partial destruction of sites or features of sites that lie within the right-of-way of the alignment chosen for the Project. No adverse impacts because of proximity would occur, because the capability of the site to perform any of its vital functions would not be substantially impaired by having the roadway nearby. Federal law contained in 49 U.S.C., Section 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 [referred to as Section 4(f)] require that all actions or projects undertaken by agencies of the U.S. Department of Transportation ensure that special efforts are made to protect public parks and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. Special criteria apply to the analysis of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives. A Section 4(f) review of the Project is contained in Chapter 5 of this EIS. 4.3.7.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No -Build Alternative No historic sites would be impacted by the No -Build Alternative. Alternatives Because sites were identified in all four of the road alignments, the widening and expansion of Puainako Street would undoubtedly impact some of the 14 sites. However, depending upon which alignments are selected in the final design of the proposed road construction, a fewer number of sites would be impacted. Lower Portion: Alignment A vs. B A segment of the eastern half of the Lower Portion Build Alternative alignment (below the 153 m (500 ft.) elevation) is a single route with no alternate choices. Regardless of which alignment is chosen, four sites (sites 18911, 18912, 18922 and 18923) located in the single route would be impacted by the widening and expansion of Puainako Street. Mitigation in the form of data recovery work would need to be done at two of these sites (sites 18911 and 18912). No further work would be required at sites 18922 and 18923 as they are deemed to be no longer significant. Importantly, Alignment A could not be selected without adversely affecting sites 18914 and 18915, which have been judged to be significant and are recommended for preservation in place. Both sites extend across the width of the 37 -meter (120 -foot) road corridor [Refer to Chapter 5 of this document for discussion of Section 4(f) issues]. Shifting Alignment A to the north or south is technically feasible but would entail destruction of existing facilities and historic sites. To the south is a large water tank facility of the Hawaii County Department of Water Supply, as well as a number of unsurveyed archaeological features which would require survey. To the immediate north are additional archaeological features, and further north are more archaeological features and the Komohana Agricultural Extension Complex, the headquarters for a number of University Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-48 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation of Hawaii agricultural agencies and offices. If Alignment B is selected, three sites would be adversely impacted (sites 18916, 18919 and 20681). Data recovery at all three sites has been recommended by the SHPO. There is no recommendation for preservation in place of any sites in Alignment B. Upper Portion: Alignment 1 vs. 2 One site (site 18921) would be impacted if Alignment 1 is selected. The SHPO has recommended data recovery for this site. If Alignment 2 is selected, one site (site 18920) would be impacted No further work, however, would be required at Site 18920, as it is deemed to be no longer significant. 4.3.7.3 Mitigation Tables 4-9a and 4-9b list each site and the treatment recommended in the archaeological inventory survey reports and concurred with by the SHPO. Two sites, Sites 18914 and 18915, were recommended for preservation in place, and contain the features shown in Table 4-9b. Eight total sites are eligible for data recovery (Sites 18911, 18912, 18916, 18917, 18918, 18919, 18921, and 20681). It should be noted that data recovery would only occur for sites that are inside an alignment selected for construction. The SHPO- determined that no further work would be necessary at the remaining four sites because an adequate amount of data had already been obtained during the archaeological inventory surveys. The following mitigation, which will be developed as part of a detailed mitigation plan between DPW, HDOT, FHWA and the SHPO, is predicated upon the selection of Alignment B. This results from the Section 4(f) conclusion, which is presented in Chapter 5, that Alignment A may not be selected because a feasible and prudent alternative to its use exists, namely Alignment B. o Sites 18914 and 18915 are significant for both their information and as excellent examples of their type (late 1800s - early 1900s sites associated with sugar cane cultivation), and will be preserved in place. o Special Contract Requirements that will be included in the construction documents will specify that no activity will be conducted within Alignment A. In order to restrict the area of disturbance to the Alignment B corridor, temporary plastic fencing will be erected along the north edge of Alignment B. o Data recovery will be conducted for the 3 sites in Alignment B that would be destroyed by construction. o Data recovery will be conducted for Sites 18911 18912. o Data recovery will be conducted for Site 18921 if Alignment 1 is selected. The SHPO concluded in a letter of 15 July 1996 that given these measures, the Project will have "no adverse effect" on significant historic sites (see Appendix Al for full text of the coordination letter). Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-49 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Table 4-9a Recommended Mitigation for Archaeological Sites Site No. Site Type Site Mitigation Road Alignment Location (50-10-35) 18911 Complex Data recovery East end of Lower Portion - west of Kawili St 18912 Complex Data recovery East end of Lower Portion - west of Kawili St 18913 Mound No further work Alignment A - east of Komohana St 18914 Complex Preservation Alignment A - east of Komohana St 18915 Complex Preservation Alignment A - east of Komohana St 18916 Complex Data recovery Alignment B - east of Komohana St 18917 Complex Data recovery Alignment A - east of Komohana St 18918 Complex Data recovery Alignment A - west of Komohana St 18919 Complex Data recovery Alignment B - west of Komohana St 18920 Complex No further work Alignment 2 18921 Complex Data recovery Alignment 1 18922 Modified outcrop Data recovery East end of Lower Portion - east of Kawili St 18923 Modified outcrop Data recovery East end of Lower Portion - east of Kawili St 20681 Complex Data recovery Alignment B — West of Komohana St Source: Appendices E1 and E2. 4.3.8 Agricultural Land 4.3.8.1 Impacts In coordination with the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (USNRCS), a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (FCIR) assessment (see Appendix J) was performed pursuant to FHWA regulations related to the federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The assessment is done to evaluate a highway project's relative impact on farmland in a region, county and state. It takes into account the acreage of farmland directly converted, the potential to indirectly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, impacts to individual farms, and the relative size and importance of the farms affected. No farmland is present in the Lower Portion. The process derived a maximum FOR rating of 108 points on an ascending scale of impact from 0-260 points. This rating is below the threshold Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-50 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation n Table 4-9b Arehaeolo¢ical Site. Rennirina PrPePrvatinn Site No. (50-10-35) 18914 'Feat. Name -- No. of Feat. 12 Architectural Type Complex of Structures Size (sq. m.) -- Interpreted Function Historic Agriculture Significance C,D Recom- mended P A Rectangular platform 34 Clearing/Foundation B Rectangular platform 50 Clear/ramp C Irregular mound 25 Clearing D Irregular mound 34.5 Clearing E Linear terrace 55 Retaining Wall F Rectangular platform 66 Clear/ramp G Irregular mod. outcrop 1092 Clearing H Curvilinear mod. outcrop 62.5 Clearing I Irregular platform 49.2 Clearing 3 Rectangular mound 32.2 Clearing 4 Rectangular platform 54.2 Clear/ramp 5 Circular mound 0.7 Clearing 18915 -- 9 Complex of Structures -- Historic Agriculture C,D P A Oval enclosure 112.5 Clear/foundation B Linear terrace -mound 20 Railroad bed C Rectangular platform 42 Clear/ramp D Rectangular mound 3.5 Clear/ramp E Rectangular platform 42 Clear/foundation F Rectangular platform 46 Clearing G Rectangular mound 13 Clearing H Oval platform 45 Clear/foundation I Irregular mound 29.5 Clearing c-ource: Hppenaux tz Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-51 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation of 160, above which project planning must take into consideration the possibility of using non - farmland or finding an alternative less harmful for farming. 4.3.8.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No Build Alternative The No -Build alternative would preclude any impact to farmland or agricultural resources. Lower Portion: Alignment A vs. B No farmland is located in the Lower Portion of the project area, and therefore there is no distinction in impacts between the alternative alignments. Upper Portion: Alignment I vs. 2 The Farmland Conversion Impact Rating was 108 points for Alignment 1 and 95 for Alignment 2. Alignment 1's higher rating is due to the presence of the only farm in the project corridor, as discussed in Section 3.3.8. If Alignment 1 is chosen, the highway would consume some of the land currently used for farming and might discourage the farmer from continuing operations. 4.3.8.3 Miti ag tion No mitigation is necessary or planned for the minor impact to farmland. However, the relocation and right-of-way compensation process discussed in Section 4.3.2 would apply to the farmer who operates the farm and the landowner. 4.3.9 Motorized Vehicle Transportation 4.3.9.1 Impacts Project Area Road Network Projections on impact to traffic volumes for roadway sections directly involved in the Project were conducted as part of the Traffic Report prepared for this study (Appendix G). The reader may refer to Section 1.3.4 for an explanation of traffic analysis and a definition of terms used in this section. Average daily traffic (ADT) as well as AM and PM peak traffic volumes were estimated for the various alternatives under consideration (Table 4-10). In general, traffic congestion on lower Puainako Street would be greatly relieved by the widening, which would provide through lanes and separate turning lanes into the Waiakea schools. The use of the Upper Portion of the Project, however, would add traffic to the Lower Portion. It is anticipated that the improvements of the Lower Portion would be able to absorb the added traffic, and the net result will be much smoother traffic flows. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-52 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation r Level of Service (LOS) was also modeled for all major and most smaller intersections for the No -Build and Build Alternatives. Detailed maps of 14 intersections (including all turning movements) at the AM and PM peak hours are provided in Figures 8-16 of Appendix G. Table 4- 11 provides a summary of the findings for all major intersections. Under the No -Build Alternative, all major intersections would experience a Level of Service measured as D (Minimum Desirable), E (Undesirable) or F (Unacceptable) at either or both the AM or PM peak hour. Under the Build Alternative, Level of Service meets or exceeds the goal of C or better. It should be noted that LOS at minor side streets feeding into Puainako may be less than C at peak hours. Although less than acceptable LOS would be experienced at these side streets even with the proposed improvements, the conditions under the No -Build Alternative are far worse in every instance. 4.3.9.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No -Build Alternative Without substantial improvements to Puainako Street, the twofold increase in traffic would act to further degenerate the Level of Service at most road segments and intersections. Lower Portion Traffic volumes on the Lower Portion would increase above No -Build levels as a result of two factors: an increase in traffic from the Puainako Extension, and the ability to handle more traffic with less congestion offered by four lanes. Along with increased ADT and AM and PM peak values, the Project would improve Level of Service to a degree that would more than offset the rise in traffic volumes. Alignment A vs. B No difference exists in traffic volumes or Level of Service between the two alternative alignments. Alignment A offers a marginally more functional intersection at Komohana Street because of its greater distance from the existing Puainako Street. Upper Portion: Alignment I vs. 2 No difference exists in traffic volumes or Levels of Service between the two alternative alignments. Therefore, traffic modeling was conducted for Alignment 1 only. 4.3.9.3 Miti agation If the No -Build Alternative is selected, there is little feasible mitigation to relieve poor Level of Service. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-53 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Table 4-10 2020 Projected Traffic Volumes, by Alternative Source: Appendix G. The Build Alternative is in itself the mitigation for existing and future traffic problems. The overall pattern should be one of less congestion, and traffic congestion should be mitigated to below the pre -project level. 4.3.9.4 Regional Transportation Network The goal of this section is to examine the effects of the proposed project on the "big picture" of the future transportation network in Hilo, including the three major highways that conduct traffic in and out of the region. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-54 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 24-HOUR AM PEAK PM PEAK ROADWAY SECTION VOLUMES HOUR HOUR VOLUMES VOLUMES NO- BUILD NO- BUILD NO- BUILD BUILD BUILD BUILD Puainako 36,300 37,500 1,983 2,040 2,798 2,903 W of Kanoelehua Puainako E of 30,600 31,800 1,935 1,994 2,376 2,481 Kilauea Puainako Between 22,500 25,000 1,346 1,476 1,812 2,029 Kilauea and Kinoole Puainako 20,100 23,400 1,485 1,654 1,407 1,707 W of Kinoole Puainako 18,000 21,100 1,403 1,572 1,284 1,584 E of Iwalani/Kawili Puainako W of 15,200 19,400 1,186 1,509 1,347 1,727 Iwalani/Kawili Puainako 15,000 19,800 1,009 1,381 1,364 1,744 E of Komohana Puainako 0 8,400 0 709 0 706 W of Komohana Komohana 24,000 25,500 2,222 2,402 2,058 2,143 N of Puainako Saddle Road 5,500 5,500 468 468 467 467 W 0Country Club Saddle Road 5,500 1,800 468 182 467 125 E of Country Club Source: Appendix G. The Build Alternative is in itself the mitigation for existing and future traffic problems. The overall pattern should be one of less congestion, and traffic congestion should be mitigated to below the pre -project level. 4.3.9.4 Regional Transportation Network The goal of this section is to examine the effects of the proposed project on the "big picture" of the future transportation network in Hilo, including the three major highways that conduct traffic in and out of the region. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-54 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Table 4-11 Level of Service (LOS) at Near or Over Capacity Major Intersections, by Alternative Source: Appendix G - Figs. 8-16. Note: LOS listed pertains to first listed street at the intersection, at the AM or PM peak, whichever is poorest. LOS codes: D: Desirable Minimum; E. Undesirable; F: Unacceptable (Refer to Table 1-1 for further definition of Level of Service). Str=Straight; Rt = Right. No single traffic model exists that could provide data for this picture. Therefore, the scenario presented here is a combination of several sources. Each employed computerized traffic models that focused on some aspect of Hilo traffic and produced data for a discrete number of roadway sections in the network. Each used 2020 as its project year, and included the Puainako Extension as one of its assumptions. Other assumptions of the models differed, and therefore somewhat different results are possible for certain sections. However, the models had sufficient overall agreement in the limited areas where their coverage overlapped that jointly they can be relied upon to produce a reasonable model of the larger network. The sources are: the Land Use Transportation Masterplan Update commissioned by the State DOT (in draft); the Mohouli Street Extension Traffic Assessment prepared for an Environmental Assessment recently Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-55 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) [LOS NO -BUILD BUILD DIRECTION INTERSECTION BOUND LANE(S) I LOS LANE(S) Wilder at Kaumana South D (All) A (All) Edita at Kaumana North D(All) A All Puainako at Komohana East F (All) C+ (All) West F(All) C+(All) Komohana at Puainako North (Not Modeled) C+ (All) South C+(All) Puainako at Kawili/lwalani East F (All) C+ (All) West F(All) C+(All) Kawili at Puainako North F (All) B+ (All) South F (Str. & Left B+(All) Puainako at Kinoole East D (All) B+ (All) West D(All) B+(All) Kinoole at Puainako North D (Left) C+ (All) South D Left B+(All) Puainako at Kilauea East F (All) C+ (All) West F (Str. & Left C+(All) Kilauea at Puainako North F (Str. & Left) C (All) South F (All) C (All) Source: Appendix G - Figs. 8-16. Note: LOS listed pertains to first listed street at the intersection, at the AM or PM peak, whichever is poorest. LOS codes: D: Desirable Minimum; E. Undesirable; F: Unacceptable (Refer to Table 1-1 for further definition of Level of Service). Str=Straight; Rt = Right. No single traffic model exists that could provide data for this picture. Therefore, the scenario presented here is a combination of several sources. Each employed computerized traffic models that focused on some aspect of Hilo traffic and produced data for a discrete number of roadway sections in the network. Each used 2020 as its project year, and included the Puainako Extension as one of its assumptions. Other assumptions of the models differed, and therefore somewhat different results are possible for certain sections. However, the models had sufficient overall agreement in the limited areas where their coverage overlapped that jointly they can be relied upon to produce a reasonable model of the larger network. The sources are: the Land Use Transportation Masterplan Update commissioned by the State DOT (in draft); the Mohouli Street Extension Traffic Assessment prepared for an Environmental Assessment recently Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-55 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation completed for that project (Hawaii County Dept. Of Public Works, 1997); and the traffic assessment prepared for this project, which was finished in 1997 (Appendix G). Figure 4-3 depicts the traffic volumes projected by the model and includes "No -Build" Alternative projections for the roads within the immediate project area that were modeled as part of the Traffic Study for this EIS. If one compares 1994 conditions (Figure 3-8) to those for the year 2020, the principal difference a is an increase. in traffic volumes at nearly all locations, basically because of increasing population and visitor days. State Highways 19 (to Hamakua), 11 (to Puna) and the Saddle Road Q (State Highway 200) all show increased volumes. Within Hilo, traffic is expected to rise substantially on nearly every street. The only drop predicted is on Kaumana Drive at and below Wilder Road, and again below Ainako Avenue. Average daily traffic volume on Kaumana Drive west of Country Club Drive is expected to increase from 1,6301 in 1994 to approximately 5,500 by 2020; a joint result of increasing island a population, visitor numbers and improvements to Saddle Road. The Puainako Extension would divert about two-thirds of that traffic. Further down Kaumana Drive just west of Ainako Avenue, the slow but steady growth expected for Kaumana will produce about a 15 percent rise in traffic - a percentage that would likely double without the proposed project. The Mohouli Extension, if built, will divert much of that traffic from Kaumana Drive below Ainako Avenue. This overall view reveals that the Puainako Extension and the Mo houli Extension would function O to capture traffic traveling between Kaumana Drive or Saddle Road and eastern parts of Hilo. Draining this volume of traffic away from narrow and winding Kaumana Drive onto these wider D and straighter new roads would increase traffic safety and decrease congestion. If the No -Build Alternative is selected, it can be foreseen that traffic at all segments of Kaumana Drive east of D Country Club Drive would increase by approximately 2,700 ADT. The Mohouli Street Extension, if constructed, would relieve some of this extra traffic, but only after 8.1 km (5.0 mi.) of travel along Kaumana Drive. �} Puainako Street itself (as discussed in the previous section) would experience a substantial rise in U traffic, which would increase further if the proposed improvements occur. However, the increased number of lanes, improved vertical profile and improved intersections would more than offset the traffic increase. In summary, the proposed project would benefit the regional traffic circulation relative to the No D Project scenario. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-56 Environmental Impacts and Proposed N ti ation a 6 4.3. 10 Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic 4.3.10.1 Impacts Lower Portion The existing facilities in the Lower Portion — dual asphalt sidewalk/bikeways separated from the roadway by intermittent raised asphalt curbing— would be improved by the separation of sidewalks and bicycle lanes under current project design. Students crossing Puainako Street at the Waiakea School Complex would have to contend with a crossing three times longer than the current 12 in (40 ft.). Upper Portion As discussed in Section 3.3.8, there is currently no pedestrian or bicycle use of the area that would be traversed by the proposed project in the Upper Portion (west or mauka of Komohana Street). If the road were constructed, it would provide a new access route among discrete clusters of residential neighborhoods currently separated by open space, and between these areas and Komohana Street. The distance from Komohana Street uphill along the Puainako Extension to the nearest residential area would be a minimum (depending on selection of Alignment 1 or 2) of approximately 2.1 km (1.3 mi.). The Upper Portion does not provide the sort of links among areas that generate substantial pedestrian use. It is perhaps for this reason that the existing Puainako Street and the proposed Extension have not been planned as integral components of the bikeway system in the Bike Plan Hawaii (HDOT 1994). The lack of sidewalks and bike lanes in the Upper Portion would not adversely impact pedestrians or bicyclists. A wide shoulder would provide adequate areas for the small amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic expected. The size of the right-of-way allows for future improvements in sidewalks as needed. Kaumana and Komohana Drive Bicycle lanes for portions of these roadways are called for in the Bike Plan Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan (HDOT 1994). Pedestrians and bicyclists would benefit from a reduction in traffic relative to the expected increase in the project year 2020. 4.3.10.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No -Build Alternative For Puainako Street, the current situation of a narrow asphalt "sidewalk" separated from the automobile travel lanes by asphalt, interrupted curbs would probably be maintained in the future. Increasing traffic by both automobiles and trucks as well as bicycles and pedestrians would lead to a slight worsening of road safety. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-57 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation a �-/ 1,800 MPJM PNPD x,80 KAUMANA DR ALTEPNATNE ALIGNMENT aim ALTERNATIVE "\ ALIGNMENT N2 y x ' KP PNP �k PRC \Pr O U ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT N2 U P P E R 1 L 0 W E R P O R T I O N P O T 1 0 ♦ �I i� i TITLE FIGURE 2020 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES MAJOR PROJECT AREA ROADWAYS, BUILD & NO—BUILD SCENARIOS 1 4-3 tc' PLIAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION UA TE HILO, HAWAII 10/26/98 92014/M-/..EIS/F4-3 DWG/SCALE.1=1 /48\� dee / OO 20,200 I IQ I Iw i a o PJNP u l a o 120' R O W E%TENSION _ o / PR JECT�CIM ALTERNATIVE Qi ALIGNMENT #1 'v / / O O / A" -'o 0 15,000 x 8,400 19,800 PUAINAKO _ o STREET TITLE FIGURE 2020 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES MAJOR PROJECT AREA ROADWAYS, BUILD & NO—BUILD SCENARIOS 1 4-3 tc' PLIAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION UA TE HILO, HAWAII 10/26/98 92014/M-/..EIS/F4-3 DWG/SCALE.1=1 PUASTKO I l Il l 0 1 2 scale in kilometers 0 4000 8000 scale in feet LEGEND � (14"u") AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 27,246 (euan) LOCATION & COUNTS Page 4-58 a 20,200 I IQ I Iw PUASTKO I l Il l 0 1 2 scale in kilometers 0 4000 8000 scale in feet LEGEND � (14"u") AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 27,246 (euan) LOCATION & COUNTS Page 4-58 a Because of the high traffic volumes, Kaumana Drive would continue to offer an unsafe avenue for both pedestrians and bicycles. These conditions could be mitigated on both Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive by construction or upgrading of sidewalks and bicycle lanes. However, there are severe expansion constraints because of the limited land available for right-of-way along Puainako Street west (mauka) of Kawili Street and along the entire length of Kaumana Drive. Lower Portion Sidewalks, bicycle lanes and crosswalks are of particular importance in the Lower Portion because of the Waiakea School Complex. The roadway as currently designed improves the situation by separating bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Two traffic signals would be installed at the Waiakea School Complex. Research demonstrates that signals are more effective at slowing and stopping traffic for pedestrian crossing than are unsignalized crosswalks. Alignment A vs. B The re-routing of Puainako Street behind the existing Puainako Street west (mauka) of Kawili Street would greatly improve the situation for bicyclists and pedestrians in this neighborhood. The selection of Alignment A or B has no impact in this category. Upper Portion: Alignment 1 vs. 2 Substantial numbers of pedestrians would probably not be expected on this portion because the relatively large distance between existing homes in Kaumana and Komohana Street. It is expected that some bicyclists currently intimidated by the dangerous condition of Kaumana Drive may feel safer 'using the Puainako Street Extension for commuting or recreational bicycling. Alignment 1 would be marginally better in that it is shorter than Alignment 2 purposes and provides more convenient access to existing residential areas. 4.3.10.3 Miti ag tion Pedestrian Use The project as designed would increase pedestrian safety for most of the route and thus requires no mitigation. For pedestrian use near the Waiakea School Complex, the State Department of Transportation will continue to consult with the State Department of Education concerning the final design and location of crosswalks, traffic signals, and other crossing facilities that maximize pedestrian access and safety. Elements of such a design will include sidewalks, crosswalks, well -marked and appropriate crossing points, traffic signal location, design and timing, and possible construction of a wall/hedge as a physical barrier between the roadway and adjacent houses to help reduce danger to children and other pedestrians. Conformance with the provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (P.L. 101-336) will be achieved as part of the project. All design will comply with standards for curb cuts, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-59 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 4) detectable warnings, traffic signal crossings, and other aspects in order to ensure that facilities are accessible and safe for the disabled. Bicycle Use The project as designed would improve bicycling conditions along the entire route and thus requires no mitigation. Although bicycle facilities are not identified for Puainako Street in the State Bike Plan, bicycle lanes would integrate with other existing and planned routes. 4.3. 11 Hazardous Waste As determined through consultation with the Hawaii State Department of Health, Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HERR), no known hazardous waste sites are present, no active or former generators of hazardous waste are or were present, and no releases of hazardous materials have been reported along the project corridor (see Section 3.3.9). The proposed project would involve no impacts to areas known to contain hazardous waste. Normal procedures related to safety, storage of fuels and other hazardous materials, and response to hazardous waste incidents would ensure that the project would not generate hazardous waste impacts during construction. 4.3.12 Energy 4.3.12.1 Impacts Energy implications of the project are essentially limited to vehicle considerations, since the project does not enable or substantially encourage secondary growth or development. The energy impacts of the project were not directly evaluated. However, the findings of the Air Quality analysis (see Appendix L) also provide guidance to energy consumption by vehicles. 4.3.12.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No -Build Alternative As indicated by modeling of engine emissions, fuel efficiency is far poorer because of low traffic Level of Service under this alternative. Build Alternatives Improved levels of Service would provide superior energy efficiency. No difference in energy consumption exists between Alignments A and B. Alignment 1 and 2 involve identical elevation gain and loss, but because of Alignment 1's shorter travel path, it is marginally preferable for energy consumption considerations. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-60 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 0 �Q O O U 4.3.12:3 Miti ag tion ONo mitigation is proposed for operation of the highway. 4.4 Construction -Phase Impacts OConstruction of the proposed project would last three to four years depending on the availability of construction funding. During this period construction vehicles, power tools and heavy equipment would generate noise, traffic congestion, exhaust emissions and the potential for soil erosion. O4.4.1 Sediments Water Quality and Flooding 4.4.1.1 Impacts s sediment from soil erosion during Uncontrolled excess g and after road construction can impact natural watercourses, water quality and flooding potential. Contaminants associated with heavy equipment and other sources during construction may also impact receiving stream, ocean and ground water. aBecause of the scale of the project, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be required for the construction phase of the project. The permit, which would be issued by the Hawaii State Department of Health, would include specific and enforceable conditions to reduce sediment pollution. O4.4.1.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No -Build Alternative OThe No -Build Alternative would entail a much smaller level of improvements and reduced construction -related impacts. OBuild Alternatives (� No difference exists among alternative alignments in terms of these impacts. �j 4.4.1.3 Miti ag tion OMitigation for Sediment Pollution (� If a Build Alternative is selected, Special Contract Requirements will contain measures to (J minimize the potential for soil erosion and the amount of sediment that leaves the construction limits. The following soil erosion and sediment control standard management practices, as described in the Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Hawaii (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1981), shall be implemented to the extent practicable: O Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-61 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 1. Timing construction activities, such as grading or the installation of culverts, during periods of minimum rainfall. 2. Limiting the amount of surface area graded at any given time to reduce the area subject to potential erosion. 3. Constructing temporary drainage ditches to divert runoff away from areas susceptible to soil erosion. 4. Utilizing soil erosion protective materials such as mulch or geotextiles on areas where soils have a high potential for erosion until permanent provisions such as lawns and grasses can be developed. Planting grass as soon as grading operations permit to minimize the amount of time soils are exposed to possible erosion. 5. Building sedimentation basins to collect sediment which enters runoff waters. Utilizing geotextiles such as siltation fencing to minimize the amount of sediments which would leave the site to collect in drainage structures and streams. 4.4.2 Air Quality 4.4.2.1 Impacts Short-term' air quality impacts would occur either directly or indirectly during project construction. Short-term impacts from fugitive dust would likely occur, and increased emissions from traffic disruption may also affect air quality during construction. State air pollution control regulations prohibit visible emissions of fugitive dust. 4.4.2.2 Comparison Among Alternatives No -Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative would entail a lesser level of construction -related impacts. Build Alternatives Alignments A and 2 are more distant from existing residences and would thus involve marginally less fugitive dust and exhaust emissions. 4.4.2.3 Miti ag tion An effective dust control plan is necessary to mitigate construction -related impacts. Special Contract Requirements will include specification of a plan, which would be approved by DOH, that would include some or all of the following: o Watering of active work areas o Wind screens a 41U o Cleaning adjacent paved roads affected by construction O Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-62 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 0. a 0 U 0 o Covering of open -bodied trucks carrying soil or rock o Limiting area to be disturbed at any given time o Mulching or chemically stabilizing inactive areas that have been worked o Paving and landscaping of project areas as soon as practical in the construction Dschedule. u The high rainfall of the project area should serve to naturally control construction dust, but it is recommended that during prolonged dry periods, active work areas be watered at least twice daily. O Construction vehicles and disrupted traffic due to construction activity can also produce -increased exhaust emissions. This can be partially mitigated by moving construction equipment and workers on and off the site during off-peak traffic hours and by minimizing road closures Dduring peak traffic hours. 4.4.3 Noise 4.4.3.1 Impact uIf a Build Alternative is selected, construction would result in noise, no matter which alignments are selected. Construction would result in noise from grading, blasting, compressors, vehicle and equipment engines, and other sources. Construction activities may exceed 95 decibels (dB) at the project boundary lines at times. �j 4.4.3.2 Comparison Among Alternatives U No Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative would entail a lesser level of construction -related impacts. Because improvements would occur on existing streets and intersections, however, noise impacts might ustill be substantial. Lower Portion uConstruction -related noise impacts would be most severe in the Lower Portion, particularly in the segment east (makai) of the Kawili/Iwalani Streets intersection. The relatively large existing u traffic volume (and hence slower pace and longer duration of construction), the short setback to homes on the south side of Puainako Street, and the presence of two schools and several churches on this segment are the cause. uAlignment A vs. B (; The use of Alignment A would entail less construction -related noise impacts and fewer �j mitigation measures than Alignment B. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-63 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation El Portion: Alignment 1 vs. 2 uUpper The use of Alignment 2 would entail less construction -related noise impacts and fewer 4n mitigation measures than Alignment 1. U 4.4.3.3 Mitigation Special Contract Requirements shall include a condition requiring the contractor to obtain a permit in conformance with Title 11, Chapter 46, HAR (Community Noise Control). The Hawaii State Department of Health's (HDOH) Noise, Radiation and Indoor Air Quality Branch issues permits for construction activities which may generate noise. The permit is applied for during the construction phase by the contractor. HDOH will review the type of activity, location, equipment, project purpose, and timetable in order to decide upon conditions and mitigation measures. Possible measures include restriction of equipment type, maintenance requirements, restricted hours, and portable noise barriers. The precise combination of mitigation measures, if any, shall be specified by HDOH prior to construction. 4.4.4 Traffic Con eg stion 4.4.4.1 Impacts During the construction period, operation of construction equipment, trucks, and worker vehicles would impede traffic along the east (makai) end of Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue and Kawili Street, particularly during school hours. The public has expressed concern that the project be scheduled to minimize construction interference with school traffic. Because neither Upper Portion alignment crosses major roadways, no substantial traffic problem is anticipated during construction in that portion. 4.4.4.2 Comparison Among Alternatives. No Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative would entail a lesser level of construction -related traffic impacts. Because improvements would occur on existing streets and intersections, however, traffic impacts might still be substantial. Lower Portion: Alignment A vs. B The construction -related impact on traffic congestion would be equal for Alignments A and B Upper Portion: Alignment 1 vs. 2 Negligible construction -related traffic congestion is anticipated for either Alignment 1 or 2, except at the Komohana Street intersection, where impacts would probably be equal. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-64 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation O4.4.4.3 Miti ag tion Special Contract Requirements shall specify that construction of the section in front of Waiakea Elementary and Waiakea Intermediate schools should be scheduled for the summer school vacation as much as possible to minimize increasing congestion. The noise -related restrictions upon construction hours (see Section 4.4.3.3, above) would mitigate traffic congestion by avoiding peak traffic hours. Professional traffic control shall be utilized when and where appropriate. 4.4.5 Economic Impacts from Construction 4.4.5.1 Impacts The construction of the project would require expenditures of County, State and federal funds, as outlined in Table 2-2, above. a The proposed project is expected to generate one-time income and employment from construction activities. Using the selection of Alignments 1 and B as a typical example of a Build Alternative combination, of the projected total construction cost of $62.65 million, for o Alignments 1 and B, approximately $57.55 million would be spent on local construction and related expenditures over 12 to 18 months. In addition, $2.8 million would be spent on planning and engineering -design work before construction, and $6.0 million on land acquisition and (� relocation costs. Income totaling over $25 million is expected to be generated during this period. u Considering indirect and induced impacts, the newly generated income could reach over $40 million over the same period. CThe construction project is also expected to generate as many as 500 labor -years of direct construction and related jobs during this period. Additionally, 56 labor -years of professional jobs are expected to be generated from the project. The construction activity is expected to increase employment in that sector by 11.8 percent during project construction. In addition, approximately 700 labor -year equivalent indirect jobs would be created over the same period of U time. The project would also have a positive impact on both State and County resources. Additional revenues to the government would be generated in the form of sales and income taxes, and by permits and other fees. The projected State revenue from general excise taxes is $2.6 to $2.8 million, based on a 4.16 percent general excise tax rate. The revenue from income taxes is aestimated to be over $2 million from direct and indirect income from the project, based on the average of a 5.8 percent State income tax rate. 4.4.5.2 Comparison Among Alternatives n The No -Build Alternative would save expenditure of revenue but would also fail to produce Ul economic side benefits of construction. The Build Alternative would accomplish planning goals and produce construction fobs and revenue, but would require County, State, and federal funds. No substantial difference exists among the economic impacts associated with various alignment Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-65 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation C' combinations. 4.4.6 Public Utilities 4.4.6.1 Impacts Road construction would entail relocation and/or temporary removal of electricity/telephone poles and transmission lines and water and gas mains and distribution lines. The location of these features is discussed in Section 3.3.3. 4.4.6.2 Comparison Among Alternatives The No -Build Alternative would avoid disruption to existing utility infrastructure. No substantial difference exists among the various alignments in the Build Alternative. Slightly less cost and disruption would be entailed under Alignment 2 in the Upper Portion because utilities on Wilder Road would not be affected. 4.4.6.3 Miti ag tion Special Contract Requirements shall specify that the contractor shall schedule construction so as to minimize the length of time utility customers are inconvenienced. 4.5 Growth -Inducing Impacts Analysis of growth -inducing impacts examines the potential for a project to induce or accelerate currently planned or unplanned project area development, encourage shifts in growth from other areas in the region, or intensify growth beyond the levels anticipated and planned for without the project. It is important to examine potential growth in the context of growth policies and development constraints. No overriding physical resource stresses (e.g., lack of water or energy) constrain growth in the Hilo area. Limits to growth are set by both the market and government policy, specifically General Plan guidelines and State Land Use District restrictions. The Lower Portion of Puainako Street is fully developed except for the State-owned land along the north side of the road.. Most of these lands have been designated for expansion of educational facilities. All of this land is within the State Land Use Urban District and is designated for Medium Density Urban use in the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Maps of the Hawaii County General Plan (LUPAG) (see Section 6.5 for major discussion). ° Virtually no potential for new development or acceleration of planned growth attributable even indirectly to the Project is anticipated in the Lower Portion. Scattered "in -fill' development of existing vacant lots within the areas along the lower portions of Puainako Street will continue, with or without Project improvements. ' The Upper Portion extends primarily through lands that are in the State Land Use Agricultural District and are zoned for agricultural use by the county. Park Hokulani, along Wilder Road, is designated as SLU Urban and zoned for single family residential uses. The LUPAG maps Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-66 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation identify the lands along the project area primarily for Low -Density Urban development and Agriculture. There are also limited areas identified for Medium -Density Urban and Conservation Ouses within the upper areas along the proposed Puainako Street Extension. It is likely that the project may support infilling of existing subdivisions containing undeveloped lots in the Kaumana area. A number of residential subdivisions, including Sunrise Estates, Pacific Plantation, Park Hokulani and others, currently have developed lots or have necessary entitlements to allow further residential and small lot agricultural development. D There is also theotential for rezoning of existing agricultural zoned.lands to higher densities in p g the surrounding areas. A major limitation of development in the upper Kaumana area- is the asubstandard conditions of Kaumana Drive which provides primary access to the area. Accordingly, future subdivision proposals are to be expected in this area, perhaps encouraged by. increased accessibility of the area provided by the proposed project. However, development is aalso somewhat limited by lack of sewer and drainage improvements. The nature and timing of growth would largely be at the discretion of the State and County Ogovernments, which through zoning, land use district and other approvals exercise considerable influence on growth. Government decisions must balance concerns over excessive urban development with the need for additional housing stock and demands for the quality of life aafforded by development in this area. n The proposed highway would probably facilitate and accelerate development that has already U been anticipated for this area by the State and County. However, it would not open up new development areas that have not been identified for urban development by the County General O Plan. Consequently, while the development of the Piiainako Street Extension would facilitate and possible accelerate planned development of the upper Kaumana Area, it would not modify the planned land use patterns. Q It is also unlikely that project -related growth would attract substantial growth from other portions of the Hilo region which is anticipated for the future.. Far greater supplies of lots of various sizes and zoning would be available near Hilo. In fact, projects such as the C. Brewer residential (�l subdivision in Puueo, the W.H. Shipman, Ltd. project in Keaau, and the potential agricultural or U residential subdivisions on abandoned sugar cane land in Hamakua may represent intervening residential opportunities that exercise a restraining influence on growth in Kaumana and other aportions of the project area. 4.6 Cumulative Impacts 0 Cumulative impacts result when implementation of several projects that individually may have limited impacts combine to produce more severe impacts or conflicts in mitigation measures. This discussion considers the impacts of the proposed Project in the context of the impacts from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-67 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation In general, the scale of the area under consideration varies with the resource being discussed. For the Puainako project, social impacts are limited to those neighborhoods through which the Project passes; biological impacts must be considered on an ecosystem -wide basis. Table 4-12 lists and briefly describes projects whose adverse impacts might be reasonably considered to have the potential to accumulate with those of the proposed Project. The projects are listed in chronological order. Those near the end of the list are sufficiently far in the future that their precise impacts - and even the likelihood of their completion - is uncertain. The cumulative impact of the proposed Project with all present and proposed actions in the Hilo area could be severely adverse if no mitigation is associated with such actions. For example, these projects taken cumulatively have the potential to increase inappropriate development in the floodplains, degrade water quality, or convert large areas of wetlands to less environmentally valuable uses. An analysis of the cumulative impact of the Project on major environmental resource categories follows: Water Quality. Each new project contributes in some measure to loading of surface waters (permanent and ephemeral streams and wetlands), groundwater, and receiving waters (Wailoa River Estuary and Hilo Bay) with sediments and chemical pollutants. As discussed in Section 3.1.5, Hilo Bay and Wailoa River are important fishing and recreational resources. The oceanic waters of Hawaii also support a number of endangered and threatened animals. Pollution in these waters is an ongoing problem. The primary source of pollution is sewage (Dudley et al 1991), principally through seepage from unsewered residences and businesses. In addition, chemical and sediment pollution also affect Hilo Bay. New developments, including roads such as the proposed Project, are now required to incorporate Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and pollution discharge. Development activities with potential to produce pollutant discharges require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits from the Hawaii State Department of Health (HDOH). Better permit conditions and monitoring, along with the steady growth of the sewer system in Hilo, have led to decreases in sediment and sewage pollution in Hilo Bay. The level of chemical pollution associated with roads, residential subdivisions and industrial sources in Hilo is not well documented but does not appear to be a substantial problem. Air Quality. As discussed in Section 3.1.6, Hilo has excellent air quality, with pollutants well within State and federal air quality standards. This results from few sources of pollution, the dispersive effects of trade winds, and the island's isolation from outside sources of pollution. Although the sum of projects present and in planning have the potential to increase air pollution, there is little risk that regional air quality would noticeably degrade. It is again worth noting that the emissions burden analysis conducted for this EIS indicates that the Project would have `the effect of improving regional air quality by allowing more efficient operation of the transportation system (see Section 4.1.5). Microscale air quality effects associated with the Puainako Extension are highly localized and do not appear to have the potential to accumulate with effects from any nearby existing activity or proposed Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-68 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 0 D Table 4-12 Prniar•tc with Pntpntial to Prndiiep (fmmilative Imnacts Project J Location/Timeframe Resources Affected/Mitigation Measures Sum of Projects That Have City of Hilo: All* [Many Impacts Prior to or not Resulted in Existing (Existing) Subject to Requirements for Housing, Facilities and Mitigation Measures] Road Infrastructure in Hilo Alenaio Stream Flood North of Project Area: Floodplains [Beneficial Impact] Control 1994-1996 Relocations [Mitigated by Compensation, etc] Mohouli Street Extension Direct Project Area: Air Quality [Beneficial Impact] 1999-2000 Water Quality [Best Mgmt. Practices Implement. 6.4 km (4.0 mi.) of New Through Water Quality Permits] 2 -lane Roadway Floodplain [Minimal Impact] Native Biota [Minimal Impact] Wetlands [Minimal Impact] Sunrise Estates Increment Adjacent Upper Portion: Water Quality [Best Mgmt. Practices Implement. 2 1999 Through Water Quality Permits] 140-150 residential lots Floodplain [Minimal Impact] Native Biota [Minimal Impact] Wetlands [Minimal Impact] Historic Sites [Probable Minimal Impact] Brilhante Subdivision Adjacent Upper Portion: [Impacts and Mitigation Similar to Above] 15-20 residential lots 1999-2002 Kaumana Homesteads Intersects Upper Portion: [Impacts and Mitigation Similar to Above] 112 1 -acre a ./resid. lots 1999: 1" Phase Saddle Road At Southern Terminus of Air Quality Improvements Project: Water Quality 2000-2010? Floodplain 78 km (48 mi.) of Native Biota. improved and/or New 2- Threat.& End. Spp [Habitat Replacement] lane Roadway Wetlands Noise Historic Sites Visual Quality Growth Induction [Limited Development Potential] Gentry Subdivision Adjacent Upper Portion: [Impacts and Mitigation Similar to Subdiv. Above] 700 sin ./multifam. homes [no current timetable] M10 Inc. Subdivision Adjacent Upper Portion: [Impacts and Mitigation Similar to Above] 40-50 single family homes no current timetable] Kupulau-Ponahawai Road Intersect Upper Portion: Air Quality [Beneficial Impact] Extension 2005? [no current Water Quality [Best Mgmt. Practices Implement. timetable] Through Water Quality Permits] Floodplain [Minimal Impact] Native Biota [Minimal Impact] Wetlands [Minimal Impact] University Expansion W. of Komohana Street: [Impacts and Mitigation Similar to Above] 100 -acre campus No current plans. Source: Hawaii County General Plan; Hawaii County Planning Department xecoros; Hawaii Mate uut Hawaii iranspornauon maseerpian (Draft, 1997); Kaumana Homesteads Final Environmental Assessment (subm. to Hawaii State Department of Land & Natural Resources, October 1998); Preliminary Drainage Study, Sunrise Estates Unit II (Inaba &Associates, 1995). * Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Floodplains, Native Biota, Threatened and Endangered Species, Wetlands, Relocation, Historic Sites, Visual Quality, Growth Induction, and others. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-69 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Noise. Noise effects associated with a highway are in general highly localized. No additional projects (e.g., airport expansion) with the potential to add to noise levels of sensitive receptors are planned in the project area. Floodplain. The upland areas of Hilo are traversed by numerous narrow, minor floodplains 0 associated mostly with ephemeral drainage systems. Although none contain substantial native vegetation, aquatic flora and fauna, or fish or invertebrates with economic or subsistence value, they do help regulate floods. Virtually all development projects in the County of Hawaii must adhere to mitigation required by Chapter 27 of Hawaii County Code. The U.S. Army Corps of D Engineers regulates any activities that involve dredge and fill in waters of U.S.. Activities involving modifications of stream channels trigger permits from the Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources. If activities include potential discharges into Waters of the U.S., the Hawaii State Department of Health must examine the project and ensure proper mitigation through permits associated with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The result of these various, sometimes overlapping permits is strict regulation of activities with the potential to adversely affect streams and floodplains. In a high -rainfall area such as Hilo, such oversight is necessary and generally sufficient to avoid adverse impacts to floodplains associated with the various n projects that are underway or planned for the region. u Native Biota. Most of the area traversed by the project area contains semi -native vegetation with fairly common species and floral assemblages. Such areas provide only marginal habitat for most native fauna, with the exception of Hawaiian hawks and bats (discussed below). Of all substrates in the Hilo area, the 1881 lava flow has the greatest native vegetation component. In the area of development in Hilo — below elevation 640 m (2,080 ft.) - the 1881 lava flow occupies about 810 ha (2,000 acres) (see Fig. 3-4 for extent of 1881 lava flow in project area). Until recently, much of this flow escaped disturbance due to its shallow, rocky soil, unsuitable O for agriculture or grazing. As of 1998, about 25 percent has been altered from its natural state. Future projects listed in Table 4-12 have the potential to convert another 8 percent. It is in this context that the Project's conversion of an additional 18 ha (44 acres), or some 2 percent of the extent of thel881 lava flow in Hilo, should be viewed. Clearing and fragmentation associated with the Project can be seen as a relatively minor effect that is part of a greater cumulative impact. However, the Project also has the potential to promote preservation of a portion of the n 1881 lava flow through its creation of a narrow buffer strip of mostly undisturbed State land �J containing approximately 10 ha (25 acres) near Kaumana Cave. This strip is bounded by Alignment 1, Kaumana Drive or the residential lots that bound it, Edita Street, and Kaumana (� Cave County Park. It is anticipated that the State of Hawaii will not develop this area, helping �J preserve the continued existence of at least some of this vegetation type in Hilo. Threatened and Endangered Species. The only endangered species found in the area are the native bat and three species of birds. The Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), or ope `ape `a, and the Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius) are both locally abundant in the Hilo area D and have been recorded within the project area. Additionally it is probable that the site is overflown by the threatened Newell's Shearwater (Puffinus newelli) and the Dark-rumped Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis). Given the mitigation specified in Section 4.2.3, the o Project's impact upon all these species is negligible, and there are therefore no adverse impacts to accumulate with those of other projects. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-70 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation E 6 4 0 Wetlands. The extent of wetlands in upland Hilo is not known precisely because their highly intermittent nature makes them extremely difficult to delineate. Conservatively, many hundreds . of hectares are present. Most are small pockets (1-2 in [3-7 ft.] in diameter) inside a gently sloping, upland matrix. They almost never form distinct botanical assemblages, and instead are 0 usually composed of facultative wetland species at somewhat higher concentrations than found in the surrounding upland matrix. Alien grasses often dominate the larger patches of wetlands. The sum of present and future projects will probably displace substantial quantities of such wetlands, although terrain alteration resulting from construction often inadvertently creates other wetlands with similar botanical characteristics. Only Alignment 2 has any substantial effect on wetlands; it is expected that mitigation measures will either replace or protect larger areas of such wetlands. 0 Relocation. Very few projects in the recent past, present or future in Hilo have resulted in displacements. The only major one was the Alenaio Flood Control Project, which resulted in less than 5 residential and business relocations. The large inventory of commercial space and housing 0 for rent or purchase at a variety of price levels provided ample sites for relocation. The five residential and one business relocation associated with Puainako would experience similar conditions. No other projects with the potential to involve relocations are foreseen. Historic Sites. Sugarcane cultivation, ranching, and construction activity of the last 150 years have destroyed most historic sites in windward Hawaii associated with prehistoric or early- 0 historic Hawaiian cultivation and settlement. The Project does not affect such sites. Archaeological sites of the type thatwould be destroyed by the Project — remnants of historic sugarcane cultivation — are present in a variety of places in Hawaii, including Hilo. In general, few such sites are planned for inclusion on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, and the total impact of projects in Hilo does not detract substantially from the historic site resources of the Hilo area or the State of Hawaii. Visual Quality. The gradual slopes of the upland Hilo area lead to subtle viewsheds. In general, sweeping views of the ocean are unusual except from elevated structures. Views of the volcanoes, particularly Mauna Kea, occur in many locations. Thus, the net effect of the new highway and subdivisions in the upper part of Hilo is to provide new vantage points for viewing these resources without degrading viewsheds through their own impacts. �-� Growth Induction. Of the list of projects in Table 4-12, only the road projects are potentially capable of inducing growth. Such induction can occur because a new road can provide a new or 0 greatly improved access that was not accounted for in regional planning, thus leading to unanticipated growth. Each listed roadway project has been a long-standing element in local and state land use and transportation plans. Therefore, whether separately or jointly, these highway projects would not induce unanticipated or unplanned growth. t Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-71 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 4.7 Secondary Impacts L� When road construction projects create or substantially accelerate new opportunities for urban 0 growth, secondary or induced physical and social impacts may also occur. These can include impacts to air quality, water quality, noise, open space, natural vegetation, historic sites, demands for public infrastructure, and other aspects of the environment. 0 Such secondary impacts are not expected to occur as a result of the proposed Project. As discussed in Section 4.5 above, the proposed highway may facilitate and accelerate development 0 that has already been anticipated for this area by the State and County. However, it would not open up new development areas that have not been identified for urban development by the County General Plan or modify the planned land use patterns. Therefore, secondary impacts would be negligible. 4.8 Overview of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential adverse and beneficial impacts of the proposed action are summarized in Tables 4-13 and 4-14. The potential impacts on each resource category are more thoroughly analyzed in the a preceding sections. The No -Build Alternative avoids many physical and biological impacts, and also avoids D disturbance to sugar cane -related historic sites. However, it fails to address the need for improved safety and traffic circulation in the project area. It may thus be argued that the impact to the social environment is perhaps greater under this alternative. The Build -Alternative would 0 entail environmental impacts in many categories, although most are mitigable to negligible levels. Traffic circulation and air quality would improve under this alternative. O For the Lower Portion, more areas of concern are impacted by Alignment B than by Alignment A. For the Upper Portion, Alignment 2 impacts the fewest areas of concern. This assessment is a useful guide to areas of concern but should not be interpreted as a rating of the relative O environmental soundness of any alternative. The table does not take into account the magnitude of the impacts and the relative importance of various categories. �J Identification and evaluation of the preferred Alternative will be made after review of the EIS by agencies, organizations and the public. Issues raised and information supplied by commenters (� will be added to the analysis. In addition, the adequacy of the Alternatives in fulfilling the �J project's purpose as well as engineering and cost estimates need to be considered. Only then will the benefits and disadvantages of all alternatives be fully evaluated and a decision made with regard to the preferred Alternative. 1 0 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-72 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 0 0 Table 4-13 Summnry of Tmnncts and Pronosed Mitigation Measures. Build Versus No -Build Impact Category No -Build Alternative Build Alternative Water Quality No impact. Impact partially mitigable through adherence to Best Management Practices. Air Quality Highest CO, NO, & HC for Highest CO, NO, & HC. for Upper Portion. Lower Portion and Komohana Lower total emissions for CO and HC. Street. Highest total CO & HC. Noise Continued growth in noise, Noise impacts to as many as 107 properties, including exceeding of Noise depending on alternatives. Impacts capable of Abatement Criteria at more than reasonable and feasible mitigation through 100 homes on Puainako Street sound -absorbing walls in part of Lower Portion and Kaumana Drive. only. No reasonable mitigation at up to 39 properties in Upper Portion. Native Flora No impact. Loss of vegetation in Upper Portion right-of- way sections; no sensitive species or ecosystems will be impacted by the Project. Native Fauna and No impact. No adverse impacts with mitigation T & E Species coordinated with USFWS. Wetlands No impact. Displacement of between 0.28 and 2.91 ha (0.68 and 7.19 acres) of potential wetlands, with mitigation Planning Fail to fulfill transportation and Fulfillment of planning goals. planning goals expressed in General Plan and other documents. Relocation No impact. Displacement of up to five homes. Relocation assistance would be provided. Community Continued poor circulation near Improved circulation at Waiakea School Facilities Waiakea School Complex. complex, but at cost of some area in school grounds and wider road for pedestrian crossing. Mitigable through pedestrian safety improvements including crosswalks, crossing signals. Floodplains No encroachment. Up to 3.2 ha (7.9 acres) of encroachment and 9 floodplain crossings. No adverse impacts to natural and beneficial floodplain values. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-73 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Table 4-13 of Tmnat•tc anti PrAnnePli Mitiantian Menmires (cont.1 Impact Category No -Build Alternative Build Alternative Visual No impact from minor Minor changes mitigable through sensitive improvements. design and landscaping. Cultural No impact. Loss of at least some of 14 archaeological sites. Partly mitigable through data recovery and/or preservation (depending upon alignment). Agricultural No impact. Loss of approximately 3.2 (7.9 acres) of Land Prime Agricultural land. Negligible in context of farmland supply. Transportation Continued and worsened Improvement in traffic circulation, shorter congestion, long travel times, travel times, increased safety. LOS of C or inefficient circulation and high better at all major intersections for all accident rate. LOS of D or turning movements at peak hours. worse at most intersections for peak hours Hazardous Waste No impact. No impact. Energy Inefficient travel leading to Efficient travel leading to decreased energy increased energy consumption. consumption. Construction No impact. Unavoidable noise, vehicle emission, traffic and access impacts. Partly mitigable through portable noise barriers (and other DOH Construction Noise Permit measures), properly tuned equipment, optimum scheduling. Economic No impact. Approximately $62.65 million in expenditures of government funds. Direct income of $25 million. Indirect and induced income of over $40 million. Direct and induced creation of more than 1000 labor years of construction, professional, retail and service jobs. State excise tax revenues of over $2.6 million and State income tax of over $2 million. Growth- No impact. No growth inducement, but Project would Inducement facilitate in -filling of existing subdivisions and might hasten development plans for zoned areas. Cumulative Impact No impact. No cumulative impacts or conflicts identified. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-74 Environmental. Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Table 4-14 Summary of Impacts for Build Alternative Alignments Wetlands 2 sq. meters (20 No wetlands. Lesser area, 0.28 Greater area, 2.91 sq. ft.) wetland ha. (0.68 acres) of ha. (7.19 acres) of nracant notential wetlands. potential wetlands. Planning Build Alternatives Impact Category Lower Portion Upper Portion Both fulfill planning goals. fulfills goals. but fulfills goals. Alignment A Alignment B Alignment 1 Alignment 2 Flood-' Encroachment of Encroachment of 2.17 ha (5.36 acres) 2.93 ha (7.25 ac) of plains 0.31 ha. (0.75 0.090 ha. (0.22 of flood zone flood zone acres), with one acres), with one encroachment, with encroachment with crossing crossing 6 crossings. 9 crossings; more - extensive crossing structures. Water Quality No difference. No difference. Minimal impacts mitigable by adherence Minimal impacts mitigable by adherence to to BMPs. BMPs. Air Quality Less effect on More effect on More effect on Less effect on nearby residences. nearby nearby residences. nearby residences. residences. 40 residences, 61 residences, 39 residences, not 20 residences, not Noise mitigable ' ' mitigable ' ' m ' i able it mitigable 4 homes 3 church buildings in common mon ali nmen t none mitigable ..................................... Somewhat less Somewhat more Native Flora No difference. native vegetation native vegetation Native Fauna and T & E No difference. Negligible impact to flora or ecosystems. No adverse impacts with mitigation coordinated with USFWS. Species Wetlands 2 sq. meters (20 No wetlands. Lesser area, 0.28 Greater area, 2.91 sq. ft.) wetland ha. (0.68 acres) of ha. (7.19 acres) of nracant notential wetlands. potential wetlands. Planning No difference. Better connection; Poorer connection, Both fulfill planning goals. fulfills goals. but fulfills goals. Relocation No difference. No homes No homes [Five homes displaced are on shared displaced. displaced. segment of Lower Portion Community No difference. No difference. No adverse effect. No adverse effect. Note: Impact degree is rated relative to alternative alignment. Mitigation is discussed in text and in Table 4-12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-75 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Table 4-14 Cummary of Tmnacts for Build Alternative Alignments (cont.) Note: Impact degree is rated relative to alternative alignment. Mitigation is discussed in text and in Table 4-12. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-76 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation BUILD ALTERNATIVES Impact Category Lower Portion Upper Portion Alignment A Alignment B Alignment 1 Alignment 2 Less impact to More impact to Visual More impact to Less impact to adjacent residents; adjacent residents, adjacent residents, adjacent residents, impacts minor and but impacts minor but impacts impacts mitigable by mitigable by and mitigable by mitigable by landscaping. landscaping. landscaping. landscaping. Cultural Impacts to 5 Impacts to 3 Impact to 1 Impact to 1 archaeological archaeological archaeological site. archaeological site. No sites, (SHPO sites. Data recovery Data recovery will further work deemed recom. 2 for is suggested mitigate. necessary. preserv., 2 for data mitigation. recovery (Shared portion: 4 sites: data recovery) Agricultural No difference. 3.2 ha (7.9 acres) 3.2 ha (7.9 acres) of Land No agricultural land. of conversion. conversion. No displaced farms. Transportation No difference. More efficient Less efficient Both fulfill transportation needs. connections, fulfills connections; but fulfills transportation transportation needs. needs. Hazardous No difference No difference Waste No impacts) No impacts) Energy No difference. More efficient Less efficient because Better energy efficiency than No -Build. because of lesser of greater length. length. Better Better energy energy efficiency efficiency than No - than No -Build. Build. Construction Less impacts of More impacts. Slightly more Less impacts because noise, emissions, impacts. of greater separation visual because of from adjacent greater separation residences. from residences. Growth- No difference No difference. Inducement (No growth inducement (No growth inducement or facilitation) or facilitation Cumulative No difference No difference Impact (No cumulative impacts identified) (No cumulative impacts identified) Note: Impact degree is rated relative to alternative alignment. Mitigation is discussed in text and in Table 4-12. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-76 Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation a, Section 5: DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 9 D O O D 5 DRAFT SECTION 4(o EVALUATION D5.1 Introduction The material in this section complies with and is submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c), 49 U.S.C, 303, and 23 U.S.0 138 [referred to as Section 4(f)]. These requirements apply to all actions or projects undertaken by agencies of the U.S. Department of Transportation. D The purpose of Section 4(f) is to ensure that special efforts are made to protect public parks and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. The law states that the OSecretary of Transportation shall approve a project which requires the use of publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site of D significance only if (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to such use and (2) the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource being used. The Federal Highway Administration, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation DOfficer (SHPO - the agency with jurisdiction over the potential 4(f) properties), has determined that 4(f) properties in question consist of two archaeological sites which have been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and important for preservation in place within one of the alternative alignments. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Hawaii County Department of Parks and Recreation and the Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources has determined that no public parks, public recreation areas, or wildlife/waterfowl refuges would be affected by any of the alternatives considered for the project (see Appendix Al for consultation letters with these agencies). D5.2 Section 4Q) Resources Present D The 4(f) evaluation is applicable to the project because alternative Alignment A would impact two archaeological sites which have been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and important for preservation in place. The Section 4(f) resources which would be affected by Alignment A are both complexes of structures including enclosures, �J mounds and platforms related to 19th and 20th century sugar cane agriculture. (� Figure 5-1 illustrates the location of Sites 18914 and 18915. Table 5-1 provides the �J characteristics of both site complexes and individual features within each site. E5.2.1 Site 50-10-35-18914 Resource Description Site 18914 is a complex of twelve features consisting of five platforms, four mounds, two modified outcrops, and one linear terrace covering an area of roughly 5,555 mz (60,000 ft). Elevation at the D site is approximately 85 in (280 ft.) above mean sea level. All site features are interpreted as being associated with historic sugar cane cultivation. All site features are believed to be the result of clearing land for cane cultivation, with subsequent use of three of the features for landing ramps and one as a D Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5-1 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation F L possible foundation for a water tank. The site is located within land belonging to Waiakea Sugar Company designated as a cane lot in 1925. Appendices E1 and E2 describe the site in more detail. The Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) uses criteria from 36 CFR Part 60 to evaluate the significance of archaeological sites and make mitigation and preservation recommendations. The site was evaluated as an excellent site type (Criterion C) in addition to having information potential (Criterion D). Impact on the Resource Build Alignment A of the Lower Portion would pass directly through this site complex and destroy at least some of the features. Avoidance Alternatives Avoidance alternative considerations consist of the following: o Build Alignment B could be selected instead of Build Alignment A. o Shifting Alignment A to the north or south is technically feasible but would entail destruction of existing facilities and archaeological sites. To the south is a large water tank facility of the Hawaii County Department of Water Supply, as well as a number of unsurveyed archaeological features which would require survey. To the immediate north are additional archaeological features, and further north are more archaeological features and the Komohana Agricultural Extension Complex, the headquarters for a number of University of Hawaii agricultural agencies and offices. Because this measure would involve extraordinary disturbance to exiting facilities and would probably not avoid impacting archaeological sites, it is considered not prudent. o The No -Build Alternative would avoid all disturbance to these and other sugar cane - related archaeological sites. However, this alternative would not accomplish the project purpose and need. Mitigation Measures Alignment B would effectively avoid impacts to archaeological sites requiring preservation in place. Since selection of Alignment B avoids the archaeological sites deemed important for preservation in place and is both prudent and feasible, Section 4(f) requires that it be selected. 5.2.2 Site 50-10-35-18915 Resource Description Site 18915 is a complex of nine features consisting of an enclosure, four mounds, and three platforms, all of which are concentrated in an area measuring roughly 3,500 m2 (38,150 ft 2) Elevation at the site is approximately 92 in (300 ft.) above mean sea level. The site is associated Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5-2 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation F t IIS �I 'EXISTING KOMOHAI STREET BRIDGE ROADWAY ALTERNATIVE A kiwi 11 11 SITE 18915 FEAS. A -I AREA ,f -SITE 189 LOCATION OF HISTORIC SITES 18914 & 18915 5=1 PROJECT pUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION DATE HILO, HAWAII 8/19/ II 92014/M / .EIS/F5-1 DWG/SUIS 1=1 UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII 0 100 200 scale in meters 0 250 500 scale in feet t Page 5-3 Table 5-1 Archaeological Sites Reauirinu Pre.wrvatian Site No. No. (50-10- *Feat. of Size Interpreted 35) Name Feat. Architectural Type (sq. m.) Function Significance Recommended 18914 -- 12 Complex of -- Historic C,D P Structures Agriculture A Rectangular 34 Clearing/Foundat platform ion B Rectangular 50 Clear/ramp platform C Irregular mound 25 Clearing D Irregular mound 34.5 Clearing E Linear terrace 55 Retaining Wall F Rectangular 66 Clear/ramp platform G Irregular mod. 1092 Clearing outcrop H Curvilinear mod. 62.5 Clearing outcrop I Irregular 49.2 Clearing platform 3 Rectangular 32.2 Clearing mound 4 Rectangular 54.2 Clear/ramp platform 5 Circular mound 0.7 Clearing 18915 -- 9 Complex of -- Historic C,D P Structures Agriculture A Oval enclosure 112.5 Clear/foundation B Linear terrace- 20 Railroad bed mound C Rectangular 42 Clear/ramp platform D Rectangular 3.5 Clear/ramp mound E Rectangular 42 Clear/foundation platform F Rectangular 46 Clearing platform G Rectangular 13 Clearing mound H Oval platform 45 Clear/foundation I Irregular mound 29.5 Clearing Source: Appendix E2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5-4 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation U 0 & A with historic sugar cane cultivation and contains two features (A and B) that are likely related to the railroad once used to haul cane from the fields. Feature B is probably a section of the actual railroad bed as evidence by the presence of in situ railroad ties, its raised; flat surface and the presence of concrete as a foundation for infrastructure associated with the rail. The other site features are believed to be associated with clearing the land for cane cultivation, with subsequent use as landing ramps and foundations for water tanks. The site is located within what was Ddesignated a Waiakea Sugar Company cane lot in 1925. Figures 3 and 4 of Appendix E2 show one of the permanent railroad lines that passed through the area. The site has been evaluated as an excellent site type (Criterion C) in addition to having information potential (Criterion D). Impact on the Resource Build Alignment A of the Lower Portion would pass directly through this site complex and probably necessitate destruction of all features. n Avoidance Alternatives UAvoidance alternative considerations consist of the following: o Build Alignment B could be selected instead of Build Alignment A. o For the same reasons described in Section 5.2.1, above, horizontal realignment of Alignment A is not prudent. o The No -Build Alternative would avoid all disturbance to these and other sugar cane - related archaeological sites. However, this alternative would not accomplish the project Upurpose and need. r j Mitigation Measures LJ The selection of Alignment B would effectively avoid impacts to archaeological sites requiring apreservation. 5.3 Section 4(f) Conclusions 0 Alignment B would effectively avoid impacts to archaeological sites requiring preservation in place. Since Alignment B avoids the archaeological sites deemed important for preservation in Oplace and is both prudent and feasible, Section 4(f) requires that it be selected. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will continue to coordinate Section 4(0 efforts with the State Historic Preservation Division and other agencies that have an interest in or jurisdiction over Section 4(f) resources. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5-5 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation After the final selection of an avoidance Alternative, a detailed mitigation plan will be developed by FHWA and DPW in consultation with the SHPO, as specified in the SHPO's letter of 15 July 1996 (see Appendix Al). This detailed mitigation plan would establish procedures that ensure adequate protection of the site's resources and monitoring of the area during construction. The detailed mitigation plan will be included in the Special Contract Requirements for the project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5-6 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation a, Section 6: RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER POLICIES AND LAND USE PLANS a 0 0 0 6 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER POLICIES AND LAND USE PLANS 6.1 Hawaii State Plan The Hawaii State Plan was adopted in 1978 and was revised in 1986 and again in 1991 (Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 226, as amended). The Plan establishes a set of goals, objectives and D policies that are meant to guide the State's long -run growth and development activities. The proposed project is consistent with State goals and objectives that call for increases in employment, income and job choices, and a growing, diversified economic base extending to the aneighbor islands. The sections of the Hawaii State Plan most relevant to the proposed project are centered on the D theme of facility systems. The following objectives and policies are taken from the section dealing with transportation (Section 226-17 as amended, HRS). E1. Objective al: An integrated multi -modal transportation system that services statewide needs and promotes the efficient, economical, safe, and convenient movement of people and goods. El 2. Objective a2: A statewide transportation system consistent with planned growth objectives throughout the State. CE 3. 1 Policy b 1: Design, program, and develop a multi -modal system in conformance with desired growth and physical development as stated in this chapter. 4. Policy b6: Encourage transportation systems that serve to accommodate present and Ell future development needs of communities. 5. Policy b9: Encourage the development of transportation systems and programs which would assist statewide economic growth and diversification. 6. Policy b10: Encourage the design and development of transportation systems sensitive to the needs of affected communities and the quality of Hawaii's natural environment. Discussion: The proposed project closely matches the specific intent of these policies. The highway is meant to accommodate present needs while anticipating future needs, and it would help in the ultimate O connection of East and West Hawaii. The balance between such goals and environmental and community costs and benefits is considered in the EIS. 0 6.2 Hawaii State Functional Plans The Hawaii State Plan contains 12 separate Functional Plans which deal with specific areas of C concern. The 1991 revision of the Functional Plan for Transportation has several objectives, policies, and implementing actions which are relevant to the project. El Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-1 Relationship to Other Policies and Plans 1. Objective LA: Expansion of Transportation System 2. Implementing Action I.A. Laaa: Improve regional mobility in areas of the state experiencing rapid urban growth and road congestion. 3. Objective 1.C: Management of existing transportation systems through a program of transportation system management. 4. Polic�1.G_2: Conduct maintenance work to minimize disruption to the general public. Discussion: The proposed project clearly fulfills the goal of increasing mobility in areas experiencing growth and congestion. The Puainako Street Widening and Extension has been identified in many county and state planning documents as a vital link. The proposed project does not fulfill Objective 1.C, although it does not preclude other actions that might fulfill the objective. Restrictions on construction schedules including avoiding peak hours and construction during the school year near the Waiakea School Complex will minimize disruption to the public, per Policy 1.G.2. 6.3 State Land Use Districts All land in the State of Hawaii is classified into one of four land use categories --Urban, Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation --by the State Land Use Commission. The Lower Portion of the project is entirely Urban. West (mauka) of Komohana Street, the designation is Agriculture. No Petition to Amend State Land Use District Boundaries is anticipated or necessary for the project. 6.4 Hawaii County General Plan The General Plan for the County of Hawaii is a policy document expressing the broad goals and policies for the long-range development of the Island of Hawaii. The plan was adopted by ordinance in 1989. The General Plan is organized into thirteen elements, with policies, objectives, standards, and principles for each. There are also discussions of the specific applicability of each element to the nine judicial districts comprising the County of Hawaii. The section most relevant to the proposed project deals with transportation. Transportation Goals: 1. Provide a transportation system whereby people and goods can move efficiently, 0 safely, comfortably and economically. 2. Make available a variety of modes of transportation which best meets the needs of the County. a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-2 Relationship to Other Policies and Plans U E 0 0 0 3. Provide a system of thoroughfares and streets for the safe, efficient and comfortable movement of people and goods between and within the various sections of the County. 4. Provide an integrated State and County system so that new major routes would ocomplement and encourage proposed land uses. Transportation Policies: 0 1. A framework of transportation facilities which would promote and influence desired oland use shall be established by concerned agencies. 2. The agencies concerned with transportation systems should provide for present traffic and future demands, including mass transit programs for high growth areas. 0 3. The improvement of transportation service shall be encouraged. Specific Course of Action 1. A realignment of the Saddle Road from the Forest Reserve boundary on the south side 0 of Kaumana Drive and along the north side of Puainako Street, intersecting the present Puainako alignment at Kinoole Street and continuing to the intersection of Kanoelehua Avenue should be constructed. Limited access control is recommended with intersections at the major cross arterials serving the various areas of the city. Discussion: 0 The proposed project is consistent with the County's General Plan and Zoning Map. D Consequently, the roadway would not prematurely encourage development of areas not presently anticipated for development. However, the project would support the ongoing development activities both in the Waiakea and Kaumana areas as circulation patterns improve. 6.5 General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Maps and Facilities Man 1 t 1 t County Planning Designations The General Plan for the County of Hawaii is a policy document expressing the broad goals and policies for the long-range development of the Island of Hawaii. The plan was adopted by ordinance in 1989. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map component of the General Plan is a graphic representation of the Plan's goals and policies. The Facilities Map of the General Plan identifies existing and proposed roads and existing facilities. These Maps together establish the basic urban and non -urban form for areas within the planned public' and cultural facilities, public utilities and safety features, and transportation corridors. The Puainako Road Extension links areas identified as High- and Medium -Density Urban in the lowland (makai) portion to areas identified as Medium- and Low -Density Urban at higher elevations, as well as land slated for Urban Expansion. The proposed project is thus an appropriate corridor for Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-3 Relationship to Other Policies and Plans traffic between areas designated as urban. The Facilities Map (effective date 14 November 1989) explicitly identifies the Lower Portion of Puainako Street as a primary arterial to be improved. n The Upper Portion of the proposed project is designated as a planned primary arterial. U 6.6 Hawaii Countv Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance The Hawaii County General Plan is the basis for Ordinance No. 63, the County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted in 1967. Zoning maps (portion duplicated in Figure 6-1) show the project as a secondary arterial street of a 37 -meter (120 -ft.) wide right-of-way. Note that the roadway indicated on the map is only an approximation of the path of the Puainako Extension, the ultimate alignment of which can only be determined through considerations of O design, environmental impact, and land ownership. The zoning of areas crossed by the proposed project are either Residential (RS -15) or a Agricultural (A -la, A -3a, A -10a, and A -20a). Nearly all ,of this land would ultimately be developed as either urban or agricultural/residential lots, for which the proposed project would be both appropriate and convenient. a 6.7 Hilo Communitv Development Plan The Hilo Community Development Plan, developed by the County Planning Department in 1975 u and still in effect, identifies planning priorities for the Hilo area (Belt, Collins and Assoc. 1975). The Puainako Road Extension is explicitly identified as an integral part of the Transportation a Plan of Hilo (lbid:90). 6.8 Island of Hawaii Long Range Highway Plan a The Island of Hawaii Long Range Highway Plan (IHLRHP) was prepared in 1991 for the State Department of Transportation and the County of Hawaii Departments of Public Works and Planning, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The purpose of the study was to identify major highway corridors that would require roadway improvements to accommodate traffic demands projected for the Year 2010. O The widening of Puainako Street, between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street, and the extension of Puainako Street, from Komohana Street to Kaumana Drive, are ranked Nos. 17 and 19 on Tier 1 of the priority listing. This plan is currently under revision by the State DOT. The Puainako Extension remains a priority project for the island of Hawaii. 6.9 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) The purpose of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (U.S.C. 1451-1464) is to preserve, protect, develop and where possible enhance the resources of the coastal zone. All projects with federal involvement that significantly affect areas under the control of the State O Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-4 Relationship to Other Policies and Plans U kTV; :l PACIFIC OCEAN U P -P E R I L 0 W E R P 0 R T 1 0 N 0 RT Ido N HILO BAY w Ffr, RIGHTS- OF- WAY AND ZONING 'PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION e` HILO, HAWAII A -1a RS -10 STREET < RS -15 RS -15 N i Y 0 1 2 scale in kilometers 0 4000 8000 DATE scale in feet 10/26/98 LELEIW GENERAL LYMAN FIELD LEGEND EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY ---- PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ---- FUTURE WIDENING RS RESIDENTIAL (MIN. PERMISSIBLE LOT SIZE, IN THOUSANDTHS OF SQUARE FEET) A AGRICULTURE (MIN. PERMISSIBLE LOT SIZE, IN ACRES) Page 6—S a� A -1a 120' R.O.W.— A -3a EX7FN9p1� i a< A-, ` . _ '} PROJECT LIMITS - A -20a < / A-ta/ I3 A -3a DRIVE / A -IN Id A -20a b m -1a KPUV.PNN- A_1a O A -to / ALTERNATNE I rWCNMFM /1 / A -20a \ / m A -10a < A -20a m \ A -20a / / -;j$0 `ALTERNATNE 5 AJONMENT /2 y _q i ` P V A -,Oa RIGHTS- OF- WAY AND ZONING 'PROJECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION e` HILO, HAWAII A -1a RS -10 STREET < RS -15 RS -15 N i Y 0 1 2 scale in kilometers 0 4000 8000 DATE scale in feet 10/26/98 LELEIW GENERAL LYMAN FIELD LEGEND EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY ---- PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ---- FUTURE WIDENING RS RESIDENTIAL (MIN. PERMISSIBLE LOT SIZE, IN THOUSANDTHS OF SQUARE FEET) A AGRICULTURE (MIN. PERMISSIBLE LOT SIZE, IN ACRES) Page 6—S Coastal Zone Management Agency must undergo review for consistency with the State's approved coastal program. The entire State of Hawaii is included in the coastal zone for such purposes. The objectives of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program are the following: Recreational Resources: Provide coastal recreational opportunities accessible to the public. Historic Resources: Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore those natural and man- made historic and prehistoric resources in the CZM that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture. Scenic and Open Space Resources. Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal scenic and open space resources. Coastal Ecosystems. Protect valuable coastal ecosystems from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems. Economic Uses. Provide public or private facilities and improvements important to the State's economy in suitable locations. Coastal Hazards. Reduce hazard to life and property from tsunami, storm waves, stream flooding, erosion, and subsidence. Managing Development. Improve the development review process, communication, and public participation in the management of coastal resources and hazards. The Project does not impact these coastal zone resources and appears to be consistent with the objectives of the program. In accordance with consultation the State Coastal Zone Management Program, this Draft EIS will be included as part of the materials submitted by the Hawaii State Department of Transportation to the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program for CZMA consistency review. 6.10 Required Permits and Approvals Several permits and approvals would be required to implement this project. They are listed here under their granting agencies: United States Department of the Army a. Section 404 Permit (see Section 4.2.2) Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-6 Relationship to Other Policies and Plans Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program a. Coastal Zone Management Program Consistency Review (see Section 6.9) State Department of Health a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (see Section 4A. 1) State Department of Land and Natural Resources a. Stream Channel Alteration Permit (see Section 4.1.3) Countv Department of Public Works a. Permits for Excavation of Public Highway, Grading, Grubbing, and Stockpiling b. Permits for Outdoor Lighting C. Permits for Electrical Work County Planning Department a. Permit for Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6-7 Relationship to Other Policies and Plans EQ t 1 11 r. r C 0 Section 7: CHAPTER 343, HRS FINDINGS �a O a O 7 CHAPTER 343 FINDINGS O7.1 Probable Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects Chapter 343 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) is the basis for the environmental impact process in the State of Hawaii. The implementing regulations for this law, Title 11, Chapter 200 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), contains the following requirements: O §11-200-170): The draft EIS shall include a separate and distinct section a description of the relationship between local short-term uses of humanity's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. §11-200-17(k): The draft EIS shall include in a separate and distinct section a Odescription of all irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.... §11-200-17(n): The draft EIS shall include a separate and distinct section that summarizes unresolved issues.... O This chapter addresses these requirements of the State of Hawaii EIS law. OIf a Build Alternative is selected, the project would create limited adverse environmental impacts which cannot be fully mitigated by the measures planned to be implemented at the site. The following two lists include those short-term and long-term impacts that are expected to be unavoidable. Refer to Chapter 4 for full explanation of impacts, mitigation measures and comparison among alternatives. 7.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Short -Term Impacts (—? 1. Negligible temporary increases in soil erosion would result from construction operations, and a negligible amount of soil would be carried off-site in surface runoff water. 2. Operation of construction equipment, trucks, and worker vehicles may temporarily impede traffic in the area during the construction period. 3. Negligible release of air contaminants would occur from construction equipment. Small amounts of dust may be generated during dry periods as a result of construction operation. 4. The visual character of the area would be affected by construction activities and by the presence of construction equipment. I-1 5. Noise levels would increase during construction activities. 7.1.2 Unavoidable Adverse Long -Term Impacts O 1. Soils would be disturbed by grading, excavation, and mounding activities at the site during construction. Since soil cover on the site is very sparse, soil would be imported Draft Environmental Impact Statement 7-1 Chapter 343 Findings U D to cover cleared and graded land for planting landscaping materials, except for areas left in natural vegetation. n 2. Modifications to the current topography would be made at the site to accommodate U project development. 3. Approximately 3.0 to 4.5 ha (7.4 to 11.1 acres) of early successional native scrub forest along the proposed roadway from Komohana Street to Country Club Drive will be destroyed by the project. Depending on the alignment chosen, up to approximately 2.9 n ha (7.2 acres) of wetlands along the project corridor may be lost. l� 4. Noise levels would increase in the Upper Portion and in the Lower Portion between Kawili Street and Kilauea Avenue. Depending on the success of mitigation efforts and the exact route of the final alignment, noise levels might actually decrease along Puainako Street between Kawili and Komohana Streets. n 5. Archaeological sites associated with sugar cane cultivation would be destroyed. If Alignment B is selected for the Lower Portion, no sites considered for preservation would be destroyed. 6. Approximately 3.2 ha (7.9 acres) of Prime Farmland would be converted. 7.2 Relationship Between Short -Term Use of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity ( j No short-term exploitation of resources that would entail negative long-term consequences has ��JJ been identified for a Build Alternative. All substantial adverse impacts resulting from the project D are capable of mitigation to minor levels using reasonable measures. The principal long-term �J benefit is the decrease in traffic congestion and increase in safety and efficient travel that would be made possible by the proposed project. Air quality would also improve relative to the No - Build Alternative. 7.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources The construction and operation of the proposed roadway system would involve the irretrievable commitment of certain natural, social and fiscal resources. Major resource commitments include n land, money, construction materials, labor and energy. In addition, approximately 32 ha (79 t� acres) of natural or semi -natural vegetation would be lost, along with 2.9 ha (7.2 acres) of wetlands, 3.2 ha (7.9 acres) of Prime Farmland. At least 8 archaeological sites would be impacted, and 5 dwelling units would be displaced. The impact of using these resources should, however, be weighted against the economic benefits to the residents of the County and State and the consequences resulting from taking no action. The commitment of resources required to accomplish the project includes labor and materials which are primarily nonrenewable and irretrievable. The operation of the project would also include the consumption of petroleum -derived fuels, which also represents an irretrievable commitment of resources. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 7-2 Chapter 343 Findings `J 4 7.4 Unresolved Issues The Project was granted a provisional Department of the Army Nationwide Permit for Dredge and Fill in the Waters of the U.S on September 10, 1996. This permit lapsed on January 21, 1997. An updated application for a Department of the Army Permit is being prepared concurrently with this EIS. If Alignment 1 is selected, a Nationwide Permit is expected to be issued, with mitigation consisting principally of Best Management Practices. Alignment 2 would require an individual permit, and mitigation is not yet specified. Draft Enviromnental Impact Statement 7-3 Chapter 343 Findings fil IF, L F, L L L Section 8: LIST OF DOCUMENT PREPARERS S � O O D 8 LIST OF DOCUMENT PREPARERS This EIS wasre ared for the County of Hawaii by Okahara and Associates jointly with Y. K. p p Hahn and Associates. The following individuals were involved: D Co -Consultant Okahara and Associates 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Masa Nishida, P.E. B.S. California Polytech, Civil Engineering, 1971 Civil Engineer P.E. Civil Engineering Brach, State of Hawaii 1974 Co -Project Manager Allan Simeon B.S. University of Hawaii; Civil Engineering, 1993 Civil Engineer Project Engineer DCo -Consultant Y.K. Hahn and Associates 1180 Kumuwaina Place Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Youngki Hahn M.A. The Ohio State University, Economics 1964 Co -Project Manager Ph.D. University of California Riverside, Economics, 1971 DSub -Consultants Ron Terry B.A. University of Hawaii Hilo, Geography 1980 EIS Consultant Ph.D. Louisiana State University, Geography, 1988 Principal Investigator DY. Ebisu, P.E. M.S. University of Hawaii, Elect. Engr. 1965, 1969 Acoustic Engineering P.E. EE Branch, State of Hawaii Grant Gerrish B:S. Ball State Univ., Biology, 1974 Botanical/Ecological Ph.D. University of Hawaii, Botanical Science, 1988 DTerry L. Hunt B.A. University of Hawaii Hilo, Anthropology, 1976 Archaeology Ph.D. University of Washington, Anthropology, 1989 D Sherry Miller B.S. University of Hawaii Hilo, Geography, 1990 Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Statement 8-1 List of Document Preparers D William L. Moore B.A. Beloit College, Economics, 1974 Land Use Planning Barry Neal B.S., M.S. University of Hawaii, Meteorology, 1976 Air Quality Certificate, American Meteorological Society, 1990 Randy Okaneku, P.E. B.S., M.S., University of Hawaii, Civil, Okaneku and Associates Engineering Transportation 1976, 1978 Traffic Engineering M.B.A., University of Hawaii, 1987 Certificate in Planning Studies, UH 1978 Robert L. Spear Ph.D. University of Oregon Scientific Consultants, Inc. Anthropology/Archaeology, 1986 Archaeology Fred Stone M.S. Cornell University, Entomology, 1964 Zoology Ph.D., University of Hawaii Manoa, 1983 Reginald David B.S. Biology, University of Denver, 1972 Biology Draft Environmental Impact Statement 8-2 List of Document Preparers 2 NO 0 J Section 9: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 9. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION a 9.1 Project Organization aThe Federal Highway Administration and the State Department of Transportation are serving as joint lead agencies to prepare an EIS in compliance with both NEPA and State requirements. aThis document is being prepared in cooperation with Hawaii County. 9.2 Agencies Contacted The following list includes governmental agencies that have been contacted as part of the planning and analysis process for the preparation of this Draft EIS. County of Hawaii o Planning Department o Department of Water Supply o Fire Department (� o Police Department �J o Department of Parks and Recreation o County Council aState of Hawaii o Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Water and Land Development o Department of Health (� o Department of Human Services U o Department of Education o Department of Agriculture Federal Agencies D o Department of the Army o Pohakuloa Training Area Headquarters o U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service oo U.S. Geological Survey o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers o Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service aAn extensive list of these agencies as well as other organizations and individuals received the federal Notice of Intent (NOI) (copy included in Appendix Al) and the State Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement. a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 9-1 Consultation and Coordination a 9.3 Public Involvement The coordination efforts leading to this document began with the preparation of a State U Environmental Impacts Statement consistent with Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statues, relating to Environmental Impact Statements. Subsequent to the acceptance of this EIS by the Governor O of the State of Hawaii in December 1993, the County of Hawaii, in consultation with the State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration determined that federal funding may be appropriate for this project, accordingly, an EIS consistent with the National D Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was required. At the same time, the State EIS was proposed 1J to be revised to ensure it was consistent with certain adjustments to the project alignment. Accordingly, the coordination efforts for this project began in 1992 with the publication of the U EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) in the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) Bulletin. E The following is a chronology of the formal coordination events which have been conducted as part of the preparation of this document: D o An EISPN was published in the OEQC Bulletin on February 23, 1992 to announce the intent to prepare an EIS and provide a description of the project, potential impacts, and D description of the alternatives being considered. o The EISPN was mailed to responsible agencies, including Federal, State and County agencies having jurisdiction over or information or expertise relevant to the contents of the study. A 30 -day comment period was provided to agencies to submit comments on the scope of the EIS. The EISPN was also mailed to key community organizations, (� environmental groups and other individuals with an identified interest in the project. u A total of eight responses were received. These comments were noted and addressed in the preparation of the State EIS. o As part of the initial scoping effort, a public meeting on this project was conducted on July 20, 1992. Over eighty (80) people attended this meeting with approximately seventeen (17) people providing written or oral comments on the proposed project. A copy of the transcript of this scoping meeting is attached as Appendix A. o Distribution of the draft State EIS began on May 29, 1992, with publication of its availability on the OEQC Bulletin. This document was distributed to key federal, State, and County agencies as well as to interested individuals and groups. Comments were 0 received from the following: Federal Agencies D U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Department of the Navy U,S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS) Draft Environmental Impact Statement 9-2 Consultation and Coordination Li State Agencies Office of Environmental Quality Control Housing Finance and Development Corporation State Department of Transportation O Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism State Department of Health State Department of Defense Department of Accounting and General Services Ll L� State Historic Preservation Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources State Land Use Commission Office of State Planning County Agencies Planning Department DPaula Individuals/Organizations De Morales, Hawaiian Language Teacher, Waiakea High School Environmental Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa aJoseph David Paul, Student Naturalist, University of Hawaii at Hilo (UF" Valente, University of Hawaii at Hilo graduate William H. Wilson, Chair, Hawaiian Studies Program, UHH Michael Larrish, Ho`oikaika Research Committee December 19.93, Governor Waihee accepted lying with the ted the State EIS, complying o In De P p n requirements of Chapter 343, H.R.S., relating to Environmental Impact Statements. o Publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on January 12, 1995 to announce the intent to prepare an EIS in accordance with the requirements of the (� Federal Highway Administration environmental requirements and the National U Environmental Policy Act. o An EISPN was published in the OEQC Bulletin on August 8, 1995 to announce the intent to prepare an EIS consistent with the proposed Federal EIS and to provide a description of the project, potential impacts, and alternatives under consideration. o The EISPN was mailed to responsible agencies, including Federal, State and County agencies having jurisdiction over or information or expertise relevant to the contents of the study. A 30 -day comment period was provided to agencies to submit comments on O the scope of the EIS. The EISPN was also mailed to key community organizations, environmental groups and other individuals with an identified interest in the project. Ten responses were received. These comments were noted and addressed ' in the preparation of the EIS. Copies of the comments and responses to the Preparation Notice for the Revised EIS is Oattached as Appendix Al. In addition to the formal coordination, a variety of public participation activities have been (� conducted over the course of the engineering and environmental studies. This included meetings u Draft Environmental Impact Statement 9-3 Consultation and Coordination 0 0 e 4U O with community organizations, Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate School and University of Hawaii at Hilo officials, environmental groups, and impacted residences, business and churches. Furthermore, as part of the research for this project, meetings were conducted with residents and interested individuals within the Waiakea (lower Puainako area) and Kaumana (upper Puainako a area). Parents and students of Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate Schools were also contacted to determine their concerns on and thoughts about the project. 9.4 Chronology of Consultation and Coordination The following is a list of the key consultation and coordination events conducted over the course (� of the studies leading to this document. These are in addition to the formal agency coordination U correspondence listed above. o A Public Information Meeting held on the project at Waiakea Intermediate School Cafetorium, with approximately 80 attendees and representatives of the County. July 20, 1992. n u o Series of mail -out surveys and focus group meetings with Waiakea residents, parents of children attending Waiakea Intermediate and Elementary Schools, and Kaumana residents. Autumn 1992. o Field trip to area of project corridor near University of Hawaii at Hilo with Ho`oikaika Hawaiian Awareness Club, to view archaeological features and discuss treatment and (� mitigation. July 29, 1993. 1� o Coordination meeting with the Chancellor of the University of Hawaii at Hilo. July 29, 1993. U o Meeting with members of Ho`oikaika at the University of Hawaii at Hilo Campus Center to take input and answer questions about the project's potential impact on historic sites. August 3, 1993. U U o Kaumana Community Council sponsored a meeting on the project, at Kaumana Elementary School. September 8, 1993. o Second field trip with Ho`oikaika and other interested parties to archaeological sites near University of Hawaii at Hilo. November 8, 1993. o Field visit with members of the State Historic Preservation Division on, to archaeological sites. November 28, 1993. U o Town meeting conducted by State .Representative JerryChang at Hilo High School Cafetorium to cover transportation issues in Hawaii, focussing on the Puainako Widening and Extension Project. November 10, 1993, o Meeting with University of Hawaii at Hilo administration officials regarding archaeological sites and land issues. June 8, 1994. o Town meeting conducted by Councilman James Arakaki on the project. December 14, 1994. Draft Environmental Impact Statement 9-4 Consultation and Coordination LJ 0 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 0 .9-5 Consultation and Coordination o Field visit to Kaumana Cave with Dr. Fred Stone of Hawaii Community College. April 29, 1995. o Meeting with nearby businesses concerning relocation and right-of-way acquisition at oOkahara & Associates conference room. September 11, 1995. o Meeting with Board of Directors of Kinoole Baptist Church on right-of-way taking. September 11, 1995 o Meeting with potential displaced residents at the University of Hawaii at Hilo Campus Center. September 11, 1995 O o Meeting with the Principals of Waiakea Elementary and Waiakea Intermediate Schools. September 25, 1995. o Meeting on November 12, 1995, with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific D Operation Division, to coordinate on wetland issues. o Meeting of Upper Kaumana Community Council on Puainako Extension and Saddle Road projects, Kaumana Elementary School. January 15, 1996 o Meeting of Waiakea Elementary School PTA on Puainako Extension at Waikea Elementary School on February 20, 1996 o Presentation to Upper Kaumana Council on May 13, 1997 no Presentation to Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce on July 2, 1997 U o Community meeting at Kaumana School on November 20, 1997 o Community meeting at Hilo High School on November 25, 1997 0 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 0 .9-5 Consultation and Coordination 'IV J Section 10: DEIS DISTRIBUTION LIST IJ 10 DEIS DISTRIBUTION .LIST Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS) U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Pacific Area U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance OU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Protection Agency State Agencies Office of Environmental Quality Control Housing Finance and Development Corporation Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism State Department of Health State Department of Defense Department of Accounting and General Services State Historic Preservation Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources Commission on Water Resources Management Division of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Department of Land and Natural Resources State Land Use Commission Office of State Planning University of Hawaii at Hilo, Chancellor's Office County Agencies Planning Department CE Police Department Civil Defense Agency Hawaii County Council �j Individuals/Organizations Paula De Morales, Hawaiian Language Teacher, Waiakea High School (� Environmental Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa U Michael Larrish, Ho`oikaika Research Committee Hawaii State Library Hilo Public Library 0 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 10-1 DEIS Contribution List U Section 11: INDEX �9 O 0 O 0 11 INDEX 0 AcceptingAuthority......................................................................................................... S-1, 1-1 AccidentRates...................................................................................................... S-1, 1-10, 1-12 Agricultural Land.............................................................................. S-11, S-13, 3-29, 3-42, 4-50 Air Quality...................................................................... S-7, S-8, S-13 3-8, 3-18, 4-10, 4-62, 7-2 AlenaioStream................................................................................................................3-5, 3-8 Alternatives, Description................................................................................. S-5, 2-1, 2-4, 2-13 Alternatives Considered and Withdrawn from Further Consideration ............. S-5, 2-1, 2-14, 2-15 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)..........................................................................2-5, 4-59 Archaeology (see also cultural resources and historic sites).........................3-36, 4-42, 4-47, 4-48 0 ..................................................... S-1 1-4 2-5 3-42 3-46 4-57 4-59 Bicycles .................. , 4-60 Coastal Zone Management Act.............................................................................. S-14, 3-7, 6-4 Consistency with Plans......................................................................... S-12, S-14, 2-3, 4-37, 6-6 Construction -Phase Impacts ................................................. ............................... S-13, 2-5, 4-61 Costs.............................................................................................................. S-6, 1-4, 2-13, 2-16 �J Cultural Resources...............................................................................................S-13, 3-36, 4-47 Cumulative Impacts............................:........................................................ S-9, S-11, S-13, 4-67 0 Energy Impacts............................................................................................ S-9, 5-11, 5-13, 4-60 EnvironmentalJustice............................................................................................................3-29 Fauna.................................................................................................. S-8, S-13, 3-26, 4-34, 4-35 Floodplams.................................................................................... S-8, S-10, S-12, S-15, 3-5, 4-4 (� Flora................................................................................................... S-8, S-10, S-12, 3-12, 4-31 �J Funding Sources.............................................................................................................. S-5, 1-1 Geology............................................................................................................................3-1, 4-1 Growth -Inducing Impacts............................................................................ S-9, S-11, S-13, 4-66 U Hazardous Waste................................................................................ S-9, S-11, S-13, 3-46, 4-60 U High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (HOVL)........................................................................2-4, 2-15 nHistoric Sites (see also cultural resources and archaeology) .................. S-13, 3-36, 4-2, 4-47, 5-1 Land Use Planning 3-28, 4-37, 6-1 LeadAgencies.......................................................................................................... S-1, 1-1, 9-1 Level of Service (Traffic)....................................................................... S-1, S-13, 1-7, 4-53, 4-55 MassTransit................................................................................................... $-5, 2-1, 2-4, 2-16, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit ............................... S-15, 4-7, 4-61, 6-7 Noise.................................................................................. S-7, S-8, S-101 S-13, 3-10, 4-15, 4-63 0 s Draft Environmental Impact Statement 11-1 Index U Pedestrians............................................................................................ S-8, 5-12, 1-7, 3-43, 4-57 Public Services/Community Facilities..................................................................5-18, 3-35, 4-44 n Relocation.................................................................. S-8, 5-10, 5-12, S-14, 2-3, 2-14, 3-31, 4-38 Schedule.......................................................................................................................... S-6, 1-4 SecondaryImpacts.................................................................................................................4-72 State Historic Preservation Officer/Division (SHPO/D) ................ 5-11, 5-14, 3-36, 3-39, 4-48, 5-1, 5-6 Stream Channel Alteration Permit........................................................................... 5-15, 4-6, 6-7 Streams............................................................ S-7, 5-12, 5-13, 3-4, 3-7, 3-8, 3-21, 4-47 4-7, 4-33 n Traffic U Along Project Corridor................................5-1, S-5, S-9, 5-11, 5-13, 1-7, 3-42, 4-57, 4-64 Regional...................................................................................... S-1, 1-1, 5-14, 3-42, 4-54 Transportation Systems Management/Travel Demand Management (TSM/TDM)... S-5, 2-4, 2-14 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers............ 5-12, 5-14, 5-15, 2-1, 3-20, 3-22, 4-33, 4-35, 6-6, 9-1, 9-5 U U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Service ..................................... 5-12, 2-1, 3-12, 3-18, 3-26, 4-37, 5-1, 9-1 U U.S. Geological Survey.........................:....................................................................3-1, 9-1, 9-2 U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service...............................................3-26, 3-42, 4-50, 9-1 Vegetation..................................................................................... S-6, S-8, 5-10, 3-12, 4-31, 7-2 n Visual Resources....................................................................... S-9, 5-11, 5-12, S-13, 3-35, 4-45 }` Water Quality...........................:...................................................... S-7, S-8, 5-10, 3-7, 4-7, 4-61 Waiakea Stream/Flood Control Channel .................................................... S-5, 2-6, 3-5, 3-22, 4-5 O Wetlands............................................................................. S-8, 5-10, 5-12, 3-20, 3-22, 4-33, 7-2 U Draft Environmental Impact Statement 11-2 o Index REFERENCES Baker, H.L. 1976. Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii. University of Hawaii at Manoa College of Tropical Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Circular 496. Honolulu. D Belt, Collins and Associates. 1975. Hilo Community Development Plan. Hilo: Hawaii County Planning Dept. (� Belt, Collins and Associates. 1984. AN Highway Project, Kailua-Keauhou, Final Environmental Lj Impact Statement. Prep. for Hawaii County Public Works Dept. Honolulu: State Dept. of Transportation. 0 Cutter, Susan L. 1995. "Race, class and environmental justice." Progress in Human Geography, 19 (1): 111-122. DDudley, W. 1991. Final Report: Distribution and Dispersion of Sewage Pollution in Hilo Bay and Contiguous Waters. Hilo: University of Hawaii at Hilo. Federal Register. 1990a. "Endangered & threatened wildlife and plants." 50 CFR 17.11 & 17..12. April 15, 1990. Federal Register. 1990b. "Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant taxa proposed for listing as endangered or threatened species; Notice of review." 50 CFR Part 17. GFeb. 21, 1990. Gagne, W. and L. Cuddihy. 1990. "Vegetation," pp. 45-114 in Wagner, W.L. et al., eds. Manual U of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. 2 vols. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. U Hawaii County Department of Public Works. 1997. Final Environmental Assessment for OMohouli Street Extension. Hilo: County of Hawaii. Hawaii State Commission on Water Resources Management (CWRM). 1990. Draft. Hawaii OStream Assessment: A Preliminary Appraisal of Hawaii's Stream Resources. Prep. for CWRM by Hawaii Cooperative Park Service Unit. Honolulu; National Park Service. Hawaii State Department of Transportation (DOT). 1991. Hawaii State Plan, State Functional Plan: Transportation. Honolulu: State DOT. OHawaii State Department of Transportation (DOT). 1991. Island of Hawaii Long Range Highway Plan. Rept. prep. in coop. with Hawaii County Depts. of Public Works and Planning and U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Hawaii State Department of Transportation (DOT). 1994. Bike Plan Hawaii. A State of Hawaii Master Plan. Honolulu: DOT. a Draft Environmental Impact Statement R-1 References u 0 Hawaii State Office of State Planning (OSP). 1991. Hawaii State Plan. Prep. by Office of State Planning. Honolulu. Hawaii Water Resources Regional Study. 1979. Hawaii Water Resources Plan. Honolulu: State DLNR. Heliker, C. 1990. Volcanic and Seismic Hazards on the Island of Hawaii. Washington: U.S. GPO. O Hoch, H., and F.G. Howarth. 1993. "Evolutionary dynamics of behavioral divergence among populations of the Hawaiian cave -dwelling planthopper Oliarus polyphemus (Homoptera: Fulgoroidea: Cixiidae). Pacific Science 47(4):303-318. Macdonald, G.A., A.T. Abbott, and F.L. Peterson. 1986. Volcanoes in the Sea: The Geology of Hawaii. 2nd ed. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. McEldowney, H. 1979. Archeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design, D Lava Flow Control Study, Hilo, Hawaii. Prep. for U.S. Army Corps Engineer Div., Pacific Ocean. Honolulu: Anthropology Dept., B.P. Bishop Museum. Neal, M.C. 1965. In Gardens of Hawaii. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 50. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. } St. John, H. 1973. "List and Summary of the Flowering Plants in the Hawaiian Islands." Pacific u Tropical Botanical Garden Memoir 1:1-519. Lawai, Hawaii: Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden. n Stone, C.P., and J.M. Scott (Eds.). 1988. Hawaii's Terrestrial. Ecosystems: Preservation and U Management. Cooperative National Park Service (NPS) Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii. Honolulu: NPS. Transportation Research Board. 1985. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. O Washington: U.S. GPO. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MI.: Department of the Army. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal (� Lands Highway Division. 1997. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Saddle Road (State Lj Route 200). Washington, D.C: USDOT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Hawaii (Region H). Biological Report 88(26.13) U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 50 CFR 17.11 & 17.12. October 13. Draft Environmental Impact Statement R-2 References 0 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered and Threatened Species; Review of Plant and Animal Taxa. 50 CFR Part 17. September 19. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Washington: U.S. GPO. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Hawaii. Honolulu: USSCS. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Dept. of Geography. 1983. Atlas of Hawaii. 2nd ed. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. 2 vols. B.P. Bishop Museum Spec. Pub. 83. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Draft Environmental Impact Statement R-3 References 0 J TECHNICAL APPENDICES nue" DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING AND EXTENSION C HILO HAWAII OKAHARA & ASSOCIATES, INC. DECEMBER 1998 0 0 LIST OF APPENDICES U Appendix AI: Comments by Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Appendix A2: Transcript of Public Meeting, 20 July 1992 Appendix B: Vegetation and Wetlands Habitat Report Appendix C: Vertebrate Fauna Report Appendix D: Kaumana Cave Report Appendix El.- Archaeological Inventory Survey, Hunt and McDermott 1993 Appendix E2: Supplemental Archaeological Inventory Survey, Robins and Spear 1995 Appendix F: Drainage Report Appendix G: Traffic Report Appendix H: Water Quality Study Appendix 1: Preliminary Engineering Design and Costs Summary C Appendix J: Farmland Conversion g Impact Rating Documentation p Appendix K: Acoustic Study Appendix L: Air Quality Assessment Appendix M: Tax Map Key and List of Owners for Affected Properties APPENDIX Al COMMENTS BY AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS C� C A -a O D. Hibbard (DLNR-SHPD) to D. Kiyosaki (DPW) 9/23/93 OD. Hibbard (DLNR-SHPD) to M. Larish (HHAC) 1/20/94 D. Hibbard (DLNR-SHPD) to D. Kiyosaki (DPW) 5/20/94 D. Hibbard (DLNR-SHPD) to D. Kivosaki (DPW) 7/20/94 R. Smith (DPW) to D. Hibbard ((DLNR-SHPD) 1/5/95 M. D. Wilson (DLNR) to M. Nishida (O & A) 9/22/95 D. Kiyosaki (DPW) to P. Burns (HHAC) 12/19/95 J. Robbins (SCS) to P. McCoy (DLNR-SHPD) 1/25/96 D. Hibbard (DLNR-SHPD) to R. Spear (SCS) 2/28/96 D. Hibbard (DLNR-SHPD) to J. Robbins (SCS) 3/22/96 S. Lee (DLNR-DLM2) to P. Burns (H IAC) 7/3/96 S. Lee (DLNR-DLM) to County of Hawaii Historic Preservation Division, DPW 7/3/96 D. Kiyosaki (DPW) to S. Lee (DLNR-DLM) 7/11/96 D. Hibbard (DLNR-SHPD) to D. Kiyosaki (DPW) 7/15/96 D. Kiyosaki (DPW) to D. Hibbard (DLNR-SHPD) 7/8/98 Section 4(f) OD. Kiyosaki (DPW) to G. Yoshida (DPR) 6/23/98 D. Kiyosaki (DPW) 6/23/98 to C.E. Unoki (DLNR-DLM) 6/23/98 G. Yoshida ((DPR3) to D. Kiyosaki (DPW) 6/26/98 C.E. Unoki (DLNR-DLM) to D. Kiyosaki (DPW) 3/7.98 Unable to Complete Review of 1993 Inventory Survey Concerning Oral History Information Review of 1993 Inventory Survey Review of Revised 1993 Inventory Survey Response to Review of Revised 1996 Inventory Survey Comments on Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN) Information Concerning Selection of Alignment List of Suggested Revisions to 1996 Inventory Survey Comments on Revised 1996 ffiventot-v Survey Inventory Survey Report Comments on Revisions to 1996 lnventory Survey Acknowledgment of Letter from HHAC Request for Review and Comment on HHAC Letter Comments on HHAC Letter Summary Update of Reviews of Surveys Comments on Revised Alignment 1; Additional Inventory Survey near Pamoho Place Request for Map Showing Boundaries of Kaumana Cave County Park and for Determination of Impact Request for Information Concerning State Lands Traversed by the Project Project Not Anticipated to Adversely Impact Kaumana Cave Park Site No Section 4(f) Impacts to State Lands Comments in Response to EISPN and NOI: Other Correspondence J. Harrigan-Lum (HDOH4) to "Those Persons Requesting Comments on Land Use Documents 12/14/94 Notice of Reduced Staff G. Gill (OEQC) to D. Kiyosaki (DPW) 8/7/95 Comments on Notice of Intent S. Nakamura (USDA) to D. Kiyosaki (DPW) 8/8/95 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating D. Kiyosaki (DPW) to "Resident" 8/15/95 Notice of Potential Impact to Residence and Announcement Of Meeting 11 Sept. 1995 W.G. Carvahlo (Hawaii County Police Department) to Ron Terry (Geometrician) 8/15/95 Response to Request for Traffic Accident Information W.G. Carvahlo (Hawaii County Police Department) to M. Nishida (O &A) 8/22/95 Response to EISPN H.M. Aizawa (DOE') to M. Nishida (O & A) 8/29/95 Comments on Revised Preparation Notice ' Ho`oikaika Hawaiian Awareness Club 2 Department of Land and Natural Resources -Division of Land Management O 3 County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation 4 State of Hawaii Department of Health 5 United States Department of Agriculture D. Kiyosaki (DPW) to J. Iwata (HDOT) 8129/95 L. Miike (HDOH) to M. Nishida (O & A) 9/12/95 M. Nishida (O & A) to M. Larish (HHAC) 9/20/95 P.M. Hamamoto (HDOT) to Ron Terry (Geometrician) 9/20/95 M. Wilson (DLNR) to M. Nishida (O & A) 9/22/95 M. Wilson (DLNR) to M. Nishida (O & A) 10/5/95 V. Goldstein (HCPD2) to M. Nishida (O & A) 10/22/95 J. Jenner (DOE) to W. Moore (O & A) 2/24/96 State of Hawaii Department of Education 2 Hawaii County Planning Department Confirmation of Meeting with Property Owners on 1 I Sept. 1995 Comments on EISPN Response to Comments on EISPN Response to Request for Traffic Accident Information Comments on EISPN Additional Comments on EISPN Comments on Revised Preparation Notice Thank -you -letter for Talking to Parents at Waiakea Elementary School t Federal Reuist� `� Vol. fit), N-.+. 8 r hhursdov: lwmary application in person at the Blue Grass Airport. Issued in Ntentphis. Tennrssev, on January 5, 1995. OPeggy S. Kelley, Abrin er. Airports DistrictOffice, Soathc•rn Region. IFR Doc. 95-4i98 Filed 1-11-95: 8.45 anil BILLING CODE 4910-13-41 Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Hawaii County, HI AGFNCY: Federal Highway Administration (FH\VA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Intent. ' SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepftred for a proposed highway project. in Hawaii County, Hawaii. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Cook, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. Box 50206, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850, Telephone: (808) 541-2700. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation and the OCounty of Hawaii Department of Public Works will prepare an environmental impact statement (EiS) for a proposed widening and extension of a portion of Hawaii State Highway 2000, Puainako Street. The proposed project will provide a highway connection between the Saddle Road (State Highwav 200) and State Highway 11. TKe project entails (1) realignment and widening of the existing Puainako Street from 2 to 4 Innes; and (2) construction of a 2 -lane (future 4 -lane), 4.6 -mile extension of Puainako Street from Komohana Street, in a westerly din.ction, to Country Club Road in Kadmana. The purpose of this project is to improve arterial traffic flow of the State Highway System by providing a direct link between the existing Puainako Street (Highwav 2000) and the Saddle Road (Highwav 200) and to alleviate congested and unsafe traffic conditions on Kaumana Drive, Alternatives being evaluated, include the "no project" alternative and two alternative alittnnu+nts. - Nilm.0 elu�1 Flt+li+H 111if I1IIIIIIIONIt tl.11lill and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies and to private organizations 0and citiz::ns who have expressed Interest ill this project. Interagency scoping aleetings will he held as requil-rd. To ensure that the full range of issues relating to the proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning the proposed action should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic.Assistance Program Number 20.205 Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372. regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) %fichaei A. Cook, Division Administrator, Honolulu, Hawaii. IFR Doc. 95-786 Filed 1-11-95: 8:45 anil. BILLING CODE 4910-22+1 Environmental Impact Statement: Williamson and Travis Counties, Texas. AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact -Statement will be prepared for a proposed new location highway project in Williamson And Travis Counties, Texas.. FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT: John Mack, P.E., Federal Highway Administration, Room 850, Federal Building, 300 East 8th Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Sharon Barta, P.E., Advanced Froject Development Engineer, Texas Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 15426, Austin, Texas 78761-5426. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:: The FHWA, in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT),. will prepare an.Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to construct the northern segment of State Highwav 1.30, an approximately 138,4 kilometer (86 mile) controlled access highway to be located parallel to and east of Interstate -35 and the urbanized areas Austin, San Marcos, and New Braunfels in Central Texas, The northern segment (Segment A) of the, proposed State Highway 130.extends from the junction of Interstate 35 and State Highway 195 north of Georgetown in Willinrnson County Texas, to L1.5: I ti6hway `autl bnot lit Auelin III 1'1-avie. Countv, Texas. The length of the project varies, depending on the selected alternative, from approximately 43.5 kilometers (27.0 miles) to 45.9 kilometers (28.5 miles). The proposed action is intended to provide improved access and increased mobility to e) e):) Ne,tte es 141'. - urbanized areas in the proposed corridor, hole support planncei b -111e - and residential Growth in various areas throughout the project corridor: prop ic'.c needed freeway access from surrounding areas to the proposed Austin Bergstrom International Airport: provide an alternative route to drivers desiring to bypass the contral business areas of Austin. Round Rock. Georgetown, San Marcos, and Nev: Braunfels, thereby relieving existing congestion on Interstate 35. Alternatives to the proposed action to be discussed in the EIS consist of (1) taking no action; and (2) improving existing roadways in the urbanized areas of Williamson and Travis Counties. The build alternatives.include multiple alternative alignments along new location rights-of-way connecting Interstate 35 to U.S. Highway 290. impacts caused by the construction and operation of State highway 130 will vary according to the alternative alignments utilized. Generally, impacts would include the following: Transportation impacts (construction detours, construction traffic, and mobility improvement); air and noise impacts from construction equipment and operation of the roadway; water quality impacts from construction areas and.roadway stormwater runoff; impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands from right-of-way encroachment; and impacts to residents and businesses dire to potential relocations. 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 interest in the proposal. A Major Investment Study is being completed in compliance with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. Public meetings were hold on October 25, 1994, at Everett Williams Elementary School in Georgetown Texas, and on October 27, 1994, at Manor High School.in Manor, Texas, at which public comments on the proposed action and alternatives were requested. In addition, a public hearing will be held after publication of the Draft EIS. Public notice. will be given of the time and place of the hearing. The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and r.omtt+rnt prior to tha puhllu 1laariII9. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed.action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions collcerninc this proposed action and the EiS should he C C 0 r 0 APPENDIX Al SECTION 404, WETLANDS 9 O DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, HONOLULU FORT SHAFTER, HAWAII 96858-5440 REPLY TO ATTENTION Of Planning Division August 22, 1995 Mr. Masahiro Nishida, P.E. Okahara and Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Nishida: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Impact Statement and Revised Preparation Notice (EISRPN) for the Puainako Street Widening and Extension Project, Hawaii. The following comments are provided pursuant to Corps of Engineers authorities to disseminate flood hazard information under the Flood Control Act of 1960 and to issue Department of the Army (DA) permits under the Clean Water Act; the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. a. Based on the information presented in the EISRPN dated August 3, 1995, a site visit, and additional information obtained from Grant Gerrish (subconsultant to Okahara & Associates), we have determined that waters of the U.S. will be impacted by either of the proposed alternative routes; therefore, a DA permit will be required. Please contact Ms. Kathy Dadey of our Regulatory Branch at (808) 438-9258 for further information and refer to file number P095-132. b. The flood 'hazard information presented on page 16 of the EISRPN is correct. Sincerely, ay H. Jyo, P.E. Director of Engineering Stephen K. Yamashiro Mayor July 23, 1996 O JNt Y'os M1 O g ` Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Chief Engineer Jiro A. Sumada O Deputy Chief Engineer V�Uurtfv laf DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Screec, Room 202 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961.8321 • Fax (808) 969-7138 LTC RALPH H GRAVES DISTRICT ENGINEER US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HONOLULU DISTRICT BUILDING 230 FORT SHAFTER HI 96858 ATTN: KATHLEEN DADEY OPERATIONS DIVISION C SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ARMY PERMIT FOR PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION AND WIDENING PROJECT HILO HAWAII The County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works requests the issuance of an Army Permit as prescribed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the above project. An application information dossier has been prepared by our consultant, Okahara and Associates, Hilo. This dossier has been submitted under separate cover directly to Kathleen Dadey, Environmental Engineer, Operation Division. Our points of contact are: County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works: Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, P.E., Chief Engineer 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (808) 961-8321 Okahara and Associates: Masahiro Nishida, P.E., Engineering 200 Kohola Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 f808) 961-5527 Grant Gerrish, Wetlands Consultant Box 282, Laupahoehoe, Hawaii 96764 (808) 962-6957 DONNA FAY K. KIYOSAKI, P(E' Chief Engineer RY:mlm cc: o ara & Associates, Inc. COP"'Y ORIGINAL FILED IN----- --- --------------- -.........._ O O AU406-96 TUE 09:26 O PULV TO ATTENTION OF Operations Branch 672,' FAX N0, 99T-"335 P, 01 Ms. Donna F. Kiyosaki Chief Engineer Department of Public Works County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear M,. Kiyosaki: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. 3. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, HONOLULU FT. 3HAFTER, HAWAII "838.5"0 August 5, 1996 This is to inform you that we received your July 211996 request for authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States in Hilo, County and State of CHawaii and have determined that your application is complete. We are currently processing the application and propose to authorize the work under the Corps Nationwide permit (NWP) authority at 33 CFR 230 Appendix A. Paragraph B.26 (NWP # 26, Headwaters and Isolated Waters Discharges). File Number 9500100132 has been assigned to this project. Please refer to this number in any future correspondence. If you have further questions regarding this matter, feel free to call Kathleen Dadey of my staff at 438-9258, extension 15. Sincerely, J Rosemary C.11argrave Acting Chief, Operations Branch. CPTION.0 COAM ae r' 0m FAX TRANSMITTAL �.� __ `Tb: NGF3 To ��' 1 Fro Fa: A Fax t F,K: N 14a--P�cr/tl/L= O O DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ?] U. S. ARMY ENGINEER OISTRICT. HONOLULU FT $RAFTER. HAWAII 96858-5440 REPLY TO ATTENTION Of September 10, 1996 Operations Branch Ms. Donna F. Kiyosaki Chief Engineer Department of Public Works 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Ms. Kiyosaki: J 10 2 1996 ~ COPY ORIGINAL FILED IN........... ............ ........-_...._ This is in response to your application for a Department of the Army (DA) permit for discharge of dredged or fill material associated with widening and extending Puainako Street, Hilo, County and State of Hawaii. Based on the information you provided, we have deterrnined that roadway Alignment 1, as well as either Alignment A or B, can be authorized by the Corps Nationwide permit (NWP) authority at 33 CFR 230 Appendix A, Paragraph B.26 (NWP #26, Headwater and Isolated Water Discharges) and no further Department of the Army processing is necessary. In accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's 'Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines at 40 CFR 230, a preliminary alternatives analysis indicates that Alignment 2 may not be authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act because a practicable alternative (i.e., Alignment 1) exists that appears to have less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem, without having other significant adverse environmental consequences. The DA permit will be valid only after you obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or waiver thereof, from the State Departmentof Health and a Coastal Zone Management Federal Consistency Determination, or waiver, from the Office of State Planning. Until these approvals, or waivers, are received, we are issuing you a "Provisional Nationwide Permit" for the proposed work. If the state issues the certifications or Wzivers.. this, antho.rizaticin will take e a',e:-t irarn tl;c laser issuance date; and will remain valid until the nationwide permit is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the nationwide permits are scheduled to be modified, reissued or revoked prior to January 21, 1997. At that time, you are responsible for consulting with this office to confirm that your project still complies with the specifications and conditions of NWP #26, including changes or revisions. Please note that if you commence, or are under contract to commence the proposed activity before the date that NWP #26 is modified or revoked, you will have 12 months from the date of the modification or revocation to complete the activity under the existing terms and conditions. if the state denies either approval for the proposed project, then this NWP will be denied without prejudice. Attached are excerpts from the regulations which include the conditions o; the NWPs for Your information and compliance. In addition, we are adding the following special conditions: O O I . You must provide adequate drainage, through the use of culverts or other systems, in the stream channels and wetland areas. C2. Significant earth -moving activities must occur only during periods of no or low rainfall. You must make every effort to conduct constructi through September). on activities during the "dry season" (May 3. You shall conduct construction activities in a manner as to minimize and control erosion and sedimentation. You must install silt containment devices, as appropriate, and revegetate any exposed or excavated banks as soon as practicable. 4. Fill and other construction materials must be clean, uncontaminated and be free of deleterious substances, including toxic chemicals, debris, and fine-grained material. 5. You must take particular care to ensure that no petroleum products, trash or other debris enter the water. 6. No construction or excavated ma'.trials shall be stockpiled in the aquatic environment. 7. You must submit a written final compliance report to this office within completion of the authorized project. The final report must include, as appropriate, des npt on of the construction activities, discussion(s) of any deviations from the proposed project design and the cause of these deviations, results of environmental monitoring, discussion(s) of any Onecessary corrective action, and photographs documenting the progress of the permitted work. File Number 950100132 has been assigned to this project. Please refer to this number in any correspondence with us. Feel free to contact Ms. Kathleen A. Dadey of my staff at (808) 438-9258, extension 15 f you have any questions. Sincerely, Rosemary C. Hargrave Acting Chief, Operations Branch Enclosures Copy Furnished (w/o encl.): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI DBEDT, CZM Program Office, Honolulu, H1 Department of Health, Clean Water Branch, Honolulu, HI State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI County of Hawaii Department of Public Works, Hilo, HI Department of Planning. County of Hawaii, Hilo, HI O Okahara and Associates, Hilo, HI Y.K. Hahn and Associates, Hilo, HI Dr. Grant Gerrish. University of Hawaii at Hilo, Hilo, HI GENERAL CONDITION for any authorization by a nS' The following general conditions must be followed 1. Navigatationwide pe „ it to be valid: in order navigation. O ion. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on 2. Proper maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety. 3. Erosion and siltation controls. be used and maintained in effective operating Appropriate erosion and siltation controls must exposed soil and other fills must be p g condition during construction, and all Permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. - 4. Aquatic life movements. jv those species of aquatic life indigenous otthetwaterbod Y ma substantially disrupt the movement of normally migrate through the area, unless the activit ,s Y' including those species which water. activity,sPrimary purpose is to impound 5. Equipment. Heavy equipment working i other measures must be taken wetlands must n to minirrtize soil disturbance. be placed on mats or 6. Regional and case-by-case conditions. regional conditions which may The activity must comply with any specific conditions added b y have been added by the division engineer and any case y the Corps. 7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. N Wild and Scenic o activity may occur in a component of the National River System; or in a river officially designated by Congress as river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river i Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may l a "study and the U.S. Forest Service. stn he official study status. y be obtained from the National Park Service 8. Tubal rights. No i activity or its operation may impair reserved including, but not limited to, ren p tribal rights, served water lights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. 9. Water quality certification. In certain states, an individual stat certification must be obtained or waived. e water quality 10Coastal Zone management. In certain states, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurT ncemust be obtained or waived. 1 1- Endangered species. No activity is authorized under an to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered Proposed for such designation, as identified under Y NWP which is likely ospecies ora species which is likely to destroythe Federal Endangered Species Act, or Non- federal permittees shall notifydtherpiStrictt modify the critical habitat of such species. Non- oincer if any listed species or critical habitat O O O ►Tright be affected or is in until notified b the the vicinity of the project and shall not begin work on the have been satisfied andsthatttheg neer that the re qui of the Endangered Species ,Act O threatened and endangered 'v'tY is authorized. Information on the locati Fish and Wildlife Serviced species and their critical habitat can be obtained fro on of Service and the and Marine Fisheries Service. m the U.S. 12. Historic properties. eligible for list- No activity which may g, in the National Register of Y affect Historic properties listed, or District Engineer has complied h Historic Places is authorized, until the prospective permittee t not with the provisions of 33 C must notify the District si FR 325, appendix C. The any historic properties listed Engineer if the authorized activity has reason to believe , determined to be eligible, or which theprospective may affect and shall not be may be eligible for listing e gin the activityu g on the National Register of Historic Places, National Register of nt*1 notified by the listed, or eligible for listing, in th National Historic pr Historic Places by the District Engineer that the Preservatiaveon g e Information on the location and existence f hisbeen toric requirements of the and that the activity is authorized. State Historic Preservation Office and the Natio °nc resources can be obtained from National Register of Historic Places. the 13. In issuing Nationwide ing t authorizations, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the-follow a. Damages to the PerrrLitted unperrnitted activities or from natural causes. Project r uses thereof as a result of other Permitted mated or Ob• Damages to the operations undertaken b permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future y or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c• Damages to persons stn'ctures caused by the activitiesrauthorized rto other permitted or unpermitted activities or y a Nationwide permit d. Damage claims revocation of this a associated with any future modification, suspension, or permit. 14. In addition, you are advised that: a. Nationwide permits do not obviate the need to ohtai authorizations require, h y lau . n other Federal, SIX, b• Nationwide permits do not grant any Property rights or exclusive prtviledges. c• Nationwide perrrtits do not authorize any in u to others. ' J ry the property or rights of d. Nationwide permits do not authorze interference Federal project. i e with any existing or proposed O -z- Section 404 Clean Water Only Conditions In addition to the General Condition he following conditonlO to activities that involve the discharge of dredged or fill material andtons must bel followed in order for authorization by the nationwide permits to be valid: 1. Water supply intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake except air of where the discharge is for re the public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization. p 2. Shellfish production. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production, unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by Nationwide permit #4. 3. Suitable material. No discharge of dredged or fill material may consi ita st of unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, etc.) and material discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. 4. Mitigation. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on-site), unless the District Engineer has approved a compensation mitti ation plan for the specific regulated activity. g 5. Spawning areas. Discharges in spawning seasons must O maximum extent practicable. be avoided to the 6. Obstruction of high flows. To the maximum extent practicable, discharges must not permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the waters). primary purpose of the fill is to impound 7. Adverse impacts from impoundments. If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts passage of water and/or the restriction of on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated extent practicable. its flow shall be minimized to the maximum 8. Waterfowl breeding areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migrato waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. ry 9. Removal of temporary (ills. Any temporary fills must be entirety and the affected areas returned to their Preexisting aevation removed in their O J' Stephen K Yamashiro O Mayor March 31, 1997 OO ('�,o 'Y� `; : , �y�.gonna Fay K Kiyosaki �tChief Engineer 'r r�rF,oi,N►��' AT ku'aultty of'aftlaii DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 • Hilo, Hawaii 967204252 (808)961-8321 • Fax (808)961-8630 CHIEF OF OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT HONOLULU OPERATIONS BRANCH FT SHAFTER HAWAII 96858-5440 File Number: 950100132 SUBJECT: REQUEST REAUTHORIZATION LETTER OF NATIONWIDE PERMIT (NWP) #26 FOR PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION AND WIDENING OPROJECT, HILO, HAWAII Jiro A. Sumada Deputy Chief Engineer The Department of the Army authorized the above referenced construction at Puainako Street in your letter of September 10, 1996. In accordance with that letter, we are requesting that your office notify the County of Hawaii that our Provisional Permit has been reauthorized, following the reissuance of NWP #26 in January, 1997, and of any changes to the conditions of our permit. Application procedures are under way or have been completed for Water Quality Certification and for Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination. Construction is scheduled for fiscal 1998. Please contact our environmental consultant, Grant Gerrish, at (808) 962-6622 if you have any questions. FAY K. KIYOSAKI, P.E. Chief Engineer cc: ENG NRon Terry Grant Gerrish 0 Okahara & Associates, Inc. JUN- 1 -9C 11b : 35 FROhI : r'ED H 1 G1- WAY 1 D : e0^c 541 2704 PAGF2 2,k UNITED STATES ENVIRONMeNT AL PROTECTION AGENCY Fy?4t� REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street el�G'jVi-�l O CA 941 San Francisco, 05-3901 Richelle M. Suzuki June 11, I998 J U.S. Department of Transportation 199$ Federal Highway Administration +, Hawaii Division 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3202 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear Ms. SuzuLx The Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the information provided in your letter dated April 22, 1998, concerning the proposed Puainako Street Extension and Widening Project, Your letter req rested our 0 i e f^vl=;` 11113 iters pursuant, t the NTEPA,�14.04 Integration Process for Surface Transportation Projects' the State of Haw, ailTemorandum of Understanding (MOLT). In that letter your agency indicated that the preliminary preferred alternative would impact approximately 0. 75 acres of wetlands which meets the eligibility criteria for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide 26 Permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The other alternative alignment to be evaluated in the DEIS would impact approximately 7.3 acres of wetlands, and would require an individual Corp pen nit under Section 404 of the Clean Water act: NEPA purpose and need/404 basic and overallpJro'ec:t Criteria for alternative selection; purpose; • Project alternatives to be evaluated in the draft EIS; and • Preliminary preferred alternative, in conformance with the NEPA/404 MOLT, ,fx.e are pleased to concur with the information provided by the FHWA concerning the overall project purpose and need; criteria for alternative selection; the project alternatives to be evaluated within the DEIS; and designation of a preliminary preferred alternative for the Puainako Street Extension and Widening Project. We appre6ate your efforts in providing inform —or, in ktc,�pin..r with the NEPA%404 MOU. 1 look forward to reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,'Report. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (415) 744--i 522 Sincerely, Mar H. Bartholomew Life Scientist cc: ACOS (George Young) FW S (Brooks Harper) 0 IMOT (Xazu Hayashida) 1'ri%.fed on RccvrA- 1i2per JUN-! Jb rkUM - r1_L) '1ll;H- qAY 0 q ', ~P4 O 4� Y dri�cs O� h O Richelle M. Suzuki Transportation Engineer U, S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Hawaii Division 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Room 3202 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear Ms. Suzuki: I0:6OP 541 2704 PAGE 1 UNITED STATS .S -"DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL PMARNE F!SHERIES SERV! -E Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 p� �) Long Beach, California 90802-4213 , ECFjyED June 16, 1998 i,U Im V V. 1 aw/1 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NN1FS) has reviewed the Draft FIS and Alternatives Analysis for the Puainako Street Extension and Widening Project, South Milo, Hawaii. We offer the following comments for your consideration. ONQS believes the proposed project will have a minimal impact on those resources wider our jurisdiction_ Therefore, at this time, we will not participat<. in the project evaluation under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOT) between our two agencies. We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed proj(ct. Should you have any questions, please contact me (973-2940) at our Pacific Islands Area Office in Honolulu. OPTIONAL FORM 99 (7.90 FAX TRANSMITTAL •aoap�s► �, Fax f Fax i USN *f$40-01-317-7368 5099.101 GENERAL Since.rely, Cn J. Naughton Pacific Islands Habitat Coordinator JJI•l-iS-�5 1-i:-iG FRON;FE[i�-1iC.Hvr'i tit. M4jiO y. s�•x ay STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 069 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 G : C�D -k 1 BENJAMIN J. CAYE_'TANO G011SRi&-/A Mr. Abraham Y. Won--- Division oriQDivision Administrator LT. S. Department ofTrausportation Fed4 zral Highway Adnninistration Box 50206 Honolulu, Havvaii 968-50 Dear Mr. �V- ong: Subject: Puainalco Street Extension and'W idening Project NEPA - Section 404 Integration Process REi/EIVO ii (i. , .; , 998 UWADMMV KAZU HAYASnIDA DIRECTOR DEF t w DIRECTORS SR:AJN K. MINAAI GLENN M. OK1tAQ T :) 0 IN REPLY REFER TO: FiIN-Y-PA 2.90» Pursuant to our meeting of May 5, 1998 azad our rcview of the project's altema6ve analysis report, We concur with the NEPA purpose and need1t04 basic and overall project purpose, the cri_eria for altemat'Ve selection, and the alternatives to be e�•atuated in the draft EIS. We also concur on the designation of Upper Puainako AU-=iernt 1 connecting to .Lo,ver Puainako B as the preliminary preferred altemative for this project. Triazik you for coordinating, this effort among the signatory agencies. Vezti- truly yoi;rs, KAZU HAY4SHIDA Director of Transportation C)POnONAL FORM 99 (i-$0) FAX TRANSMITTAL I Fr xn To �G^� �.r v Ptwnd • t i0+ O L SERJGE. ADfAiWSTFtATK)N O FROM : GEOMETRICIANPHONE N0. 9625E31 O JUN -25-9e 14.22 FPOM:Fin „-iw)At RL -PLY TO AT(EW10M OF operations Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY %j. S. ARMS' eNG1?geER O(STCetCT. HONOLULU ". SHAFTER, K$-WA11 *9!8-5140 June 18, 199E 2,1s. Richelle M. Suzuki V.S, Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Hawaii Division 30o Ala Moana Boulevard, Roam 3202 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear Ms. Suzuki: JUN. 25 1996 03:27RM F�Z R E_yVED *'Uy' 2 3 1998 ofTCHAL FOW 99 t'-93) FAX TRANSMITTAL. 22� To 'Pe V 06WAg-cy scup., a1 one it 51-1k�3O F&X I. I am writing this letter regarding Puainako Street Extension and widening Project located in Hilo, Hawaii. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for Surface Transportation Projects in the State of Hawaii applies to the project and the Corps Krill be a cooperating agency. O Although a Department of the Army (DA). perm' --t ander the Nationwide Permit #26 has already been issued for Alternative 1, (which has been identified as the least damaging practicable alternative) ,..the preliminary draft environmental impact statement indicates that other alternatives will have -to be reviewed. Therefore, should the --preferred alignment be other than alternative 1, the Corps will process a DA permit application for that alignment. 'Furthermore, the Corps concurs that the information provided on the overall purpose and need for the project as well as the information in the draft 404 (b)(1) alternatives analysis is adequate. Should you have any questions on this matter you may call Ms. Lolly Silva of m-- staff at 438--9158„ rxter._sjon 17. Please refer to file nuwber 984000220. Sincerely, s George P. ng, E. chief, Operations Branch OCopies furnished: U -se Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, Hawaii a.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Honolulu, Rawai,i FROM : GEOMETRICIAN I x UUN-2S-3S 14,22 FROM;FECOCHWAYPHONE NO. : 9825831 JUN. 25 199E 03:27PM JUN -25-98 14 = 22 FROM :FED CHNAY 41 2,/04 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REG10m Ly P. a- BOX S0003 001101114 HAWM yarn Richelle Suzuki Federal Mghways Administration PO Box 50206 Honolulu, M 96854 Dear Ms Suzuki: June 19, 1998 O RECENM "112 2 2 1998 sAwAR MMX This letter is to c%orzfirm our Phone conversation today regarding the alternatives for the Puainako Street Extension and Widening, South HIO. I have received a neap showing locations of streams and potential wetlands for upper Puain$ko alternatives, Based on this information, EPA supports the latest revised Alternative Alignmew #1 which minimizes stream crossings and cha=elaation. We look forward to reviewing any new information on wetlands irrl Alignment 41 in the Drag Environmental Impact Statement. P for Alternative Please call me at (808)541-2752 if YOU have fuer questions. Sia eiy, i endy , Ph.D. Pacific ands Contact Office cc: David Carlson George Young O r,i:cd o. RecKka pax, n I States Dep -U Amen: -)f the Ritenior FISH _�N_D WILDLIFE SERVICE, PACIFIC 1' — — _SLANOSS _;i� NWANA, 1�01UE,1':� R_D. 3-12-�, EC)?; 31111083� HONOLULU, HAW,Ml �6,SY) PHONE_ (808, ? _? a 1 EkX: .'M) RECEfft 1996 ROAN High%va' AL-ilrustLatic,r! -!Ja ikfo�,ma Blvd,. '-306 Hl. S-i7C"lt and .Exp unsion Proj�­, Drar-11 Fn.vironrr,�,m,-d impac-L ,tat m�nt EIS') and Se-c-!- Cn 1 iat;C*n b C3.' 1 k. Suz"dki : Vh_- U.'S,_ Fish and 'via illdllf' SeT-vicc S'Sir -jc�) he� pnGlimi;ar, Draft EIS; f(,)- the PU277jall-o ard! Proje-t. Tb� pilLrpose of �h_s pi-o-je-ct is to alllev,at-, ap fflic Kat nan, e. alLrt:��t link- bevw,yen SalE�� Ro_­d ,Lnd State Highvvay 11. prc.jk.ct six asors are th�, I Administration, Ehe Stazz-- ofliawaii D.pa meim of TransportatiorL and -.-h County of Ha-tiD-nartment of P-&Ak­ Tor'N-S, '111i, "eter has hYbn prepared under tht auThor-I<<`'?f '�mid 1p� -Mth provisiops of thC National _�'llvirorlmemil Policy A:t of 1969 1-4) U.SJ-7- 4_332 11 erse,,,7,; 'Stat. 352), as eajnead,�-' L Ebe Fist: and 1,NlldllifG Coordin-ati-r- 'iCt of 19"l U_ S'C - ,ci e'-� 48 S tat. 40 11 as -a mended, -:1111,r autho-i'llies for -values' a _,zigna!or-� agenc"; il-,,- "NI--l"lonandum Poiic�, Act and Cl, -an '�Vater CI `71.Z f�)r SL 404 'n_ -t " Ce j��ffe- Erle'egrat, 11 2CE� TFa _7C jj;,�CtS, 7 Tor voLir consid--ratlorl, Ill zer,.--al thle pTeliin-.raT-,' DT -Ft ETS affe;ted - V' ri, iive v - -gem lon, wnlands, and 'nat.;.-C Fm -,T.Jye-otebrat,es. there is -2 al fLaur.-t to d�.scnbt- ftdil ll�c PhYSic bi IoTgcal f�xc�z s t -,`rhe 18SI lava2 flov,: andthe C e6ms of'.Adlzameill I Oil t -his. pai-L _lal_)Jscape, MC d of Stcunn 3:1.1.4) -naakes no mfm-dc-n -of drainage that occurs- throw`'l-, _ parts of K o'f On Thit patt_---,-,i. Simillarl-.. no rn�i'iTiOn m Se- 'cri'ori ".3. of thc Ln,.'�r'.zb-.atzs f -mind Ka-=anz-�av?F that tbSub:t--,-L- -,t a !etrer ft (lm --)ur ag—nc-v (Ap-p�_ndr,_ A)- 5 3 = ROi•I : FE OA I G = r+WE? �=;} ? 704 P.4 c _ , a h In a pTe-,ious letter dated December 15, l997 (Appendix A), the Sen -ice pointed out that at least one O invenebaraie species (a eixi d planihopper in the Venus Oliui-us:,, and po<_:sibl} more. were known only from Kaumana Cave_ It is therefore potentially misleading Aaty (dog 4-36) that the fauna in this cave is "sitralar to that occurring in mane ihoL.san3s of other, lava tube: caves". The fauna of Kaurriana Cave is uniqu-. This probaH\ waa, not known to 17r. Fred Stone when be prepared his rexori in 19921 Appendix: D). Since that time,res arc;?ers from Gennanv, Hay:ai.i and the mainland have dete=ined *hat at least one, -- d probably two,unique species of Oliurrrs are ordy krov,,n frorxx Ka=_-ina (Hoch & Hojvurth 1993, Pacific Science 4'__0:-;1S; K. Williarnsar_, personal coimnunication 9-`21: 9g j. The di trihut ons of these species ,tiitWn tlAe cave are not precisely lczzo-kv, It is also incorn t to state ; N 4-37) that "[_ -lig- rent 1.] �ZII Fold arly tlrspact to ca-ve or.,antSn2s". You may be =xvare 1h _,t nao..t_of'the native found in lava tube caves have the m_aiority of their populations in subterranEan emck systems surrounding the ca:c, rather than Mthi_n the cave ii -self_ It is Very ui likel-, that the populations wi.tlin the cave could persist-Nithout the much larger surrounding population_ Thus, Iong-term sur -,rival of the "cave fauna." requires presen�atlon of native forest both above andd adjacent to the cave. For example, as his.primar} mitigation measure, Dr. :More urged a 0-100 foot buffer of undisturbed native vegetation around the cave (Appendix Mi. Thisreeonmmendation conflicts with the statement in the FTS that 15 feet would be "sufficient undisturbed buffer bets{leen the road and the cave" (pg 4-37). The basis on tivhich this judgement .as glade is unclear., The en,-ineering drawing of Alignment 1 (Fig. 3-1 ) shows that over 1000 feet of lower Kattmana Ca;,e falls within 100 feet of the right of x'ay (station ? 13+75 to 115=00, and station 123-50 to 128 +00). Incidentally, the scale bars on Figure 3-1 are in. error: 400 feet on the scale bar, corresponds to 500 feet along the aligiument. Removal of native vegetation from the Alignment 1 colu,truction corridor v ill undoubtedly reduce the "cave iuvertehrate' populations throughout this ?ctiori of the 1 SSI la,,'a flow', the undisturbed part of v. hick is only 500-750 feet Ode-. Whether these invertebrates would disappear from lower sections of Ka nmana Care as a result of construction of Aliu�anerrt 1 carbnot be predicted, although such effects would be more likely to occur where the ali-granenE ap proac:lies the cave most closely. Potental actions to help .riritiaate th,. impacts or Alisinment I on these rare intie-ebrates include: 11 Nfire imjz .Aon of the width of the construction c- - - :nd mad shoulder throughout the area of t j A e t f ..oto« cYi t �,..pt.. qj i .L.., r,`i :ht =thLu I t e ..v �.t,,..,. � � t L s Se . L� oT'i : 4 :C�': t 1�; .>t i. "tiit� 1:? `v5.1 JO feet �� '�l7 � C�-�t f__,. This would preserve the maximum amol nt of the most intact native forest and the ria,:;iizum habitat for troglobitic ("cave") invertebrates.. 2) Design and placeinent of a durable I ioslt display at Kaurnana Cave Courr,,, Pant. -,vhich would inform visitors of the unique fauna within the cave. S-.! FROM : FED H I CHWA`! I D : Rig S-41 270== PAGE a"S O O 3) E ablishment of a limited rnonitoni�ng proarara to determine effects of vegetation clearance and Oroad construction on cave fauna- The study should consist, at a rahnimum, of a pre-comstruction ba,:eEne sutrvev, ,tn a Ieast r,T, o dost cc n uzcii:�n su�� vel s, separated by at lea3t one year, Costs of such a progrun would be quite modest -end «ould enable the potential effects 0;iztuIar fixtuzr projects to be predicted during the planrin.g phase - The Service appreciates the oppc7,rtz: Cwy to conunenr on the preliAmiran, Draft EIS ar-3 Iooks fomard to Teviewing the Draft EIS when it is available. Ifyou lhave questions or comments, please contact our Proyraxn Leader for I✓nvlror�nE:nt 3! Re -n ietiv. Michael Molina. or �ish and Wildlife Biologist Jeff Bur-ett at 'SO4) 541-3441. Sincerely, / 4'4c��' Robert P. Smith Manager Pacific islands Eooregiou cc' C rSEPA. Honolulu U SACE, Honolulu . O O 3 O ID -;90.2 Sa 0 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. S. ARMY ENG NEER DISTRICT, HONOLULU FORT SHAFIER, HAWAII 96858-54.30 n C 2,J x S..0Lr � Moana Soul iU �ataa�..5 J J e : '� "LA . on,7 , opC` = L RLCEI VE) - S 1998 maw o Thank _,. a zor' anp�-)rl- n i- Lv to and - - street .EXE b vim ...✓7'ii�:'?n.� �`-'i'�^ �S'; Ji are i» ori= ��r:•wC, d�`1 :i11 �-lT!=''::- � ?_ �«_ �'"..` 'ni�ti.� �a5 Y- -� -;,� '��r -h � +` - nd-- S= 1; 0 lZ r?;1�1a ti -ter i. S L'Lt ri_.S; ?CX. G.S. UNTIED STATES EN`'VfRONNM TAL PROTECTION AGENCY O REGION LX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisca CA 94105 Richelle SuzuOctober 20, 1998 ki Federal Highways Admi.nisuation PO Box 50206 Honolulu, HI 96850 Dear Ms. Suzula: I am writing this letter regarding the prelimimrj draft EIS for the Puainako Sweet Extension and Widening Project. EPA has received and reviewed the preliminary draft EIS for this project. We appreciate the opportunity to work with Federal Highways, the Army Corp-:, and other agencies in the early planning phases of this project, as required by the NEPA-Sectiou 404 Integration MOU. Based on our preliminary review of the pruj ect, we have no comments at this time. We will provide a dei ided review and commmits on the official draft EIS for this project. OPlease call me at (808)541-2752 if you Dave fh ther questions. cc: Mark Bartholomew, EPA George Y'ouug, COE Sincerely, Wendy i !Contact Pacific Is Office C C APPENDIX Al SECTION 7, ENDANGERED SPECIES t% o a ( �1 . Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Stephen K. Y imashiro Chief En nee O iv�or —' w —_— Jiro A. Sumach F0I ,pwy Chief End: Herr f 0, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS March 11, 1996 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8321 • Fax (808) 969.7138 Michael G. Buck, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Forestry and Wildlife Kalanimoku Building, Room 325 1 151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Harper.- Subject: arper: Subject: Puainako Street Extension and Widening Project City of Hilo, South Hilo, Hawaii Island The County of Hawaii Department of Public Works in cooperation with the State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) is proposing to improve Puainako CStreet within the City of Hilo. The project involves the widening of the existing Puainako Street between Kilauea Street and Komohana Street to a four -lane highway. Puainako Street would also be extended from Komohana Street to County Club Road in Kaumana to provide a linkage with Saddle Road as it enters Hilo. The Department of Public Works is coordinating the preparation of and Environmental lmpact Statement (EIS) for this project. As part of the preparation of the Draft EIS, the following reports e been completed: O Vegetation and Wetland Habitat Report prepared by Dr. Grant Gerrish O Kaumana Cave Report prepared by Dr. Fred Stone; and O Invertebrate Falina Report prepared by Maile Kjargaard We are transmitting these reports for your information and review. We are in the process of cornpietulg the draft EIS for publication. Accordingly, your timely review of these reports would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to call me or Dr. Ron Terry, our environmental consultant, at 982-5831 if you hay e any questions on this matter. X ..iyosaki, hie En sneer attachment Q�PPt�wNTofTy�ym vi y 9 7 1 � United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PACIFIC ISLANDS ECOREGION 300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, ROOM 3108 BOX 50088 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96850 PHONE: (808) 541-3441 FAX: (808) 541-3470 Ms. Donna K. Kiyosaki County of Hawaii Department of Public Works 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-7138 Dear Ms. Kiyosaki: , 7q i 1 4 1990 F,�•_ _. �.rrlCc dLitl 1 3 1996. On April 18, 1996, we received your letter dated March 11, 1996., transmitting three reports prepared for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Puainako Street Extension and Widening Project. The reports we received were: o Vegetation and Wetland Habitat Report by Dr. Grant Gerrish o Kaumana Cave Report by Dr. Fred Stone; and 0 o Vertebrate Fauna Report by Maile Kjargaard (Incidentally, the Vertebrate Fauna Report was incorrectly identified as an Invertebrate Fauna Report in your cover letter, dated March 11, 1996.) We offer the following comments on the reports: The Vegetation and Wetland Habitat Report provides sufficient information to make a determination of whether any listed plant species or stream habitats may be affected by the proposed extension and widening of Puainiko Street. However, the Kaumana Cave Report and the Vertebrate Fauna Report were not as thorough. ne 1, Humana Cs rye R pc%rt" do f:; °, an excel Ien" joy -J of ex��talr�l. c� l -'e — I- iS� u' Cidi i c'. �y^t' sections of the cave as educational, geological, and cultural sites. However, the report does not specify exactly which cave invertebrate species are found in each portion of the cave. The report refers only to the existence of "rich" or "abundant" endemic cave species, depending upon the exact location within the cave. Except for Table 1, which lists all the native invertebrates in the cave, the report lacks an exact description of what species in which area may be affected by the proposed road extension and widening. Table 1 should also be referenced, even if this data was collected during this study. In addition, this table should also serve as a O Y literature review to in' gate that no other invertebrates are known or were known from this cave. In other words, we are left to assume that this is a complete and exhaustive list of the cave invertebrates. If this is so, it should be stated. The conclusion of the Vertebrate Fauna Report is that 'io (Buteo solitarius) and the Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) are the only listed species that are likely to occur in the vicinity of the proposed road extension and widening. While we don't necessarily disagree with this conclusion; the presence of 'io nests in the vicinity of the proposed road extension and widening may have been dismissed too quickly. The author of this report did not conduct a site visit and relied on either old data or the botanical survey crew for information. The results of a survey conducted by a qualified ornithologist to document the presence or absence of 'io nesting in the vicinity of the proposed road extension and widening would be important information to include in the DEIS. In general, the reports lacked necessary references. For example, in the Vegetation and Wetland Habitat Report on page 13, under the heading Rare or Endangered Plants, there is no reference to which Fish and Wildlife list the author is referring to. While we assume it is the most recent available, we have no way of knowing if the list the author used is current. As mentioned previously, Table 1 in the Kaumana Cave Report should be referenced. Finally, a better map of the vicinity of the proposed road extension and widening would have assisted the review of the reports. C Thank you for the opportunity to review these reports. We look forward to reviewing the DEIS when it is completed. If you have any questions, please contact our Fish and Wildlife Biologist Scott Johnston at 808/541-3441 (fax: 808/541-3470). Sincerely, Y Brooks Harper Field Supervisor Ecological Services 2 o. 4/^S./ 0 Stephen K. Yamashiro MaYor — f^ C�o�xxtt zrf (7"' &aii DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8321 • Fax (808) 969.7138 August 2, 1996 Brooks Harper, Field Supervisor Ecological Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Island Region P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear Mr. Harper: Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Chief Engineer Jiro A. Sumada Deputy Chief Engineer Thank you for your letter of 10 June 1996, in which you discussed your review of the Vegetation and Wetland Habitat Report, Kaumana Cave Report, and Vertebrate Fauna Report, which were prepared as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Puainako Street Extension and Widening Project. Subsequent to our receipt of this letter, one of our consultants, Dr. Ron Terry, discussed the comments related to Kaumana Cave and Hawaiian hawks with Scott Johnston of your staff. The purpose was to determine the tasks that remain in order to complete the DEIS. We would like to address the subjects individually: Kaumana Cave As discussed with Mr. Johnston, the County of Hawaii has been concerned with impacts to Kaumana Cave since the project's inception_ Kaumana Cave is a world-class 2.��nlogi .a1 fe,20"Urz, thai supports a diverse and outstanding assemblage of Hawaii's cave fauna. Despite the importance of the cave, little of a systematic nature was available in the literature. For this reason, Dr. Fred Stone was consulted to furnish a description of the resources and evaluate Potential effects if the roadway were to pass above or very close to the cave. Subsequent to some original concepts, which would have placed the roadway above the cave, the County directed the consulting engineers to design the road the stay as far as possible from the cave. One of the objectives that has guided project design since has been avoidance of Kaumana Cave. An accue survey of the cave was conducted in order to meet this objective. The attached figure shows a plan view of the relationship between As i nment I o g f the i.I;;per O O O Brooks Harper August 2, 1996 Page No. 2 Portion and the course of the cave, showing that the roadway as designed approaches no closer than 5 m (16 ft) and generally maintains a much greater distance from the cave. The inset in the upper left of the figure illustrates a profile section of the area of closest approach. The roof of the cave in this area varies from 5-6 m (16-20 ft) beneath the surface. We are confident that no impacts to Kaumana Cave will occur with the present design. The roadway is distant enough to ensure no structural effects, and the vegetation above and surrounding the cave (within a minimum distance of 5 m at one point - in most areas the buffer will be far greater) will be left entirely intact. For this reason, as our consultant discussed with Mr. Johnston, we feel that further research and description of Kaumana Cave is not necessary at this point. We understand that your agency is basically satisfied with the environmental documentation up to this point, but may have further comments or recommendations upon receiving the Draft EIS for the project. We would also welcome a visit by your or your staff to the project site. Survey for Hawaiian Hawk Nests Mr. Johnston suggested to our consultant that although the current report would suffice for the construction. He stated that the survey should be conducted during the winter/spring purposes of the Draft EIS, a supplemental survey should be done by an ornithologist benesting This season in order to verify the presence or absence of hawk nests in the project corridor. This would assist your agency in determining impacts and mitigation measures in case any nests require relocation. The County of Hawaii will comply with this request and will contract with an ornithologist. We would welcome further coordination with your agency as to timing and other details of the survey. Please contact OMIMMthe DPW staff at 961-8327, or Dr. Terry at 982-5831, if you would like to accompany our consultants during the survey. Again, thank you for your careful review of our pre -EIS documents for the project Sincerely, 4 Donna F. Kiyosaki, Chief Engineer cc: ,,Okahara & Associates x T EXISTING GROUNDT ■=0.■ NINE ■■■IN■■ ONE-- E1MB' MEMBER 00 0 3 1.5 D 1.5 3 / 6 Q 5727E-06HAWAII KAUMANA CAVE PRORLE I / ' ` 2-5-06-4 SCALE IN METERS �/ i \ j \ 4 < STATE OF HAWAII I1 2-5-05-64 / PU KO ALTER 1 A NA16 VE I \\ `\ ` 1 \` \ // \♦ \ \ 09'0 / , �`\\\ STATE OF HAWAII ♦ \ \� \ \ PTO , � / \ \`\ \ Z -5-O6-3 \ \ rf r I \ I � 1 1 I I \ Iii :/ � I \ __ � \\\ 1\ \ � � I\, `, \\\ \� '`• \`• �` TITLE FIGURE KAUMANA CAVE o in zoo scale n meters PROJECTpUAMM(0 STREET EXTENS � DATE o 200 400 HQO9 HAW6M 7/5/96 �� scale in feet 9100311A O �MENT CpT O y'� m j � O `y9 �9RCH 3 `aa United States Department of the Interior In Reply Refer To: CMC FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PACIFIC ISLANDS ECOREGION 300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, ROOM 3108► BOX 50088 Drr HONOLULU, HAWAII 96850 PHONE: (808) 541-3441 FAX: (808) 541-3470 K A Donna Fay Kiyosaki County of Hawaii DEC 15 1997 Department of Public Works 25 Aupuni Street, room 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 Re: Puainako Widening and Extension Environmental Impact Statement, Determination of Potential Threatened and Endangered Species Dear Ms. Kiyosaki: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received your November 3, 1997, letter requesting information about threatened or endangered species that might be affected by the Puainako Rd. widening and extension project. The purpose of this project is to alleviate congested and unsafe traffic conditions on Kaumana Drive by providing a direct link between Saddle Road and State Highway 11. The project sponsors are the Federal Highway Administration, The State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, and the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works. The Service has reviewed the provided information as well as other information contained in our files, including maps prepared by The Nature Conservancy's Hawaii Natural Heritage Program. To the best of our knowledge, there are no species currently listed as endangered, threatened, or candidates directly within the project site. The federally endangered Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarus) and the federally endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurtcs cinereus semotus) are known from the general vicinity and may occur at the project site. However, the Service believes that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect either of these species because of the project's location and previous disturbance. However, it is our responsibility to bring an important matter to your attention. According to our understanding. of the project, the proposed route will pass over a subterranean lava tube (Kaumana Cave) known to support a unique native invertebrate community. In particular, this cave system is home to a native arthropod in the genus Oliarus, family Cixiidae. This plant hopper is endemic to the Kaumana cave system and is, thus, found nowhere else in the world. It has been brought to our attention that Olianis sp. iC�e described as a new species this comp. 'year. Upon descni tion, this species may become a candidate for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Acct (ESA). Additionally, this cave is home to another endemic cricket in the Genus Caconemobius that may warrant federal protection following publication of its description. 0 The Service strongly recommends that you take this into consideration while planning the route of the proposed road. Preservation of habitat is critical to these species' survival, and any altering of the forest above this cave may significantly affect the likelihood of survival of these species. If you have questions or comments, please contact our Program Coordinator for Interagency Cooperation, Ms. Margo Stahl or Fish and Wildlife Biologist Christina Crooker at (808) 541-3441. Sincerely, Brooks Harper Field Supervisor .Ecological Services 2 O C APPENDIX Al SECTION 106 AND SECTION 4(F) C C C 1'_ :.-N W,AII IFF. GOVERfJOR OF HAWAII s C 1Ls 1 I I F 1--. AND NAT. RAI { SOI a_ I► ;d AR 18 1993 DEPUTIES .OKAHARA & ASSOC., INC. HILO OFFICE STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 33 SOUTH KING STREET, 8TH FLOOR C(0[py HONOLULU, HAWAII 06813 March 11, 1993 JOHN P KEPPFLER_ II DONA L. HANAIKF AOUACULTURE OF' 'T L O PKI E NT PROGRAM - AGUATIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION ANO ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION LAND MANAGEMENT STATE PARKS WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM " > Tom. 1 ✓ DOC NO: 9303ks02 TO: Brian Choy, Director Office of Environmental Quality Control FROM: Don Hibbard, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division SUBJECT: Chapter 6E (HRS) Compliance --Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Puainako Street Extension and Widening, Island of Hawaii Wainkea Kukuau i & 2 and Ponohawai South Hilo HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM CONCERNS: Because this is a direct state/county undertaking, compliance with the State's historic preservation law (Chapter 6E, H.R.S.) is required prior to construction. The subject Draft EIS was submitted to our office (received March 5, 1993) by the engineering consulting firm of Okahara & Associates for review for Chapter 6E compliance. The document in the Draft EIS detailing the results of the archaeological inventory survey of the road corridor is labelled an interim report (Appendix E: "Interim Report: Archaeological Inventory Survey, Puainaka Street Extension Project" by Terry L. Hunt). It does not provide adequate data for our office to determine if the survey was sufficient to locate all the historic sites in the project area. It seems that thea ar , are « e.S bv;th Ur'.ils 'ePeitilQr! t�1;1 may : 111; Ci liialr"1 is siteS. FUrthermor-e, the document lacks sufficient detail in site descriptions (such as basic dimensions, construction style, etc.) and site function to be acceptable as an inventory. Until these points are resolved, we are not yet able to evaluate the proposed significance evaluations of the historic sites identified in the project area. The first step in Chapter 6E compliance is to determine if significant historic sites are present, then mitigation measures are considered. The first step has yet to be finalized. Our office has received within the last two weeks at least five telephone calls from concerned citizens in Hilo attesting to the presence of heiau (religious structures) and burial sites within the Page 2 road corridor. The report is too brief to determine if these concerns have been met. Thus, a final archaeological inventory survey report, and not an interim re ort m to our office for review. Usually, this is what your agency also requires. Once the sinbve submitted survey reports is acceptable and the number of significant historic sites that are ntory determined, then mitigation measures must be worked out with the approval re present can be part s. compliance with Chapter 6E. Mitigation measures must be finalized before r division as begins. construction If you should have any further questions, please contact Kanalei Shun at 587-0007. Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii Donald K. Okahara, Okahara & Associates, Inc. 4 , I 4 N W III -i}-3: GOVERNOR OF HAWAII O STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 33 SOUTH KING STREET, 8TH FLOOR HONOLULU. HAWAII 88813 September 23, 1993 Ms. Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, RE Chief Engineer County of Hawaii Department of Public Works 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Ms. Kiyosaki: KEITH AIIL"E, CHAIRPERSON 90 ARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCE DEPUTIES JOHN P. KEPPELER 11 DONA L. HANAIKE AQUACULTURE OEVELOF'*AENT PROGRAM AQUATIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OIVISION LAND MANAGEMENT STATE PARKS WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT LOG NO. 9548. i DOC NO.:9309ks 12 SUBJECT: Review of "Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pu'ainako Street Extension Project, Lands of Waiakea, Kukuau I and 2, anal Ponahawai, South Hilo District, Island of Hawai'i ". Report by Hunt and McDermott (July 1993) Multiple Ahupua'a, South Hilo, Island of Hawai'i TMK: Multiple Thank you for submitting for our review the subject report which we received on August 18, 1993. O Unfortunately, at present, we cannot complete our review as we have not as yet received copies of plan maps of individual features and profiles of excavation units. Our office requires this information in inventory survey reports in order for us to review and evaluate (1) adequacy of site/feature recordation and coverage, (2) site/feature functional determination, and (3) site significance assessment. This set of information need not be formally illustrated; copies of eligible and cleaned -up field notes showing feature and site plan maps, locations of test excavation units, and test excavation unit wail profiles will suffice. We informed Dr. Terry Hunt on September 21, 1993, of the situation and he has stated that he will be forwarding the necessary documents to us at once. We will complete our review of the report soon after receipt of the documents. If your office should have any further questions in the interim, please contact Kanalei Shun at 587-0007. Sincerely, ,•r�41e� ?FMH,/E11ARD, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division OKS:III /Masahiro Nishida, P.E., Okahara & Associates, Inc. K:-, L 'i: c Dr. Terry Hunt, University of Hawaii at Manoa Department -of Anthropology Lynne Lee, Office of Hawaiian Affairs Michael Larish, Ho'okaika Research Committee T JOHN WAIHEE GO -E-0. Os ...— KETTH AHLY. ClLultrBRRON ° SOAAO OF LAND ANO NATURAL RESOURCf F' OEPVTIES JOHN P. KEPPELER DONA L_ HANAJKE STATE OF HAWAII EPARTMENT OF LANO ANO NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 33 SOUTH KING STREET. 6TH FLOOR HONOLULU. HAWAII 945813 January 20, 1994 Mr. Niichaei Larish Ho'oikaika Secretary 34 Mala'ai Road Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Larish: SUBJECT: Puainako Road Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii AOUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AQUATIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFNRS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND MLDUf{ HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION LAND MANAGEMENT STATE PARKS WATER AND LAND DEVnOP%AENT LOCI NO. i 059 + 1 RC22 R 1994 ty.MAKA 4 ASFICE ''No' i&LO. - This is just a reminder that the oral history information on traditional cultural places in or O near the project area which your group is gathering should be submitted to our office by the end of this month. This was the date which was agreed upon by all parties at the end of our November 22, 1993, field trip. Upon reviewing your group's findings, we will then rapidly prepare our findings regarding the survey and the sites that have been found. Thank you. Sincerely yours, v` v` DON HIBBARD, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division KS : amk c: Riley Smith, Dept. Public Works, County of Hawaii O I O i0`. F. �l��171i OI '�A�•�All STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STAT,= HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 33 SOUTH KING STREET, 8TH FLOOR HONOLULU, HAWAII 86813 May 20, 1994 Ms. Donna Fay K Kiyosaki, Chief Engineer Department of Public Works County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Ms. Kiyosaki -r; &0->/ �-7 o/ �_,, KFZmt AIfUH. C11,11Ff h: F-9lj,Y ESO A3lD OF IANO AND NATURAL OE FYITIES IOIIN P KEP,'FIER 11 DONA L. MANAME AQUACULTURE OE TLOPRENT PROGRAM AQUATIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONI,IENTAI AFFAIRS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEI.IENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND �%ILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION LAP0 MANAGEMENT STATE PAFXS WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT LOG NO: 11667 --- DOC NO: 9404RCO2 SUBJECT Pu,ainako Realignmerrt/Extension (County Public Works -- Review of Archaeologic.11 Inventory sill -Vey ) South Hilo H.twai,i This review letter comments only on the findings of the archaeological inventorysure hr oleo ey for this We must preface this review by noting that an interim report was at one point made available the Draft EIS in early 199; Hunt 1992 ailable with ( Interun Report: Archaeological Inventory Survey Puainako Street Extension Project.). This report indicated prehistoric sites were reser Inc iticlirig religious structures. Our office sent this report back for revision as it needed it, information on completeness ofsurtiey coverage, more complete site t{escri tions and d more Justifications for site interpretations (3/1 1/93 Hibbard to Cho OEQC) p m July 199; (Hunt R McDermott 1993. Archaeological Inventory Surtiey, Pu'ainako Street Q ) The report was revised Extension Protect.) site maps and profiles were submitted in October i993 at our request (9/2-3/93) Hibbard), and a letter- report on survey work makai of Kawili Street was submi November 1993 ! rr fol;ow-�up t ; a_, .. ,�r:�,tt:..d it r �t Novembe, f;elavileck with DLNR . are the revised report. In revising the report, the authors did extensive histoorlicaltively these items historical research, looked at reports on similar types of archaeolo 1 and oral in the Hilo area and on Hawaii Island and did more fieldwork (detaileds tes thathad been found excavations) -hhey concluded that they had been wront, mapping test colicluded that no house or relit,. in their prior interpretations. They Mous sites were present, and that all the structures were plantation -era in age. They have been emphatic in re ueslint, interim report are no Ion„ tl that their interpretations in the conlirsioi, has resulted Iron the 'releaselotfitlreli��ri�ntl.el��i-Tis be clear Unfortunately, much f ATTACHTg W INTO. 2 D K YOS„k Wic believe that the survey has adequately covered the project area (the two alternate 120 -foot wide corridors), find"', all of the archaeological historic sites -- totaling 13 (I 1 noted in the July 1993 report and 2 in the November 1993 letter report). Ca. 90 structures are within these sites, in the corridors or immediately nearby (1993:90) -- 35 seaward of Komohana Street and 53 inland. Our office was concerned if there were native Hawaiian traditional cultural places within the project area. (Such places were associated with traditional uses over 50 years ago, such as specific gathering areas, pools associated with deities, etc.). The UH Hilo awareness club I-10'oikaika- believed that this possibility existed. Our office believed that it was extremely important to conduct oral historic work to try to determine if such traditional cultural places were present. Time was allowed for Ho'oikaika to talk to knowledgeable elderly members of the community between November 1993 and January 1994. Only one informant was found with oral information on the area. This informant (M. Kealoha) had been told by her mother that a village was in the area (11/23/93) Ho'oikaika letter to Gov. Waihee, App. B). However, in our discussions with Ho'oikaika, the location could not be refined down to a specific area, it appears to refer to the general area around and above the current LTH Hilo campus. The same is true for the general place name of Kalanakama'a which was noted by Kepa Maly in a PHRI report of a nearby area. Thus, we have been unable to specifically locate any traditional places in the project area. 01 The survey report has done an unusually thorough background review of settlement patterns of O the ahupua'a and project area. It is clear that in precontact times the project lay within a general dry land agricultural area which extended from near the shore up to the 1,500 foot elevation. Scattered houses and adjacent gardens and tree groves were present in older and ash -derived soils, and possibly in younger rockier soils such as those in the project area. In the 1880s, these lands were cultivated for sugarcane by the Waiakea Mill -- with pasture higher up on newer flows -- and after 1918 homesteaders grew cane and sold it to the mill. At this time, the report clearly documents through maps, historical documents, and oral interviews (including with Hawaiians) that the cane lands had stone collected and piled into clearing mounds and that railroad beds, water tanks and ramps to the railroad also likely had stone foundations. Evaluations of other archaeological reports which had found clearing mounds indicated that mounds were faced and often had a central depression. The background section of the report predicted that it was unlikely that prehistoric Hawaiian ruins would be found because precontact field ruins would not be substantial and ber..ause extensive land, Ite ?ttoai by 0%3i � c..!l°! s i,tiri Ytlf r h°„'; ;Y',;r: into clearing piles"wotld have moved and removed any prehistoric stone -work that �would shave been present. The site descriptions are acceptable, with the addition of site maps and excavation profiles and the November 1993 letter report, with the understanding that the report needs to be revised so that the descriptions are clear to all. The following revisions are needed: 1. Better site location maps are needed. The site borders are extremely hard to see on the location neaps in the report (Figs. 10-13). The topo lines and other lines are equally as bold as the sites The maps need revision to clearly sho ,., site borders. . O O O 2 Incorporate the profiles and site maps into the report an appendix). Both the profiles and feature maps are quite good. The field maps submitted in October 1993 need to be tidied up slightly, so there is one map of each site which shows the site's borders, its features, and the corridor boundaries. Currently, we have maps for all features, but we are lacking site maps showing the relative location of features to each other for four sites ( 189 1 1, 18914, l 891 S 18917). Please include those maps. 3. The interpreted function of each of the features is given in Table 2 (pp. 96-98). These interpretations also need to be placed under each feature's description in the text, so the reader can see what the feature is being interpreted as, as the reader,is reading the text. 4. Full descriptive information on the 2 sites found makai of Kawaili Street needs to be included (with site maps). 5. We would also appreciate a better quality photo of Figure 9 (p. 32), and perhaps a blow-up so the mounds can be even better seen. 6. On pages 90-92. Some minor clarifications are needed, so the laynnan can read the justification as to why these are plantation -era sites and clearly understand it. We, with our archaeological staff, can understand what is meant, but a more clear version would be useful for the public. We Owould recommend that (a) on page 90, it be explained what is meant by "no internal structure" within the features, (b) on p. 92 (top), also describe the similar sites found in Goodfellow (1991) -and Goodfellow & Fager (1992), and (c) on p. 92, para. 2, note that the informants for the Kohala information were Hawaiians (as we understand was the case). The survey report concluded that these archaeological remains were all plantation era in age, dating between 1880-1950. This conclusion was based on (1) a match of feature types found (faced mounds, railroad bed with ties, ramps) with those anticipated from historical research; (2) finding historic artifacts in several features (Site 18,915, Feature D with fencing wire running under it, p. 57 wand Feature E, with strapping iron under the stones, p. 58; Site 18,919, Features E and M with fenAing wire embedded in there, pp. 72, 75), (3) finding the surface architecture to not be similar to prehistoric housing or agricultural features (lack flat house pavings and are not rounded mounds which are typical of prehistoric a �' _,ricultural features . rathe }. r being simiar tc; plantation era sites found on Hawaii Island (faced rectangular, oval and irregular-shaped mounds with interior depressions, vertical high facings), and (4) finding no prehistoric subsurface remains associated with the structures in 5 test excavations. Our staff -- three of our archaeologists with extensive Hawaiian experience -- have visited the project area several times and inspected the structures. We agree that, for the structures makai of Komohana Street, the structures' architecture and types fit historic -era types and not prehistoric types. The architecture facings are strikingly uniform, indicating the features were built roughly at the sante time. Also, among these ZD features are ramped structures and faced mounds with internal depressions which are solely O historic -era in type. Thus, we believe that the report's conclusion that the strictures makai of' Komohana Street are plantation -era strrictures is sound t) K,Yosslkf O O �Q P;,_c O A recent fieldcheck (April 8, 1994) by two of our stafiof the sites in the corridors mauka of' Komohana Street found the architecture to be somewhat different from the makai areas. Smaller 111011nds and greater use of modified outcrops were present. Although it is likely that these features are also historic -- features had embedded wire in them (18919, E and M) and excavation of 3 features found no evidence of prehistoric use -- our staff believes that the possibility exists that some of these structures could have seen prehistoric use and that further testing is needed to clarify this point, prior to our finalizing significance evaluations. Thus, we recommend additional testing in this area. --------- Ho'okaika expressed several concerns about the archaeology of this project, and these need to be addressed. We have tried to address all their concerns. 1. Age of the Structures. Ho'oikaika noted that 3 volcanic glass pieces were found in the excavation of Feature H in site 18,915 and thought that these might show the structure was prehistoric. However, the excavation report clearly shows that these items came from a soil layer (IIb) which was present before the structure was built (p. 60). Ho'oikaika also noted a prehistoric date found in the excavation at a highly similar structure in a project makai along Kawaili Street, excavated by the PHRI archaeological firm, and they stated that this indicated that the structures could be prehistoric (1/24/94 Ho'oikaika to Cordy & Shun of DLNR). We have reviewed that project's report (Maly, Walker and Rosendahl 1993. Archaeological Inventory Survey, Waiakea Cane Lots, Portion of Parcel 6. PHRI ms O 1370-122993.) and have spoken with Maly and Rosendahl on this matter. The excavation at site 1943 1, Feature A, found the charcoal in soils which were present before the structure was built (Layer II), while the structure clearly carne later (Layer I). The date from the charcoal, AD 1393- 1489, is prehistoric, and it likely reflecting Hawaiian cultivation at that time. But, the surface structure clearly comes later. The Hunt & McDermott report emphasized that some remains of prehistoric use of the area still might survive, but it "may be discovered (almost "at random") with subsurface test excavations" (p. 94). We agree. It is important to note that we believe --as do Hunt & McDermott -- that Hawaiian agricultural use and perhaps habitation and even religious use of these lands once occurred. All researchers who have worked in this area make this point. But, alteration of the land surface in sugarcane times was severe, with loose stones placed in clearing mounds. If Hawaiian architectural structures (houses, f elcl a all �, rcligious gtr uctures,, etc.) werr., present, tnt,\ cl :arl) were dismantled, and the stones moved into the plantation -era structures which are found on the surface today. Some older soils might be preserved under the plantation structures, or might be in rare, deep soil areas in the open. These older soils might contain a few artifacts or food remains (or similar objects). Also, tilled and disturbed soils are likely to contain some of these objects -- witness the occasional artifact finds in cane fields today and in the past. However, intact older soils will be few and will be found only by accident. Tile volcanic glass finds in the soils under Feature H of site 18,915 is such a case. So is the charcoal under Feature A, site 1943 1, further down Kawili Street. The 4 other test units in this project, the 2 other tests in the PITRI project down Kawili Street, and 3 test units excavated in similar.sites makai of Komohana Street in another project (Borthwick, Collins, Folk & Hanunatt 1991. Arc,! aCoIQciica! O t). O O P:„• Survey and Testing of Lands Proposed for Research and Technology Lots at the University of I lawaii at Hilo. Cultural Surveys Hawaii ms.) found no soils with prehistoric remains. These bits of older prehistoric remains are significant information, but they are not associated with the surface structures, their locations are impossible to predict, and they will be rare. Thus, to us, the age of the surface structures seem to clearly be plantation -era in your project areas makai of Komohana Street. As noted above, some additional testing in the sites inland of Komohana Street is still needed to clarify their age, although they are most likely historic. 2. Representatives of Excavation Sampling. Several Ho'oikaika letters have expressed the concern that more excavations are needed, that not enough excavation has been done to date the sites (8/3/93 to Schutte & Council, 10/23/93 to Gov. Waihee, 11/23/93 to Gov. Waihee, p. 3, 12/8/93 to Gov. Waihee; 3/4/94 to Cordy). Many of these statements reflect discussions that we had with M. Larish of Ho'oikaika. We noted to him that we were concerned that relatively few excavations had been done, given ca. 90 structures. We said that we were considering asking for more excavations. We did not promise this point; however, we always cautioned that decisions would depend on a full review. 7 test units have now been excavated�in these types of structures in three nearby projects makai of Komohana Street. The results are negative in linking the structures to prehistoric age. Indeed, the architectural evidence shows that the architecture of the structures in this part of the project is strikingly uniform (a pattern associated with building at roughly the same time). The style -- high, vertical faces -- is generally a historic -era trait, except Owhen found in larger religious structures. Some of the project's structures are clearly historic -- tlle ramps and the vertically faced mounds -- based on comparisons with other sites found on Hawaii Island. Also, the fact that historic material is embedded under stones in some of these structures supports a historic -era age. The evidence is overwhelming that these are plantation era structures. Thus, we cannot in good faith ask for additional excavations in the areas makai of Komohana Street. Mauka of Komohana Street, 3 tests have been dug in the ca. 53 structures, again with negative results linking the structures to prehistoric age. Also, in this area historic artifacts are embedded in two of the features. However, the slightly different appearance of these features from those makai of Komohana Street does leave open the possibility of prehistoric use. We are asking that the sample size of testing be increased in this part of the project area to evaluate this concern. The consulting archaeologist needs to consult with our office prior to beginning the work. (If the applicant and Ho'oikaika wish to work out an agreement to pursue additional test excavations in the makai area, that is acceptable. We recommend that they he limited to structures in ih�e Puna -side corridor alternative, because as will be seen, we are' recommending that sites in the Hamakua-side corridor alternative be preserved regardless, and these sites should not be damaged.) 3. Ho'oikaika (3/4/94, p. 2) argued that they overlaid the old railroad map with the archaeological site map, and it did not yield a fit between site 18,915, Feature B (interpreted by Hunt and McDermott as the railroad bed) and the old map. Ho'oikaika suggests Feature B might be an irrigated taro lo'i. The old maps are not accurate enough to blow them up and match them with O the archaeological sites; such an approach is not accurate. Feature B fits the traits of a railroad bed -- linear, with stone facing on one side. And it has railroad ties nn it It does not match a lo'i D i�iv��saki G pattern -- a rectangular walled enclosure with an entry canal. We must conclude that the report's interpretation is accurate for Feature B And, the old railroad map does show a railroad bed in this immediate vicinity. 4. Ho'oikaika thought that several structures might be house platforms, based on flat surfaces and brief inspections by others. Our staff checked each of these structures, and they clearly were not prehistoric house platforms. Surfaces were not even, and architectural styles of facings were historic and matched historic structures found elsewhere on the island. 5. Ho'oikaika also noted that one platform (Feature A, Site 1$914) had 5 depressions that might be post -holes, had a water -worn. stone (pohaku) that indicated Hawaiian religious associations and had an adjacent faced pool. They suggested that this might be a heiau -- ipu 'o Lono (an agricultural shrine), as Kamakau indicated such heiau were common (11/23/93 letter -to Gov. Waihee). We checked the possible postholes (noted as such in the report, p. 50, and considered to be possibly from a water tank). It appeared that these were not post -holes, as the holes do not go straight down, but stray off at angles which would not match a post -hole. The architectural style of this structure is the same as that of the other structures in the area and also seems to be historic based on vertical height. We cannot explain the pohaku. It might have simply been one of the stones collected from the surrounding prehistoric terrain, and it may be from a natural context (stream -bed) or from a Hawaiian religious context. Alternatively, it could have been placed on this structure after plantation -era use. We were concerned that the faced pool might be a remnant of the prehistoric Hawaiian landscape, as a traditional cultural place, and we urged Ho'oikaika to check this concern with their informants. They were unable to find any information on this pool, however. We must conclude that Feature A is plantation -era in age. The pohaku might well be remnant of a religious pohaku from prehistoric times. If this is the case, the pohaku would have traditional cultural significance as an object. The structure, however, is clearly historic in age and it would not have traditional cultural significance. (It might now have modern cultural significance, due to association with the pohaku. But the historic preservation laws under which we operate do not allow for consideration of modern cultural significance.) In sum, we agree with the report that all the structures makai of Komohana Street are plantation - era in age. Additional testing is needed in the sites mauka of Komohana Street to see if some prehistoric use is likely. There is clearly not intact mins of a pHhistoric, `!a\v :ia.n ag,,icult wa`:.,, . i;1a;r sage project :rea. ;ll sites mauka of Komohana Street are agricuitural if some are prehistoric in age.) Nor are there structures which are graves or irrigated taro fields (lo'i). We will not conch si��nificzt}e�evalt�ation of the ales until the additional testin_g_is__compJcLe But, we can make some comments at this time. The report suggests that.all the sites are significant solely for their information content (criterion D of the Hawaii Register of l-listoric Places). We do disagree with this point for some of the sites makai of Komohana�Street, Some of these sites are clearly excellent examples of their type (criterion C) -- of plantation era clearing mounds, railroad beds and ramps and perhaps water tank platforms. We believe -- based on'field inspections -- that sites 18914 and 18915 in /alignment A (thc 1I 11 al_Ua-side) c01.%ain cxceller„ 4 I 0 7 0 examples of these types. If -your agency agrees, please have the report so revised or advise us so in writing If you disagree, we need to meet and resolve this point. Also, we will not complete evaluation of the mitigation recommendations until the additional testing is complete. But we have some initial comments. The report suggests that all the significant sites could be mitigated through archaeological data recovery. We disagree with this point. If the project occurs in this area, we recommend that sites 18914 and 18915 be preserved for several reasons. One, we believe that they are excellent examples of their type, which have yet to be preserved in Hilo district. Two; Ho'oikaika has advocated that much of this area be used as an UH Hilo educational preserve -- to educate students in botany (it is a rare forested enclave in town and at UH Hilo), in archaeology (it does have the good Iexamples of plantation -era field sites), and in cultural matters. It is our understanding that the UH Hilo administration has supported this view. We also think it is an excellent idea. Not only are plantation -era sites present, but it is an excellent setting to point out that this was once a Hawaiian landscape -- one that has been altered -- a suitable lesson in itself for the Hilo district. It makes the student value those prehistoric landscapes that remain in the Hilo area -- of which there are relatively few that vitally need identification and protection. In sum, if our view that sites 18914 and 18915 be preserved is accepted, then the northern alignment becomes unfeasible makai of Komohana Street, which means other sites in that alignment also would be preserved (e.g., sites 18917 and 18913). Additionally, it means that all sites and land area north of the southern alignment would Obe preserved. This would include the locations where three pohaku have been found. Again, if the southern alignment is used, then all the lands to the north could be placed in a preserve, should UH Hilo be willing to set-up such a preserve. This area includes many of the structures that were found. Sites in the southern corridor (Puna -side) would then undergo data recovery. The scope of work (data recovery plan) for the data recovery work should focus on clarifying the function of the specific types of plantation -era structures and on handling the chance find of some prehistoric items in soils underlying and predating the structures. Again, these comments are only tentative and do not cover sites rnauka of Komohana Street. We need to review the additional testing results from those sites and then finalize our comments on mitigation. We understand that in a 2/28/94 meeting at the UH Hilo, it was stated that cutting -grading might extend outside the 120 -foot corridor area. We must emphasize that this letter (Chapter 6E review) applies only to the existing corridor.. If more area would be proposed for additional road I.c>i�stslrctiora use, are addendwrr survey report will be needed. If more area is not needed and if the Harnakua-side corridor is not used, then the preservation plan for the sites to the north must see a fence along the north edge of the Puna -side 120 -foot corridor, to ensure that construction would not extend out of the approved project area. This point would also apply to any other project elements that have not been considered yet and that might cover other land areas -- such as equipment storage areas, turn -around areas, etc. All these are project elements and must undergo Chapter 6E, HRS, review. We realize that this review may not please either party -- the County or Ho'oikaika. Indeed, we 0 have already received some rather pointed comments. We would like, however, to thank both for O O U. F:iyu�.iki their patience. To I-lo'oikaika, we would like to thank them for their vigilance. Our office truly values community participation and concerns about the historic preservation process. We are committed to identifying Hawaiian historic sites -- archaeological and traditional cultural places -- and to giving equal importance to oral information from knowledgeable kupuna. And we are committed to actively preserving representative examples of archaeological sites and to preserving sites of cultural sensitivity. In this case, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates to us that the surface structures makai of Komohana Street are plantation -era in age. The sites mauka of Kornohana Street also seem likely to be historic in age, but further testing is needed to evaluate this point. Also, despite efforts of Ho'oikaika and Hunt & McDermott, no oral histories were found identifying specific traditional cultural places within the project area. We do not doubt that there was prior Hawaiian use of the area, and we believe that Hawaiian artifacts, including Pohaku, will be found here and there on altered landscapes throughout Hilo. These objects have value! And it is important to our office that they be recorded with locational information, be preserved and be valued. We hope that the idea of an educational preserve here comes to fruition. We also hope that other valuable prehistoric Hawaiian sites in Hilo and Puna receive equal attention and concern by community groups and the UH Hilo. There are few such areas left in Hilo. Potential areas need to be checked in a working partnership with community groups and UH Hilo's Anthropology Department and our office. Such areas might include Onomea, Malua, Hakalau, the shoreline just north of the Puna border, and the upland forests. Archaeological survey and oral historical work with knowledgeable kupuna to identify such places is needed before development plans are proposed for these areas. Also, known sites need rigorous protection. Kahuwai in Puna is the sole example of a large windward village left on Hawaii, and fortunately Bishop Estate is working to preserve it. They are considering community and UH Hilo Anthropology partnerships to help their efforts. Other sites exist in Puna, not so far from the Hilo area. As a last point, we are asking (I) that the report be revised (as noted above), (2) that additional tests be done in sites mauka of Komohana Street and findings be included in the revised report (or an addendum), and (3) that the County respond to our point on significance evaluations. These steps can be done right away. We will await the revised report and the result of the test excavations. Sincerely, DON HIBBARD, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division RC:amk 4 O O PS. Just prior to finalizing this letter, I-fo'oikaika submitted us a brief interview record (L Araujo) in which it was stated that the individual's uncle told him that there was an "old village around U.1 -f in 1-1110" We will follow up with this informant, but at this point, the location is not fixed to the project area, and main, the archaeological evidence shows no remnants of such a Vi surviving cane cultivation in the project area. c: Ho'oikaika, c/o M. Larish (34 Mala'ai Rd., Hilo 96720) W. Moore T. Hunt, Dept. Anthropology, University of Hawaii at Manoa C. Severance, Dept. Anthropology, University of Hawaii at Hilo V. Goldstein, Planning Dept., County of Hawaii J. Waillee, Governor, State of Hawaii (ref. 94.666835) O at -k!' brd ,u tax irarsm m. iienr;J na, i p 11100 A,,_. x 9a -- -_ r,�x i, ._ hl-A4"1_E OF IH,4VVAIl July '.i) 19!)4 DE:PART11,k:i;N"'3F L1'i.lql) ANC) NATUPUl 1. FIESC UM;H oTATc 1113TORI., MVERVATION dlt)N 93 e•UIJ'rli 11,346 11"iEF% 811.1 PLC OR I�UPIC)L! !LU.. -I,1 WAJ 001-1113 _z Donlia I':: ]:�i; us;al:i, Iz.,:. of .�rgirle'oz Despia:ll:Itut ) :' Publi-, 'Worm:s cou.noi of lla'Nst1l 25 A u uni Street, Room 20r2. ,Hilo, Hama:1:i 9671D-4252 OL$1THA4L$. MIAU'URM.N4 F0 4M) Of LAN ) AND NAT UAAL AMO URC IP cxpvnes JOHN P. tEPPel.M II DONA L. HANA,KE A NA ATI MEt>E'rEt.OfMENT PRD( IRMI AAA ATIC At SOUPY; e! 01111`060 VA110N Ato ENVI( ON%i9:,fTA1.kFFANi9 CCNA-1rJA1 i0N A 11 RERG JfC1:8 EHFO*aiCPimiw CON VI!YANC EH FG R6 rAY .I NO WI I.D11K HI:JTCIRC PRESERVATION DIMO M La. YD MANA OEM MT tr ATE RWYI a Of: MA AND LAND DEQ' OPMENT LOG N\ D: 12.;4.9 1011 Dear \4;. Kiy,:r;fiki I10C IND: 94(17RC21 ,fUB3 E:(:T: llaviela of :! lE:vi ,:d �I►rrhuae,Ci;oi ;i rl:! llnva!ntcry Survc';,Report for E'u'ahlalko E-) to n„;io:n �1'his ,'e., ie:1v iYsh_n s ttI y�'; r let:;.;- af';lunl a1�9 a , which subinim.xi th:; tevised r!;:ort for oc.r re�rie:h r 111.tur1 !ii N!:cDern�ott 15►!,1,.. �1t7:;aLleolnZri;-aI Ia,,entcry S1:.rv6v }>, ainirico St,,::t Extelsion VW :-W, isions we.;:'e MaL::e in rc!s,pr,Ilse 11) uur latter to you cif Nil ;,y 20, 1994. That. levtx }:ad 1zxll;estt:ti acal':it olaal test 1:!xc,iva;iorls in siits :zhtud o.. Komolsanf:. St:;t:et; and thesE: excai atio(u were lo':o a: -Id arm iivautnc,ru:e d r I ;111.5 ]'i: -63 -ion. Our lettt r had also regu' tcd other r=Ivision,i. riz-visiolls I1Ft�'•e: flra_z1 111e'.t, �+at11 II t?:.W 111:!nor-XCeptlons iii ujl e 13 still foes not learl_� , io”; be bo-dis of rho sit::s. It nveth re^.isi,an to show site l orders, ',;vibjch ;, uid be one y sti:)h i.11Iii$ in l: gure 12 or aii;l bold lines. Also, s;ieral plan maps and profilti: in th:, ,.Ppe,adix rc tq::) liUIlt Ii11Cl i)'.tel' CO i OU111 fn-' 1991 1, 2; A-3; and protib:t; f -q- (ti)1` F:..;.tun;` H; 18{)19.. i .• F,�.tur:, ?.A, R, Q: A -a, a3, ti; I.- to :to I)e ruv;:s:xJ: far Fr_;.ttti s TI ane F I)f site 111914 a6 their `xotion in ts:: ,xt is c;l>nsii:lei e9 Ic be Possible ii:adin3; ratr.p. `iVi'll the understanding tha. ri,placenlent pa,;es will e su1jilitted, 'rr;, ;.an finaliz,:; this time. ,s notea in oat• Play 2C 19"M, 1 v:er, wv 1)01:,1'1: thOl the survey has adc.c uateiy cov':rad the projl,ct �cea (.hc t`t/i' EI]tLCriate• 120-;'I:>ot �;iJt, ;or:ri.dor ,), 1'in4l.i:ng; Lal of the ar(:ha:evlogical historic sites -- )ti711 Pe 1 •1 till ji. 141 !Iativt9 ! LmFit-imii;i '&...:v h'av tye';:( z it±f.l.rlir • 5' 1C1t ; i, 1C.;. : lc, Pr)JL ar-•%'J. 'ii'Le sitC !nvtnu)r',i port1U!is i:.l 4he ve; orl -- `mckgra':la;l ;isCtl{ 119, .y1:i, a 101 t4atur;; escri �'ti to , aricl tett ;xoavaJow -- sire y: ill doc!,i merited. 'X116 rl:port car �-htd,9 that W tha ro1a(:c1.g;ic;i1 ce;ira.-b ,,vert: plartlatitlri Ingo, diq.ting bettveet_- 18111). p;,5(). :Basal on thin m:4.ouncl nwlear:tl, the, sitt:.areattec, ure, the artifa.I.ts rband in:I.ssouiat.crl vitll the.sirucuur,s ou ie su iacr, aaci 4'*,r3 trst eacaa.vsltioa; sirni]a.r strucParee: fourd o-Iseu+}lece, a.a.3 our seveisl T1e1Jchecks f the ar.il.'s struc.rice:i., we gree 1'Jur tho . tnicti:rri;s ,a:re historic e:ca in ag+, -- clearly riot tittirg rchi:,c'cJ1 is era l:);pGs of :atrttrrures . Ve do ;l iazi-i co'w:!.tl:. sorne r.1 the fd1ulift.Au.c'"';.- ;Cuations. The r:por: proposa:a.two 3i -es as being no lc; n3:r si;;rliiic int" (1$913, the s tt;s igr.ificnnt Ect!t), fc>r their infornlat.on O O O O D; Dina I.:i)osal.i Paje 2 i i I content t;al ila:i.. easu.lably a.m,�unts. of l:his inft)i'mal.io(i coll�c'tid in the mtrt'ey. We unci thia evaluati�in The okor 1Z silzs ar:all lil,t.ad f:1s 5i;znifieaclt solely 1'or tbe:ir iri.'o;oration content, llcw..v,::r, in our :V(ay 20: 19,94, lritter we: indicated teat v: -I tcught two) sites (.13914, 18915) tls;, w;: rt: u:;e awl nt exr,crrpl•:s cl tllei:r tv;_e, 1:nE i:ing I -rt -'riots C; of 1a,e I Iawaii IG:.gister )f Histori(i,,y;c;Lent ex;arr:.pl,es: of plu,ntatin,ese:3. cla.arinl; ii.ouriis., rlil:rclrul heats arrtl rntnp and ptaihap:; avatar tae;l,: plAtfurms). W. e;tdl belicvz thut critericn C: applies is dlese :wo si'4vq. This Paint nt�.d_ re o'. l:ian. If your "V4 111s lgri�c= with our eialuation wither the reFoal could bt, mUyised :low (Ta°da 2' or ;a letr,,r could be {::alt. to nur cfiflce ago'et3it] s wilh this evaluation. If flour agency,.\'(uld ;:lisE.g;rY;, then a on;ulta.tion :rac;eiing would he needed to U'; to resolve this disacmernmt. Gllren ti ie; , i in&ngg, w,. c:)n<,:,ude Alhrimi,r..t Al (tih::E L:cma:,u,a side. ali ra::nemt1 should not he L se,el :in tts� area b-- t'. V�T kK0!1t0:lana1;ereet a l Kaw'lli Strae•t Theit*; in that al:ii;urn nt section shouA be preserN,! cd Dds v-i:,ii.d also bc c011patlbl.o wit) the U.ri Hilo e luceition prosorde for bol.rny, arch ler.logy a:cd cul Lt.,mi diallers fl. -W, j'7I0'ukaii,:a hE,s pIN7posod and 'which ag?areatly the: UH Hilo adm nisrr►l.icn is 4,c,f,Iorting or is tt%iously :onsids:2in.,'. It woilld also rot impact tht ixtas A—,ere thF Poli ilc i (re„ trd: l u tmdi.ionai culwral objects) have b,,:en found (itot in their original site 41trxt:i). If.'hJt' unitive B is ;;eleaad in this area, a Banc:,✓ ;ehonld rte placed along the north -ulge of the 12C! fear: curridar to tmnsur•e th it eanstru,,tinn w—outd ro': o'cenc] out oi'the Approvzi projl;e areal, th' s erutbling ^rewel:s alio❑ of ai.Il sicca, terrllin, ;and plants tc tho north. 'Jt .min .bdigtmiwit B, Ue sibtLti( ul ltisroric::_:tes m-o4ld nied to undego dant 11-Covery. We rmommen,d the so)pe of Aork (Oates racov .ry plan) :would fo:us in el;arifyinl; thr:: fum:•tior: of the specific :yjtes of pl:t:atazion-era st'•ucturas ;and ur; nitnzllirig the cha;ace hmi of sicmo prcbistoric items it >oils underlyirFl and predating tree ,trtil::tures. Such. 11 m";0nlln,�1nded app::rorlch -- use, of Aligrxnent B with citta rwo very [,f its 9ltt:; fai(;� t(, prot,:50t sil.4% to ;ht. nJ1'lfi to line le.Fd to a adverse eff6r:;' :1 : ation 1:0'r sig:lificam iiist'o1:1C ECltet, S$ould kipir-'en: 13 )e salec::vd, tilt: next stop :n t :t (".hapt r (E compJar.co prc,cess would be stlblllival of tl:.- areti.th-logical data ron)',-ary p1irt I:scripe oFwork) for sites in tte aligartle*nt a:►d it p�oteeti T pla:, ;f4;t,:Ct) for sites actside the: c.orlidar. S'ubmittg_1 would bt: tt; cur Division, for approval. Ile Ile ' alt Jar 4 n fl!'111yd., Adfft.ristrator Sate Iais1,-)Hc :Pre.srr­wicn Divird(;n �jIC: jk I c;! T. Aunt, 1)e.ht. ,'Nnthropok),gy, Urliver.s;ity c,f i[elwnii nt'Menoa Ho oikrt ka., c,lo M. L,risli (3z, i!Qe:,la'ai'.;.a,, Hilo 95720) W. Y oor;: .OiCAHARA & ASSOC., INC. O O O Stephen K. Yamashiro Mayor F•OF.M F' (gaunfV of C'Nafuait DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 - Hilo, Hawaii 96720.4252 January 5, 1995 (808) 961.8321 • Fax (808) 969-7138 MR DON HIBBARD ADMINISTRATOR STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 33 SOUTH KING STREET 6TH FLOOR HONOLULU HI 96813 SUBJECT: REVISED ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY REPORT Pu'ainako Street Widening and Extension Project Waiakea, South Hilo, Island of Hawaii 4 011 ccs Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Chief Engineer O Riley W. Smith Deputy Chief Engineer This is a response to your review of the Revised Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for the Pu'ainako Street Widening and Extension Project prepared by Hunt and McDermott. In your review, there was some disagreement with the significance evaluations with respect to Sites No. 18914 and 18915. More specifically, you concluded that these two sites were excellent examples of plantation era clearing mounds, railroad beds and ramps and perhaps water tank platforms and therefore, were consistent with Criterion C of the Hawaii Register of Historic Places. Please be informed that, upon consultation with our archaeologist, we do not have any objections to the determination that sites 18914 and 18915 are "excellent examples of their type" and should be rated as "C" in accordance with the Significance (Titer•,;-, ('o(��-.�s,. Fur.-,.hermorc�, 3.n accorJa.iice with your rGc:oimnendation, every effort shall be made to preserve these two sites and to minimize disturbance to other sites which are not in the final alignment for the Pu'ainako Street Project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please call me if you have any uestions or require any further information. R EY MITH eputy Chief Engineer cc: State DOT, Highways Division University of Hawaii at Hilo Okahara & Associates, Inc. Terry Hunt, Ph.D. O O O 1h11N J. CAYETA N0 Governor of Hawaii REF:OCEA:TES • •� �' Chairperson r I MICHAEL D. WILSON { Board of Land and Natural Rcscwrccs Deputy Dircoor GILBERT COLOMA-AGARAN STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES P. O. Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 File No.: 96-089 Mr. Masahiro Nishida, P.E. Vice President Okahara & Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 SEP 22 1995 Dear Mr. Nishida: Aquaculture Development Aquatic Resources Boating and Ocean Reacation Bureau of Conveyances Conservation and Environmental Affairs Conservation mrd Resources Enforcement Forestry and Wildlife Historic Reservation Land Management State Parks Water and Land Development SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN): Puainako Street Widening and Extension, South Hilo Hawaii TMK: various We have reviewed the EISPN information for the subject project transmitted by your letter received on August 15, 1995, and have Othe following comments: Division of Historic Preservation Our Historic Preservation Division's (HPD) comments that the EISPN states that additional archaeological surveys will be undertaken of the newly delineated corridors and the results compared with those obtained in the first survey. HPD will need to review these surveys as part of the historic preservation compliance process. HPD also anticipates that the results of all acceptable survey reports will be summarized in the Draft EIS. We will forward any comments from our Division of Land Management as they become available. We have no other comments to offer at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment in this process. Please feel free to contact Steve Tagawa at our Office of Conservation and Environmental Affairs at 587-0377, should you have any questions. Aloha, {� MICHAEL D C &T" WILSO ��� SEP 2 2 1995 OKAHARA & ASSOC., INC. Stephen K. Yatnashiro Mayor December 19, 1995 l'1,II1XnfV of �li�Sti DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8321 • Fax (808) 969-7138 MR PAULO BURNS PO BOX 13 MT VIEW HI 96771 SUBJECT: PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION AND WIDENING 0 L Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Chief Engineer (� Jiro A. Sumada Deputy Chief Engineer �( Thank you for your recent road alignment inquiry on behalf of Ho'oikaika O and congratulations for hiring an archaeologist to conduct an independent study of the area. We encourage and support an independent investigation in the belief that a fully informed public is in the best interest of the community. By a copy of this letter, I am referring your inquiry to Okahara and Associates, project consultants, for an appropriate response and the reason(s) for same. It is my belief that neither the State nor the County has selected or indicated a preferred alignment at this time. However, I do believe that the consultant(s) have recommended the Puna -side alignment, based on the least impact to archaeological and historical features, among other considerations. 'G.-`.C:lF:i,t? YCit�.t":Uxii::iriuea 1„u�{:r@Sl. lr] ttlk? `C?1"O`�iG-'(:. 1.. COPY DO NA FAY KIYOSAKI P.E. ORIGINAL FILED Chi ineer' IN........................ ......... RKY:ctc cc: vbkahara & Associates Dr. Patrick McCoy January 25, 1996 State Historic Preservation Division 33 N. King St. 6th Floor Honolulu, Hawaii Subject: Requested Revisions of Draft Report: An Inventory Survey of the Nainako Street Realignment/Extension Project Expanded Corridor, Waidkea, Kukuau 1 and 2, and Ponahawai, South Hilo District, Island of Hawai `i Dear Pat: Thank you for your immediate and thorough review, of the above report. We concur with the requested revisions outlined in Dr. Hibbard's letter dated January 2, 1996. The attached report (January 1996) has been revised in the following manner: Introduction O Page 2, Figure 1: A new figure has been drafted to show the general location of the project in the Hilo region with better clarity (a more detailed projeci location is shown on 1~igure 2). Page 3, Figure 2: a new figure has been drafted to show different road alternates and the location of the project in relation to existing roads and Waiakea High School. Page 19 (now pg. 23), Figure 9 (now Figure 10): figure re -drafted to show 300 -foot width of project corridor. Previous Archaeology Page 6, para. 4 (now pg. 7, para. 4): extra space between T.G. and Thrum has been removed. 1:' i=;w 6, para, 6 i),c vw pg. 8 para. 1): Kumukahi spc?Eir.g; corrected Page 10, para. 1 (now pg. 11 para. 1): two additional sites accounted for in mauka portion of project. Survey Results Page 18, para. 3 (now pg. 19, para. 3): statement added that an attempt was made to relocate all of the previously identified sites - but three sites were not found. 0 ( pg. ) page 36 now 35 and Table 1: the feature %,b,c" designations have Page 18 now 19 > P .g ( 1'g • ) P1L 808.597-1182SCS...gERVwcALL YouRARCHAEOLOGICAL NRzDs � :FAX.808-597-1193 ALSO ON MAUI - P. O. BOX 1074 PUUNSN6, IIAWAI'I 96794 • 808-149-0859 page 2 been discarded from Site 18919, resulting in a total of 22 newly identified features (after splitting Site 18919 into two sites, see below) Figure 10 (now Figure 11): the cross-section has been reversed. The circular structure is square in cross-section because it has vertical sides and a flat surface (?) Page 27 (now pg. 28): para. 8, last sentence has been completed Page 30 (now pg. 31): para. 2, terrace changed to platform Figure 15: outer limits of Hunt and McDermott survey area have been delineated using a dashed line (also added to Figure 18 - Site 20681). Figure 16, page 34-44 (now pg. 35-40 and pg. 43-47): Site 18919 has been separated into two sites. Features 1-10 and 33-38 comprise a new site (Site 20681) and Feature' 11-32 supplement Site 18919. Text has been changed throughout the report and in Table .1 to iccount for the additional site. 4 Discussion and Conclusions Page 47, para. 1 (now pg. 49) number of sites changed to account for additional site (Site 20681). Page 49, para. 3 includes a brief discussion of Site 20681. O Initial Significance and Recommendations Page 50-52 (now pg. 53-56): Site 20681 assessment added to text and Table 1 & 2 as being significant for information content (significance criteria D) and recommended for data recovery. Recommendations Page 51-52 (now 53-56): new figure drafted (Figure 23) to show: (1) "closeup map of the Komohana and Kawili bounded area"; (2) "300 -foot corridors"; (3) "site boundaries"; (4) UH Housing area; and (5) existing roads. The site boundaries on Figure 23 were primarily established using, Hunt and McDermotts' site/feature locations shown in their Figure 13 (1994:41). Using these feature locations, the new featurez identifieO by SE'S at sites 18912 and 1.8914 were plotted. One site (Site 1891.1) is not entirely shown or is unclear on Hunt and McDermoits' Figure 13. In this instance the site description of Site 18911 provided general bearings (eg., north, southwest) and distances between the features, which were utilized to plot the site boundaries on the present report's Figure 23. There is always a sense of uncertainty when attempting to modify or summarize another archaeological firm's work. Therefore, we have added the recommendation (pg. 56) that the sites in the project corridor be accurately located' by professional land surveyors prior or during the data recovery work. S' cerely, ennifer Robins O Scientific Consultant Services cc. Y. Haun 0 8ENJAMIN J. CAYETANO MICHAEL D. W1LSON, CHAIftPEA.{py GOVERNOR CF HAWAII o �'♦ BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOIJRC:S O ` 0 EP UTY GILBERT COLOMA-AGARAN 1 S i ( AQUACULTURE OEVELOP%4ENT v i PROGPkM STATE OF HAWAII AQUATICRES40UFICES ��// CONSEAVAnON AND DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAtiRS CONSERVATION AND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT 33 SOUTH KING STREET, STH FLOOR CONVEYANCES HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 FORESTRY AND YALDUFE HISTORIC PAESEAVAT1ON DIVISION LJNO MANAGEMENT February 28, 1996 STATE PARxi WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT I„ Dr. Robert Spear �� ;LOG NO: 16593 op Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. y Li�_ I,. - } ._ _ JDOC NO: 9602PM21 711 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 777 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 OKAHARA & ASSOC., INC. Dear Dr. Spear: X � rte. SUBJECT: Revised Report: "An Inventory of the Puainako Street Realignment/Extension Project Expanded Corridor, Waiakea, QKukuau 1 and 2, and Ponahawai South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii" (Robins and Spear 1996) Thank you for your letter of January 25, 1996 with the two copies of the revised report. Your letter, containing brief descriptions of how you responded to each of the comments in our review letter of January 2, 1996 is much appreciated; it makes it easier to review the revisions. All of our comments have been addressed to our complete satisfaction and the report is now accepted. We now find the site descriptions to be acceptable. Also, we are in agreement with the significance evaluations for all 14 sites, 13 of which were previously identified. We do ;lave a few iluesticlLis s,, ll on the mitigation rel: onimendauons. I. If you are recommending Alternative B, then would not all the sites fully in Alternative Abe recommended for preservation -- including 18917? If this area becomes a preserve, there is no need to data recover the site. If this is the case, please revise and send us replacement pages. 2. We also recommend that a fence be erected along the edge of Alternate B (on the side Onear Alternate A) from Komohana Street to Kawili Street. This will ensure that mechat� ized R Spear Page 2 equipment will not stray outside the corridor and into the proposed educational preserve, where such equipment might inadvertently damage the historic sites and flora and topography. Would you agree? 3. Related to.your Figure 23. Will Alternate B result in the condemnation and destruction of existing houses along Puainako Street? It would seem so based on your map. Has the inner border of Alternate B (near Alternate A) moved nearer Alternate A, or has it remained in the same location? This will impact how much land is available for the educational preserve. 4. Last, is your Alternate B recommendation also that of your client? You can send us the response to items 2-4 in a letter. Item 1 probably will need revision of the report. When we see your response, we can then take steps to finalize our comments on mitigation. Aloha, 0 DON IMBARD, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division c: Donna Kiyosaki, Hawaii County Department of Public Works BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO GOVERNOR OF HAWAII March 22, 1996 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 33 SOUTH KING STREET, 8TH FLOOR HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 Ms. Jennifer Robins Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. 711 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 777 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Ms. Robins: MICHAEL D. WILSON. CHADIDS SON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEPUTY GILBERT COLOMA•AGARAN AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AQUATIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRSONSE CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION LAND MANAGEMENT 5TATEPARK$ WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT LOG NO: 16765 ✓ DOC NO: 9603PM14 ' SUBJECT: Final Report: "An Inventory of the Puainako Street Realign men t/Extension Project Expanded Corridor Waiakea, Kukuau 1 and 2, and Ponahawai O South Hilo District, Island ofHawai'i" (Robins and Spear 1996) Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1996 with' the 5 replacement pages for the subject report and other information obtained from Okahara & Associates. In our letter of February 28, 1996 we noted that your survey coverage was adequate and that we believe all sites were found and adequately described. We had one minor disagreement with your significance evaluations and recommended mitigation treatments for all 14 historic sites in the proposed road corridor, which includes two alternative alignments designated Alternatives A and B. You have now revised your analysis, and we agree with your recommendations. Ten sites are significant for the information they contain, and two sites are also significant as excellent examples of a site type. Two sites are regarded as "no longer significant" because all of the information they contain has been adequately documented. Thus, 12 significant sites were identified, You recolitirrfnd selection of die ;Mtcixiative B `,orridor, and with this recommendation 7 sites would be data recovered and 2 need no further work. Alternative A would not be utilized, and the 3 sites in that corridor will be preserved. With this mitigation commitment, we agree that the project will have "no adverse effect" on significant historic sites. We also note Okahara & Associates letter which states that even with a wider corridor, the border of Alternative B encroaches no farther towards Alternative A (and may be farther away). This is encouraging, because if UH Hilo sets aside the remainder of the area into a botanicaUcultural O preserve, as discussed in initial concerns about this project, no additional land will be lost in the Alternative A area by this widening of the corridor. .We do recommend that to ensure construction does not encroach out of the Alternative B alignment, construction fencing (for example, 6 foot high plastic fencing) be temporarily erected during construction along the Alignment A side of the B corridor. Okahara & Associates' letter indicates that they thought we meant stone or cement retaining walls should be built. That is not the case. However, based on experience. if construction fencing is not erected, it is quite possible that the sites and the potential botanical +ral preserve area --ould be damaged. If you have any questions please contact Patrick McCoy (587-0006). Aloha, DON HIBBARD, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division PM: amk c. Donna Kiyosaki, Hawaii County Department of Public Works O Paulo Burns Ho'oikaika Hawaiian Awareness Club P.O. Box 13 Mt. View, HI 96771 Dear Mr. Burns: Thank you for the recent letter on behalf of .the Ho'oikaika Hawaiian Awareness Club, your interest with cultural values is to be commended. Realizing that we have a very short time before July 15, we have referred your request for comment to the County of Hawaii, Public Works Department and the Historic Preservation Division. OWe will be pleased to be in touch with you as soon as responses are received. Very truly yours, OS7amVL— District Land Agent c: Hawaii Land Board Member Dean Y. Uchida, Administr for COH/Public Works Ix steric Presef'Va'.Jalts D1v Y � •'C�E tfr. \� BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO GOVERNOR OF HAWAII j i AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM �o- a• tonin AQUATIC RESOURCES O r-�, CO NSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS STATE OF HAWAII CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE DIVISION OF LAND MANAGEMENT LAND MANAGEMENT STATE PARKS P.O. BOX 936 WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT HILO, HAWAII 96721-0936 July 3, 1996 Paulo Burns Ho'oikaika Hawaiian Awareness Club P.O. Box 13 Mt. View, HI 96771 Dear Mr. Burns: Thank you for the recent letter on behalf of .the Ho'oikaika Hawaiian Awareness Club, your interest with cultural values is to be commended. Realizing that we have a very short time before July 15, we have referred your request for comment to the County of Hawaii, Public Works Department and the Historic Preservation Division. OWe will be pleased to be in touch with you as soon as responses are received. Very truly yours, OS7amVL— District Land Agent c: Hawaii Land Board Member Dean Y. Uchida, Administr for COH/Public Works Ix steric Presef'Va'.Jalts D1v Y - O O {E OF H1 4��� 195g 7 ei BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO --`� GOVERNOR OF HAWAII p r 8 ��'o.y. pec°► STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF LAND MANAGEMENT P.O. BOX 936 HILO, HAWAII 96721-0936 July 3, 1996 TO: Historic Preservation Division County of Hawaii, Dept. of Public Works FROM: SamLeeLann District d Agent AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT O PROGRAM AQUATIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE LAND MANAGEMENT STATE PARKS WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Ho'oikaika Hawaiian Awareness Club Request for Right -of -Entry for the Proposed Puainako Street Extension, Hilo, Hawaii Please review and provide us with your comments on Ho'oikaika's attached request. Please forward your response before July 15, 1996. O c: Hawai'i Land Board Member Dean Y. Uchida, Administrator Paulo Burns �N JUi 36 LAND �T 0 3OX 31 0 b -c/ /4 � . - do )v vy\, -(Ml Vt/ '67 r YY\ rry\ 6-7 dl7r-( cla 6(A�o .070 ,• n �i PRODUCER � Flinn Gray & 1;Terterich 3600 W Bayshore, Suite 200 P O Box 10036 CT'alo Alto, CA 94303 INSURED Garcia & Associates 3152 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920-1205 DATE (hW/DOryy) .r06/14/96 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMPANY A COMPANY B COMPANY C BM COMDPANY Atlantic Mutual THIS IS TO CERTIFY TH �..<.:. - ----- INDICATED. AT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TOO THE INSURED NAMEFuf����H.�� �•� ;A<:<>x>.�<:»>�:w?�;i�"���' INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPTHE POLICY PERIOD ECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN S SUBJECD ABOVE T O ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. CO I TYPE OF LTR I I POLICY StUMBEA POLICY EFFECTIVE I POLICY EXPIRATION DATE lMMlDDlY'n A NERAL LIABILIDATE (Lmd=fYY) LIMITS OETY X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 432300758 12/22/95 12/22/96 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ CLAIMS MADE [ 7X OCCUR PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG S OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT PERSONAL d ADV INJURY S X EXCLUDES EACH OCCURRENCE S X En . Prof.Llab FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire) S A AUTOMOBILE LLIBJLITY MED EXP (Anyone person) S ANY AUTO 432300758 12/22/95 12/22/96 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT S ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS BODILY INJURY HIRED AUTOS (Per person) $ X_ NON -OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) S �-i I GARAGE LIABILITY PROPERTY DAMAGE S ANY AUTO AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT $ EXCESS LIABILITY AGGREGATE $ UMBRELLA FORM LLAcH OCCURRENCE S OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGATE S WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS, LIABIUTY 400707910 12/22/95 12/2?/96 THE PROPRIETOR/ INCL PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE EL EACH ALCIDENT $1 OFFICERS ARE: EXCL EL DISEASE. POLICY LIMIT S OTHER I EL DISEASE. EA EMPLOYEE S 3CRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS RE: Evidence of Insurance Coverage Only Hooikaika Club Attn: Paula Burns P•r—"ox 13 Mi;, stain View, CA 96771 1,000,000 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30_ DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBUQATION OR UArI:LJTY ; OF AWri KIND UPON THE C Pd NY, ITS AGEIITS O gEPRESENTATIVES. LUTHO E REPRESENTA E moi/ � ,i 1./li l'��ic�Jc\.. �.✓\� �\I� \\\ �t %�j•-��V1 /'rli R ��L_' "��TS=;� T I: "I r Veteran I t arM i\1 � �T V7ATE, -,A RK 0. \/� \ i�� ` ���olanl '�"� 1��,�h neLS'i ; �=ij` Ji-.%� V\\l _ O I \,� � ■ t \� 1' Halai�:Parki ��� „�.g J \ 60 ,� pt• /y /Lz+ +��_ tooluluia -ea l- - ,� 1t -- ,•!rte] ,I U ' _ _- �I / �•-� Al IOIIRI����\\\ N� � .N I �N J zi �.'\ gar/�;•� - � � � � �� s��-/ � �� � / \� \• ;' fin• `.`. :•o � c. r .�,� � s- z! I 2 Srn£rr. :sr I i..AIrlruu sr x / I ``�\ callige SIM 471, (Hill Campos); � �,... C ♦ � � / \ `\ / '�. a� !/'l \ „^„f•.. ^ra___•.n/aiakea Hie \ \ \ 2 \n roxicziate LimiSv` %Gj� :lam .� 1 �i _✓ °o �a���� of Prujet Area It3 'la= Ir l:�' \ of �� i\ ' / t :J AZ z 1� I\ Wirt a 9J: I TRE• / .� � 1 � '' 'g. 148. SCALE 1:24 000 i MILE T h 1000 1000 2CO0 3000 4000 :000 5000 7000 FEE, '5 0 KILOMETER I Figure 1. Approximate' location of project area. USGS 7.5' Honolulu, HI Quad. (1983). � 4 O 0 O Proposal for Archaeological Services Relatedio the Planned n,Mnako St. Exteasioa, UII-IIilo, III B'10Systems Aaalysis, Jac, . 2 NaTember 1995 '�J SY OF Stephen K. Yamashiro ` L� Mayor i. ,TF•OF'4 VIOU11fu laf p"'hi&aii DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720.4252 (808) 961.8321 . Fax (808) 969.7138 July 11, 1996 MR SAM LEE LAND AGENT IDU HAWAII DISTRICT OFFICE DIVISION OF LAND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES PO BOX 936 HILO HI 96721-0936 Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Cbief Engineer Jiro A. Sumada Depury Chief Engineer SUBJECT: HO'OIRAIKA HAWAIIAN AWARENESS CLUB REQUEST FOR RIGHT -OF -ENTRY FOR THE PROPOSED PUAINARO STREET EXTENSION WAIAREA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII O Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Ho'oikaika's request to conduct archaeological studies within the project's proposed corridor. We have no objection to the club's request provided that the investigation does not result in any irretrieveable damages or losses to the historical sites. The club's request does not specify what type and how intensive the investigation will be. Because we are interested in the preservation and security of these sites, we wish to review the archaeologist's contractual scope of work with the club as quickly as possible. Additionally, we request timely receipt of work progress and copies of ?UOY data, reports and fin�31ngs p_.n . to the arc;naeulogical studies. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input and are grateful for your continued cooperation and assistance. xc: Planning Director Okahara & Associates BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO GOVERNOR Of HAWAM July 15, 1996 STATE OF HAWAII 9 _0 MICHAEL D. WLSON. CHAAAPVUON {OAAO OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 33 SOUTH KING STREET, 8TH FLOOR HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 DEYVTY OtLSERT COLOMA•AGAIUN AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT PROORAM AQUATIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND WiLDUFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION LINO MANAGEMENT STATE ►ARID WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT Ms. Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, Chief Engineer ; County of Hawaii Department of Public Works {y� 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 LOG NO: 17646 Dear Ms. Kiyosaki: DOC NO: 9607PM12 SUBJECT: Puainako Street Realignment/Extension Project -- Summary of the Current Status in the Historic Preservation Preservation Process Waiakea, Kukuau 1 and 2, and Ponahawai, South Hilo, Hawaii Island This is in response to a request from Ron Terry for a short letter summarizing the results of the several archaeological surveys of the proposed Puainako Street real ignment/extension in terms of the number of sites identified, their significance evaluations, and recommended mitigation treatments. Our detailed official reviews have already been submitted, and they should be read by anyone interested in the historic preservation concerns for this project. This is just a summary update. We have concluded that the two archaeological inventory surveys of the proposed project area (Hunt and McDermott 1993, and Robins and Spear 1996) adequately covered the project area, finding a total of 14 sites. These reports acceptably described the sites and interpreted their function and age. The sites' significance have been evaluated: Two of the 14 sites are regarded as "no longer significant" because they were significant solely for their information content and adequate and reasonable amounts of that information were recovered during the survey. The other 12 sites are considered significant. Of these 12 sites, a total of 10 are significant for their information content only. The other 2 sites (18914 & 18915) are significant for both their information content and as excellent examples of a site type (late 1800s -early 1900s sites associated with sugarcane cultivation). O O O Ms. Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Page Two Finally, we initially emphasized that sites 18914 and 18915, at least, needed to be preserved. These are within Alignment A. Thus, we agreed with with the recommendation in the latest survey report (Robins and Spear) that Alignment B be selected. If this is the case, mitigation work would be needed -- archaeological data recovery of 7 sites in Alignment B and preservation of the five sites found in Alignment A (preserved "as is"). Since there seems to be a desire to have a UH Hilo botanical/cultural preserve in this area, it is important that construction work not extend beyond the border of Alignment B (towards Alignment A). Thus, we have recommended that temporary plastic fencing be erected alon¢ the north edge of Al,l„mert B between Komohananr Kawili Streets -- to ensure that such a preserve area and the sites in Alignment A and beyond are not adversely affected. With Public Works' commitment to undertake the mitigation measures described above, we believe that the proposed realignment project will have a "no adverse effect" on significant historic sites. To ensure that the commitment is carried out, a detailed mitigation plan (scope of work) O for archaeological data recovery work will need to be approved by our office. And prior to construction, we will need to verify that the construction plastic fencing is in place and that the data recovery fieldwork has been completed successfully. If you have any questions please contact Patrick McCoy (587-0006). Sincerely, j DON HIBBARD, �ad:rzi.^.istrat- State Historic Preservation Division PM:jk c: �Okahara and Associates Dr. Robert Spear, SCS Ron Terry 07/04/98 WED 14:40 FAX 808 0018630 U Stephen K Yamashiro mab— July 8, 1998 PUBLIC WORKS �IIli2t� of pufua 0 Qaoi¢ Donna Fay K Kiyosal i Clir/EnBvIffy O Jiro A. Sumada Deputy Chef Enemetr DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Saoet, Room 202 • Hila Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8321 . Fox (808) 961.8630 MR DON HIBBARD ADMINISTRATOR DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE. HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 33 SOUTH KING STREET 6"' FLOOR HONOLULU HI 96813 ATTENTION: PAT McCOY O SUBJECT: PUAINAKO WIDENING AND EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) This letter follows up on discussions and field trips involving Marc Smith and Pat McCoy of Your Division and Ron Terry, a representative of Okahara & Associates, our consulting engineers for the project. As background, your office in 1996 approved the conclusions that no significant historic sites were present, based on two archaeological inventory survey reports on the proposed extension that were conducted in 1993 (Hunt ,?nd McDermottane� "? - .� 5 F - r, 11 vt'Aci les i:c vered a study corridor 300 feet in width sturo riding the proposed centerline. One of the Alternative Alignments under consideration for thero'ect Ali shifted slightly in order to satisfy concerns of the U.S. Environmental�Protec on Agency been (EPA) concerning intermittent stream crossings (see attached map_ please note that a copy was supplied to Mr. Smith). On June 29, 1998, Dr. Terry accompanied W. Smith in the field to point out the areas where the revised alignment deviates from the ori the len � original one. Over most of length of the shift there would appear to be extremely little likelihood of affecting significant historic sites. The reasons for this are: 07/08/98 WED 14:40 FAX 808 96.18630 PUBLIC WORKS 1j00: II O OMr. Don Hibbard, Administrator July 8, 1998 Page 2 1) The new alignment is entirely or mostly within the 300 -foot corridor in which the consulting archaeologists performed an intensive ground survey, finding no sites; 2) The substrate is either 1881 lava flow or former sugar -cane land, on which significant historic sites are not expected and were not found during our original inventory. Part of the revised alignment near Pamoho Place extends into an area that was not previously surveyed, on a substrate that is neither 1881 lava flow nor old sugar land. We are planning to authorize an inventory survey of the portion of the alignment near Pamoho Place identified on the attached map. We are requesting your concurrence that the scope of such survey is adequate field investigation concerning the potential for historic sites in the proposed realignment. We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience so that we may begin the survey. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call O MY office at 961-8321, or Dr. Terry at 982-5831. We thank you for your timely assistance in this matter. onm Fay K. Kiyosaki, P.E. f Engineer Attachments: 1 map cc: Masa Nishida, Okahara & Associates via fax 961-5529 (no attachments) Ron Terry, Y.K. Hahn & Associates via fax 982-5831 (no attachments) Post -i? Fax gots 7671 To From l��lv COA)GPL Co. Phone F Phone Y Fax * - s Fax ZY OF H� G 7� /4•. Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Chief Engineer Stephen K. Yamashiro i•: Mayor '••-__:,: , Jiro A. Sumada O ......��+'� Deputy Chief Engineer OF M• � onnfv of Puffinii DEPAR'T'MENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 • Hiio, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808)961-8321 • Fax (808)961-8630 June 23, 1998 CHARLENE UNOKI HAWAII DISTRICT LAND AGENT DIVISION OF LAND MANAGEMENT HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES P O BOX 936 HILO HAWAII 96721-0936 SUBJECT: PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING AND EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) DETERMINATION OF PRESENCE OF SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES O As part of performing the EIS for the project, we are also complying with laws contained in 49 U.S.C., Section 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138, commonly referred to as Section 4(f). This law requires that all actions or projects undertaken by agencies of the U.S. Department of Transportation or its agents ensure that special efforts are made to protect public parks and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. We are asking for your assistance in obtaining a written determination from your Division about the use and designation of the State lands through which the various alternative alignments for the project pass. Specifically, we need to know whether any of these lands have recreation as their primary purpose or whether any wildlife or waterfowl refuges are present. Project location maps from the EIS are attached for your reference. Robert Yanabu of my staff will be coordinating the EIS process. Please call him at (808) 961-8327 or. myself at (808) 961-832.1 if you have any questions, Yoga may als- wish to call William L. Moore, with the consulting englaccrs for the: projept, Oka]-:aia & Associates, at (808) 935-0311. D NNA FAY K. KIYO AKI, PE Chief Engineer Attachment cc: R. Yanabu O Richelle Suzuki, Trap.sportat.i.on Engineer, FHWA,. Okahara & Associates 7)U Stephen K. Yamashiro O Mayor June 23, 1998 Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Chief Engineer == Jiro A. Sumada �F aF•N,++� Deputy Chief Engineer C� luttfu of pHaffinii DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 • Hilo. Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8321 • Fax (808) 961-8630 GEORGE YOSHIDA DIRECTOR HAWAII COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 25 AUPUNI STREET HILO, HAWAII 96720 SUBJECT: PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING AND EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) O DETERMINATION OF PRESENCE OF SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES As part of performing the EIS for the project, we are also complying with laws contained in 49 U.S.C., Section 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138, commonly referred to as Section 4(f). This law requires that all actions or projects undertaken by agencies of the U.S. Department of Transportation or its agents ensure that special efforts are made to protect public parks and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. We are asking for your assistance in obtaining a map that illustrates the boundaries of Kaumana Cave County Park and a determination from your Department as to whether the project would in any way adversely impact use of this recreational area. Project location maps from the EIS are attached for your reference. Robert Yanabu of my staff will be coordinating the EIS process. Please call him at (808) 961-8327 or myself at (808) 961-8321 if you have any questions. You may also wish to call William L. Moore, with the c.on..s,ulting engineers f�,r the f;,_ojm , Oka.hara & Associates, a.t: (808) 935-x)311. DONNA FAY K. KIYOSAKI, PE Chief Engineer Attachment Occ: R. Yanabu Richelle Suzuki, Transportation Engineer, FIIWA Okahara & Associates aFNJAM1N J. CAYETANO GOV:ANO, OF rxNAu STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL_ RE50URCES DIVISION OF LAND MANAGEMENT Flo 'MX 035 HILC.HA,7: 196721-G M July 2, 1998 Donna Fay Kiyosaki, Chief Engineer County of .Hawaii Department of Public Works 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 T,;oF:'Fvh '"d.; t,7 AOUA TC CO•i:F.?:AT'rx. AN,) I:v-113'4\'. ::r I. c-FAIFt0 Cu 5SZZIT.:'.r. ciC.l,W�a'i GGrlVe�AhCe" J F %[ Y Pay 'NA -F? Ac` SUBJECT: State lands located in the vicinity of the proposed PuiLlnako Street widening and extension project, Waiakea, Hawaii. 0 Dear Ms. Kiyosaki: This letter responds to your request of June 25, 1998, for a determination from the Land Division as to whether any of the State lands through which the proposed Puainako Street widening and extension project impacts public parks and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges and historic sites. To the best of my knowledge, none of the State lands have any of the features mentioned. Therefore, your project would have no significant impact on the State lands. Should you have any questions, please call my office at 974.16203. Sli)o,erel •,, 0441 . �.2 Charlene E. Unold xc: Hawaii BM Support Services COUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION 25 Aupuni Street, Rm 210 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8311 *** Fix (808) 961-8411 MEMORANDUM Date: 7une 26, 1998 To: Donna Kiyosaki, Chief Engineer From: George Yoshida, P&R Director `1v Re: Puainako Street Extension -EIS Determination of Presence of Section 4(F) Resources The proposed extension is not anticipated to adversely impact the Kaumana Cave park site. Although the County has maintained the Kaumana Cave park site for decades, an executive order was never issued by the State. An inquiry to the Hawaii District Land Management office has confirmed this. Other than a tax map key designation, we have no boundary description of the site. Perhaps your survey section can provide this information. with regard to jurisdiction over the site, I will meet with Mayor Yamashiro to determine whether the site should be retained or returned to the State. r Y G- N G tJ J ° O�prt lollll J - P l Aa0/ T d P L PT °° ! rt In "' �o PL ♦�Y^ O Ao°0p / r e✓ � o ela � a„ 9 y5O P fah °� X90 w o✓ P D Y r� ��ea°rs l:alO � pn° ✓w 1g2 / •I Po f'J Y fs" ,JI I L mL JA / D °° G4 4r4�J d iI 3 � / I 17 i/ 1 {♦Jlw f 91 16 E'{f�1♦P 1'3 7 N P Pe ♦ e.ssexs Jana I 9r+J o P{01 c�t5 O♦1 35 5 6 dpa R✓/A /aohar/...,im �br /'/ 3� r { A 90 Ifi ✓f to fi i_ YE r . f rt ,. .,t✓ ro r I 6°r `F„r P �e� bP p 1 0i 1y I'uc 57/�� DII P uP 19 / An/A R Lawr ncc TI b° O a °j // � .. /af ° r 8� 14 ry ✓rr KAUMANA '" " 13 ' a CAVES 14 i j ® Cii O R I t l r.♦c �� r . /.n�:iiA+w. ;?.' �" " cY =k P hYii: I Q y✓ ♦ Wit.>F."�r���.tStl �°.� O:iPTyt�4`ll}; _>� _ ✓r✓ 27 a s �riv Q ? Ji 26P R OnYr aid Pr b°a° /R ro.vraya... b ref H L+ S� t VIFf °31 J ♦ e pas Pd6 nx aya-p IPTG"rr I� Cpl o J a Aln Jr rN Ao ArA x fr♦ fq° �iovi 29 -e .... ... ...-...-r r. e...e f'f�P GPS Jfo No/.. en/ 1 BaP 1 P, r ° t 39 p ....... � ♦ A 33 f �r TAtJ. wvllm EMT Ii POR PON004A1A/ AIMSTOS a PONAHAWAA NSLTS PONANAWA/ SOOTAI FOR REAL PROPERTY TAXATION PURPOSES SUBJKT TO CHANGE D appsd Pare OFrARIMFM m TA%ATIDN TAXATION MAPS BUREAU VAT[ OF "WAR TAX MOP TNIAD TAtJ. wvllm EMT Ii NAT 2 1 140 XAL{ 1 IN —ICO /T q0 n C APPENDIX Al COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO EISPN (NOI): OTHER CORRESPONDENCE ll1.N)v�MIN' ) CA, Yl: IAN0 ;,_'• frmcrn�r of llawaii�� O STATE OF HAWAII DEPART74E. T OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES P. O. Box 621 REF: OCEA: TES Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 File No.: 96-089a Mr. Masahiro Nishida, P.E. Vice President Okahara & Associates, Inc. n('T 5 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Nishida: C h..i i rpr ,,,n MICHAI.1 D wI1SON Hozn1 of (vsd aisJ Natur,�1 Rc. urt'cs t �I Npuly Dirrclor t ' GI1.131"RT COLOMA AGARAN Aquaculture Dcvclopnicnt J `' Aquatic Rcsourccs Boating and Octan RcsTeauon Bureau of Conveyances Conscrvanon and FnYtronnicnial Affairs Conon anon and ReSour,vs Gtfuncnxnt Forestry and Wildlife Historic Preservation Land Managemcm Sute Parks Water and Land Development SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN): Puainako Street Widening and Extension, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: various The following are our additional comments on the subject project which supplement those previously forwarded by our letter of OSeptember 22, 1995: Commission on Water Resource Management The Commission on Water Resource Management's (CWRM) staff comments that based on the information provided, it appears that a Stream Channel Alteration Permit (SCAP) pursuant to Section 13- 169-50, Hawaii Administrative Rules will be required before the project can be implemented. We have no other comments to offer at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment in this process. Please feel free to contact Steve Tagawa at our Office of Conservation and Environmental Affairs at 587-0377, should you have any questions, Aloha, �S�r+-.x 0 • C.a��• is MICHAEL D. WILST Lill OCT U 6 1995 � OKAHARA & ASSOC., INC, HILO OFFICE BEt-AMN J. CAVETANO GOVERNOR OF HAWAII DO ' P 2 see_ OKAFIARA, & ASSOC., INC. • s'��,. u19 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P. O. BOX 7378 HONOLULU. HAWAII 96801 December 14, 1994 LAWRENCE MIKE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH O (^ PINS! refer to: 1 95 Di .OKAHARA & ASSOC., INC. HILO OFFICE TO: Those Persons Requesting Comments on Land Use Documents FROM: June Harrigan-Lum, Manager 4i/4te, Environmental Planning Office (J SUBJECT: Temporary Discontinuance of Land Use Reviews Because of the lack of funds and resources this year, we are not able to hire someone to coordinate our 1995 legislative activities. As a result, we are using one of our existing staff members to do this work on a full time basis during the legislative session... The legislative coordinator selected, Mr. Art Bauckham, is also the person who was coordinating the land use reviews and responses. Therefore, starting on January 1, and continuing until May 1, 1995, the Environmental Planning Office (EPO) will not be accepting any land use documents for coordinated replies. If you would like staff in a specific branch or office (for instance, the Wastewater Branch) to comment on your proposal, you are welcome to contact the staff directly. A list of the Branch/Office names are attached for your reference. If you have already sent a copy of the document to the EPO, and you wish to la Vc us sand it to a 3p3c4f4c bra nch, you may call 585-4337 A 8 ask the clerical staff to send it to the appropriate branch. Pleape describe the document and the date of your cover letter. Remember, on May 1, 1995 we will again start preparing coordinated responses throughout the -Environmental Health Administration. Thank you for your cooperation and patience in this matter. Ref: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fora proposed extension of a portion of Hawaii State Highway 2000, Puainako Street and Saddle Road (Highway 200) and alleviate congested and unsafe traffic conditions on Kaumana Drive O 0 O Branches and Offices in the Environmental Health Administration Hazard Evaluation and • Emergency Response ----------586-4249 Environmental Planning Office --586-4337 Clean Air Branch ---------------586-4200 Clean Water Branch ---- --------- 585-4309 Safe Drinking Water Branch -----586-4258 Office of Solid Waste Mgt. -----586-4240 Hazardous Waste Branch ---------586-4226 Wastewater Branch --------------586-4294 Noise and Radiation Branch -----586-4701 Sanitation Branch --------------586-8000 Litter Control Office ----------586-8400 Food and Drug Branch -----------586-4725 Vector Control Branch ----------831-6767 O O �a �a 4•� BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO 1 GOVERNOq 4 f + STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL 220 SOUTH KING STREET FOURTH FLOOR HONOLULU. HAWAII 96813 TELEPHONE 18081 686-1186 FACSWILE 18081 686-2462 August 7, 1995 Ms. Donna Fay Kiyosaki Hawaii Department of Public Works 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Ms. Kiyosaki: Y I� OARV mLL / J dq(C tOq Subject: Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice for Puainako Street Widening and Extension Project, South Hilo Please include the following in the draft environmental impact statement: 1. A clear map of the island showing the project location; and 2 The project cost showing the amount of state or county funds. If you have any questions please call Nancy Heinrich at 586-4185. Sincerely, lGary Gill Director GG/NH:kk I J c: Masahiro Nishida, Okahara & Associates COPY 9�IGIN/ FILED IN . �/U...� O O a g O om'TMe United States r Department of Agriculture O. O Natural P. O. Box 50004 Resources Honolulu, HI Conservation 96850-0001 Service August 8, ,1 995 Donna K. Kiyosaki Department of Public Works 25 Aupuni St., Room 202 Hilo, HI 96720-4252 > Attn: Ron Terry, Okahara & Associates Subject: Puainako Widening and Extension Project Enclosed is the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for the Puainako Widening and Extension Project. We completed our portion of the form and are returning it as you requested. O Saku Nakamura Asst. State Soil Scientist Enclosure The Natural Resources Conservation Service fomYedy the Soil Conservation Service, workr hand -In -hand wkh the American people to conserve natural resources on private lands. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request Name Of Project i 'r9 �� ..-.�. ,t..�t�•:rr is riri(l OFFICE :9C'.a i �.� �_-� U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request Name Of Project JulY 24, 1995 Puainako Widening and Extension Federal Agency Involved Proposed Land Use Dept. of Transportation Hi hwa County And State PART II (To be completed by SCS) State of Hawaii Count of Hawaii Date Request Received By Does the site contain prime, unique, SCS 9 statewide or local important farmland? Yes NoIrrigated8 (If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional Acres Average Farm Size parts of this form . Majorurop(s) ) KI ❑ FarmabLand In Govt, Jurisdiction Sugarcane, Macnuts, Coffee, Beef 12,899 Amount Of Farmland 358 Ac As Defined in FPPA Ale Acres: Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Acres: 727, 700 %28 Name Of Local Site Assessment State Acres: 569,000 �� 22 Of Hawaii, LESA System None Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) 8/8/95 A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Site A Alternative Site Rating Site B Site C Site D B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 76.9 85.2 C. Total Acres In Site -0- -0- PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information 76.9 85.2 A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland B• Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 7 7 8.5 C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted _0 D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same or Higher Relative Value • 001 PART V (To be completed 19.3 • 001 15.8 by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100Points) 81 82 82 PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum Points I. Area In Nonurban Use 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 5. Distance From Urban Bujltup Area 6. Distance To Urban Support Services 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average Q. Creation Ot Nonfarmable Farmland 9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 10. On -Farm IPvestments - 11, Effects Of Conversion Or: r al ( _. ---- iii .�t.ippUlt_C'fbi(, t<'S 12. Compatibility With Existina Agricultural Use -TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 1-- PART V11 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) -----j 100 Total Site Assessment (From Part V/ above or a local site assessment) - 160 TOTAL POINTS (Total ofahove 2lines) I 260. Selected: i or, Fre Sr,lection --- Was -AL-cal S,r„ Assessment Usecp Date Of Selection - ---- - - - Yes [3 No Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Stephen K. Yarnashiro Chie/Engineer ;Mayor �� w _ Jiro A. Sumach —' ' e)O ty Chief Engineer Q-1,vunfu of h1ttt`t DEPARTMENT OF -PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720.4252 (808) 961-8321 • Fax (8o8) 969-7138 August 15, 1995 Dear Resident: Subject: Puainako Street Widening and Extension Project The County of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii are planning to widen and realign Puainako Street between Kilauea and Komohana Street, with construction to begin as early as 1997. The County of Hawaii has contracted the firm of Okahara & Associates to design the roadway and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The house that you own and/or live in has been identified as a structure that may potentially be 0 displaced by the project. If you or your tenants are displaced from this house as a direct result of the project, you or your tenants are entitled to relocation advisory services and financial compensation, as specified in the federal and state laws, regulations and guidelines. In order to explain the details of the project, inform you of the relocation assistance that may be available to you or your tenants, and gather needed information about your household and/or your tenants household, we are inviting you to attending a meeting on September 11, 1995 (Monday) at 6:30 P.M. at the University of Hawaii at Hilo Campus Center, Room 313. Please call Masa Nishida of Okahara & Associates at 961-5527 to confirm your attendance or to make alternative arrangements �IncefPl�:, f" Donna K. Kiyosaki, Chief ineer Q�D1 AUG i e 191, 771 WHARA & ASSOC., INC. H11 t) OFFICE Stephen K. Yamashiro a vor August 15, 1995 Mr. Ron Terry, Geo Metrician HCR 9575 Keaau, Hawaii Dear Mr. Terry: (founfv of �ztfurtlii POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapiolani Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3998 (808) 935-3311 • Fax (808) 961-2702 Ph. D. 96749 j ii Wavne G. Carvalho James S. Correa O D�-.:ir ?acct 1.%ur We received your letter of July 24, 1995, requesting statistical information on the number of traffic accidents at the following locations for the past five years: Kaumana Drive between Country Club Drive and Komohana Street: 139 Komohana Street between Waianuenue Avenue and Puainako Street: 102 Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street: 3332 Should you require further assistance, please contact Lieutenant Ernest, E: Correia of our Traffic Services Section at (808) 961-2225. Sincerely, WAY E G. CARVALHO POLICE CHIEF JNE:wlc O a Ben amin J. Cayetano NAPMa GOVERNOR �3-0 t ` 1 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION P. O. BOX 2360 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96804 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Mr. Masahiro Nishida, P.E. Okahara & Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola St. Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Nishida: OHERMAN M. AIZAWA, PH.D. BUKRIMTENDOST SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Statement Puainako Street Widening and Extension August 29, 1995 We have reviewed the subject revised preparation notice. The Department of Education (DOE) is concerned that the proposed Puainako Street widening and extension may impact schools in the area. (Waiakea High, Waiakea Intermediate, and Waiakea Elementary) The DOE will require that mitigating measures be implemented by the developer to minimize disruptions caused by noise, dust, and traffic during the construction period. If noise and dust levels exceed Department of Health standards, we will require the developer to install air-conditioning for those classrooms being impacted by this project at no cost to the DOE. Should there be any questions, please call the Facilities Branch at 733-4862. Ili S :i.ncere1-v, Herman M. Aizawa, P D. Superintendent HMA: jml CC: A. Suga OP. Bergin, Hawaii j y1h T77, SEP 11995 OKAHARA & ASSOC., INC. HILO OFFICE AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Stephen K. Yamashiro Matior August 22., 1995 0 JNZY'-Cs N�!Y sr�TfosM'�' AT vullunfv of chtfunit POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapiolani Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3998 (808)935-3311 • Fax(808)961-2702 Mr. Masahiro Nishida Vice President Okahara & Associates 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Wayne G. Carvalho Police Chiei - James S. Correa O Di77uty Police Chief 1% AUG 2 S 1995zl OKAHARA & ASSOC., INC. HILO OFFICE Dear Mr. Nishida: We appreciate the opportunity to review the revised Environmental Impact Statement for the Puainako Street widening and extension received by us on August 14, 1995. Although our recommendations on the proposed alternative design options are not being sought at this time, it would be helpful if, at some point, those options described in Section 2.5.2 could be graphically displayed. Sincerely, vlt � � t zaj-o' �j WAYNE G. CARVALHO Pn;,T CT !" 1,T -.T ;'j'` EO:esk 0 6 Gtephen K. Yamashiro Mayor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961.8321 Fax (808) 969.7138 August 29, 1995 JERRY IWATA, MANAGER RIGHT-OF-WAY BRANCH HIGHWAYS DIVISION HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 888 MILILANI STREET, SUITE 502 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 Dear Mr. Iwata: Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Chu!£ngineer Jiro A. Sumada Deputy Chig'Erngineer This letter is to confirm that Monday, September 11, is the date for the meetings between a Orepresentative of your agency and the residential property owners, business owners and church officials affected by the Puainako Street Widening project. The schedule we have arranged is as follows: 0 1:00 PM: Meeting with business owners (Kai Store and T. Kouchi) at Okahara and Associates office (200 Kohola Street; 961-5527). 0 4:00 PM: Meeting with Kinoole Baptist Church Board of Directors, at church (1815 Kinoole Street; 959-8012). 0 6:30 PM: Meeting'with residents, at the University of Hawaii at Hilo Campus Center Room 313, Thank you for your help in providing relocation assistance information to the community members potentially affected by the project. In the week prior to the meeting we would like to discuss the format of the presentations and any arrangements necessary for the meetings. Would you please contact Masahiro Nishida at (808) 961-5527 at your convenience? Sincerely, O DONNA FAY K. KIYOSAKI CHIEF ENGINEER BENJAMIN J CAVETANO i LAWRENCE MAKE STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 901Y oea se P O BOX 3378 HONOLULU HAWAII 96801 September 12, 1995 93-016(A)/epo Mr. Masahiro Nishida, P.E. Okahara & Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Nishida: Subject: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Revised Preparation Notice Puainako Street Widening and Extension Between Kilauea Avenue and Country Club Road Hilo, Hawaii Thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the subject project. We do not have any comments to offer in addition to our comments of March 11, 1993, which were incorporated into the Final EIS. Sincerely, Lawrence Miike Director of Health 17V SEP 2 0 1995 Zip OKAHARA & ASSOC 'H1kg- a C FF A 4: ' INC, O (1 C Okahara & Associates, Inc. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS September 20, 1995 Letter No. 43847 Reference No. 92014 Mr. Michael Larish, Chair Ho'oikaika Research Committee University of Hawai'i 34 Mala'ai* Road Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Dear Mr. Larish: Thank you for responding to our request for information as we prepare the federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Puainako Extension and Widening Project. Each of the issues that you have carefully commented upon will be discussed in depth in the EIS. In response to your questions and specific areas of concern: Oo Laws and rules governing the federal EIS process are contained in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA - 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and in the regulations implementing this act (23 CFR 770-772; 40 CFR 1500- 1508). These resources are available through your public and university libraries. o A public meeting will be held after publication of the Draft EIS. Notice of this meeting will be provided to all interested parties. In the meantime, we welcome input from yours and other concerned citizen groups. o Additional archaeological inventory was conducted as a result of minor design changes. Research is still ongoing. Your comments regarding archaeolugy he vc— been ft::ai vrxP ded to the coinsultlnger;':rt<.:e 31GC?k ai ? he Draft EIS will discuss the new findings. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Division continues. o We would be interested in obtaining a copy of your interviews with kupuna and others with knowledge of land use patterns and traditions in the proposed corridor. Please contact Masa Nishida at 961-5527. Donald K Okahara. P E • Masahiro Nishida, P E. • Terrance Nago. P E Glenn SUZUki. P E • Nancy E Burns, P E 200 KOHOtA ST • HILO. HI 96720 • (8001 961 5527 FAX (808) 961 -5520 4,70 NOPTH NIMITZ HWY . STE 212 • HONOLULU. HI 9681 7 • (8081 524 1224 • FAx (808) 521 3151 } 557,1 MAIAU STREET. BAY 6B • KAILUA'KONA HI 96740 • 1808) 329 1221 • FAX 18081 ',:9 1006 September 20, 1995 O Letter No 43847 Reference No 92014. Page 2 o The implications of the Mohouli Street extension will be discussed in the Draft EIS. o Road safety is a primary concern of the project and indeed one of the fundamental purposes for this project. The subject will be fully discussed in the Draft EIS. o The County Department of Public Works and our consulting team has consulted officials at Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate Schools during the EIS process. This dialogue is ongoing. Again, thank you very much for your comments on the EIS Notice of Preparation. Sincerely, Masa Nishida, P.E. Hilo Office RT/WLM:mq 9ENjA�J!N J. CAYE-ANO '10140N0o C STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAH %813-5097 SEP 2 0 1995 mr. Kon Terry Phone/FAX No. 982-5832 -a,,;,,� •.4. "A c.CA 3LEti'... : •.raC'' �N P.EP'_v eacco ;C' riWY-TS 2,.7411 Dear Mr TerrY: Thank you for your letter of August 28, 1995, requesting accident data for the Puainako EIS. Roadway Segments # Accidents Kaumana Dr. (Country club Dr. to Komohana St.) 93 Komohana St. (waianuenue Ave. to Puainako St.) 16 18 Puainako St. (Kilauea Ave. to Komohana St.) These accident totals occurred in 1993, which is the latest complete year of data that we have. The non -intersection accident rate for the --aunty of Hawaii is 156.59 accidents per hundred million vehicle miles. The roadway segments that are -located on Route 2000, a porton of Puainako St. and Kaumana Dr., and their co:respondinq non -intersection accident rates are given below: On Puainako St. - 386.37 Kilauea Ave. to Kinoole St. 305.36 Kinoole St. to Iwalani ./Kawili St. St225.34 iwalani St./Kawili St. to Komohana St. ' u^�ana. Dr. - 9 P r f°o�,�g�, t:.1C + C' 1,Ixb 11)r 7 8 8 6 50, Y'. t za a'�taL� Ll•L� Ib s s k r.-. ated These non -intersection ���-dent �ewh�.chwere isatheilateststraffic` lig 1991 average daily traffic (ADT) ccunts summary data that we have available Further investigation may be needed to validate these values. County road ADT counts are done by the counties, therefore without the ADT for the county road segments you requested, the accident rates cannot be computed. Mr. Ron `^erry HWY-TS Pae 2 2.7411 S Ef 2 0 1995 Comparison of these road segments that you requested to similar functional classification roadways are not possible since there are no equivalent roadways on that island. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact Jan Hosokawa at 587-2180. very truly yours, PAUL M. HAMAMOTO State Traffic Engineer o. O Stephen K. Yamashiro Mayor O October 2, 1995 J�tV0 M�w i htT • . yO :p� f p�•M�' (911UUfVJ of �ttfuati PLANNING DEPARTMENT 25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961.8288 • Fax (808) 961.9615 Mr. Masahiro Nishida, P.E. Okahara & Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Nishida: L vvV Y� Virginia Goldstein Director Norman Olesen Deputy Director Environmental Impact Statement Revised Preparation Notice for Puainako Street Widening and Extension TMK: 2 -2 -various plats & parcels; 2 -4 -various plats & parcels and 2 -5 -various plats & parcels Thank you for your letter transmitting a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement Revised Preparation Notice for the Puainako Street Widening and Extension project. Please accept our apology for our delay in responding to your submittal. We have reviewed the revised preparation notice and have no comments at this time. We will reserve our comments upon our receipt of the draft Revised Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed project. Thank you for allowing our office to provide preliminary comments on the notice. Please contact Daryn Arai of this office should ybu have any questions. Sincerely, VIRG NIA qG�L DSTEIN Planning Director DSA: mjs LPuainol.dsa xc: DPW—Engineering j 4 �d���1 OCT 0 4 1995 OKAHARA & ASSOC., INC. HILO OFFICE BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO Governor February 24, 1996 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WAIAKEA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 160 W. PUAINAKO STREET HILO, HAWAII 96730-5399 Mr. William Moore Okahara and Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola Street Hilo. Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Moore: G / o .r i 5 HERMAN M. AIZAWA, Ph. D Superintendent PATRICIA BERGIN District Superintendent IDg(ggIIv FEB 2 7 1996 OKAHARA a ASSOC,, INC. HILO OFFICE On behalf of the Waiakea Elementary School PTA, thank you very much for taking the time to talk to our parents about the proposed improvements to Puainako Street. Our parents appreciated your clear presentation about the changes proposed and the efforts being made to consider children's safety and traffic flow. We also appreciated your "hanging around" after the meeting to answer questions and explain your drawings. We received many positive comments, such as, "It was so nice the way he [Mr. Moore] explained things. Now I can see what's happening" and "It was really nice of him [Mr. Moore] to stick around and answer my questions." We truly appreciated the time and effort you and Mr. Simeon put into your pfesentation. Sincerely, nice Inner unci 1 c: Mr. Mnsa Nishida, Okahara and Associates, Inc. AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIO' "n FC""' „'PORTUNITY EMPLOYER IIN 1 CAYEFAN0 Y Goscriwr of Ilawaii (Jt{ C STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES REF:OCEA:TES P. 0. Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 File No.: 96-089 Mr. Masahiro Nishida, P.E. Vice President Okahara & Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 SEP 22 1995 Dear Mr. Nishida: MICI(AlA. D. �� II.SON Board of Land and Naiural Rc-urics Deputy Director GILBLRT COLOtviA AGARAN A quacullurc Dcvclo(ancnl Aquatic Resources Boating and Ocean Re«canon Bureau of Conveyances Conservation and Entr"icnial affairs Conservation ar d Rc owcas Giforcl i ent Forestry and Wildlife Historic Reservation Land Management SUtc Parts Water and Land Development SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN): Puainako Street Widening and Extension, South Hilo; Hawaii, TMK: various We have reviewed the EISPN information for the subject project transmitted by your letter received on August 15, 1995, and have the following comments: Division of Historic Preservation Our Historic Preservation Division's (HPD) comments that the EISPN states that additional archaeological surveys will be undertaken of the newly delineated corridors and the results compared with those obtained in the first survey. HPD will need to review these surveys as part of the historic preservation compliance process. HPD also anticipates that the results of all acceptable survey reports will be summarized in the Draft EIS. We will forward any comments from our Division of Land Management as they become available. We have no other comments to offer at this time. Thank you for the, to, in process, Please feel free to contact Steve Tagawa at our Office of Conservation and Environmental Affairs at 587-0377, should you have any questions. Aloha, MICHAEL D. WILSO SEP 2 2 1995 OKAHARA & ASSOC., INC. HILO OFFICE C APPENDIX A2 TRANSCRIPT OF SPECIAL MEETING 20 JULY 1992 OBRUCE McCLURE: Thank you very much for coming out. I'm Bruce McClure. I'm your chief engineer, Department of Public Works. We will be passing around a sign-up sheet.' It's voluntary, but we would like your name, phone number and address in case we want to get in touch with you later. With us tonight is the Mayor whom I'll introduce in just a minute, our consultant, and they will explain the purpose of this meeting. And we have some very distin- guished guests in the audience which I'll let our Mayor introduce to you. So, at this time, I'd like to introduce our Mayor, Mayor Inouye. [applause] MAYOR INOUYE: Thank you, Bruce. Good evening. It's so nice to see all of you here, and that's just to let us know that you are interested in what happens in your district and your community. What we'll be doing tonight is giving you an overview of this project, then discuss the potential benefits and the impacts of the road realignment. We view that the Puainako Road Extension as a critical element in ensuring that Hilo's road system can not only support, but also sustain it's continued growth. This project also serves as the foundation for the continued improvement of the Saddle Road, the Mauna Kea Observatories, linking Hilo, Pohakuloa and, of course, West Hawaii. Although this Extension is,part of the State's Highway System, last year the County.has taken a more active role to ensure that this project can be developed in a timely manner which effectively meets the needs of the residents of both Hilo and the County as a whole. In fact, this development, if some of you remember --I remember --was first discussed over twenty-five years ago. And this was supposed to be the major lii'iJ: be -L -ween Hilo Airport, I��a'�?3;ti.ea, Pja.aKed T31;:c:, the suburbs, and on to the Saddle Road junction. The reason for this meeting is to solicit your input and concerns about this roadway. I want to emphasize, though, that no decisions has [sic] been made as yet. This project must meet all of your needs and will need the benefit of your input that we can --to determine how to achieve that objective. O Page 2 O I'd like to introduce several officials here who has [sic] been instrumental in helping us pro- ceed with this project and with the help of our Senator Matsuura who took the time out tonight -- Senator Matsuura, thank you for coming. Of course our Representative Harvey Tajiri also played a key role. With us as well we have our council members --we have Brian DeLima here and we have our new council member, Eddie Alonzo. Eddie, why don't you stand since, um, you've just taken office --and Brian, thanks for coming. At this time I'm going to turn the, things over to Billy Moore, and he is representing Okahara & Associates that the County has hired as the primary consultant on this project. Thank you, again, for coming. BILLY MOORE: Thank you, Mayor. At the start, I just uh, a couple of things. The bathrooms, the men's bath- room, the boys' bathroom since we're in elementary school is to the back on the left, the girls' is, it does say that, the girls' is back on the right. The drinking fountains are back out this way --okay. I also would like to apologize. We had hoped to have this a little less formal than we need to have it tonight, but we're going to be taping the proceedings and coming up with a transcript. So we're going to ask that when we get to the public input side of it, and that is the main' purpose that we're here, although we'll give you a foundation and try to provide you with some basic information, so we're not scrambling for that information. But we're going to ask that you come up .and speak into the mike. When you speak if you can please give us your name, and if you represent anybody, that. We also have Joy --car you wave your hard. JOY W1.11, also jbe asking for c. oyif ,:gja.-L ioI - tas t. �o we can make sure we get it for the record, just so you know who she is. With that, I would like to just start by getting into some background and where we are with this project. The Puainako Extension, as indicated in the Mayor's comments, is part of the State Highway System. It is a State road. The County, there were some State appropriations for this funds, and given the State priorities, where O things are, it just wasn't a real high priority O Page 3 or as high a priority as I think some people in the County felt it should be. The County, through the Department of Public Works, requested that the funds be turned over to the County to manage at least the design and engineering portion of the projects. What we are doing, Okahara & Associates is doing the planning and preliminary design work which basically involves trying to identify the appropriate alignments for this section of the road. The project area starts from Kilauea Street. And just to orient yourself, Hilo Bay is here, the airport, this is Kanoelehua, Kilauea, Kinoole, Komohana Street. The black line here is Kaumana Drive or the existing Saddle Road. Just so you have some orientation. The project itself starts at Kilauea, and it really- is in two phases or two sections. And if you look at our information it's identified that way. What we call the lower sec- tion is from Kilauea Street to Komohana Street. This is going to involve basically widening Puainako from a two-lane to a four -lane, and then realigning the portion above Kawili Street behind the existing housing along Puainako. So the new alignment would be behind that. The upper section would basically be a new roadway from Komohana Street, tying back in to near Country Club Road up in Kaumana. We are looking at two alignments at this point. We started with many more, but as we started looking at some of the engineering and some of the issues, those dropped out. We are now looking at two basic alignments on how to --where this roadway should be in the upper section. The concept up here is that it will be a two-lane roadway within a hundred and twenty foot right-of- way, so it could eventually be widened to a four - lane. What we're looking tonight at is really to explain to you a little bit as to how we got where we are of looking, ;at the s_'. t!_i i.. CJ111iIF'Cl': s , �''.:�_r_ Your information, this roadway and the basic alignment of the concept i.s part of the County's. planning documents. This roadway, it's width and general alignment has been adopted by the County as part of it's planning or this General Plan which was originally adopted in 1967. Prior to that it was part of it's older zoning maps which were adopted in the '60's. So this road has been on the books since the mid -'60's and been an active project or been looked at for about twenty-five years now. We are finally at a stage where there has actually been some money to come down to the project. ag Page 4 O appropriated and we're starting brass tacks of actually siting Within the upper section, basically again we're looking at these two different alignments. One alignment parallels Kaumana Drive fairly closely. There is some additional development along Edita Street. As part of that development a right-of- way was reserved, so it doesn't impact any existing houses, although there's some lots and developments that it comes pretty close to. We just looked at another alignment, swinging it out to avoid the development plans just to make sure that if worse comes to worse we could at least have a right-of-way that doesn't impact on the existing development plans. But we're look- ing at these two alignments. What we're asking, we're going to ask you to do is comment and see how you feel about them. If you want us to look at something else, that's fine. You're not limited to just commenting on these alignments right now. With respect to the lower section, what we have, and it's really hard to explain or to see. We have some different concepts on how we handle traffic really from Kawili to Kilauea Street. And what we have there are three basic concepts. And you don't need to look at those plans per se, but just understand as generally we talk about them. One would be to basically create the existing Puainako as a frontage road and all of the new alignment, one hundred twenty feet, would be on the other side into the school. It does some things for the residences 'cuz it doesn't impact any of the residences but it creates some severe hardship on the schools in terms of its traffic circulation. We just n,AFd to balance Nome 3f.. r.h-,.�se is.ues _. Another concept that we have, we have a number of intersections coming down. Another concept is to allow each of these intersections full movement -- so you'd make a left turn, a right turn, left turn in at each major intersection. And this involves, basically it'd probably involve a signal at each intersection and what that would do to the traffic flow. A third concept just to think about is having some of these roads with limited movements. It might be every -other -one, its rn.ght L)- etrer,y third -one. So for some of O O �= O O • Page S O these roads you can only make a right turn. So, let's just for say example, you're at this new subdivision, Naniakea, the improvements are going in, you might be able, if you wanted to go.mauka you might have to make a right turn and to make a U-turn at some point. But it would then mean that there would be less signal lights along this road and freer flow of traffic. So those are the basic concepts that we are putting out there. The details we need to work out later. But just wanted you to think about that, give us your thoughts on how they lay out. As we look, as the consultants look at these alignments, some of the things that we're really trying to take into consideration, as we try to come up with the final recommendation to Public Works that we will then be part of the Environ- mental Impact Statement and --is looking at the cost considerations. Again, money in these times is a real major concern. So we're trying to come up with something that makes sense financially. We need to do something that makes sense environ- mentally. One of the things that we found as we did 'our analysis is that there are some potential archaeological sites in the area along Puainako. So we're in the midst of continuing our archaeolo- gical reconnaissance with continuous mapping. We need to finalize the analysis and really determine finally what those sites are, come up with the mitigation plan with the State. So there's still some uncertainty as to where and how the roadway would work right in this area. There's a water tank --some of you are familiar with along upper section --right around that water tank there are some sites that are potentially prehistoric. Some of them has been identified as post -contact archaeological sites. There's some other features that we're --we just need to assess and continue working out exactly what. they The other things that we're looking at coming out of some of the concerns are the noise impacts --that was raised in some community meetings and through some survey. The traffic and how we handle the schools. And that is something I just want to indicate. While there are some concepts there, we do need --and I'm glad to see Herbert here --we do need to sit down and will be sitting down with the DOE to work out how best to handle the Ohandle traffic flow within the schools and how best to their traffic concerns and not impact, not severely impact the parking and everything else here. Page 6 O Basically, before we get into the public comments, and I would be', -I'm not sure --we can answer ques- tions or you can make your statements, but while we're in this planning stage, and again I want to emphasize that we're in a stage taking your input. on this concept. We've done a lot of work, but we're still open, nothing has been set yet. We're still looking at the environmental and design. We have.a traffic engineer out looking at some traffic concerns. And that needs to all be completed. So we don't have a lot of answers. People ask, how we're going to handle this. A lot of these things we don't know yet. Where's the final alignment going to be --we have no idea until we finish our archaeology. We may not be able to do it here --as a worse case --we just have to find something else. So those are the types of things that we're still in the preliminary stage and really are soliciting your input. You know, as we look at things, if there are other concerns, we just need to hear them and really seeking it out. In terms of where we go from here, once we complete this meeting and take your input, there's O a series of things that we need to do yet. One is we need to complete our archaeology. Basically we have completed most of our environmental review, we're in the midst of a community involvement program --I think there's been a series of six meetings for the residents along Puainako, there's been a mail -out survey, trying to keep people informed and understand what the concerns are. We've done some preliminary engineering to under- stand what the costs are and I'll run some of those through you as we, lined up my section. But we still need to complete our archaeological mapping and survey work. We need to run that through and whatever we come un, with. we :nePd, to work �-� �:'ti1i3t�A`+. �t'l�ti �:.},`:'e.. Depu.l'tTTe),) L :'.s1' hand and Natural Resources to have them confirm and make sure that what we're doing meets with their standards. Once we do that, we need to come and actually select the final alignments on how we're going to handle traffic in this area, which alignment we're going to actually start designing on. At that point we can complete the Environ- mental Impact Statement which, again, provides additional public review as part of that process -- is with the draft EIS. Once the draft EIS is completed, the Environmental Impari'-' Statement is completed, the project would move into, the actual construction design. Once that's completed, we P Page 7 still need to secure the funding for this road. There is some funding for construction, but not much, and I'll get into some of the numbers just so you understand. This may or may not happen right away. -There is funding for the planning and design work. There is not total funding for construction. Once the funding is secured then construction can start. In terms of scheduling, the EIS, Environmental Impact Statement is tentatively scheduled to be completed by the end of this year, early next year, so let's say January '93. Once that's completed the actual construction design of the road, doing a topo, topographic survey --there's a number of bridges or drainage crossings that have to be designed, we have to look at how we design each specific intersection, what kind of traffic signals are going to be, making sure that every driveway along Puainako can actually access it. So it's a lot of detail work. We have to identify where all the water lines -are. So it's not just draw- ing two lines on the road and saying that's it. So that process takes approximately a year to complete a construction design --which takes us, excuse me, to some time in January, early January. Assuming that construction funds are available, the project can actually be built in about eighteen to twenty-four months, which, again, in the best of circumstances would be approximately 1996, end of 1996. Now that assumes that funding is available. Part of our scope is not to secure that funding, as much as we'd love to. So far, what we've identified is a really preliminary cost estimate. Alignment number one, from Country Club road to Komohana is approx- imately fourteen million dollars. Again, this is very rough figures, we're still in a very preliminary stage, but that's about the scale of funding or cost.that w^.'re antici.patina for alignment one. Alignment. two, we `re to be about fifteen million dollars. HThe basic difference --it's about a half -mile, three-quarters of a mile longer, and it's just a function of distance. There is nothing really different in terms of drainage crossings. It's just how far the crossing is. The lower section from Kinoole to Komohana, we're anticipating a cost of about fourteen -and -a -half million dollars. That includes some monies, although we haven't finalized it -- there's some monies in there for land acquisition and, again, just, this is a four -lane section, this is a two-lane, so there's some cost Page 8 O differences, but just the number of intersections and the number of signal lights that we're anticipating just brings the cost up. So we're looking at approximately a twenty -eight -and -a - half million dollar project here to do the entire thing. Thanks to our legislators, and I really do want to recognize them for that, approximately six point eight million dollars has been appropriated, both for design and some monies for construction. So basically before this road can be completed, another twenty-two million dollars approximately needs to be secured. That's something that I think we all need to be aware of since a lot of that comes from the community in terms of setting priorities. I know the County is looking at securing funds, we need to work with the State, and I know both the State and the County are look- ing at trying to get some Federal funds for this project. At -this stage, unless there'.s any definitional questions, what I'd like to do, and again, i1 unfortunately we're going to ask people to come ��JJ up and speak into the mike, to either ask ques- tions or make statements --and again, we're seeking both, either way, you know, it's wide open in that regard. But before we get into that, I'd like to recognize our Planning Director, Norman Hayashi, way in the back. Larry Capellas, our chief engineer --or deputy chief engineer. On that note, again, the purpose of this meeting, I've gone on a little longer than I wanted to, but it's to take your input. So, I really encourage if there's anything 1.ot, of i' I:F C t�'Cii<! s' ,,ti ylki,si. Lisa i't1E aid hoi--Y` people prior, I encourage you to just come up and get some of this on the record. Talking to us.is, you know, it makes a difference too --we'll keep notes --please. HERBERT WATANABE: My name is Herb Watanabe. I represent the Department o.f Education --about time. I've been in my job for twenty-eight years and the first day I go on board with Ralph Kiyosaki, District Superintendent, the instruction I got was, stay away from the front. And I couldn't see the loss of a hundred and twenty-five feet. Then P Page 9 he say, that's our boundary line. There's a lone telephone pole in front of Waiakea Intermediate School. I heard then, back in 1964, that this was to be a four -lane highway. I'm just wonder- ing what's going to happen to Tsukasa [laughter], 'cuz he was a long-time member of the contract association, worked with us in construction of the schools. My concern is, looking at the three alternatives, is that please don't use number two. And the reason is this. What you're doing there is using the present Puainako Street as a kind of a secondary road and you're building four more new lane [sic] all towards the school because it's State property. Harvey, listen now. So please, stay away from us. The reasons are we tried our best to build our school facilities away from this right-of-way. As you know, all of the facilities are now back here because we knew about this right-of-way. But what you're doing is you're coming closer and closer. And I know it's State land, and State land, deeper pocket, easy to grab hold. But, if you can, please consider one and three. I know that other people on the other side have your concerns because your private property's involved. But perhaps you could narrow down the center portion, you know that island-- But what you see there is a roadway that just, not too far from the front of this building. Now our plan is to complete this structure, to build a whole new cafeteria. This is just the dining room section and if Dick can get us the additional five million dollars, Dick --we'll build a cafeteria, dining, uh, kitchen over there and that's the plan right now and a playground over here. And this school is going to be somewhere around twelve, fourteen hundred kids. Another twelve hundred mauka. And right now Waiakea High School will have two thousand two hundred September of this year. So you can see the student impact. I suggest also that you ai no_, 11_:uu:1 CO_m,f Now have buses that are carrying ninety-nine kids and coming down Puainako from Komohana, Kawailani, Kilauea,.all coming up and they bring the kids all the way down.from Kanoelehua, from the Panaewa Forest. We'll be still carrying these kids until, I don't know when but --we have on plan right now, Senator Matsuura and Harvey --to build a new high school in Keaau. We have to. And that's on our agenda between now and the year 2000 because by year 2010 there's no way that we can handle three thousand kids at Waiakea High School. As I Page 10 indicated to Dr. Garson, the enrollment at Waiakea is such that we can justify a high school at Keaau more than we can justify in North Kona High, by enrollment, I mean --not by Politics. Okay, so the numbers are there. That's what our concern is. So we indicate to You Bill and your colleagues that --one is, try to stay as far away from the building if you can. So, if you have anything to say, recommend, don't consider two because that brings your road very close to'us.. And today, you know, noise is not --can be considered a pollution, noise pollution --and we don't want noise pollution for the kids in the morn --in the daytime. And I know that if you are a parent and you bring your kids to school each morning, you know what the conges- tion is, and it could become worse. I know that, we do thank Lo-- Li-- the people on your staff Lorraine that uh, and Norman working with us and telling us how you're designing this. We appreciate being involved, at least contacting US. But for the kids, please, stay away from number two. Thank you. BILLY MOORE: Thank you, Herb. I'd also like to recognize Representative Jerry Chang, in the back. THOMAS SHIROMA: My name is Tom Shiroma and if the route goes on beyond the Komohana Bridge, we have myself and Mr. Donald Tong, I don't know whether Mr. Donald Tong is over here --we abut the --parallel to the highway. Are we going to be granted an access to that highway? That's my question. I'm lot 520. BILLY MOORE: Just um, for your information, at this time there are no plans. This is proposed to be a limited access highway. It's something that we can take a look at, though, as p�Irt -,f Jnr plrnni.no fnr -Z h 'i' , .. THOMAS SHIROMA: About eight years ago when Mr. Hiroshi Kasamoto made the original, first plan for the Komohana Extension, we had a meeting right over here and we had two meeting [sic] over here and two meet- ing [sic] at Kaumana. At that time, questioning Mr. Kasamoto, he said yes, we would be granting access to the property owners along the, Puainako Street. BILLY MOORE: Again, that's something we're q-)ing to have to take: a look -at. And not to get into difficulty, f O 0 Page 11 but the Waiakea drainage way comes down right through there, which require bridging that, an additional place, but we'll be happy to take a look at that and see if that is feasible or not. THOMAS SHIROMA: Thank you. MARK TOBIN: My name is Mark Tobin and I'm the president of the Hilo Country Club Estates and Park Hokulani Estates Neighborhood Association --we're up there off of Wilder, the five -mile marker. Can everybody-- Is that better? I'd like to make a statement and.then ask a question. First I'd like to second what Mr. Watanabe said -- it's about time. We've been waiting a long time for this and upper Kaumana, we're, I think, one of the fastest growing parts of Hilo and the present Kaumana Drive is totally inadequate. In fact, we have some concerns. For instance, if Mauna Loa went again, you know, there's only one way to get off of the mountain. And reading the Honolulu Advertiser today, they described the plan is to build the lower section first and sometimes, who knows, to build the upper section. I'd like to ask, is that true and how did --if so, how did the priorities get established to start the bottom first? BILLY MOORE: That's um, some of the different concepts that -- again, in answer to that question, been looking at in terms of mitigation impact. One of the worst areas- And again, part of this is we're going to have a traffic consultant that is doing some work now, some background work, that will be coming in and doing a technical assessment of the intersections and then seeing which one is worse, and there's design standards that will actually drive this in a lot of ways. But what we'rea king'at,: one of irhP ir-ea.1. concerns of the lower area, is the congestion along Waimea Elementary & Intermediate. One of the issues that came up in our community discussions is that if we build the upper section first, it will bring all of that traffic down to Komohana, most of it will probably.come down Puainako on the existing Puainako and what is a nightmare now will be even worse. So, it's not set in concrete, it's just something that we have tossed out there as some of the types of things that we're looking at to help mitigate some of these impacts. If there is a concern, and hearing you, you want Page 12 O that upper section first, to address some of that upper section, or the hazardous of conditions -- that's going to be part of the balancing act that we all need to go through as a community. So, you know, I appreciate that and it is quite well taken. MARK TOB.IN: Thank you. BEVERLY PAPALIMU: I'm Beverly Papalimu and I've lived in Kaumana for thirty years and tried to get this road done for twenty-five, so I'm with you, Herb. I think that Mark is absolutely right. The health and welfare of our citizens should be one of the most important things that we should be concerned with and Kaumana Drive has become a_disaster. We have so much.traffic on that coming down and right now it's all going down to Komohana--it's.the same traffic. Just because we put Puainako there, it's still going to be the same traffic that is travelling these streets. So I would certainly say that we should have the upper portion done first. Now, number two, have you contacted, or worked O with, or asked the military, the Federal govern- ment to subsidize on this? Because military does use the road a tremendous amount and I think if we, you know, work things the right way we might be able to get some big bucks from there. BILLY MOORE: Thank you. Just let me assure you I think both the State and the County have been exploring, I know the State and the County have been exploring the possibility of Federal funding to supplement this. AMY SHIROMA: I'm Amy Shiroma. My husband spoke a few minutes ago. We did get our place way back in 1948 and. it voas land-jc)c-ke it' s _ locked. That is why we are requesting if you will give us a right -of, right-of-way. And then as far as the drainage canal, it cuts off at the bottom of our land --excuse me, I have a cold -- bottom of our lot, so it will not be a problem as far as giving us an access. BILLY MOORE: Can you make sure, uh, Tim, can you raise your hand. Tim is one of the staff engineers. Can you give him your name and we'll sit down with O you and meet with you on this. AMY SHIROMA: Okay. I-- O O Page 13 OBILLY MOORE: This really gets to be your lot, so we'll be happy to meet with you and just explore this with you. AMY SHIROMA: Okay. Thank you. BILLY MOORE: Thank you very much. Uh, again, we're-- Yes, please. DEBORAH WARD: My name is Deborah Ward. You talked about the archaeological resources and I wanted to bring up just one other resource and that would be the biological resources. I use the Kaumana Cave as an educational and recreational resource. I feel that it's a very special natural area, reknown world-wide because of it biological value. Several television programs, such as Life on Earth and Nova have featured Kaumana Cave in recent years and just a couple of months ago there was another Nova program on the small -eyed, big -eyed, no -eyed hunting spider and the cave is deserving of a lot of care. I'd like to give you a few examples of its importance to the people of Hilo. O The cave is used by a lot of residents and visitors as an educational, or as a recreational resource and they enjoy the County park at the entrance up on Kaumana road. It's also used by teachers as an educational resource, by 4-H clubs, such as mine, by south, uh, by scout troops and by about three hundred science students from the University of Hawaii, the HCC and the high schools. It's important biologically because most of the native Hawaiian cave species can be found in this particular area, and so much research is conducted in Kaumana Cave due to its accessibility and its proximity.to the Hilo area. And this research actually brings in money to the Hilo economy and diversified the economic base. So, how would the road extension affect the ca,,Te: The -,ralue of the cave for biological research lies in the health of the ohia roots that grow down into the cave and extend into the cave passages. If the roots and trees above the, adjacent to the cave are disturbed, then the cave inhabitants are also disturbed. Also, the spraying of poisons along the roadside, the bulldozing and the filling could affect the cave as well. Unfortunately, this is what happened a few years ago when Edita Road was built and bulldozers clearing the area (\J) broke into the cave celing and crushed the geolo- gic feature of the cave and filled a. portion of Page 14 n the cave so that the passage is no longer �J accessible. Ideally a buffer of about fifty feet and optimally five hundred feet between the road and the mapped cave passage could. protect both the geologic structure and the ohia trees that are vital to the health of the cave. The entire area, primarily State land, could be protected by conservation zoning. Therefore, I urge the planners to choose the route most likely to avoid proximity to the natural resource so close to the heart of Hilo and protect it in perpetuity for future genera- tions. BILLY MOORE: Thank you very much. Just for your information, the consultant assisting us is Fred Stone, Dr. Fred Stone, who is one of the foremost experts in cave biota, so he has been in there and is participating as one of the experts on the pro- ject team. For the community's information, excuse me just a sec-- The alignment number one through Edita Up through Kiloa Street really pretty closely parallels the Kaumana Caves. So it is something that we are aware of and very, I think share the concerns --this is something, um, point, really appreciate the concern. JOE PAPALIMU: My name is Joe Papalimu. I'm the husband of Beverly Papalimu. I would like to ask you to go, to.proceed as soon as you can with the upper section of the new road to be built. I think worrying about Waiakea at this time is not all that necessary because you can --at the intersec- tion of Komohana can be a no -through street through Kupulau, I mean, through what's it, Kawailani- Kupulau? Well, .it's not necpssar for its tl,� �?Lii� t.}r..:r�gl7gfa t.E.Y'�� A�ti.J.�J��. SP1 'LAI f�Y<�. � that I travel on, coming through, in fact' so light going that way that most of the people who are wanting to go that way would automatically go. Trying to come down here is foolish for a guy who drives every morning to hit the school traffic. So, you know, there's no reason for you not to start that upper section. And we need --we need it now, we needed it yesterday, and please work on it as soon as you can. Thank you. Uh, wait, one more thing. Has the Corps of O Engineers done a floC)d control study in between Komohana and that section right below that s O O Page 15 intersection where the new road goes through? BILLY MOORE: There are flood maps which are produced by the Army Corps of Engineers which guides basically where the floodways are and those floodways have been mapped and have been one of the major considerations in siting this roadway and trying to --what you don't want to do is run right up the middle of a flood, where, you want to try cross them in a parallel point to minimize your bridge structure. So, again, a lot of engineer- ing has been done in a preliminary conceptual way to try and address some of these concerns. So, yes, it has been looked at. JOE PAPALIMU: The reason I say that, for those who are not familiar with that area, there is during our rainy season there's a fifty -acre lake that builds up in that area. I don't know, I don't understand -- BILLY MOORE: Can you, um, afterwards, can you point it out -- These types of things are of interests, so after the meeting -- JOE PAPALIMU: Sure. BILLY MOORE: --identify it specifically. Thank you very much. GEORGE STONE: My name is George Stone, I live right across the street.. I think we're, you're tied in to a twenty -five -year --old program here. When you could --if you look at Lanaikaula, or Lanikaula Street rather than Puainako. It's where it makes the bend, you could go straight up and leave_ this part of Puainako alone. We got enough problems now with school traffic. Puainako needs to be up -graded, but no more traffic dumped on it. s: Y ,�z,,Y. MOORE. �,h� �s �:C"a Ilic-' . jus'C. Lo c); .l. �s Are y aV moi, trying to keep, or keeping the makai section and having the upper section come in in this direc-- tion is what you're, as a concept? Okay. Thank you. TSUKASA INOUE: My name is Tsukasa Inoue. No relation to Lorraine. She always gotta stand back of me because she has a "Y". I don't have a "Y." I -N -O -U -E. I'm still ahead of her. [laughter] 00 But I've heard this story for many, many years. �/ And I am the one that gonna stop the project Page 16 because I'm at, right at Kilauea and Puainako, but I will not do that. This is a Puainako Extension, it's not a Kaumana Extension. Puainako, lower Puainako must be fixed first. I live in the street, I cannot go out in the morn- ing, I cannot make a left turn, it's only a right turn. But some good people stop the traf- fic and,let me get out, and thank you for I don't know who the people are, but I'm grateful for that. And I think the lower Puainako is the road that is to be fixed. And that's where we're going to get at the Federal money and the State money because we are preparing to go up to Saddle Road. To go to Kaumana area, that has nothing to do with the Saddle Road. Puainako, lower Puainako supposed to be fixed first. Thank you very much. BILLY MOORE: Thank you. That's part of the balancing act that we all have to deal with. DAVID BLACKMER: Hi, Billy. David Blackmer on Puainako Street. And one thing I'd like to remark to the County people, PU doesn't mean a damn thing, PUU does. And when I bought my house in 1956 it was Puuainako. Hilo fertility, because there were so damn many kids. But I was asked --I would like to find out how many people come from Kaumana down Puainako Street, whereas if they could go over to Komohana, uh, from, not, if, just don't even get to Komohana, go down Mohouli, how many people come down that way and then have to go back to town again. Now think about that also. So, that eliminates a lot of the traffic. The intersection at Komohana, the way you have it planned now could be a congestion area. Those poeple don't have to come down that way, let 'em go someplace else. Don't use our road. We like it the way it is. Rename it. BILLY MOORE: Thank you, Dave. JOHN TAN: My.name is John Tan. I live up Kawailani Street. The Komohana Road was long time, was called for and it was escape road. So why don't we do the one on Kaumana just like an escape road for the volcano that coming down from Mauna Loa. Get the money from the Federal Government, open up the easement so that in the future you can have a wide road like Komohana. Build a base, solid, O a sub -base. Put the thick; two-inch asphalt macadam oil LOT) 017 'Cha 1. , '-'-- sel:",7in g the purpose for an escape road. Right now if you're gonna Q O O Page 17 Ogo the other way around it gonna cost lots of money. I would suggest make Mohouli, too. Go right up and let us in --same thing, with the same good solid base and a two-inch asphalt concrete. That will last long like the olden days the County was building roads all around the area. It's not costly, it's [sic] be cheaper, but serve the purpose. This town here, all the people up Kaumana, we have a big, new city up there. If there's a fast lava flow, what gonna happen._ We gonna destroy people. That's the thing I'm worried about. Not down below. Down below we have enough already. But we need the road up there to escape. That's the thing. And the Federal Government --you can get the money from the Federal Government by paying low interest loan and we can do that. Not by going around selling, buying bonds and go sell what, bonds and all. that so that we can get and, we'd be more in the hole. But the Federal Government is lending money outside to anybody else, why don't we go ahead and take it. That's the way. That's all I have to say. Thank you. OBILLY MOORE: Thank you. TEDDY GUMBS: Hi, my name is Teddy Gumbs.. We're talking about working on widening Puainako and all that, but we're talking about four years from now maybe? Longer? I've been suggesting to the school for a long time that they look into making a one-way traffic pattern every morning like what they do on Waianuenue Avenue and that will alleviate the situation at least until when the road can be built. Because it's getting in gridlock every morning down here and it's not going to get any better. In four years it'll be ten times worse than it is today. That's all. BI.T..,LY MOORE: Appreciate the comments. Anybody else, really, um, again, good idea, bad idea, concerns. Can you hold up, we have some [inaudible] JOE VALENTE: Aloha, my name is Joe Valente and I'm a recent graduate of UHH. I spent a lot of time studying the archaeological sites on campus and my con- cern is that one of the proposed routes is going Oto go through a lot of sites and I feel that that would be a mistake because having this S Page 18 O archaeological site provides a great opportunity for education as well as other opportunities that we could use in the community. We don't have too many sites left in this area andthe site is definitely prehistoric as well as historic. So my concern is that the arachaeological site be left intact in its entirety. BILLY MOORE: Thank you for-- Again, I assure you that the archaeology is a concern and we will be taking a real hard look at that. JEAN NOBRIGA: Hi, I'm Jean Nobr.iga and I represent Komohana Gardens. I don't know if your survey is aware of the traffic on Komohana Garden coming from the Puna direction. We have a hundred and thirty-six lots in our subdivision. If you're not at that corner by 7:00, no later than 7:15, you won't get out of the subdivision. We have literally seen the traffic from the school all the way up Puainako and stopped on Komohana. I sympathize with upper Kaumana because they have a problem, but I don't think you realize how much is coming in from the Puna direction. Komohana is a real thoroughfare in the morning. We've had two children hurt seriously out here. I think we need to stay away from the school or do something to alleviate the traffic. BILLY MOORE: Thank you. Is there anybody else-- CHARMAINE NAPOLEON: Hi, my name is Charmaine Napoleon and I'm representing the University of Hawaii's Student Association, in other words, the Student Govern- ment. Currently I'm the Treasurer of the new Student Senate and the new Student Senate would like to state that we're in opposition to the proposed road that would run straight through the archaeological sites, like Joe said, and we r of it's significant ~cultural, archaeological and histori.,c structures. Last semester the Student Senate of 1991-'92 also passed a resolution in support of preserving the site and I will hand that in for you guys' con- sideration. Thank you. BILLY MOORE: Thank you very much. MARK TOBIN: Yeah, I just have one additional comment; ques- t.iOn, what. have 4,ou, <,zid that conc,�erns lower Puainako. And I know this is just below Kilauea t, a O O OPage 19 Street. And I know not only in the morning but in the evenings or lot of times whenever the traffic heavy, you know, I've been driving down there and it gets real congested and I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me, at least on Kinoole Street, that lot of that could be relieved, 'cuz the traffic gets backed up anytime somebody's gonna make a left turn. And there's a big island there that's at least two lanes and I don't know who built it, .but why didn't they think of putting in a left -turn lane, so the cars that're gonna make the left turn can pull over and people can go around. And you wait there the whole light, and then it turns yellow, and as soon as it turns red he turns left and then everybody else is still stuck there. But that seems to be something relatively cheap and could go a long way towards at least in that one section of Puainako, relieving some pressure. Yeah, my name is Mark Tobin, again. I'm from the upper Kaumana area. BILLY MOORE: Okay. We'll be-- We'll take a look at that as part of our assessment. C[Question from audience --inaudible] Yes. This alignment --alignment number two, you're asking? Basically what this alignment does is that there is a proposed development, actually an existing development here, the Sunrise Estates Subdivision, and that is, or just has been approved to be expanded up in this area. There is also a proposed development into here --this, Pacific Plantation, I believe, that is an expansion. What this alignment does is basically try to follow the boundary of those property lines to avoid impacting those two developments. So it goes around these develop- ment:., ;aroland the entry, tb^ Farah, Hokul.an1. Project, and then comes back in. So, basically, is looking at an, alternate that will try to minimize impact on the existing developments. We wanted to make sure we had that in case we ran into some problems here. Again, as we noted, this alignment does run fairly close to the Kaumana Caves and it does run fairly close to some existing residences, so the potential or impact is a'lot higher. This area is basically C vacant. I think, you know, some of the con- cerns can be addressed. As we indicated, there's a higher cost to this ---it's about a million Page 20 dollars more. So whether it's cost-effective or not --some of the things that we just need to look at. Excuse me, we are taping these proceedings. Please, no, no, don't limit that. Please come up and -- If there is, again-- I know you guys all wanna speak. If there is no more formal testimony, what we'd be happy to do is, there's some of the staff from Okahara, some of our consultants here, they'd be happy to identify themselves, that can help answer some of the questions. You know, again, we want to get this formally, but your verbal comments, your subsequent written comments will be just as effective. So, I don't want to do anything that will cut us off in terms of providing us with more input. Yes, Mrs. Papalimu. The question from Mrs. Papalimu was, where the archaeological sites are? O They are in the vicinity of the water tank, right along in this area. Actually, you can come up and identify what-- Again, what I wanna really indicate is that our archaelogist, we have an archaeologist as part of our team, he has been out there mapping.' The reason that there was some staking was to exactly locate these sites so we can map them and then do our assessment [inaudible]. JOE VALENTE: Okay, the site is a very large site. It extends above the water tank in this area right here. It goes down off through here. 'There're sites all in this area here and a lot of it is in this shot. This 1 !. 11he �a� � u.le�: t >�'.:t ... .m 3 ! .;i'j � Fa "t-� there �. sites all along the stream, on both sides of the stream. It goes all the way down through campus. And why I think it is important is because it's one of the only left sites in Hilo. BILLY MOORE: Thank you. Again, it's something that our assess- ment or analysis is not complete and it will be and again, what we will do or be happy to do is get our archaeologist out here to meet with the interested parties, so we really can get your O input and involve you guys in our assessments. So that's something we'd. be jai, l i .i.:� � to d.o , Page 21 ODAVID PAUL: My name is David Paul. I'm the campus naturalist over at UH -Hilo and, um, like to oppose again the road that's going through the archaeological site or even that part, and for one reason, why does this have to be on Puainako. If you go down Puainako on any school morning, you basically can't go anywhere, you're stuck. And bringing the cars down from Kaumana right in the Puainako again, where're they gonna go? Aside from there, we have alternative routes --we're already pound- ing a roadway through campus for the technology part --that might be an alternative route --go right through there, too. It's already a major highway coming through campus. And, aside from that, how come there has not been any talk about public transportation to alleviate traffic? BILLY MOORE: Thank you for your comments. Again, if there is nobody else, what we're gonna do is close the formal part of the hearing --hearing, excuse me -- the meeting, informational meeting, and just be here to answer your questions; again, just make sure that you're satisfied with what we're doing, provide additional input. OI really would like to thank the people who have been here, the Mayor, Senator Matsuura, Harvey, Brian, Jerry, who have stayed here and listened to your concerns throughout, too, so it's not just talking to us, the consultants, the County is here, our chief engineer, so they're hearing you as well. So, with that, I'd like to thank you very -much again for coming out on this miserable night to hear what I think is a really exciting and important project. I'm really pleased.with the turnout --with you guys who are here. Thank you very much. The question was, will there be a future meeting? I think with this level of interest, we probably will have one when we come up with our alignment. I think that's something we need to define, but most likely. University10 of Hawaii ''� , at HiloL. ,, � STUDENT ASSOCIATION 1992 UHHSA RESOLUTION Preservation of the Hawaiian Site Located on the University of Hawaii at Hilo Grounds that contains significant cultural, historical and archaeological structures. BE IT ENACTED n v THE STUDENT SENATE: WHEREAS, UHH has significant physical and cultural resources in its undeveloped regions; and WHEREAS, These resources contribute great educational, cultural, and aesthetic value to the UHH campus; and WHEREAS, Students, faculty and community can directly benefit from the use and preservation of these resources; and WHEREAS, Part of those resources are stone structures of apparent archaeological and cultural significance, as well as indigenous low land forest; and O WHEREAS, There is a need to officially determine the exact nature and location of these stone structures. WHEREAS, Historical sites must be preserved under State law and further bulldozing can destroy hidden attributes; and WHEREAS, UHH needs to be a leader in the community by demonstrating innovative planning and development; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THF SE TAT -F, OF, THE I` t�AV tUl AT H LO STUDENT' ASSOCIATION THAT A MORATORIUM BE IMPOSED ON FURTHER BULLDOZING OF THE UNDEVELOPED PORTIONS OF THE UHH CAMPUS UNTIL A SUFFICIENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SURVEY IS COMPLETE. BE IT ALSO RESOLVED THAT THE STATE OF HAWAI'I FINANCIALLY ASSIST IN ACQUIRING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS. Hilo Hawaii 96720-4091 0 TEL: (808) 933-3500/501 0 FAX: (808) 933-3691 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT UHHSA REQUIRES ALL SIGNIFICANT INDIGENOUS LOWLAND FOREST ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS BE LEFT INT ACT WITH A SIGNIFICANT BUFFER SURROUNDING THE AREAS SO AS TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SITE AND THE FOREST. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT UHHSA SUPPORTS THE STUDENTS AND COMMUNITY IN ITS EFFORTS TO REPLACE THE EXISTING EXOTIC VEGETATION IN THIS AREA WITH AN INDIGENOUS HAWAIIAN THEME GARDEN. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION BE SENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII PRESIDENT ALBERT SIMONE; BOARD OF REGENTS; THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT HIL:O CHANCELLOR EDWARD J. KORMONDY; STATE SENATOR MIKE MCCARTNEY; STATE REPRESENTATIVE DAVID IGE; STATE REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY TAJIRI; UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT HILO FACULTY SENATE;' VULCAN NEWS; AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN STUDIES AT UHH AND UHM; THE HO'OIKAIKA CLUB. 1992 UHHSA RESOLUTION .0 JUL 2 1 9 9) 2 0 OKAHA"A & ASSOC., INC. My name is Deborah Ward, and I reside. at P.O.Box 9PW Kui�tistown, HI 96760 in Puna District. I have a vital conaern about the proposed route of the Puainako Extension route because I use Kaumana Cave as an educational and recreational resource. Kaumana Cave is a very special natural area reknown worldwide for its biologically unique creatures, found only in Hawaii and nowhere else on earth. Several television programs such as Life on Earth and NOVA have featured the cave numerous times over the years, and just three months ago a NOVA team interviewed local scientists about the strange evolution of cave adapted insects such as the cave cricket and the small -eyed big -eyed hunting spider. The cave is deserving of the upmost care. I would like to give you a few examples of its importance to the people of Hilo. The cave is a recreational resource; many residents and visitors explore the cave daily, and enjoy the County park at its entrance. The cave is used by teachers as an educational resource, as well as by 4.-H clubs, scout troups, and over 300 science students from the University of Hawaii, HCC and high schools. The cave is very important biologically; most of the native Hawaiian cave species can be found in this area, and so much research is conducted in Kaumana cave due to its accessibility and proximity to the Hilo area. The research conducted brings in money to the Hilo economy and diversifies the economic base. How could the road extension affect the cave? The value of the cave for biological research lies in the health of the ohia roots that extend into the cave passages. If the roots and trees above and adjacent to the cave are undisturbed, the cave inhabitants can - thrive. If the trees are disturbed by clearing, spraying of poisons, bulldozing or filling, the value of the cave for recreation, education and research are seriously diminished. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened a few years ago when• f 9. j: c. f.0�! sr `=eJ ti 3 �'s r .... :Li�.�.t �SS,f i`... �; .P •.� an th broke _CrJ e cave ceiling, crushing and filling a portion of the cave so that the continuing passage is no longer accessible. Ideally a buffer of at least 50 feet and optimally 500 feet between the road and the mapped cave passage could protect both the geologic structure and the ohia trees so vital to the health and value of the cave. The entire area, primarily state land, over and surrounding the cave passage should be protected by conservation zoning. Therefore, I urge our planners to choose the routemost likely to 0 avoid proximity to this natural resource so close to the heart of Hilo, and protect it in perpetuity for future generations.' INC- AKC_7 37 a P -L,; qr7-,F42-7 90�1--qlf )�Ilh-�7Z07el vto Z- I H,4 L"14Y -9 . . ....... . . it I k 0 /0 A-2 14q6 �NqWj/m e., Ztlkl,,(A (5- Ins- 47 _ . _ _ .- se-p��. �1�--�� -�o pox ���� �i�`1� �b ��. � Yam 5,7 S(0/- 6.-Jg els - €a / 7 Z,57/.2- g61- ?Zzo Is S7: p°SP- C, - ,-,�o r � 435- 7917 M it OO gZS�G31R P��-- —77 3 37 47, 6�or -.- Kohm, t1, arx 4-2-17 few Viz:_. lkol 4 J, 5 37Z7 7s 3 6 <<6 `/%-- �)7 APPENDIX B FLORA, VEGETATION AND WETLANDS REPORT 0 0 O VEGETATION AND WETLAND HABITAT REPORT For PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION Prepared for: Department of Public Works County of Hawaii Prepared by: Grant Gerrish, Ph.D. And Okahara & Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola St. Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Hilo, Hawaii August 2, 1998 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................... 4 2.0 METHODS ...................... 5 ........................................ 2.1 BOTANICAL SURVEY .............................................. 4 2.1 WETLAND HABITAT DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION ........... 6 3.0 RESULTS ............... . ........................................ 3.1 PLANT SPECIES OF THE PROJECT AREA 7 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION OF THE PROJECT AREA .... . ... . .. . . . 7 3.21 ORIGINAL VEGETATION .................................... 7 3.22 PRESENT VEGETATION ..................................... 7 3.23 DETAILED DESCRIPTION ALONG ALIGNMENTS .............. 11 3.24 RARE OR ENDANGERED PLANTS ............................ 15 3.3 WETLAND HABITAT .............................................. 3.31 OVERVIEW OF WETLAND ANALYSIS 16 ........................ 3.32 WETLAND DETERMINATION ............................... 16 17 3.33 WETLAND DELINEATION ................................... 22 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 25 4.1 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING RESOURCE VALUE OF THE VEGETATION ................................... 25 4.2 RARE OR ENDANGERED PLANTS .................................. 25 4.3 NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES ................................... 25 4.4 NATIVE ANIMAL HABITAT ........................................ 27 4.5 WETLAND HABITAT .............................................. 28 REFERENCES.............................................................. 30 Figure 1. Vegetation, Soil Types and Delineated Wetlands . ............................ 8 Table 1. I iting of alignment segments in upper portion by community type. .... , ...... 14 Table 2. Wetland Delineation Point sun)rnay ...... 23 Table 3. Jurisdictional wetlands within Alignment One and Alignment A ................. 24 Table A. Plant species of the Puainako St. extension project area . ...................... 30 © V O 0 O OVegetation and Wetlands - Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A botanical survey was conducted of proposed alternative alignments for the extension of Puainako St. Special attention was given to the search for rare or endangered species, and for ecosystems that might be unique to the project area. The vegetation and soil characteristics were used to identify wetlands regulated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. A total of 156 vascular plant species were identified within the proposed alignments. Of these, 21 are endemic, 21 are indigenous, 109 are alien, and 5 were introduced to Hawaii by Polynesian settlers. No plants listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered were found within or near the two surveyed alignments. A review of the known distributions of listed or proposed endangered or threatened plant species revealed that none have ever been previously found within the project area. Based on the field survey and this review, it is concluded that it is very improbable that any plant now listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened occurs within the project area. Vegetation Originally, the natural vegetation of most of the project area was 'Ohi'a/Uluhe (Metrosideros/Dicrano terie) Fern Forest. This 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fern Forest community is associated Owith young lava flows and shallow soils on the lower windward slope of Mauna Loa. While the vegetation of the project area still strongly reflects the original vegetation, past human land -use has significantly modified the vegetation in many areas. Intensive farming, including sugar cane production, has been carried out in the parts of the project area that have deep soil derived from volcanic ash. These soils are classified as Hydrandepts and are well -drained to moderately well - drained. The remaining areas have shallow soil over lava and have been less disturbed by human activity. The shallow soil habitats include the Lava Lands of the 1881 lava flow, and somewhat older sites with shallow muck soils, classified as Tropofolists. The shallow soil sites often support native vegetation similar to the original vegetation. None of the native plant communities found are outstanding in terms of their diversity of plant species nor are they unique to the project area. Proposed construction would not threaten the existence of these community types. However, these native plant communities, especiall the 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Open Forest found on the 1881 lava flow are characteristic natural features of the fli.lo area. From the perspective of landscape planning it is suggested that it is desirable to maintain these elements in the area. The possibility that Alignment Two might hasten development and'sprawl' within areas now open space is also discussed. Recommendation: No communities were found within the project area that deserve high priority Ofor protection on the basis of their uniqueness. No choice between the two proposed alternative alignments is warranted on the basis of relative value of their pinnt communities: both have some areas of viable native plant communities. Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 2 Streams and Wetlands Wetland determinations used the vegetation, soil and hydrological criteria defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps of Engineers 1987) to identify parts of the project area that have one or more strong indicator of wetland habitat. Our field surveys found that a relationship exists between wetland indicators and the three general soil types described above (Lava Flows, Tropofolists, and Hydrandepts) (Figures 1). No areas with wetland characteristics have been found on the Lava Lands. The Hydrandepts are generally well -drained and the surface is dissected by well-defined gullies. Some of these watercourses are shown on the USGS topographic maps as intermittent streams. Distinct patches with strong vegetation and soil wetland indicators are found only on shallow Tropofolists on prehistoric pahoehoe lava flows. An estimate was made from field data that 20% of the areas identified as Tropofolist soils are potential wetland habitat. Several intermittent stream crossings on Alternative Alignment One are actually the same stream/drainage system. The vegetation of the stream banks usually does not differ from the surroundings, with the alien grasses, or uluhe, spilling over the banks. No native vertebrate wildlife has been observed making special use of the vegetation along the streams, nor is there reason to believe that this vegetation is important habitat for fauna. Alternative Alignment One also includes 0 two short stretches of Tropofolist soil. Based on the determination, an initial estimate was made that 5,402 square -meters (57,072 square -feet) of the right-of-way is potentially wetlands within the total 732 meter (2378 ft.) extent of Tropofolist soil of Alignment 1. A site-specific wetland delineation was then conducted that found the actual area of jurisdicitonal wetlands to be 3,272 square -meter (34,566 square feet). The western end of Alternative Alignment Two crosses five small intermittent streams, similar to and part of the drainage system described above. The vegetation bordering the streams possesses no unique or identifiable biological characteristics. Along Alternative Alignment Two, some of the vegetation on tropofolist soils is predominantly native in character. Detailed observations of a 800 meter (2600 ft.) extent of Tropofolist Soil determined that as much as 20% has strong wetland indicators. The wet areas were of several types. Some were small, undrained pockets, dominated by obligate wetland plants and having saturated, hydric (=wetland) soils. Soret larger areas have undrained, hydric soils but the vegetation is similar to the surrounding community except that the trees are somewhat stunted and more scattered Other areas have water flowing over the surface or in poorly developed drainageways, often with sparse wetland vegetation. Total estimated jurisdictional wetland is 29,084 square -meters (307,200 square -feet). No known unique biological resource or faunal relationship are associated with these wet areas. A lesser extent of potential wetlands occurs within Alignment One than Alignment Two. O Furthermore, all the potential wetlands of Alignment One are dominated by alien plant species and oVegetation and Wetlands - Page 3 occur within vegetation dominated by alien plants. On Alignment Two, much of the potentially wetland area occurs within native or partially native communities. Based on this comparison, Alignment One should be recommended over Alignment Two. However, it is difficult to assign a biological value to any of the wetland habitats within the project area. The plants that they support are either the same native and alien species that occur in the surrounding communities on drained soils, or are ubiquitous, pan -tropical species. No significant biological function as special habitat for other organisms is known for any of these poorly drained sites. Recommendation: Surface water quality should be protected by best management practices and proper roadway design. The water storage function of the wetland of alignment One near Pamoho Road should be analyzed. Expansion of this wetland may be necessary following the construction of the proposed roadway through it. Anima! Habitat No known vegetation resources important to native vertebrate animal species are localized in or near the proposed alignments. The invertebrate fauna of the project area and entire Hilo region is poorly known. For the most part, the value of the vegetation of the project area as Ohabitat for native invertebrates is unknown, with the exception of Kaumana Cave, which passes underground near Alignment One in a couple places. Sixteen native invertebrate species are reported from the cave in the vicinity of the project area. The invertebrate community within the cave is dependent on roots from overhead vegetation. Recommendation:' Maintain native vegetation over Kaumana Cave. Prudence would dictate leaving as much distance as possible between the cave and the right-of-way. O O q e Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 4 O 1.0 INTRODUCTION A botanical study has been conducted of proposed right-of-way alignments for the extension of Puainako St. from Kaumana Drive to Kawili St. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the vegetation of the two proposed alignments and to identify ecologically sensitive or valuable plants and communities within the proposed right-of-ways. Special attention was given to the search for rare or endangered species, wetlands and ecosystems that might be unique to the project area. Alignment One and Alignment Two are the two alternatives under consideration in the Upper Portion, from Kaumana Drive to a point 1000 meters (3250 ft.) west of Komohana St. The two proposed alternative alignments share a common segment. In this report, "Alignment One" means the alternative designated alignment one and the entire common segment; "Alignment Two' means only the alternative segment designated alignment two. In the Lower Portion, from the terminus of the common segment of Alignment One to Kawili St., the two alternatives under consideration are Alignment A and Alignment B. This report makes use of data from three field surveys. The first field survey was conducted in May 1992 in support of a 1993 Environmental Impact Statement, in accordance with Chapter 343 Hawaii Revised Statutes for the widening and extension of Puainako St. That document, prepared O by the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works, was accepted by the Governor of the State of Hawaii and published in August 1993. A second field survey was carried out in 1995 to support a second EIS, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the same project being prepared for approval by the U.S. Highway Administration and other Federal, State and County agencies. The final survey studied minor revisions of Alignment One that were proposed in 1998 to reduce construction impacts to streams. A botanical and wetland study of these revised locations was conducted in June and July, 1998. Informal consultations with the US Army Corps of Engineers were initiated in 1995 with regards to jurisdictional wetlands within the project area. The wetland areas were revisited a number of times between 1995 and 1998 to carry out and confirm wetland determinations and delineations. e Op O O CVegetation and Wetlands - Page 5 2.0 METHODS 2.1 BOTANICAL SURVEY The study began with a literature search to determine which, if any, plant species listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service might occur within the region of the proposed Puainako St. extension. Such listed plants are legally protected by federal and State law. The lists of threatened and endangered plants were reviewed (Federal Register 1990a, 1990b; and updated lists provided by USFWS, Pacific Islands Office, Honolulu). The ranges of listed and proposed plants were determined from the Manual of Flowering Plants of w i i (Wagner et al. 1990). Botanical field studies were carrid out after the alternative alignments had been surveyed and staked. The surveyors had place stakes at one -hundred foot intervals, thus simplifying establishing precise locations along the alignment; because the survey was done in English measurements (feet) and the survey stakes bear labels in feet, in this report the survey markers are referenced by feet, not metric units. The first botanical survey required three days in May, 1992. This survey covered a proposed right-of-way 37 meter (120 ft.) wide. The botanist walked the O entire length of both alignments following the staked center -line. Excursions to the side were made as needed in the proposed right -0f --ways. The 1995 field survey was conducted in a similar manner over five days by a team of botanists who surveyed a study area 92 meters (300 ft.) wide, centered about the staked center -line. The 1995 survey followed the updated proposed alignments, which deviated slightly from the alignments as proposed in 1992. The proposed right-of-way of Alignment One was again partially modified in 1998 to reduce construction impacts to intermittent streams. Between the western terminus at Kaumana Drive and Wilder Road, most of the right-of-way was shifted 46 meters (150 feet) south. South of Wilder Road, near the residential subdivision at Pamoho Road, the right-of-way was modified making an arc extending a maximum of 92 meters (300 feet) south of the original proposed right-of-way. Both of these modified sections were studied in June and July 1998. The modified right-of-ways had not been surveyed and staked The modified right -0f --ways were plotted on large-scale maps. Locations in the field were verified from landmarks, survey stakes of the origiilfi'. right-of-way and a geographic positioning system (GPS). Botanical methods were the same in all surveys. Vegetation descriptions were recorded in all plant communities encountered along the alignments and a list of all plant species encountered was prepared. Nomenclature used for flowering plants generally follows Wagner et al. (1990); O plants not listed in that source are named according to St. John (1973). Fern nomenclature follows Neal (1965), for the most part, or secondarily, Mueller-Dombois et al. (1980). O O Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 6 O Factors controlling the vegetation pattern were analyzed. The Soil Survey (Sato et al. 1973) and the U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps (Piihonua and Hilo Quadrangles) were consulted for information relating to substrate age and type and to land -use history. 2.2 WETLAND HABITAT DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION A determination of the presence of jurisdictional wetlands was made using vegetation data from the field surveys and information from the soil survey (Sato et al. 1973). This analysis of wetland habitats was guided by the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps of Engineers 1987) and the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Hawaii (Region H) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). The vegetation, soil and hydrological criteria defined in the Delineation Manual were used to determine the parts of the project area that have one or more strong indicators of wetland habitat. This determination was made for all alternative alignments segments under consideration. The results and data of the determination were conveyed to the US Army Corps of Engineers Pacific Ocean Division (USACE) in informal consultations. The determinations were confirmed during a site visit on August 3, 1995, by Kathleen Dadey, USACE. Dr. Dadey requested that an 0 estimate of the area of wetlands that would be filled by each of the proposed alignments be prepared based on a "worst case scenario." Under this scenario, all areas with at least one strong indicator of the presence of the three required criteia are determined to be jurisdictional wetlands. This estimate of maximum area of potential wetland fill is presented in this report as part of the results of the wetland determination. Based on this determination, USACE indicated that construction using Alignment One and either Alignment A or B could probably be authorized, whereas Alignment Two would result in a greater area of wetland fill. A wetlands delineation was then conducted for Alignment One and Alignment A, identifying the location and size of jurisdictional wetlands within the proposed right- of-way using Alignment One. The delineation was conducted in accordance with the Cis of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps of Engineers 1987) and the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1-iawaii (Re Ls ori H) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). Application for a Department of the Army Permit was made in 1996. USACE authorized the construction of Alignment One under Nationwide Permit 26 in September 1996, conditioned upon future CZM and Section 401 compliance. U 0 C, ^ Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 7 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 PLANT SPECIES OF THE PROJECT AREA A total of 156 vascular plant species were identified within the two proposed alignments (Table A, at end of this report). Of these, 21 are endemic, 21 are indigenous, 109 are alien, and 5 were introduced to Hawaii by Polynesian settlers. 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION OF THE PROJECT AREA 3.21 ORIGINAL VEGETATION Originally, the natural vegetation of most of the project area was 'Ohi'a/Uluhe (MetrosiderosUcrano eris) Fem Forest, which is a subtype of the Lowland Wet Forest (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). This'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fern Forest community is associated with young lava flows and shallow soils on the lower windward slope of Mauna Loa. This community is dominated by a deep mat of uluhe, more or less scattered'ohi'a trees, and relatively few other plant species. At a few sites within the project area with somewhat deeper soil, the vegetation has further developed into the 'Ohi'a (Metrosideros) Lowland Wet Forest or the Koa/ Ohi'a (Acacia/Metrosideros) Lowland Forest communities (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). These communities have a closed tree canopy, less uluhe ground cover, and a somewhat richer assortment of associated species. 3,22 PRESENT VEGETATION OVERVIEW The vegetation of the project area still strongly reflects the original vegetation. However, past human land -use has significantly modified the vegetation in many areas. Intensity of human agricultural use is strongly correlated with soil type (Figure 1). The correlation can be detected in the field as well as from aerial photographs and soil survey maps. Intensive farming, including sugar cane production, has been carried out in most parts of the project area that have deep soil. The remaining areas have shallow soil over lava and have been less or not at all disturbed by human activity. The shallow soil habitats include an extensive area covered by the 1881 lava flow. Most of this flow, within the project area, has not been disturbed by human activity and is covered with primary native vegetation similar to that described above as Original Vegetation. Shallow soil habitats also include somewhat older sites with shallow muck soils, classified as Tropofolists. The soils of these areas apparently are too shallow to have supported intensive agriculture but have been variably disturbed, perhaps by grazing or selective logging; small incicuions were cleared for sugarcane production. In some places, the Tropofolists support native `ohi'a forest, but where disturbed is usually a variable scrub vegetation of mixed and alien species. U P P: -.E ALTER ATIVE } ` \ : r_ ..s. �.:�;�-'; • .' ,,,< p no \. \ \ � _ ALIGN ENT # tea, 1 F r • ° a UPPE ALTER ATIVE g ;t \ ALIG ENT #2 \ ' UP P R PORTION q` VEGETATION, SUBSTRATE & WETLANDS IECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HILO, HAWAII 92014/M /. EIS/F1 DWI '1=1 {� 0 1 2 u scale in kilometers 0 2000 4000 DATE scale in feet 8/19/98 R 0 N ALTERNATIVE A— LOWER PORTION MOW 9 L 0 W E R -p 0 R T 10 N ;Z . ..... 1881 LAVA FLOW ® INTERMITTENT STREAM ® DELINEATED WETLANDS 0 TROPOFOLISTS — ORGANIC SOILS HYDRANDEPTS — DEEP ASH SOILS LAVA FLOWS CO CLOSED 'OHI'A FOREST OU 'OHI'A/ULUHE FERN FOREST OKU 'OHI'A/KOA/ULUHE FERN FOREST MOW MIXED 'OHI'A/WAIAWI SAV SAVANNA 0 t• oI VEGETATION, SUBSTRATE & WETLANDS IECT PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HILO, HAWAII 92014/M /. EIS/F1 DWI '1=1 {� 0 1 2 u scale in kilometers 0 2000 4000 DATE scale in feet 8/19/98 R 0 N ALTERNATIVE A— LOWER PORTION MOW 9 L 0 W E R -p 0 R T 10 N ;Z . ..... 1881 LAVA FLOW ® INTERMITTENT STREAM ® DELINEATED WETLANDS 0 TROPOFOLISTS — ORGANIC SOILS HYDRANDEPTS — DEEP ASH SOILS LAVA FLOWS CO CLOSED 'OHI'A FOREST OU 'OHI'A/ULUHE FERN FOREST OKU 'OHI'A/KOA/ULUHE FERN FOREST MOW MIXED 'OHI'A/WAIAWI SAV SAVANNA 0 t• Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 9 The areas that have supported agriculture in the past have deep soil derived from volcanic ash. These soils are classified as Hydrandepts and are well -drained to moderately well -drained (Sato et. a. 1973). Most of these soils were used for sugar cane production, but have been abandoned for a number of years. Current agricultural use appears to be limited to sporadic grazing, or no use at all. The vegetation of these abandoned fields is secondary growth undergoing rapid change noted between the 1992 and later botanical studies. Following abandonment, these fields were apparently taken over by alien grasses and shrubs with scattered trees, best described as a savanna. Now, however, large areas are being recolonized by native plant species, especially uluhe (Dicranopteris linearis) and `ohi'a (Metrosideros polymomha), and to a much lesser extent, koa (Acacia kms). The four major community types found within the study area are described below. 1) 'OFUA/ULUHE FERN FOREST. The more extensive of the two native communities within the project area is 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fem Forest generally as described above under "Original Vegetation." This is an open forest with columnar-shaped'ohi a (Metrosideros pQl=orpha) trees up to 12 meters (40 R.) tall. The ground between the trees is completely covered by mats of the indigenous fern, uluhe (Dicranolgeris linearis). O Within the project area, the'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fern Forest occurs on several different substrates (Sato et al. 1973), including the 1881 lava flow which is mapped as "pahoehoe lava" and has a very thin, discontinuous layer of accumulated organic matter. This community is also supported on slightly older pahoehoe lava flows with a shallow, organic soil (Tropofolist) classified as Keei or Keaukaha series "extremely rocky muck". The canopy cover is generally open, but may be nearly closed in some areas. In the latter case, the groundcover is still predominantly uluhe, distinguishing this community from the Closed'Ohi a Forest community described below. Where the'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fem Forest occurs as primary vegetation on the 1881 lava flow, few other species of plants may be found. Native plants that do occur infrequently are 'ahaniu (Machaerina mariscoides), pukiawe (Slyphelia tameiameiae), neneleau (Rhus sandwicensis), and wawai.-'iole (I,,ycQpQdilrm c.Lrn_u.gm). On the older lava flows with Tropofolist soils, hapu u or tree ferns ( i i spm.), papala-kepau (Pisonia umbellifera), and kawa'u (Ilex anomala) were ieisequently found wi'ddri the'Ohi'a/Unlit: Fem Forest community. The nnost conunoi, alien plants invading this community are bamboo orchid (Arundinia bambusifolia), melastoma (Melastoma candidum), strawberry guava or waiawi (Psidium cattleianum), broomsedge (Androtweon virginicus), and swordfern (Nel2hrolel2is hirsutula). Infrequently, native koa (Acacia kms) occurs on these older substrates forming a subtype, here designated'Ohi'aiKoaiUluhe Forest. `Ohi'a/Uluhe Fem Forest is also becoming re-established within the abandoned fields on deep Hydrandept soil. Field observations between 1992 and 1998 clearly show that uluhe and `ohi'a are repacing much of the alien grass and shrub vegetation of the Savanna community type. 0 Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 10 o �° However, because the development of forest vegetation is still incipient, these areas are treated as a Femland subtype of the Savanna community. M 2) CLOSED'OHPA FOREST. The other predominantly native community is a Closed'Ohi'a Forest. The canopy is about 15 meters (50 R.) high and made up of three varieties of Metrosideros Wlvmojp ('ohi'a): varieties n n ,lag berrima and macrophylla. The largest trees are of variety macrolhylla. This community has several more native species than the fern forest community described above. The most abundant of these additional trees is kopiko (Psychotria hawaiiense), with occasional pilo (Coprosma sp.) Hapu'u is fairly common. Some uluhe does grow in sunnier spots, but the ground -cover is generally dominated by the alien sworciferns (Nephrolepis hirsutula and N. cordifolia), and kahili ginger (Hedychium gardnerianum). The epiphytic flora is well-developed, including ie'ie (Freycinetia arbores), 'ekaha (Elaphoglossum spp.), wawai=iole (Lycopodium phyllanthum), palai-lau-li'i (Sphaerocionium lanceolatum), and Adenophorus sp., and. mosses and liverworts. Alien trees are also common in this community. Strawberry guava or waiawi forms dense understory thickets in many places. Common guava (P i i gQiava), African tulip tree (Snathodea cam=ulata), and Alexander palm (Archontophoenix alexandrae) o occasionally occur. 3) SAVANNA. A Savanna of widely scattered trees has developed on deep Hydrandept soils where the original vegetation has been removed for agricultural or other purposes and then abandoned. The Savanna vegetation is highly variable from place to place and includes many species of alien plants and a smaller number of native plants as well. In 1992 the predominant vegetation was a ground -cover of tall, dense grass with widely scattered trees of many species. Thickets occurred in some places. The most common grasses were Wainaku grass (Panicum IQ=), California grass (Brachiaria mutica), both of which form extensive, impenetrable mats, and two hunch grasses, little bluestem ($rhjzarir podn� rt atum) and broomsedge (Andropoeori vii 'hgi icus). Volunteer sugar cane (Saccharum oYficinarum) was ofici, ;much in evidence. Trees C�Ccwring ingly or in grove, or thickets, included albizia (Paraserianthes falcataria), common guava, waiawi, melochia (iylelochia umbellata), gunpowder tree (Trema orientalis), and the native koa. In many areas, the native 'ohi'a/uluhe community was seen to persist or be re -invading. 'Ohi'a, hapriu and uluhe were commonly seen in gullies where they may have survived land clearing. In other places, it was clear that 'ohi'a saplings were becoming reestablished and uluhe mats o spreading into the grasslands of the Savanna. Comparisonsofunquantifiedobservationsmade in 1992, 1995 and 1998 clearly indicate that 'ohi'a and uluhe are now more widespread and o 13 O O OVegetation and Wetlands - Page 11 displacing the alien species in much of this habitat type. A Fernland of these two native species now stongly dominates an estimated 50% of the area, sometimes beneath widely scattered alien tall trees, and is expected to continue to spread. 4) M1XED'OHI'A AND WAIAWI SHRUBLAND. Many areas with shallow soil are a mix of dense waiawi thickets intermingled with'ohi'a and uluhe. Presence of other native and alien plants is also variable. Some of these areas appear to be native vegetation on Tropofolist soil that was not completely cleared but has been disturbed, then invaded by waiawi and other alien species. Other areas appear to have been cleared but partially re -invaded by 'ohi'a, waiawi and uluhe. In either case, these communities may contain all the species of the Savanna and of the 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fern Forest community described above. 3.23 DETAILED VEGETATION DESCRIPTION ALONG ALIGNMENTS The vegetation of the two alignments is described from west to east; that is, from Kaumana Drive near Country Club Drive, to Kawili Street. Locations are referenced to the survey stakes of 0 the alignment centerlines, and other landmarks (Table 1). ALIGNMENT ONE. Alignment One diverges from Kaumana Drive at survey mark 00 ft., at Country Club Drive. From this point to marker 2500 ft., the vegetation is Closed'Ohi'a Forest with trees up to 15 meters (50 ft.) tall. The understory is variably dominated by uluhe, hapu'u and kopiko saplings with alien swordfems, or waiawi thickets. Kahili ginger and melastoma are other common alien plants. Near marker 2500 ft. the alignment runs near the interface of the Closed O'hia Forest and Savanna vegetation in abandoned sugar cane fields. Closed forest is on the north side of the easement, the center -line and south side are in Savanna. The Savanna is an area of deeper soil of the Kaiwki silty clay loam series (Sato et al. 1973). Volunteer sugar cane is still conspicuous. The Savanna is a patchwork of areas dominated by either Wainaku and California grass, broomsedge and utile bluestem, or uluhe and'ohi'a. Comparisons of unquantified observations made in 1992, 1995 and 1998 indicate that in this area `ohi'a and uluhe are becoming dominant and that Wainaku grass is becoming more abundant in areas where California grass once prevailed. Many species of alien trees are scattered individually or in groves and thickets across the Savanna. The more common trees are albizia, guava, waiawi, avocado (Persea americana), rose apple (Syziaium O jambos), and Alexander palm. There are also several small groves of koa trees up to 18 meters (60 ft.) tall. Several steep gullies with streambeds occur in the section between the 2900 and the 4400 ft. markers. The streamside vegetation often includes lush stands of Wainaku grass or California 0 Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 12 O a a N grass, but generally resembles the surrounding community. Near marker 5500 On the east side of Wilder St., the alignment crosses an extent of shallower Tropofolist soil that appears to have been cleared then abandoned. Waiawi clumps are mixed with'ohi'a/uluhe patches within a matrix of Wainaku and California grass. Some of this area was re -cleared in 1994 for unknown purposes. This Mixed `Ohi'aiWaiawi shrubland continues to about marker 8500 ft where the alignment crosses onto the 1881 lava flow. Near marker 7100 feet, the alignment skirts the residential and farming area on Pamoho St. A wetland dominated by Wainaku grass and California grass occurs near the 138 kv electrical power transmission line near marker 7800 ft. At the 8500 ft. marker, where Alignment One crosses onto the 1881 lava flow, the vegetation up to about the 17000 ft. marker is the best example of an undisturbed'Ohi'aiUluhe Fem Forest encountered on this alignment. Pole-sized'ohi'a trees form an open canopy in a sea of uluhe. There is some natural variation in the vegetation. In a few places the native sedge, 'ahaniu, forms up to 20% of the groundcover and wawae-'iole (Lycopodium cemuum) may makeup 1%; in most places, however, the cover of uluhe is near 100%. The height of the'ohi'a canopy varies according to soil conditions from about 7 to 12 meters (25 to 40 ft)., with a mean of about 9 meters (30 ft). In the o taller stands, the canopy is more nearly closed and the ground is more moist and shady. Some alien plants are found within this community, but always as a minor component. The unobtrusive bamboo orchid is the most widely distributed alien plant in this vegetation type. Among the larger, more disruptive aliens, melastoma is the most common. Even melastoma, however, is widely scattered and never dominates, even locally. Waiawi is even less common, but does become somewhat more abundant in the taller, more closed'ohi'a stands. The moist, shady conditions may favor this species. As Alignment One nears the Sunrise Estates subdivision; it leaves the 1881 lava flow and enters an'ohi'a/uluhe community where the'ohi'a trees are larger and the vegetation is more heavily degraded by alien plants. Waiawi and melastoma thickets reappear and swordfem often replaces uluhe as the groundcover. The indigenous sedge, Scleria tom, occurs here sparingly. From marker 1 %100 R. to 19300 ft. the alignment skirts the Sunrise estates subdivision. The north side of the right-of-way impinges on the recently bulldozed areas of the subdivision while the south side is within a disturbed'ohi'a/uluhe community as just described. East of Sunrise Estates to Komohana St., the alignment passes through a Mixed 'Ohi'a and Waiawi Shrubland vegetation which has a matrix of'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fern Forest but also many areas dominated by waiawi and other aliens. The'ohi'a are commonly up to 12 meters (40 ft.) tall, but o widely scattered. Presence of a few hala trees (Pandanus tect4Lu,5) indicate that this is a later successional stage of the lowland forest. Thickets of large, mature waiawi and melastoma show that OVegetation and Wetlands - Page 13 this land has long been disturbed, perhaps by cattle grazing. A large number of other alien tree species emerge above the open'ohi'a canopy, these include Alexander palm, African tulip tree, and gunpowder tree. The vegetation of the remaining sections of Alignments A and B, along Puainako Street from Komohana Street to Kawili Street, is secondary forest. Most of this area appears to have been abandoned sugar cane fields. Large gunpowder trees up to 18 meters (60 ft.) tall dominate. Other trees, all alien, include melochia, octopus tree (hS efflera actinophylla), Chinese banyan (Ficus microcarna), and bingabing (Macaranea maooa). The groundcover is made up of alien plants including oak fem (Cyclosorus dentatus), palm grass (Setaria palmifolia), thimbleberry (Rubus r i lius), sensitive plant (Mimosa Z i ), and wedelia (Wedelia trilobata). The vegetation in openings is chiefly sugar cane, California grass, and wedelia. ALIGNMENT TWO Alignment Two begins at Kaumana Drive near Country Club Drive. The vegetation is a Closed 'Ohl a Forest with trees up to 55 ft. tall and hapu'u. Much of the understory is dominated by waiawi but kopiko saplings and other native shrubs and fem are common in some O spots. The more open areas usually have a groundcover of uluhe; the alien swordferns predominate under the closed canopy. A number of epiphytic species are present, including ie'ie and'ekaha. The soil is a very shallow layer of litter and humus over pahoehoe lava. At marker 1500 ft., the alignment enters long -abandoned sugar cane fields on Kaiwiki silty clay loam soil. This secondary vegetation is highly variable Savanna, as described for Alignment One. Volunteer sugar cane is common in this Savanna vegetation. In 1995, the most extensive subtype was that dominated by little blue stem and broomsedge. By 1998, the area dominated by uluhe and young'ohi'a had greatly increased and the area under California grass had decreased, and in many places is now co -dominant with Wamaku grass. A large number of trees are scattered through the Savanna. Perhaps the most conspicuous are yoimg koa, up to 18 meters (60 ft.) tall; the only other native trees of the Savanna are'ohi.'a and neneleau. Alien trees include avocado, eucalyptus (Eucalyptus robusta) rose apple, waiawi, and Africa;r tulip t -mc. Many other alien shrubs acrd he,us are found in the SaAlarrm co nmuuity. A number of small streams in deep gullies cross this area. Wamaku grass (Panicurn reoens) is common on the banks. Mature koa are found within the 'Ohi'a/Koa/Llluhe Fern Forest between the 3000 ft. and 3700 ft. markers. The canopy is open, made up of'ohi'a and a few large koa trees. The uluhe and O uluhe-nui (Hicrio=ris pinnata) form a deep mat, but there are also many thickets of waiawi and melastoma. A deep stream channel with little flow is within this section, too. O O ° Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 14 O Table 1. Listing of alignment segments of upper portion by community type. Segments designated by survey stations (feet from origin at Kaumana Drive). SEGMENT EXTENT EXTENT Begin End COMMUNITY (m) (ft.) Alignment 1 800 1500 3000 00 2500 Closed'OhiaForest 770 2500 2500 5500 Savanna 920 3000 5500 8500 Mixed'Ohi'a/Waiawi 920 3000 8500 17000 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fem Forest 2620 8500 17000 19300 Sunrise Estates 710 2300 19300 24400 Mixed'Ohi'a/Waiawi 1600 5100 Alignment 2 EXTENT WITHIN COMMUNITY 700 1500 Closed'Ohi'a Forest 250 800 1500 3000 Savanna 460 1500 3000 3700 'Ohi'a-Koa/Uluhe Fern Forest 220 700 3700 4200 Savanna 150 500 4200 5000 Mixed'Ohi'a/Waiawi 250 800 5000 6200 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fem Forest 370 1200 6200 10900 Mixed'Ohi'a/Waiawi 1450 4700 10900 13100 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fern Forest 670 2200 13100 16000 Mixed'Ohi'a/Waiawi 890 2900 16000 19500 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fern Forest 1080 3500 SUMMARY f`J O EXTENT WITHIN COMMUNITY ALIGNMENT ONE ALIGNMENT TWO COMMUNITY (m) (ft) (m) (ft.) Closed'Ohi'aForest 770 2,500 250 800 'Ohi'alJluho Fern Foresi x,620 8,500 2,3410 60C; Mixed'Ohi'a/Waiawi 2,520 8,100 2,580 8,400 Savanna 926 3,000 620 2000 Other 710 2,300 f`J O 4 4 O O O Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 15 From the 3700 ft. marker to the 4200 ft. marker, the alignment crosses another abandoned field with Savanna -type 6qoundcover, but no trees. From the 4200 ft. marker to about the 5000 ft. marker the vegetation is Mixed'Ohi'a and Waiawi Shrubland with many other alien plants, including maile pilau (Paederia an ens), thimbleberry, and swordfern. From the 5000 ft. marker to the 6200 ft. marker near Wilder Street the vegetation is a relatively undistwbed'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fern Forest with only occasional waiawi or melastoma. Between 5000 and 6000 ft. markers, the native vegetation is well-developed into a nearly closed canopy of 'ohi'a with a hapu'u understory and uluhe groundcover. Very few alien plants are found here. The vegetation near Wilder Street is disturbed and open with California grass, melastoma, waiawi, as well as some'ohi'a and uluhe. From Wilder Street to the 138 kv electrical power transmission line at marker 10900 ft. the vegetation is Mixed'Ohi'a and Waiawi Shrubland. Much of this area appears to have been cleared in the past. The vegetation on the south edge of the right-of-way is a low stature, open'ohi'a/uluhe forest. The north side is more open with California grass and broomsedge- dominated savanna vegetation. In many parts of the right-of-way itself, the uluhe and'ohi'a appear O to be reestablished, but many other areas have dense waiawi thickets. From the 10900 ft. marker to the bulldozed road at 13100 ft. marker the vegetation is strongly native in character. The uluhe mat is dense, with scattered 'ohi'a up to 8 meters (25 ft.) tall and frequent hapu'u. Melastoma and waiawi do occasionally occur. Southeast of Pacific Plantation subdivision, from 13100 ft. to about the 16000 ft. marker, the vegetation is Mixed 'Ohi'a and Waiawi Shrubland with many other alien trees, including gunpowder tree, melochia, and common guava. Ginger and California grass are common groundcover, as is uluhe. From the 16000 ft. marker to the junction with Alignment One near Sunrise Estates, the vegetation is more nearly 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fern Forest, but still with many of the same alien species. 3.24 RARE OR ENDANGERED PLANTS N'o plants listed as threatened of erd mgered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service werc found within or near the surveyed alignments. A review of the known distributions of listed or proposed endangered or threatened plant species revealed that none have ever been previously found within the project area. Based on the field survey and this review, it is concluded that it is very improbable that any plant now listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened occurs Owithin the project area. O a A Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 16 3.3 WETLAND HABITAT 3.31 Overview of Wetland Analysis This analysis of wetland habitats is guided by the Co ps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps of Engineers 1987) and the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands Hawaii (Region H) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). The analysis was conducted in two steps: a determination of the presence of wetlands for all alternative alignments, then a wetlands M delineation for Alignment One and Alignment A.. The vegetation, soil and hydrological criteria defined in the Delineation Manual were used to determine parts of the project area that are likely to be jurisdictional wetlands. Following the advice of USACE (see METHODS, above), the determination was based on a 'worst case scenario.' This means that any area having one or more strong indicator of wetland habitat was identified as potential wetland. The strong indicators used are defined below. The Wetland Indicator Status (Corps of Engineers 1987, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988) of each plant species encountered is given in Table A. In this report, the symbols OBL (obligate wetland species), FW (Facultative Wetland species), FAC (Facultative Species), FU (Facultative Upland species), and NI (Not Indicator species) are used in the context and as defined O in the National List, cited above. The vegetation of East Hawaii contains many plants designated as FAC. Some of these species are very widespread and abundant on both well -drained and poorly - drained sites, eg. 'ohi'a (Metrosideros spp.), waiawi (Psidium cattleienum), hapu'u (Cibotiurn spp.), Hilo grass (Pagpalum coniugatum), and wainaku grass (Panicum reoens). California grass is designated FW, yet occurs on a range of site types in the Hilo area. The presence of these plants, even when dominant, is useless as an indicator of wetland conditions. Three OBL plants were found within the project area, always in poorly -drained sites. Presence (dominance not required) of any of these three plants, and any FW plant that is not widespread. i.e. any that are localized, are considered to be a strong indicator of wetland conditions. Hydric soil conditions were checked in selected areas by digging soil pits. Wetland indicators described in the Delineation Manual such as low chroma and brighM'0f61us, were noted. Addisionaily, lack of soil structure was included as a strong indicator cfhylric sail. Presence of soil saturation or free water in the pit was taken as a hydrological indicator of wetland conditions. Soil that was muddy due to poor drainage at the time of the survey is also considered a strong indicator. 4 10 O O CVegetation and Wetlands - Page 17 3,32 Wetland Determination 3.321 Correlation of Soil TyINs and Land Use with Wetland Indicators Our field surveys have found a relationship between soil types and wetland indicators. Three general soil types occur within the project area: Lava Lands, Tropofolists, and Hydrandepts (Figure 1). The distributions of the three major soil types are easily recognized in the field: 1) LAVA FLOWS. The Lava Flows are the 1881 lava flow, vegetated with'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fern Forest or Closed'Ohi'a Forest. The soil is a very thin, discontinuous layer of organic matter. The surface may be 50% or more pahoehoe lava outcrop. 2) TROPOFOLISTS. The Tropofolist are shallow organic soils formed over prehistoric pahoehoe lava flows from Mauna Loa. For the most part, these soils are covered by native vegetation. Some areas have been degraded by grazing or other human activity and support the Mixed 'Ohi'a and Waiawi Shrubland. Many other areas are undisturbed, with open to closed canopy, native forest classified as'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fern Forest. O3) HYDRANDEPTS. The Hydrandepts are relatively deep soils of Mauna Kea ash that have been cleared and cultivated, mostly for sugarcane. Although no cane is currently cultivated in the project area, the abandoned fields are easily recognized. No areas with wetland characteristics have been found on the Lava Lands (rLW), which comprise the 1881 and other young lava flows within the project area. This simple, early succession community never contains more than 50% FAC or wetter species among the dominants. No species wetter than FAC have been found here. The Hydrandepts belong to soil series identified as Kaiwiki silty clay loam, Olaa extremely stony silty clay loam, Olaa silty clay loam, and Panaewa very rocky silty clay loam. These soils are generally well -drained and the surface is dissected by well-defined gullies. Some of these watercourses are shown on the USES topographic, maps as intermittent streams; all are shown on FEMA Hood maps as well. They have all had water flowing on at least one occasion that i have visited them. 1-1 sonic 1,oca''ons, stieani'veds o, banks havc OBL or uncomrnoir Fr'. L'WE.T plants below the usual high water mark. Distinct patches with strong vegetation and soil wetland indicators are found only on shallow Tropofolists on prehistoric pahoehoe lava flows. These are identified in the Soil Survey as belonging to the Keaukaha extremely rocky muck and the Keei extremely rocky muck series. These O soils are not in their entirety hydric, but have a tendency to become waterlogged when microtopography or compaction impede drainage. o °� Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 18 Detailed observations of soil and hydrology were made on a 800 meter (2600 ft.) long segment of Alignment Two, Approximately 20% of this sample distance has indicators of hydric soil or wetland hydrology. This 20% factor is used to estimate the potential extent of wetland habitats within portions of the alignments that traverse Tropofolist soils. No variance for the 20% factor has been determined and no estimate of the reliability of this model is available. The estimates generated must be considered as general, preliminary estimates of the extent of problematic wetland sites within a densely vegetated and rugged terrain. N 3,322 STREAMS AND WETLAND HABITATS OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT ONE STREAMS All stream crossings on Alternative Alignment One are actually the same stream/drainage system. The alignment repeatedly crosses the same stream because the alignment runs downslope, more -or -less parallel to the stream. This stream and some of its tributaries are shown on the USGS 1:24000 topographic map (Piihonua Quad) as unnamed intermittent streams. The proposed right-of-way of Alignment One was relocated in 1998 to reduce impact to this drainage system. A number of crossings will still be required, but channelization will be avoided. The right-of-way east of Wilder Road was also relocated near Pamoho Road in 1998 to avoid o impacts to downstream portions of the same drainage system. The stream crossings west of Wilder Road are very similar in appearance: narrow, with steep banks several meters high and a bare lava stream bed. Each of these streams has had water flowing on at least one of the five occasions that I have visited them (6/93, 12/94, 3/95, 8/95, 7/98). WETLANDS Near the 2800 ft. Marker a gully and intermittent stream were long ago blocked by a constructed farm road producing a wetland 25 meters (80 ft.) in diameter. The wetland is mostly vegetated with dense mats of California grass and Wainaku grass partially floating on standing water (7/98). There is a small amount of open water, apparently about 1 meter (3 ft.) deep. The water is stagnant and strongly smells of sulphur; a very small flow of water was detected enterring the wetland from the gully. •`' Near the 4900 ft, trtarkc:r a. slap.,, human -ma&, drainage ditch with swep baidcs and a broad, flat bottom leads to the stream system. This ditch has steep banks and a broad, flat bottom that is completely vegetated in most places but has a few open water pools. Water can usually be detected flowing through the California grass and other streambed vegetation. A few individual OBL plants (Ludwiga octovalis) occur here. I have seen introduced prawns (MauDbrachium lar) in the pools. The soil on the bottom is saturated, of course, and is structureless. On 3/30/95 soil color was found o to be TM 4/4 (0-2 in.) and 5 YR 4/3 (2-9 in.), with bright mottles. This wetland -containing P O O O OVegetation and Wetlands - Page 19 drainage ditch does not cross the centerline of the proposed right-of-way, but impinges from the north. The proposed alignment crosses a third, larger wetland near Pamoho Road. This wetland appears to be a shallow depression covered almost entirely with California grass and Wainaku grass that often form floating mats. Small pools of open water were visible in 6/98 up to about 1 meter (3 ft.) deep. This wetland may receive water from the intermittent stream drainage system previously described. No defined channel exists below this point, where the path of water encounters the 1881 lava flow. WETLAND DETERMINATION This determination is presented here for comparison with the determination for Alignment Two. The wetland delineation for Alignment One follows in Section 3.33, Alternative Alignment One includes two stretches of Keaukaha Series soil (Tropofolist) east of Wilder Road and near Pamoho Road, with an extent along the center -line totaling 732 meters (2378 ft.). An estimate of potential wetlands occurring within this Tropofolist soil of Alignment COne was generated by using a wetlands factor of 20%, previously explained in Section 3.32, then multiplying this linear extent by 37 meters (120 ft.) the width of the proposed right-of-way. The estimate derived is 5403 square -meters (57,072 square -feet). From the 8500 ft. marker to about 17100 ft. Alignment One is on the 1881 lava flow which lacks wetland characteristics and with no streams. From 17100 ft. to 12200 ft. the alignment crosses a different flow, mapped as lava land, that also lacks wetland characteristics. A 615 meter (2000 ft.) extent between 22000 and 24000 of this common alignment passes over soil mapped as Tropofolist. However, two field surveys have failed to find OBL or FW wetland plants or any other wetland indicators in this area. Applying the 20% wetlands factor determined above would yield an estimate of 4,543 square -meters (48,000 square -feet) of wetland within the right-of-way. However; since no strong wetland indicators were observed in the field in this area, this estimate may be unrealistically high. The right-of•uray crosses the chinincli--e^ Waiakea Stream near Koinoh.-na St. li h, stream is usually dry, but is an important flood -control feature. A small (38 square-meter:400 square -feet), undrained area with wetland characteristics is next to the channel, within Alignment A. HABITAT VALUE The stream system at the western end of Alignment one, described above, Opasses through mixed plant communities. Along the north edge of the alignment, and a short distance from the stream is early succession native 'ohi'a forest on a young lava flow. The south side of the alignment, and most of the stream itself, is through abandoned sugarcane lands on Kaiwiki Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 20 0 Series Soil (Typic Hydrandept). The Savanna vegetation ranges from alien grasslands, of California grass and Wainaku grass to re -invading native vegetation of'ohi'a and uluhe. Native koa occur sparingly in parts of the area. The vegetation of the stream banks usually does not differ from the surroundings, with the alien grasses, or uluhe, spilling over the banks, or with dense stands of alien California grass and Wainaku grass. No native vertebrate wildlife has been observed making special use of the vegetation along the streams, nor is there reason to believe that this vegetation is important habitat for fauna. Except in the wetland near Pamoho Road already noted, the vegetation of the tropofolist soils along this alignment is similar to the larger surrounding community: mostly alien plants in abandoned agricultural fields. None of these areas appear to possess unique properties or valuable . biological resources. 3,323 STREAMS AND WETLAND HABITATS OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT TWO STREAMS The western end of Alternative Alignment Two follows the contour of the land, cutting across a number of streams and drainageways. Two of these streams are shown on the USGS 1:24000 topographic map (Piihonua Quad) as unnamed intermittent streams, tributary to the stream o described along Alternative Alignment One. Other streams or gullies described below are shown only as deflections of the contour lines. Five stream crossings with flowing water occur in this upper. section, i.e. near survey markers 1800, 2200, 3200,'3500, and 4200. Each one has distinct banks 2 to 3 meters high and a clear channel. All had flowing water at least one of the two times that I visited them (6/93 and 12/94). These streams pass through dissected and generally well -drained abandoned fields of Kaiwiki Series Soil (Hydrandept). Within the stream beds, or sometimes on their banks, a few individuals of an OBL plant (Ludwigi octovalis) have been found and a FACWET (C rus haloan) that does not occur in the surrounding communities. Otherwise, the vegetation of the banks is the same as the surroaandings, i.e. dominat?d by California grass, Wainaku grass or ulube. 'Two muddy swales or gullies (at the 1300 and 1500 ft. markers) were also found that have some wetland indicators. These lmo have no flowing water or stieaffi beds, but it appears that they carry water during heavy rains. At about 4200, the alignment turns to run obliquely downslope, such that the crossing of streams becomes less frequent. At the same point, the alignment enters an extensive area of Keei Series and Keaukaha Series soils (Tropofolist). This is a younger, less -dissected land surface with only weakly -developed streams. 0 CVegetation and Wetlands - Page 21 WETLAND DETERMINATION Detailed observations from 4200 to 6800 determined that as much as 20% of the linear extent of the center -line of the proposed right-of-way has strong wetland indicators. The wet areas were of several types. Some of these wet areas are small, undrained pockets, dominated by OBL plants, i.e. spikerush (Eleocharis obtusa) and kamole (Ludwigia octovalis), or by FACWET (California grass) or FAC (Wainaku grass) grasses. These were found at survey marks 6000 (6 meters:20 ft. diameter), 5900 (6 meters20 ft. diameter) and 5600 (5 meters: 15 ft. diameter). The soils are saturated, structureless, and low chroma. The soil in intervening stretches has strong structure and higher chroma. Although the groundcover within the wet pockets is clearly hydrophytic, the overstory does not reflect the local conditions, but is made up almost entirely of'ohi'a, the same as the surrounding community. A larger wet area (30 meters: 100 ft. extent along the center -line) was found near the 5200 ft. marker. Saturated, low chroma soils was found. However, the groundcover is not made up of the OBL plants found in the smaller undrained pockets. This, and other large wet areas, is characterized by much reduced canopy cover of'ohi'a. The trees are scattered and somewhat stunted in appearance. The groundcover is dominated by uluhe and Wainaku grass. These areas are similar 0 in vegetation appearance to "bog formation" dieback areas known mostly from the slopes of Mauna Kea (Mueller-Dombois et al 1980). Another extensive segment, between 4200 to 4900 ft. markers, is a mosaic of drained areas and the two types of wet areas described above. This stretch also includes a number of areas with water flowing over the surface or in poorly developed drainageways, often with sparse hydrophytic vegetation. An estimate was made that 50% of the right-of-way here may be wetland. These detailed observations of an extent of 800 meters (2600 ft.) between 4200 and 6800 determined that 155 meters (505 ft.), or nearly 20%, have some wetland characteristics. In a "worst case" analysis, this factor of 20% wetlands is multiplied times the extent of the alignment traversing soils mapped as tropofolist 3,904 meters (12,800 ft.) and the right-of-way width, generating an estimate that there may be up to 29,084 square -meters (307,200 square -feet) of right-of-wav within jurisdictional wetlands between survey markers 4200 and 17000, the point where the aligmnent passes onto the 198-1 lava flow. HABITAT VALUE The biological value for the vegetation at the stream crossings at 1500, 1800 and 2200 ft. markers is similar to the habitat value described for stream crossings in Alternative Alignment One, O i.e. no unique or identifiable biological characteristics. The stream crossings at 3200 ft. and 3500 ft. are within a stand of'ohi'a-koa forest. This community is largely native in character. The habitat Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 22 characteristics of the vegetation above the usual high-water mark are not identifiably different than the surrounding community. Along Alternative Alignment Two, much of the vegetation on tropofolist soils is also predominantly native in character. Some areas appear to be intact'ohi'a/uluhe forest with few alien plants present. Small pockets of submerged soil occur where the ground cover is dominated by spikerush ( lE eocharis obtusa), an indigenous sedge and OBL plant. The upper vegetation layers do not appear to reflect the presence of these pockets. It is difficult to determine if these undrained pockets are a natural inclusion in this forest type, or if they are the result of drainage impedance by pig activity or human disturbance. Larger undrained areas resemble "bog -formation dieback" areas that naturally occur in some ohi'a forests (pp 405-406 in Stone and Scott 1985). No known no unique biological resource or faunal relationship are associated with the wet areas described above. However, they appear to be naturally occurring elements within the native forest community. 3.33 Wetland Delineation Following the analysis and determination of wetlands within the project area, a wetlands delineation was conducted for Alignment One. A decision was reached that a formal delineation for Alignment Two is not possible without an inordinate effort because of the nature of the habitat and the terrain. As described above, wetlands on Alignment Two are distributed in a complex and heterogenous mosaic. In much of this area, the undergrowth vegetation is dense, greatly impeding movement and visibility. Delineation of the upland -wetland boundaries would require excessive fieldwork, including trampling of the undergrowth. Therefore,.the comparison of the two alternatives is based upon the wetland determinations that were derived by the same analytical methods. A formal wetland delineation, according to the Crpc of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Mjnupl.(Corps of Engineers 1987), was conducted for Alignment One. Delineation points were established within the areas determined to contain wetlands. The delineation points are summarized in Table 3. Looatiiuns, sizes and other environnental characteristics of thc thr ti wetlands delineated on Alignment One, and one wetland on Alignment A, are listed in Table 4 and shown on Figure 1. The total area of wetlands within the proposed right-of-way of Alignment One was found to be 2,272 square -meters (34,566 square -feet) rather than the 5,403 square -meters (57;072 square - feet) estimate based on the wetland determination. The total area of wetland fill within the right-of- way if Alignments One and A were selected would be 2,310 square -meters (34,966 square -feet). E9 a O O CVegetation and Wetlands - Page 23 TABLE 2. Wetland Delineation Points on Alignment One of the Proposed Puainako Street Extension, Hilo, Hawaii. 0 0 Plot tD Community Type Soil Series Survey Station Latitude Longitude Wetland (Y/N) 1-10 Closed Ohia 1881 Flow 00+00 19'41'02" No 1550 9' 35" 1-11 Savanna Kaiwiki 25+00 190 41'02" No 1550 9' 30" 1-12 Savanna Kaiwiki 28+00 19" 41'03" Yes 1550 9' 05" 1-1 Savanna Kaiwiki 39+00 190 41'05" No 155° 8'52" 1-2 Savanna Kaiwiki 43+00 190 41'05" No 1550 8'49" 1-3 Savanna Kaiwiki 44+00 190 41'05" No 1550 8'47" 1-4 Stream Kaiwiki 49+00 190 41'06" Yes 1550 8'43" 1-5 Savanna Kaiwiki 56+00 190 41'23" No 1550 8'37" 1-6 Savanna Kaiwiki 59+00 190 41'05". No 1-8 Mixed Keaukaha 64+00 190 41'05" Nu 1550 8'29" 1-9 Farm Keaukaha 77+00 190 41'04" Yes 1550 8' 17" Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 24 TABLE 3. Summary of wetlands delineated on Alignment 1 and Alignment A of the Proposed Puainako Street Extension, Hilo, Hawaii. O Wetland Survey Latitude Delineation Area Number Station Longitude Plot ID ft2 m2 1 28+00 190 41'03" 1-12 5,280 500 155'9'05" 2 49+00 190 41'06" 1-4 3,150 298 1550 8'43" 3 77+00 190 41'04" 1-9 26,136 2,474 1550 8' 17" 4 - - - 190 41' 52" - - - 400 38 155 4'90" O C a O O OVegetation and Wetlands - Page 25 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING RESOURCE VALUE OF THE VEGETATION All vegetation has general resource value regardless of the species present, whether dominated by native or alien plants, or the rarity or abundance of the species present. These general values include control of soil erosion, retention of water in the soil, atmospheric cooling, noise reduction and aesthetic value associated with greenery and open space, and, sometimes, recreational opportunities. The vegetation of the project area provides these resource values to the Hilo community. Biological resource value refers to values that individual species have because of their rarity, uniqueness or important role in supporting the ecosystem. A community with a unique combination of plant species or that is habitat for valuable animal species also has biological value. For the purposes of the present assessment, alien plants, and communities dominated by alien plants, are considered to have general value but no biological resource value. Vegetation attributes that have biological value are 1) rare or endangered native plants; 2) plant communities dominated by native plants, especially if the community is a combination of plant species found only in that area; and O3) plant communities that support native animal species. Landscape planning assigns postive value to diversity within the landscape, recognizing that the variety of land uses, plant communities and ecosystems within a significantly affect the well- being of the human population as well as the flora and fauna of the region. Any undeveloped lands provide open space with the general values described above. Native plant communities additionally can provide educational and cultural uses, especially when close to a city population center. 4.2 RARE OR ENDANGERED PLANTS No plants listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed for listing, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Federal Register 1990a, 1990b) were found, nor is it considered likely that any such plants occur in or near either of the two alignments surveyed. No other plants known to he considered rare by other parties or agencies were found. 4.3 NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES Much of the primary natural vegetation along the two alignments has been destroyed by land -clearing for agricultural use and is now dominated by secondary communities of mostly alien plants. In some other areas, alien plants, especially waiawi and melastoma, have heavily invaded Othe natural vegetation and compromised its native character. There are, however, stretches on each alignment where the vegetation is near its natural state. The following three areas were identified: O Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 26 O 0 + M 1) The western ends of both alignments, near Kaumana Drive, begin in Closed 'Ohi'a Forest, on or near the 1881 lava flow. Although waiawi, swordfem, and other alien species are present, this community appears to be a functioning, mid-succession'ohi'a forest where a few other native tree species are becoming established. The community is floristically simple with no more than a dozen vascular species, including ferns and epiphytes. 2) Between the 8500 ft. marker and the 17000 ft. marker, where Alignment One passes between Kaumana Drive and the Pacific Plantation subdivision on the 1881 lava flow, the vegetation is an intact representative community of the 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fern Forest. Very few alien plants are present. This is a very simple community with perhaps five other native species very sparsely distributed among the 'ohi'a and uluhe. Kaumana Cave passes under this portion of the 1881 lava flow near the proposed right-of-way. Endemic, cave -adapted invertebrates are dependent upon the roots of native vegetation above the cave. It is not known if clearing and construction in the vicinity of the cave will affect these animals. 3) Two stretches of Alignment Two pass through communities that are nearly free of alien plants: from the 5000 ft. marker to about the 6000 ft. marker near Wilder Street, and from the 10900 ft. marker south-southeast of Pamoho Street to the 13100 ft. marker south of Pacific Plantation subdivision. These two sites have'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fem Forest slightly more developed than the community just described on the 1881 lava flow. These communities have a very deep mat of uluhe, 'ohi'a up to about 8 meters (25 ft.) tall, and occasional hapu'u. Similar communities occur elsewhere in the vicinity of Hilo, South Hilo District, and Puna district on relatively young lava flows. Proposed construction would not threaten the existence of these community types and, as previously stated, these communities do not contain rare species nor do they appear to be important habitat for any native animal. Nevertheless, the proposed alignments raise two planning issues that should be evaluated: first, utilization of the 1881 lava flow and, second, change in access and development of native communities and open space. Until recently, much of the 1881 lava flow escaped disturbance due to the shallow, rocky soil, unsuitable for agriculture or grazing. At the present time, the I881 lava low and its natural vegetation of Closed `Ohi'a Forest and 'Ohi'a/Uluhe Fem Forest is a distinctive feature of the landscape of northwest Hilo. Several additional projects currently in planning would clear portions of this flow, including the proposed realignment of Saddle Road, the proposed extension of Mohouli Street and proposed and approved projects at the University Park. Both alignments are on the 1881 flow at their westemjunctions with Kaumana Drive, but Alignment One would impact nearly twice O the extent as Alignment Two. Selection of Alignment One would build 770 meters (2500 ft.) on the 1881 through Closed `Ohi'a Forest near Kaumana Drive and 2620 meters (8500 ft..) on the 1881 OVegetation and Wetlands - Page 27 flow in `Ohi'"uhe Fern Forest near the Pacific Plantation subdivision, effectively disrupting a long stretch of native ecosystem. Selection of Alignment Two would improve the access to unoccupied areas of the land of Kukuau I and Kukuau 2. Some of these areas have been affected by low intensity grazing and other uses, others still possess the native vegetation. Construction of this alignment may hasten development and loss of open space and native vegetation. Recommendation 1) A planning analysis should be made for the 1881 lava flow. It should be determined the extent, if any, of areas that have conservation protection. Selection of an alignment for the extension of Puainako Street should evaluate the impact on this landscape feature. 2) No biological communities were found within the project area that deserve high priority for protection on the basis of their uniqueness. The native 'Ohl a/Uluhe Fem Forest community and the Closed 'Ohi'a Forest are not species rich, nor are they unique to the project area. These communities are remnants of native ecosystems near the outskirts of the Hilo urban area. Although Oit might he desirable from a landscape conservation perspective to maintain some areas of native ecosystem near Hilo, these lands do not appear to be strong candidates for conservation protection, because most of these areas are privately owned and currently zoned for agriculture or development, rather than conservation. 3) Roadsides should be managed to permit revegetation by native species by a) control of disruptive alien plant species, especially waiawi, b) encourage the spread of uluhe by refraining from herbicide use where it is established, and c) planting koa and `ohi'a in areas with deep soils. No choice between the two proposed alternative alignments is warranted on the basis of relative value of their plant communities, both would involve the roughly equal adverse impacts described above. ' 4.4 NATIVE ANIMAL, RA8I7AT Few native, vertebrate animals are likely to occur within the project area. However, two animals that may be utilizing the area vegetation are listed as endangered: the 'Io or Hawaiian Hawk (Buten solitarius) and the Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereas semotus) (Federal Register 1990a). Both of these species are relatively non-selective in the type of habitat required for nesting and foraging. Both utilize alien as well as native vegetation, and are well -adapted to human altered O landscapes. All the plant species and community types within the right-of-ways of the two alternative alignments are widely available within the region. No known vegetation resources 0 0 Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 28 O important to these or any other native vertebrate species are localized in or near the proposed alignments. The invertebrate fauna of the project area and entire Hilo region is poorly known. For the most part, the value of the vegetation of the project area as habitat for native invertebrates is unknown. The one site where good data exist is Kaumana Cave, which comes near, underground, the right-of-way of Alignment One. Sixteen native invertebrate species are reported from the cave in the vicinity of the project area (Stone 1992). The invertebrate community within the cave is dependent on roots from overhead vegetation. The native invertebrate species do not occur within segments of the cave that do not have 'ohi'a-dominated vegetation overhead (Stone 1992). Recommendation Maintain native vegetation over Kaumana Cave. No experimental or other objective data are available to determine the width of vegetation buffer needed above the Cave. Prudence would dictate leaving as much distance as possible between the cave and the right-of-way. C�3:I_�Y_Y_1_��►! 7:1:1.3 X11 N Habitats containing wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers o have been identified along both Alignments One, Two and A by wetland determination methods. The area of wetland fill was estimated a'worst case scenario'. The actual area of jurisdictional wetlands within the right-of-way was delineated only for Alignments One and A. A lesser extent of wetlands occurs within Alignment One than Alignment Two. Furthermore, all the potential wetlands of Alignment One are dominated by alien plant species and occur within vegetation dominated by alien plants. No areas on Alignment One are dominated by OBL plants or even have a high abundance of OBL plans. On Alignment Two, some small wetland habitat pockets are dominated by one or two indigenous OBL plants, and much of the potentially wetland area occurs within native or partially native communities. Based on the above comparison, Alignment One should be recommended over Alignment rwo. However, it is difficult to assign a bioiogicai value to any of the wetland 1'iabitats within the project area based on botanical characteristics. Thc. plants that grow jr, the poo, ly drained sites sre either the same native and alien species that occur in the surrounding communities on drained soils (eg. 'ohi'a, waiawi, California grass, Wainaku grass) or are ubiquitous, pan -tropical species (spikerush and kamole). Most of the pockets with strong indicators are very small. No significant biological function as special habitat for other organisms is known for any of these poorly drained sites. o Although the flora of the poorly drained sites is made up of widespread, non -endemic, wetland species, some of the communities surrounding them are of limited distribution worldwide OVegetation and Wetlands - Page 29 or statewide. The'Ohi a/Uluhe Fern Forest that includes wetland habitat pockets within Tropofolist soils along Alignment Two may be found only at relatively low elevations on the windward side of Mauna Loa or Kilauea, due to its dependence on young lava substrates in an area of high rainfall. The wetland pockets appear to be a natural inclusion within the vegetation. RECOMMENDATION l) Selection of Alternative Alignment One would result in minimal fill of jurisdictional wetlands. Proper design and best management practices will mitigate adverse impact. 2) Selection of Alternative Alignment Two would have greater consequences for the native ecosystems that contain jurisdictional wetlands. No biological functions have been identified for these wetlands. Impact to native ecosystems should be minimized by design and construction methods that disturb the minimum right-of-way width in areas of native ecosystems. In general, the recommendations for Native Plant Communities (Section 4.3) should be followed. x N O Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 30 REFERENCES Corps of Engineers. 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MI; Department of the Army. Gagne WC, Cuddihy LW. 1990. Vegetation. in Wagner WL, Herbst DR, Sohmer SH. Eds. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai i. University of Hawaii Press/Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu. Federal Register. 1990a. Endangered & threatened wildlife and plants. 50 CFR 17.11 & 17.12. April 15, 1990. Federal Register. 1990b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant taxa proposed for listing as endangered or threatened species; notice of review. 50 CFR Part 17. Feb. 21, 1990. Kjargaard MA. 1992. An Assessment of the Fauna of the Proposed Puainako Street Extension, District of South Hilo, Hawaii. iii Final Environmental Impact Statement Puainako Street Extension and Widening, Island of Hawaii. Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii. Mueller-Dombois, D, Jacobi JD, Cooray RG, Balakrishnan B. 1980. Ohia Rain Forest Study: Ecological Investigations of the Ohia Dieback Problem in Hawaii. Revised Edition. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, Hawai i Agricultural Experiment Station. Miscellaneous Publication 183, Neal MC. 1965. In Gardens of Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 50, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. St. John H. 1973. List and Summary of the Flowering Plants in the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden Memoir 1:1-519. Sato HH, Ikeda W, Paeth R, Smythe R, Takeshiro Jr. M. 1973. Soil Survey of the Island of Hawa i. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Stone CP, Scott JM. (Eds.) 1988. Hawaii's Terrestrial Ecosystems: Preservation and Management. Cooperative National Park resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii. Stone FD. 1992. Puainako Road Extension Environmental Impact Study: Kaumana Cave. in Final Environmental Impact Statement Puaimko Street Extension and Widening, Island of Hawaii. Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988, National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Hawaii (Region H). Biological Report 88(26.13) U.S. Department of the Interior. Wagnet WL, Herbst DR, Sohmer SH. 1990. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. University of Hawai i Press/Bishop Museum Press. Hnnnlulu. C O OVegetation and Wetlands - Page 31 O O O TABLE A. PLANT SPECIES OF THE PUAINAKO ST. EXTENSION PROJECT AREA Vascular plants found within the two alternative Puainako St. Extension right-of-way. ORIGN = Place of Origin (E _ endemic, I = indigenous, P= Polynesian introduction, A = other alien); LIFE FORM = Life Form (T = tree, TF = tree fem, S = shrub, H = herb, G = grass or grass -like, F = fem, L = liana or wte); WETLAND = Wetland Indicator Status from National List (FWS 1988) (OBL = Obligate, FW = Facultative Wetland, F = Facultative, FU = Facultative Upland, NI = Not Indicator). BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ORIGIN LIFE FORM WET - LAND Acacia s§ Gray E T NI koa Adenonhorus tamariscinus (Kaulf) E F FU Hook. & Grev. wahine-noho-mauna Ad.antunt cunneatum Langsd. and Fisch. A F NI maidenhair fem Ameratin riparia (Regel) R. King & A S FU H. Robinson Hamakua pamakani Ageratum convzoides L. A H FU made-honohono Aleurites moluccana (L.) Wild. P T NI kukui Alainia Qumurata(Viell.)K.Schum. A H NI red ginger Alstoma sp. A T NI Andr000eon vireinicus L. A G FU Irr"�msedgc: AF&QiS _hW ix 2jexzndrZ (F, v. 2v�vr11.) A T NI H. A. Wendt. & Dmde Alexander palm Ardisiacren Sims A S NI Hilo holly Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 32 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ORIGIN LIFE FORM WET - LAND Ardisia elliptic Thunb. A S FU shoebutton ardisia Arundinia bambusifolia (Roxb.) Lindl. A H FU bamboo orchid Asplenium contieuum Kaulf E F NI spleenwort Athvrium esculentum (Rett.) Copel. A F NI warabi, pace, Bambus sp. A T NI bamboo Begonia hinella Link A H NI pikonia Bidens ptlQU A H NI ki nehe Blechnum occidentale L. A F NI blechnum Bothriochloa oertusa (L.) A. Camus A G NI pitted beardgrass Brachian munic (Forsk.) Stapf A G FW Califomia grass Buddleia astatica Lour. A S NI butterfly bush Calachm bicol A H NI common names not listed Castilleiaarvensis Schlecht. & Cham. A H NI paintbrush f n�Ila si q2 (L.) Urb. A H FAC Asiatic pennywon Cecrooia obtusifolia Bertol. A T NI guarumo C K U CVegetation and Wetlands - Page 33 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ORIGIN LIFE FORM WET - LAND Chamaecrista nici (L.) Moench A H NI partridge pea iboti m chamissoi Kaulf E TF FAC' hapu'u 'i i Cibodum glaucum(Sm.) H. & A. E TF FAC* hapu'u Clerodendrum ohilivinum Schauer A S FAC pikake hohono IC idemia hirta (L.) D. Don A S U Koster's curse Ql gijg rosea Jacq A T NI autograph tree d slto I V NI huehue CCoffea arabic a L. A T NI Arabian coffee Coix lachrvma-iobi L. A G FW Job's tears Commelina diffusa N. L. Burm. A H FW honohono Corry bonariensis (L.) Cronq. A H NI hairy horseweed Coorosma rhvnchocaroa Gray E T NI pilo 44rS 'iioy r'ui a (L.) k Mw% S NI ti, ki Crotolana assamica Bemh A S N1 rattlepod Crotolan juncea L. A H NI sunn hemp O Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 34 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ORIGIN LIFE FORM WET - LAND O rotolaralo Lida Anon A H N I smooth ratdepod Cuohea carthaaenensis (Jacq.) Macbride A H FAC tarweed Cuoheahyssopifolia Kunth A S NI false heather Cvclosorus dentatus (Forsk.) Ching A F NI oak fem Cwerus halDan L. A G FW umbrella sedge Desmodium sandwicense E. Mey. A H FU Spanish clover Desmodium toMx*um (Sw.) DC A S NI Florida beggarweed Dicranoweris linearis (Burm.) Underw. I F FU O uluhe, false staghom Dieitaria2mi7ii Stent. A G FAC Pangola grass Elaohoclossum alatum Gaud. E F FAC 'ekaha Elaohoelossum r 6 (Kaulf.) Gaud. E F NI 'ekaha Eleocharis obtuse (Willd.) Schutt. I G OBL spikerush A R I, - elephant's foot rrti i tsat ch fo ah (L.) LC A H N1 Flora's paintbrush Erechtites velerianifoha (Wolf) DC A H FAC fireweed F ® O O OVegetation and Wetlands - Page 35 .BOTANICAL NAME COPXMON NAME ORIGIN LIFE FORM WET- LAND Eucalyptus robust a Sm. A T FU swamp mahogany Eucalyptus s la iena Sm. A T M Sydney blue gum Ficus macrocarpa L. fit A T M Chinese banyan Filicum e i i (W. and A.) Thw. A T NI fern tree Frevcinetiaarbore Gaud. E L FU ie ie Grammitis tenella Kaulf E F NI kolokolo, mahina-lua Hedychju gar inerianum Roscoe A H NI kabili ginger CHeliocarpus Dopayanensis Kunth A T NI moho ffibiscus furcellatus Desr. I S FAC* 'akiohala Kcriopteris pinnate (G. Kunze) Ching E F NI uluhe-nur Hippobroma loneiflora (L.) G. Don A H FU star -of Bethlehem !L= pgcrinata (L.) Port. A S NI comb hyptis I;eg;:yrmaij F: r T FIT kawa'u Inmatiens sultana Hook f. A H Ni impatiens Ipomoea Indio (J. Burrn.) Merr. I L FU morning glory O O Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 36 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ca betonica L. white shrimp plant Lantana camara L. lantana Livistonia chinensis (Jacq.) R. Br, ex Mart. Chinese fan palm Ludwieiaoctovalvis (Jacq.) Raven primrose willow Lycopodium cemuum L. wawae-'iole Lycopodium phvllanthum H. & A. wawae-'iole 11vizodi m_ iaporucum Sw. climbing fem aM carangg mappa (L.) Mull. Arg. bingabing Machaenna aneustifolia (Gaud.) T. Koysrna uki Machaerina mariscoides (Gaud.) J. Kern 'ahaniu Mani of esculents Crantz. cassava Mecock recurvum 'ohi'a-ku M&LiA" m� c alr lun: D. Don melastoma Melinis m nutiflora Beauv. molassesgrass Me ochl !g umbellate (Houtt.) Staph. melochia C ME LIFE WET - ORIGIN FORM LAND A H NI A S NI A T NI P H OBL I F FAC' I F NI A F NI A T FAC+ I G FAC I G FU A S NI E F NI A c NI A G Nt A T NI ME o O O OVegetation and Wetlands - Page 37 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ORIGIN LIFE FORM WET - LAND Meyosideros polvmomha Gaud.var. Waberrim E T FAC+ 'ohi'a-lehua Meyosideros polymorph a Gaud. var. incana E T FAC- 'ohi'a-lehua Meyosideros polymorph a Gaud. var. macrophvlla E T FAC 'ohi a-lehua Microsonum scolopendria (Bunn.) Copel. I F NI laua'e Micom calvescens A S - NI no common name Mimosa pudica L. A S FU sensitive plant Musa x paradisiac L. A T FU banana ONephrolenis cordifolia (L.) Presl A F FU no common name Ngphroleois hir I (Forst.) Presl A F FAC swordfem Ophioelossum pendulum L. I F NI adder's tongue OoGsmenus Iurtellus (L.) Beauv. A G FU basketgrass Oxalis comiculat L. P H FU yellow wood sorrel ;a.l cgy vo:::i DCA iL An pink wood sorrel Paedena scandens (Lour.) Merr. A L NI maile pilau Pandanus tectorius S. Parkinson ex Z I T FAC' hala O Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 38 BOTANICAL NAME LIFE WET - COMMON NAME ORIGIN FORM LAND Panicum maximum Jacq. A G FU guineagrass Panicum reoens L. A G FAC+ Wamaku grass Paraserianthes falcatan (L.) Nielson A T NI albizia Paspalum coniggatum Berg. A G FAC+ Hilo grass Pasoalum scrobiculatum L. I G FAC" ricegrass Pasoalum urviW Steud. A G FAC vaseygrass Passiflora edulis Sims A L NI liliko'i Pennisetum purpureum Schumach. A G FU elephant grass Peueromia leotostachva Hook & Amott I H NI alaala wai nui Persea americana Mill. A T NI avocado Pha us tankarvilleae (Banks ex LTIer.) Blume A H FU Chinese ground orchid Phlebodium aureum (L.) J. Sm. A F NI laua'e-haole t'nil�Njerclron ichoii.7rp. A is N,7 philodendron Phyllanthus debiiis Klein ex Wild. A H NI mNn Pinturus albidus (H. & A.) Gray E T NI mamaki L C O 0 o Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 39 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME 01 O 0 LIFE WET - ORIGIN FORM LAND Pisonia umbellifera (J. R. & G. Forst.) Seem I T M papala-kepau Pitvroeramma chrvso ho vlla A F M gold fem Plantaeo lanceolate L. A H FU narrow -leaved plantain Pleooeltis thunbereiana Kaulf I F NI pakahakaha Pluche svmohvtifolia (Mill.) Gillis A S FAC' sourbush Polveala paniculata L. A H NI Milkwort Polveonum ccayitatum A H NI knotweed P i ium cattleianum Sabine A T FAC waiawi, yellow strawberry guava Psidium euaiava L. A T FU common guava Psilotum nudum (L.) Griseb. I F NI moa Psychotria hawa Tense (Gray) Fosb. E T NI kopiko Pvcreus ttolvstachvos (Rottb.) P. Beauv, I G FAC no common name Rhq; shndwie_ensi,(..I," E T NI neneleau ubus rosifolius Sm. A S FAC- thimbleberry Sacchartun officmarum L. A G FU sugar cane 0 Vegetation and Wetlands - Page 40 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ORIGIN 0 LIFE FORM WET- LAND 0 Sacioleois in i a (L.) Chase A G FAC+ Glenwoodgrass a l riacyatheQides Kaulf E F FU 'ama'u Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi A T FU christmasberry Schizachvrium condensatum (Kunth) Nees A G NI little bluestem Scleria Iestacea Nees I G FU nutgrass Setaria Pracilis (Poir.) Beauv. A G NI perennial foxtail Setariapalmifoli (Koen.) Stapf A G FU palmgrass Sheffer a actinophvlla (Endl.) Harms A T NI octopus tree Soathodea camoanulata Beauv. A T NI African tulip tree Soathoelotlis gLggja Blume A H FAC+ Philippine ground orchid Soermacoce assureens Ruiz & Pay. A H FAC buttonweed Sphaerocionium lanceolatum (H. & A.) Kopel. E F NI Palai-lau-li'i 5piurm, lui s;, ,;: (I,, "op el. A F FAC palaa, lace fern Stachvtarnhetaurficifoli (Salisb.) Sires A S FAC* no common name Stypheli tarneiameiae (Cham.) F. Muell. E T NI puldawe OVegetation and Wetlands - Page 41 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ORIGIN LIFE FORM WET- LAND Svneonium aurimm (L.) Schott A L NI no common name Syzipulm jambos (L.) Alston A T FAC rose apple Tibouchina h r cea (DC) Cogn. A S FAC glorybush TheLwteris interrunta (Willd.) K. Iwats I F OBL neke Them villosa (Poir.) A. Camus A G NI Lyon's grass re m asiatica L. A H FAC Ola'a beauty Trema rien (L.) Bl. A T NI gunpowder tree OTntoru crocostniflora Nichols. A H NI montbretia Vaccirtium reticulatum Sm. E S NI ohelo Walthena indica L. I S NI uhaloa Wedelia trilobata (L.) Hitchc. A H FU wedelia n 'ber zerumbet (L.) Sm P H FU awapuhi O 0 C 0 APPENDIX C VERTEBRATE FAUNA REPORT of- fa C-5� j'. -'o o 0 C m 0 REPORT: A RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES FOR THE PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION AND WIDENING PROJECT, SOUTH HILO, ISLAND OF HAWAII. Prepared by: Reginald E. David Rana Productions, Ltd. P.O. Box 1371 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96745 Puainako EIS Faunal Survey 1 Table of Contents O Tableof contents............................................................................ 2 Introduction..................................................................................... 3 General Site Description............................................................... 3 PreviousSurveys........................................................................ 4 Mammalian Study Methods............................................................ 4 AvianStudy Methods.................................................................. 4 Results............................................................................................ 5 Discussion..................................................................................... 5 Literaturecited......................................................................... 9 Tables Table 1. Avian species detected within the Puianako Street Project area ......................... 6 C C Puainako EIS Faunal Survey 2 It 4 O CIntroduction This report summarizes the findings of a two day ornithological and mammalian reconnaissance survey of the habitat through which the proposed Puainako Street Extension and Widening Project will go. The project is located in the District of South Hilo, Island of Hawai'i. The field work was conducted on June 28" and July 4'h 1998. The primary purpose of the surveys was to determine what bird and mammal species occur within the proposed corridor, or are likely to occur given the type of habitat available, and to determine the presence of any native species; particularly, any federally listed endangered, threatened, or proposed avian or mammalian species on, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development corridor. In addition, we were asked to assess the probability of any usage of the area by listed species given the habitat currently available. General Site Description The various proposed alignments run west from Kilauea Avenue at an elevation of approximately 100 feet to intersect with Kaumana Drive at approximately the 1475 foot elevation. The project has been divided at Komohana Street, the section to the east of Komohana is being referred to as Othe Lower Portion, while the remainder of the project is being referred to as the Upper Portion. From an ornithological perspective the habitat through which the project will pass can be loosely divided into three broad types. Within the Lower Portion of the project area the vegetation is dominated by introduced species. Most of this portion is vegetated with a mix of alien and native trees coupled with an understory of 'uluhe fern (Dicranopteris linearis) and various alien grasses. Most of this portion is highly developed with a mix of houses, Waiakea High School, and the University of Hawaii campus. Portions of the proposed alignments in the Upper Portion also are vegetated with this alien dominated savanna, dotted with a mix of both alien and native trees. Young scrub forest is found on the 1881 lava flow through which alignment 1 passes. This habitat is characterized by a mix of low stature forest interspersed with savanna and other zji.M lrl,od alsas.'I witt,iit llh;; habiio,i i duel":; ohi7 ("ver ai!! 1 y 'rK'1'i' ), ',.rise. t � 'src,. ori rn�� stands of guava (PSidiUm sp.), melastoma (Melastomr, randidum), and dense stands of Christmas berry (Schinus terebinthitolius) and 'uluhe ter, i. Older forest is found on older substrates than that provided by the 1881 lava flow. Trees within this habitat are generally larger than in the young scrub forest, and in many areas the understory show a greater diversity, containing more native species such as Hapu'u (Cibotium sp.), and O kopiko (Psychotria hawaiiensis). Within this habitat is also found areas of introduced species similar to those found in the other two habitats. Generally, the larger trees found with in this Puainako EIS Faunal Survey 3 O O b' or habitat are more likely to be appealing to Hawaiian Hawks as nesting trees than those found in O the other two vegetation types. For a detailed description of the vegetation present within the project area, please see Gerrish (1995). Previous Surveys The first systematic surveys of the avifauna of Hawai'i were not undertaken until 1976. Starting in that year and continuing until 1983 the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) conducted a state wide survey of the avifauna of Hawai'i (Scott et al. 1986). During the course of the Hawai'i Forest Bird Surveys (HFBS) no survey transects were counted within the proposed project area (Scott et al. 1986). In recent years a series of extensive faunal surveys were undertaken during the course of preparing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed improvement and realignment of the Saddle Road (David 1997). Areas surveyed during that EIS overlap the western terminus of this project. Additionally a faunal survey of the Newton property located just south of the western end of this project was undertaken earlier this year (David 1998). Only four comprehensive bat surveys have been conducted on the Island of Hawai'i (Jacobs 1994, Cooper et al. 1995, Cooper and David 1995, David 1997). Two of these surveys addressed lands close to the proposed corridor. David Jacobs conducted an Island wide survey between 1990-1993 which attempted to ascertain the distribution and abundance of Hawaiian hoary bats by sampling along paved principal roadways around the Island of Hawai'i (Jacobs O 1994). During the course of the recently completed faunal studies for the Saddle Road Project EIS the author sampled for bats along the Saddle Road west of the site (David 1997). The bulk of the remaining published literature relies heavily on anecdotal and incidental information on bat distribution and abundance on the Island ( Baldwin 1950, Bryan 1955, Tomich 1986). Mammalian Survey Methods: The survey of mammalian species was limited to visual and auditory detection, as well as observation of scat, tracks and road kills. No trapping study was conducted in an attempt to quantify the usage of the site by alien mammalian species. Avian Survey Methods: Eight count stations were sited along the various alignments. Eight minute unlimited distance circular plot counts were made at each of the count stations (Reynolds et al. 1980). Stations were counted twice. Counts were concentrated during the early morning hours (between 0600 hr. and 1100 hr.), the peak bird activity time. Field observations were made with the aid of Leitz 10 X 42 binoculars and by listening for vocalizations. A running tally was kept of all bird species observed and heard while walking within the project area. An additional 2 hours were spent on O Puainako EIS Faunal Survey 4 x. C? 0 O O site between 1800 hrs. and 2000 hrs. on the evenings of June 28" and July 4`" 1998, in an attempt to detect the threatened Newell's Shearwater (Puffinus newelll) , and the endangered Dark-rumped Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis ) overflying the site. Avian phylogenetic order used in this report follows Birds Of The World: A Checklist 4th Edition (Clements 1991), and the 1st and 2nd Supplements to Birds Of The World: A Checklist 4th Edition (Clements and Principe, Jr. 1992, Clements 1997); scientific nomenclature follows The AOU Checklist of North American Birds (AOU 1983), and the 35th through the 41st Supplements to The AOU Checklist (AOU 1985-1997), Mammal scientific names follow Mammals in Hawaii (Tomich 1986), plant names follow Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1990). Place names follow Place Names of Hawaii (Pukui et al, 1976) Results: During the course of this survey a total of 7 alien mammalian species were detected; rat (Rattus sp.), house mouse (Mus musculus), domestic dog (Canis f. familiaris), small Indian mongoose (Herpestes a. auropunctatus), cat (Fells catus), pig (Sus s. scrota) and domestic cattle (Bos taurus) were all detected within the general area of the proposed corridors. It is likely that all three species of naturalized rats found on Hawaii ; roof rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and Polynesian Rat (Rattus exulans hawaiiensis), are also present on the property. Without conducting a trapping program, it is difficult to assess the population densities of these often hard -to -see mammals. All of the introduced mammalian species detected are deleterious to avian populations. A total of 12 bird species representing 10 separate families were detected during the course of this survey (Table 1). All of the 12 species recorded are considered to be alien (introduced to Hawai'i by man). No avian species listed as proposed, threatened or endangered by either the USFWS or the State of Hawaii Department of land and Natural Resources (DLNR) were recorded during the course of this survey (USFWS 1996, DLNR 1986). The tact that no endangered Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus ) or'Ope'ape'a, were recorded during the course of this survey is not surprising since no electronic sampling was undertaken. It is almost a certainty that this listed species utilizes parts of the corridor on a seasonal basis. Hawaiian hoary bats are relatively abundant in the lowland areas of the windward side of the Island (David 1997). The author has in the past seen this species in several locations close to the proposed alignments (David 1997, David 1998, R. David, pers. Oobs.). Puanako EIS Faunal Survey 5 Key To Tables 1 STAT - STATUS RA= RELATIVE ABUNDANCE A Alien A - Abundant > 26 C - Common >-11 <25 Columba livia. A U - Uncommon >6 <10 Stre to elia chinensis. A R - Rare < 5 Table 1 AVIAN SPECIES DETECTED WITHIN THE PUAINAKO STREET PROJECT AREA, HILO, HAWAII Common Name Scientific Name STAT RA PIGEONS & DOVES - Columbidae Rock Dove. Columba livia. A U Spotted Dove. Stre to elia chinensis. A C Zebra Dove. Geo elia striata. A C BARN OWLS - Tytonidae Barn Owl. Tyto alba A R STARLINGS - Sturnidae Common M na. Acridotheres tristis. A A SILVEREYES - Zostero Idae Japanese White -Eye. Zostero s japonica. A A BABBLERS - Timaliidae Melodius Lauqhing Thrush. Garulax canorous. A C BABBLERS - Timaliidae Red -billed Leiothrix. Leiothrix lutea. A C '-SLi;WQtIL(.ISF' House Sparrow_ __-_ _ .—_ _, ' WAXBILLS & ALLIES - EstrilidiJee Passer domesticus Nutmeg Manikin Scal -breasted Munia Lonchura punctulata to ela A C FRINGILLIDS - Frin illidae House Finch. Car odacus mexicanus mexicanus. A A EMBERIZIDS - Emberizadae Northern Cardinal. Cardinalis cardinalis. A C Puainako EIS Faunal Survey 0 O 01 O O There has been very little scientific work attempted on this species, in no small part due to the v fact that this bat is usually a solitary arboreal rooster and therefor difficult to study. The existing scientific evidence is conflicting as to what effect alien species, plant or otherwise, may have had on this species (Jacobs, 1994, Kepler et al. 1990, Tomich 1986). It should be borne in mind that little is known about the possible changes in this species range, population density or habitat preferences since the advent of humans and their impacts on the native Hawaiian ecosystems. The development of this project will not have a deleterious impact on this species. It could be argued that the installation of exterior lighting close to heavily vegetated areas will attract and concentrate night flying insects which in turn represent a foraging opportunity for the bats. There are three listed endemic bird species which potentially could be impacted by the further clearing and development of the Upper Portion of the project area. These are the threatened Newell's Shearwater (Puffinus newelli) , and the endangered Dark-rumped Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis ), and the endangered Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius). The first two species are pelagic seabirds which return to their nesting colonies on the upper slopes of Mauna Loa and possibly Mauna Kea during crepuscular and night time hours between April and October. There is no suitable nesting habitat within the project area for either the Newell's Shearwater or the Dark-rumped Petrel. Both species, especially fledging birds, can become disoriented by exterior lighting on their way to sea in the fall. When disoriented, seabirds often O collide with manmade structures and, if not killed outright, the dazed or injured birds are easy targets of opportunity for feral mammals. Although there are no records of nesting Newell's Shearwater specifically from the site, there are numerous records of this species being seen, heard or collected close to the Saddle Road on the Hilo side of the Island ( Kepler et al. 1979, Banko 1980a, Conant 1980). Sheila Conant recovered a dead bird on Kaumana drive in 1978 (Conant 1980). Newell's Shearwater have been heard along the Wailuku river north of the Saddle Road (Kepler et al 1979), and numerous downed birds have been recovered from different locations in and around Hilo (Kepler et al. 1979, Banko 1980 b, R. David pers. obs.,). Dark-rumped Petrels nest much higher and in lower numbers than do Newell's Shearwaters. Several downed birds have been recovered from along the Saddle Road, and various locations around Hilo (R. David, pers. obs. , J. Jeffrey, pers. comm.). It is probable that both species overfly the site between late April and late October. Althounh no Hawaiian Hawks were recorded during the course of the survey, it is probable that there is a least occasional usage of parts of the corridor by this species. The project area is well within the normal range of this Hawai'i Island endemic. This species has seemingly adapted better than any other endemic avian species to the alien dominated lowland areas of the Island. Hawaiian Hawks occupy a wide variety of habitats, they are found in almost all habitats not lacking trees. They are all but absent from treeless or close to treeless grasslands and lava fields. O The current population is estimated to be approximately 1600 birds ( Morrison at al. 1994). It is generally thought that the population as a whole is healthy and maintaining itself, unlike many Puanako EIS Faunal Survey 7 other endemic species. This species is currently under review by the USFWS for down listing O from endangered to threatened status (USFWS 1993). The principle potential threat that the development of this project poses to this species, is if during construction an active hawk nest is encountered close to construction activity. The development of this project will not have a significant impact on native or federally protected avian or mammalian species. In an attempt to minimize the downing of Newell's Shearwater and Dark-rumped Petrels by their interaction with external construction lighting, no construction or unshielded equipment maintenance lighting ought to be permitted after dark between the months of April and October. All street lights installed along the roadway should be shielded. In an effort to avoid impacting nesting Hawaiian Hawks, a nest search of the right-of-way and surrounding environs should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist immediately prior to the onset of construction. Hawaiian Hawks nest between May and October. If an active nest is detected during construction, construction activity should be halted within 500 meters of the nest until a consultation with the USFWS under, the terms of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, can take place and appropriate mitigation measures implemented. The impacts to this species following the completion of construction efforts will be negligible. The project will not impact any other currently proposed, threatened or endangered avian or O mammalian species since there are no others currently known from within the proposed corridors. O Puafnako EIS Faunal Survey 8 o 0 oLiterature Cited: American Ornithologist's Union 1983. Check -list of North American Birds. 6th edition. AOU. Washington D.C. 877 pp. 1985. 35th Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 102: 680-686. 1987. 36th Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 104: 591-596. 1989. 37th Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 106: 532-596. 1991. 38th Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 108: 750-754. 1993. 39th Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 110: 675-682. 1995. 40th Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 112: 819-830. 1997. 41 st Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 114: 542-552. Baldwin, P. H. 1950. Occurrence and behavior of the Hawaiian bat. J. Mammal. 31 (4): 455-456. Banko, W. E. 1980 a. Population Histories- Species Accounts Seabirds: Hawaiian Dark-rumped Petrel ('Ua'u). Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Botany, Technical Report #5B. 1980 b. Population Histories- Species Accounts Seabirds: Newell (Wo). Cooperative O National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii at Mance, Department of Botany, Technical Report #5A. Bryan, E. H., Jr. 1955. The Hawaiian bat. 'Elepaio Vol. 15: 63-64. Clements, J.F. 1991. Birds Of The World: A Checklist. Ibis Publishing Co., Vista, California. 617 pp. Clements, J.F. and W. L. Principe, Jr. 1992. English name index and Supplement No. 1 to Birds Of The World: A Checklist, 4th Edition. Ibis Publishing Co., Vista, California. 68pp. Clements, J.F. 1997. Supplement No. 2 - 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 to Birds Of The World: A Checklist, 4th Edition. Ibis Publishing Co., Vista, California. 11 pp. Conant, S. 1980. Recent records of the 'U'au (Dark-rumped Petrel) and 'A'o ( Newell's Shearwater) in Hawaii, 'Flenaio. Vol. 41: 11-13 Cooper, B. A. and R. E. David 1995. Radar and Visual Surveys of Seabirds in the HELCO SSP Unit 7 1, Puna, i lawail, i7uririg Juiy 1995. Prepared for !"t. M. i owill Corporation & Hawaii Electric Light Co. 19 pp. Cooper, B.A., David, R.E. and R.J. Blaha 1995. Radar and Visual Surveys of Endangered Seabirds and Bats in the Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawai'i, During Summer 1995. Prepared for R.M. Towill Corporation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Division (POD). ODavid, R. E. 1997. Ornithological and Mammalian Surveys of the Proposed Improvement and Realignment Corridors of the Saddle Road (State of Hawaii Route 200), Island of Hawai'i, N o Hawaii. Prepared for: Rust E&I & The Federal Highways Administration, Central Federal O Lands Highway Division. 99pp. 1998. A Reconnaissance Survey of Terrestrial Vertebrate Species On The Newton Property, Kukuau 1, South Hilo, Island of Hawai'i. Prepared for Belt Collins Hawaii, Inc.. DLNR 1986. Indigenous wildlife, endangered and threatened Wildlife and plants, and introduced wild birds. Department of Land and Natural Resources. State of Hawaii. Administrative Rule dated 28, August 1986. Gerrish, G. 1995. Vegetation and Wetland Habitat Report for the Puainako Street Extension. Unpbl. Report. Prepared for Okahara and Associates and the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works. 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. Kepler. C. B., and J. M. Scott 1990. Notes on the distribution and behavior of the endangered Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinerus semotus) 1964-1993. 'Elepaio 50(7):59-64. Kepler, C. B., J. Jeffrey and J.M. Scott 1979. Possible breeding colonies of Manx Shearwaters on the Island of Hawaii. 'Elepaio, Vol. 39, No.: 115-116 Pukui , M. K., S. H. Elbert, and E. T. Mookini 1976. Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii O Press. Honolulu, Hawai'i. 289 pp. Morrsion, M. L., L. S. Hall and P. H. Bloom. 1994. Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius) population Survey. Upbl. Report. 50 pp. Sibley, C. G., Burt Monroe, Jr. 1990. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1111 pp. Reynolds, R.T., J.M. Scott and R.A. Nussbaum. 1980. A variable circular plot method for estimating bird numbers. Condor. 82:309-313 Scott, J. M., S. Mountainspring, F. L. Ramsey and C. B. Kepler. 1986. Forest Bird Communities of the Hawaiian Islands: Their Dynamics, Ecology, and Conservation. Studies in Avian Biology No. 9. Lawrence, Kansas: Allen Press Inc. 431 pp. IUIiiiCi i, P.r..a. 1986. i1QGclf3:!a15 :! !id -.':ail. Uishup P,osf. "lilt S�%�ui.1, iiN��+-!II. 3;,r . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fndcs:d !1eL.istn i99::. Vr-: 5R, Nc 149 Propos-nd Mules Pg. 41684-41688 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 50CFR 17:11 and 17:12. United States Department of the Interior. Washington. 46 pp. Wagner, W.L., D.R Herbst, S.H. Sohmer 1990. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai'i. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii 1854 pp. Puainako EIS (p C C NJ C O APPENDIX D KAUT ANA CAVE REPORT W 101 O PUAINAKO ROAD EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY: KAUMANA CAVE Fred D. Stone, Ph.D. University of Hawaii at Hilo Hilo, Hawaii November, 1992 e 101 N 9 O O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' Kaumana Cave is the main feeder lava tube of the 1881 pahoehce lava flow from Mauna Loa. The location of the main Kaumana Cave entrance in a park near Kaumana Drive makes it one of the most visited and studied lava tubes in Hawaii. It is an important natural resource for tourism, recreation, education, and research on lava tube biology and geology. Based on these values, Kaumana Cave should be considered as a natural resource worthy of protection and conservation. The land overlying much of the readily accessible part of the lava tube, between Edita Street at 760 feet elevation and Kilua Street at 1020 feet, is the -property of the State of Hawaii. This land is currently undeveloped and could be easily protected from future impacts. our preliminary Brunton compass/tape survey of Kaumana Cave determined that part or Puainako Alignment #1 was directly adjacent to and partially overlying the lava tube in two places. An engineering survey was then conducted by Okahara & Associates to determine the exact location of the lava tube, and to find out whether it was necessary to shift the road corridor. the section of Kaumana Cave below Edita Street, which was mapped in'the 1950`s, was sealed by construction of Edita S%r'ee�. During field reconnaissance I was unable to find further entrances to this closed lower section of the lava tube. Since the proposed Alignment -1 crosses the 1881 flow below Edita 9 Street, road construction Night break open a new entrance. _f this occurs, an accurate survey of the lava tube should be done. One important reason for knowing the location of the lava tube is that it is a conduit for -flood water during heavy rains, and this could impact the road. Other older pahoehoe flows are crossed by the proposed Puainako Alignments between Komohana Street and Edita Street. No entrances were discovered, but clearing and bulldozing for the road might reveal cave entrances. • U RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: I. Relocation of the road corridor away from Kaumana Cave to minimize damage to the cave and to the native ecosystems overlying it, .n,d t;, reduce danger of road flooding from the lava tube conduit. If an adeouate buffer zone (50 to 100 feet ;vide) o cannot bc� pruvitled-_Idjaccnt to the lava tube along alignment ;1, then the alternative d.Lignment 43 would be preferable. The buffer zone should be wide enough to allow a strip of native vegetation between the road and the cave, and to prevent Pollutants from the road and its margins, such as herbicides and Petroleum spills, from leaching into the lava tube with surface water. 2. Invesligcticn ui aadiL,ional lava 'pubes intersected during :..tntcf.ior should be carrie s out tc., de:;ar,i,inE cdl:eUier cultura-, archaeological or biological resources are present. 2 0 Q O O CDESCR.IPTIC'.I OF KAUA1Ai1A CA 7E: Location, surface vegetation and drainage: The area proposed for the Puainako Road extension is traversed a series of pahoehoe lava flews, the most recent being the lava flow of 1881 containing Kaumana Cave. The commonly Y.nown portion of this lava tube lies between Edita Street at 760 feet elevation and Kilua Street at 1020 feet. !,lost of this distance, including over 1 mile of cave, is State of Hawaii land with an early successional community of mainly native plant species dominated by PIetrosideres ('ohi'a) and Dicranopteris (uluhe fern). Below Edita Street, Kaumana Cave was mapped for about one half mile in 1954 by Caceres, Moore and Carroll. The cave was Onot explored to its end at that time, and this section of the cave was sealed by construction of Edita Street. The survey used a compass, which led to a large, cumulative error in the location of the lower end of th(= cave. This area is also covered by Metrosideros and dense thickets of Dicranopteris. The road corridor traverses the 1881 flow here, and could possible intersect the cave. Above Kilua Street upper Kaumana Cave continues as a series of 2 or 3 parallel. passages to Uhaloa Street at 1070 ft. elevation in Kaumana village. Upslope of Uhaloa Street it crosses under wilder Road, and underlies the forested area south of Kaumana Drive as a maze of passages. The cave appears to be sealed by Saddle Road fill at about 1180 ft. Above this elevation, Saddle Road continues cn the 1881 lava flow, but no O further cave entrances were discovered. Above Kaumana Village the Puainako Alignments are on older lava flows adjacent to the 1881 flow. Road drainage from Saddle Road is diverted into Kaumana Cave through a roadside entrance at about 1100 feet elevation in Kaumana Village, causing sudden flooding of the cave. Just past the end of Kilua Street, at 1020 feet elevation, a surface stream disappears under the Kaumana lava flow. Below here, the lava apparently flowed down a stream channel, and this resulted in a perched water table underneath the cave. Some cess pools in Kaumana Village drain directly into Kaumana Cave, and others overflow into the cave during heavy rains. Additional road and cess Pwol drainage enters the lava tube both above and below the O main Kaumana Cave (Park) entrance. Lower parts of the lava tube flood during heavy rains, and occasionally flow over Edita Street (according to a local resident, this happened during the extremely heavy rains of the 1970ts). A drainage channel has been constructed above Edita Street to carry the flow below the road. This drainage channel is at right angles to the lava tube, and carries the water past the proposed Puainako Alignment #1 to _i i:141 'C!:1_ Ji16E:I' ]alit' �f:r�'E.L, the w,atei Liilds its ^�i .J :: a•^r; i.l�o-.: the lolq(_, �n ;-I. ;.:+n 1 t •. _•lzlillla 7l c._�,8, below Ydi l-, Street. The presence of the lava tube as a drainage conduit beneath parts of the road alignment should be addressed in the engineering plan for Puainako Extension. 4 O C m m N i Q � o w, < 9 CD w 7 O o oO =rw w o - p1 x CD 1 :3 C v 7 C (D 1 _0 CD n nF w 1 0) w y 2000' ADD O =rte --i D O G-) m�Z T n CONTRA KZ Z m D - Z o_ N m N O n O O m m m F O 0 3 OO O Cp N 2000' ADD I =rte --i D ADD r r G-) m�Z T - m D — CONTRA KZ Z m D - Z m N m 1S INVIIW T 1S INVIVOdVN= IS VIHONIVM = 1S INVIIHON po 15 INVIOeVHOd' 1S INVIVMI STREET 4/9 50421-5 0W0/p i_O i 1 --1 m 13361S n W � n (CD C mrn rt Ai n00 C A ~ A '00 CD 7 O 000D m 00 0 C o L a? �m >v x � rt w m �� 4 y phi O L m o EDrt CD m m m N O O IN 6C0 VNVHOWON 4 240' f c j I o o o y o n { I% l 7 S m \ f �Z o \ D_1 ou O N y �Q \ \ \ m Z \ / \ mm / \ \ D — � A 0 pox0 Sys -771 `\.% r � Q I, f , p =z oA j -1Lu❑y��J LJ D i r O 1 2 M O X Z z _ ~ 240' 133a1S I ) ....... r r OLF] 0 m m o o � FET a F{ LJ D i r O 1 2 M O X Z z _ ~ 240' 133a1S I ) ....... r r OLF] 0 4 O O Cave description: The Edita Street entrance to Kaumana Cave is located between 217 and 253 feet along Edita Street northwest of the Puainako Alignment nl, from the metal peg on the southwest margin of the drainage ditch above Edita Street. The entrance, which was opened during construction of Edita Street, is about 35 feet wide and from 1 to 5.5 feet high. Metal bars have been set in this entrance but one of the bars has been cut allowing access to the cave. According to residents across the road from this entrance, during heavy rains in the mid -1970's, Kaumana Cave flooded and water gushed from the cave and covered Edita Street. Distances_,:ire through the cave upslope from the Edita Street Oentrance 0-40 ft. Directly inside the entrance, the cave is 35-40 ft. wide and 2.5-5 feet high. This low passage has several large lava boulders wedged between the floor and ceiling, carried down the cave by flood water. 40-450 ft. About 40 feet inside, a passage 10-28 feet wide and 4-8 feet high continues upslope to about 400 feat frons the Edita entrancE:. Here; 'Lne ac,sac�e splii-s into iYro adjacent pas:ages for 50 feet. From the Edita entrance to this point, the cave trends roughly southwest (facing upslope), and gradually approaches the Puainako Alignment 71, O5 0 0 . from 200- feet northwest to 50 feet northwest. o This section of cave has abundant Metrosideros roots, and is rich in cave life. 450-800 ft. After rejoining, the passage bends to the south for 60 ft., and falls directly beneath Puainako Alignment #1. Then, from about 500 to 800 feet, the passage bends toward the west, remaining under the alignment for about 250 feet, until just past a second short double passage, and then trending gradually northwest of the alignment. This section of passage is 10 to 20 feet wide and 5 to 8 feet high. The passage continues to have many Metrosideros roots and the associated cave species. o 800-925 ft. The passage splits again at about 800 feet, with a broad, :Low passage to the north and a narrower passage to the south. Maximum width is 45 feet, height is about 6 feet. Breakdown blocks from ceiling stoping occur at the intersections where the passage splits and rejoins. 925-1300 ft. The cave continues to trend west for about 375 to 2u ,.�e'c S LCe,t F.t abcn�t a?,l'; fest iron, F::;it_+. St,'eet, 'rhe cave i:. again about 200 feet northwest of the Alignment. It continues to have abundant Metrosideros roots and cave life. 6 O a 0 0 1300-1700 ft. The tube bends back toward the south for about 250 feet, and again falls under the northwest side of the Alignment. At 1300 feet, the passage splits into two major segments, which rejoin 400 feet later. At 1500 feet, the passage splits again on the north side and south sides, making 4 parallel passages over 100 feet in total width. The passage to the south is a low crawl rich in roots and invertebrate species. It lies directly under proposed Alignment 11. The remaining 3 passages from 1500 to 1700 feet contain massive ceiling collapses. The cave here is 20 to 60 feet wide and 4 to 8 feet high. This section is adjacent to othe Alignment, making it extremely susceptible to further collapse from road work. 1700-1850 ft. For the next 150 feet, the cave bends back southwest, remaining directly adjacent to the Alignment. It is large here, 10 to 18 feet aide and 7 to 12 feet high. Roots and cave species continue to occur here. 1850-2350 ft. The cave trends to the west away from the road i�llynment for the next 5UU i'eec. The width variLs from LO to 25 for -0. and t'hk3 height from 5.5 to l� feet. This section of the lava tube has Metrosideros roots and is rich in endemic cave species. O7 O O 2350-2760 ft. The passage trends northwest thrcught this O section. From 2580 to 2640 feet the cave salits into two low passages. The width varies from 10 to 35 feet and the height is 2.5 to 15 feet. A small adit branches off of the north passage, with many names chipped into the wall lining. The cave passes under Kaumana Drive at about this point. Probably because it goes beneath an area with the road and houses, there are no 'ohi'a roots and very few cave invertebrates. There is often a strong odor of sewage at about 2760 feet, where the tube sasses under houses. 2760-3020 ft. The lava tube turns southwest again at 2/60 feet, and the cave quickly becomes a 2 -level passage. O The upper level is passable. It has a red surface color, indicating that a sky -light was open here while the lava was flowing, causing it to form an oxidized crust. There are few Metrosideres roots in this section due to the surface construction. At about 2900 feet, just before a depression in the floor of the upper level, a line of calcite is aeNosite.0 on LIiL ilOVI , p:iobably dUE to a Gil c:ie C dri%Iev: a� o� cul +:,tL q • .r, i,±gad. 3020-3490 ft. The passage trends south by southwest to the main Kaumana Cave entrance at 3490 feet from the Edita Street entrance. This passage is generally large, 8 O 10 to 20 feet Nide by 2 to 15 feet high. A constriction occurs at 3200 feet. After this narrow spot, the entrance is visible and the cave becomes large again. Metrosideros roots again become numerous, and the inner part of this section has a few cave planthoppers and crickets, though it is too close to the entrance to have a diverse cave fauna. A large ceiling and wall collapse has occurred at 3250 feet. At the lower end of the main entrance, Kaumana cave is about 30 feet wide and 12 feet high. A lower level passage passes directly beneath the entrance pit, emerging inside the up-slope end of the lava tube. ODistance ubslone from the main Kaumana cave entrance: N 0-750 ft. Just above the Kaumana entrance, the cave passes beneath Kaumana Drive. This section is a large chamber in which a lava lake had frozen over and then drained, causing the oxidized surface to collapse. In the back of this room, a duck -under leads into a large passage 10 to 30 feet wide and 15 to 30 feet high, with one loci spot about 5 feet high. This section underlies a native 'chi'a forest, so it has abundant Metrc.,sideros coots and a rich cave fauna. -his large passage is regularly used for class field trips and for research on the ecology and evolution of the cave species. 750-1000' At about 750 feet, the passage becomes wider and filled 9 0 o with ceiling breakdown. Two upper level side passages O branch off here. The one on the left (southeast) soon rejoins the main passage. The right passage is low and leads into dead-end chambers rich in cave life. Beyond these side passages, the cave is 15 to 25 feet wide and 10 to 25 feet high, with breakdown from ceiling collapse. 1000 ft to Kilua Street: This section of Kaumana Cave, est. 750 feet long, has not yet been surveyed. A small skylight entrance here is followed after about 50 feet by a second small entrance which opens into native Metrosideros- Dicranopteris forest. After this point, the lava tube is transected by a series of 4 more large entrance pits, alternating with double passages from here to the Kilua O Street entrance. The passages are large and breakdown filled, with some nice lava formations. This section of cave is near the proposed Puainako Alignment ;1, but the exact location will not be known until the engineering survey is completed. The Kilua Street entrance is located on the makai side of the road, about 300 feet past the Kilua-Pomona Street intersection. The pit (which probably ("3avr, its RdHt.. l.c .'t G.t"a :: �ar(3 P:ij ',Jct iisc:d '_, +yi ;;1 ;:F ge� dump X f0l ✓h��i rio l'1. C,r l_. h',9nY c" he through lower Kaumana Cave wash down from here during floods. 10 O M N 0 0 0 0 Kilua Street to Kaumana Village: This section, about 1500 feet long, has nct yet been surveyed. About 50 feet beyond the entrance garbage pile, a duckunder leads to an intersection room with 3 passages. The north passage appears to end in lava covered breakdown, but a belly crawl passes over this barrier and leads into the continuation of the lava tube. A series of low double and triple passages continues and becomes larger for about 1500 feet to Kaumana Village, where an entrance occurs next to the first cross street. Few people have entered this part of the cave, and there are numerous delicate lava stalactites and stalagmites. Parts of the tube have thick Metrosideros roots, and the associated cave species. Flooding and sewage contamination regularly occur in this section of the cave. Under Kaumana Vi11aa to the upper entrances: Just past the first Kaumana Village entrance, a small opening exists on the road margin. The drainage ditch from Kaumana Road c:annels runoff water into the cave through this roadside antrance. Beyond here, the cave is extremely low and muddy. Double and triple passages are 30 to 40 feet wide and 1 to 5 feet high. This part of the cave is extremely hazardous due to the danger of flash floods. 1, is also contaminated oy cess pool drainage. Above WilaeL Road, the lava tube passes under a section of Metrosideres- Dicranopteris forest. There are abundant roots and a rich cave biology. Three small entrances open into the dense 11 vegetation. Beyond the third entrance is a low, complex O maze secticn. Most extensions become too low to allow passage. A large meander occurs here, with a large flood Passage going east from the maze section. A passage 5 to 8 feet high passes toward Saddle Road, with an upper level former entrance sealed by road fill. The lower passage passes under Saddle Road to a tight 'a'a choke with good air flow. Near the former entrance, names are chipped into the wall lining: H.P. & C.L., 12/31 91, OAKLAND, CAL. These people must have entered the cave in 1891, when the lava flow was only 10 years old, and still largely unvegetated. RESOURCE VALUES OF KAU14ANA CAVE: Tourism and recreation, O Nearly any day of the week, a tourists and curious local residents stop at the Kaumana Cave parking area and go into the large lower entrance to look at lava tube and take pictures. The more adventuresome, who remembered to bring lights, venture deeper into the passageways. On weekends, groups are usually picnicking in the pavillion near the entrance pit, before or after exploring the cave. Names pecked into the wall lining of 10wea cave p:assayc yive u histurlc«1 record of visia_s yuit,C) ..tet=)i to 1-}!e 1.1Ci'S. More rece!itly, tj57j.tcjYS t't'.V6 Shrayec: names with paint. Part of the attraction of Hilo's "wild" cave is the successional 'ohi'a forest that remains over the cave, sending 12 e Oroots deep into the crac}:s c_ lava. Over the past ° years, - have had a project with various youth groups (4-H, Hawaiian summer program at UH, visiting high school students from other islands, University of Hawaii at Hilo and Hawaii Community College students) to clean up Kaumana Cave. We have removed much of the garbage, and scrubbed the graffiti from the upper passage and from a large section of the lower cave. Since this project, visitors seem to leave the cave in much better shape than before. Recently, there has been little new trash and graffiti compared to previously. This lava tube should -e recognized by the State of Hawaii as an important addition to the local visitor attractions. Educational: OKaumana Cave is near enough to H.C.C. and U.H.Hilo to make it a valuable "field laboratory" to teach classes in volcanism, ecology and evolution of Hawaii's endemic species and psychology of perception. Over the past year, I have taken over 10 classes totaling about 150 students into the cave. The cave is particularly suited for class trips due to its location in Hilo, its proximity to Kaumana Drive, and the large passages with abundant features. I have also taken several groups of science teachers from the entize state into the cave over the past eight years. Many of these teachers have returned with student groups, so the overall impact of the cave is enormous. 13 O O . 14 O O Biological resources: Kaumana Cave has been colonized by at least 15 species of endemic cave invertebrates over its 110 year history (Table 1) This list does not include species found in upper elevation portions of the lava tube, but only those in the section impacted by the planned road extension. Survival of these species is dependent on the native Ichi Ia/uluhe successional forest overlying it. Sections of the cave which do not have Metrosideros roots, due to surface clearing, are virtually devoid of cave species. Although none of the Kaumana species is unique to the cave, or is on an endangered species list, it offers an almost unparallolud upportunity Cu study ecological interactions and O evolutionary .%UdptatiQns by the cave invertebrates. Colonization of the lava tube from the surrounding substrate is in itself an interesting research topic. I am currently studying the evolutionary relationships among the 3 species of cave cricket in Kaumana, with joint researchers from Bishop Museum and the University of Connecticut (C. Simon, _. Howarth and F. Stone). A scientist from Japan is studying circadian rhythms in relation to lo:;s of sight in the cxlckets (I. Nakatani, t'. Howarth and F. Ston:). German researchers studyiny Lhe evolution �f calling signals by the cave planthoppers of Kaumana Cave have found that populations from different caves have unique calls (Hannalore Hoch, Mannfried Asche and Frank Howarth). 14 O A large National science Foundation research pro]ect is comparing native forest growth in a patch of forest over Kaumana Cave with forests on the same and different lava flows at various elevations (Peter Mueller-Dombois and Peter Vitousek). Their study plot is directly adjacent to the geological bench mark across the road and slightly mauka of Kaumana Cave main entrance. Table 1 Native Invertebrates Occurring in Kaumana Cave: Arthropoda Crustacea: Papuaphiloscia laevis (introd. ?) (Isopoda) Chilopoda: Lithobius sp. (Lithobiid) Diplopoda: Nannclene sp. (Cambalid) Araneida: Erigone stygius (Linyphiid) oOonops sp. ? (Oonopid) Insecta: Sinelia yosiia (Collembola) Caconemobius varius (Gryllid) C. sp. A (Gryllid) C. sp. B (Gryllid) Oliarus polYphemus (Cixiid) Schrankia 2 + sp. (Noctuid) Moth (unknown genus) Forcipomyia pholetor (Ceratopogonid) Limonia cf. jacobus (Tipulid) Phytosciara volcanata (Sciarid) Mycetophilidae ? (Mycetophilid) EW 15 Geology and Hydrology O The 1881 lava flow is an excellent model for studying the formation of lava tubes. More importantly, it should be used by planners to show how a tube -fed pahoehoe lava flow can cover long distances and reach the lower slopes of Mauna Loa Volcano. From an area above Puu Ulaula, at about 10,000 feet elevation, the 1881 lava floor proceeded through lava tubes for over 25 miles, reaching the 150 foot elevation below Kumukoa Street before the eruption ceased. This flow followed a sequence of earlier pahoehoe lava flows that reached (and formed) the peninsula Belo::, Hilo. More recent lava flocs, such as those of 1942 and 1984, have followed the same general path, but have stopped before reaching Hilo. However, any hazard assessment should take into account the possibility of future Mauna Loa lava flows following O thc; Past Of these lii�;tcric ziows toward and into Hilo. Flood hazards of the 1881. lava flow is mentioned above under the lava tube description. This tube, and other undiscovered lava tubes in older lava flows, serve as conduits that focus and channel flood water toward the upper to the lower segments of the project area. Since the proposed Puainako Extension traverses several of these pancehoe flocs, the potential of flooding is .1JgII anti should be co,sldeia lri the road design. 16 O CREFERENCES: Caceres, S., LIoore, E.C. G Carroll, J.L. 1954. Map of Kaumana Cave. Hilo Tribune -Herald, 21.Mar.1954, p. S. Howarth, F.G. and Stone, F.D. 1982. The Conservation of Hawaii's Cave Resources. in C.N. Smith, ed. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference in Natural Sciences, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Dept. of Botany, Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. Simon, C., Howarth, F.G. and Stone, F.D. 1990. Ecology and Evolution of Hawaiian Cave Crickets and Cave Pianthoppers. Grant from State of Hawaii, Hawaii -Bishop Research Institute. Stone, Charles P. and Stone, D.B. 1989. Conservation Biology in Hawaii. Univ, of Hawaii National Park Resources Studies CUnit. Honolulu, Hawaii. Stone, Fred ll. 1991. !filo to Uaimea Pipeline Environmental Impact Study: Lava tubes, Invertebrates. Young Ki Hahn and Associates, Hilo, Hawaii Stone, Fred D. 1986. Native fauna along the Saddle Road right-of- way. Saddle Road .improvements Environmental Impact Study. County of Hawaii. Hilo, Hawaii Stone, Fred D. 1986. Lava tube survey along the Saddle Road right-of-way. Saddle Road improvements Environmental Impact Study. County of Hawaii. Hilo, Hawaii M 17 O a ® Wagner, W.L. et al. 1983. Biological reconnaissance and O environmental impact assessment of HECO/HELLO proposed cross -Hawaii island 138 kv transmission line: botanical, entomological and malacological report. Prepared for EDAW, Inc. by B.P. Bishop Museum. Addendum to Environmental Impact Statement, Kaumana to Keamuku 138 kv transmission line. EDAW, Inc., August, 1983. IS] C C L 0 APPENDIX E1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY, HUNT AND MCDERMOTT, 1993 m C o It 0 Archaeological Inventory Survey Pu'ainako Street Extension Project Lands of Waiakea, Kukuau 1 and 2, and Ponahawai, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii 0 By Terry L. Hunt, Ph.D. and Matthew J. McDermott, BA. Prepared for Okahara & Associates, Engineering Consultants 200 Kohola Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 July 1993 • U 0 O N O 6 O Table of Contents O ii Listof Figures................................................................ v Listof Tables................................................................. vi Acknowledgements ............................................................. vu Introduction................................................................... 1 Background............................................................ 1 Scope of Work.......................................................... 1 ProjectSetting................................................................ 5 Historic Background . Prehistory and Early Hawaiian History ........................................ Prehistoric Land Use Zones ................................................ Sub -Alpine or Montane Zone ........................................ Rainforest Zone .................................................. Lower Forest Zone ................................................ Upland Agricultural Zone ........................................... Coastal Settlement Zone ........................................... Hefau............................................................... Prehistoric Settlement Pattern ............................................. Land Commission Awards in the Project Area ................................ . Land Commission Award Summary ......................................... ForeignInfluence and Change ............................................. Sandalwood Trade ................................................ Missionary Influence .............................................. Other Historic Influences in Hilo ..................................... Agricultural Changes in the Hilo Area ................................. Sugarcane...................................................... 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 13 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 Previous Archaeological Research ................................................. 22 Prehistoric and Historic Background of Project Area Lands .............................. 23 Prehistoric Period ...................................................... 23 Historic Period .................................................. 24 f n dy; s of Map::........ ... ............ 2.� Other Documentary Sources ........................................ 30 tiilo Int�rsiWw,� 33 Results of Field Survey and Testing ................................................ 35 FieldMethods......................................................... 35 Terminology and Designations ....................................... 36 Site Descriptions....................................................... 37 Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature A ....................................... 42 Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature B ....................................... 43 Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature C ....................................... 43 Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature D ....................................... 43 Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature E ....................................... 44 Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature F ....................................... 44 Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature G ....................................... -.5 Site 50-10-3548911, Feature H ....................................... 45 Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature I ....................................... 45 Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature J ....................................... 46 Site 50-10.35-18911, Feature K ....................................... 46 Site 50-10-35-18914, Feature A ....................................... 49 Site 50-10-35-18914, Feature B ....................................... 50 Site 50-10-35-18914, Feature C ....................................... 51 Site 50-10-35-18914, Feature D ....................................... 51 Site 50-10-35-18914, Feature E ....................................... 51 Site 50-10-35-18914, Feature F ....................................... 53 Site 50-10-35-19814, Feature G ....................................... 53 Site 50-10-35-18914, Feature H ....................................... 54 Site 50-10-35-18915, Feature A ....................................... 55 Site 50-10-35-18915, Feature B ....................................... 56 Site 50-10-35-18915, Feature C ....................................... 57 Site 50-10-35.18915, Feature D ....................................... 57 Site 50-10-35-18915, Feature E ....................................... 58 Site 50-10-35-18915, Feature F ....................................... 58 Site 50-10-35-18915, Feature G ....................................... 59 Site 50.10-35-18915, Feature H ....................................... 59 Testing Results of Feature H ....................................... 59 0 Site 50-10-35-19815, Feature I ....................................... 61 Site 50-10-35-18916, Feature A ....................................... 62 Testing Results of Feature A ........................................ 64 Site 50-10-35-18916, Feature B ....................................... 65 Site 50.10-35.18917, Feature A ....................................... 66 Site 50-10-35-18917, Feature B ....................................... 66 Site 50-10-35-18917, Feature C ....................................... 66 Site 50.10-35-18918, Feature A ....................................... 68 Site 50-10.35-18918, Feature B ....................................... 68 Site 50-10-35-18918, Feature C ....................................... 68 Site 50-10-35-18918, Feature D ....................................... 69 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature A ....................................... 70 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature B ....................................... 71 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature C ...... 7t Sitc. 5u-1Q..5S-1691>, i7"(U c L' .... .... . ....... ... 1 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature E ....................................... 72 Sit, 50 -Sit-;'-, ; ;,`i', Feahu_,.: l Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature G ....................................... 74 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature H ....................................... 74 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature I ....................................... 74 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature J ....................................... 75 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature K ....................................... 75 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature L ....................................... 75 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature M ...................................... 75 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature N ....................................... 77 0 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature O ....................................... 77 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature P ....................................... 77 A M -J 8 O O iv Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature Q ....................................... 77 Testing Results of Feature Q ........................................ 78 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature R ....................................... 78 Testing Results of Feature R ............................ 4 ........... 79 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature S ....................................... 79 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature T ....................................... 80 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature U ....................................... 80 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature V ....................................... 80 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature W .............................. 4 ....... 80 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature X ....................................... 81 Site 50.10-35-18919, Feature Y ...................... 4 ........... 4 .... 81 Site 50-10-35.18919, Feature Z ....................................... 81 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature AA .............................. 4 ...... 81 Testing Results for Feature AA ................................. 4 .... 81 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature BB ...................................... 83 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature CC ........................ 4 ........ 4 .... 83 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature DD ..................................... 83 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature EE ...................................... 84 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature FF ...................................... 84 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature GG ............................ 4 ........ 84 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature HH .................................. 4 .. 84 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature II ....................................... 85 Site 50-10.35-18919, Feature JJ ...................................... 85 Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature A ....................................... 86 Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature B ............... 4 ................ :...... 86 Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature C ............................... 4 ....... 86 Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature D .......... 4 ............................ 86 Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature E ....................................... 87 Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature F .................... 4 .................. 87 Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature G ....................................... 87 Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature H ....................................... 87 Site 50-10-3418921, Feature A ............... 4 ....................... 88 Site 50-10-3418921, Feature B ................................ 4 ...... 89 Site 50.10-35-18921, Feature C ....................................... 89 Site 50-10-35-18921, Feature D ....................................... 89 Site 50-10-3418921, Feature E ....................................... 89 Summary of Archaeological Findings ............ 4 ........................... 90 Archaeological Comparisons ........................................ 91 101 O O b F V O List of Figures Figure 1 Island of Hawai'i showing project area in Hilo ............................. 2 Figure 2 Pu'ainako Road Extension upper project areas (above Komohana Street)......... 3 Figure 3 Pu'ainako Road Extension lower project area (between Komohana and Kawili Streets)......................................................... 4 Figure 4 Waiakea Mill Company map, 1922 of homestead lots and leased fields under sugarcane cultivation. Also shown are plantation residential camps (numbered), permanent railroad lines (from Kelly et al. 1981) .......................... 25 Figure 5 Map showing Waiakea Mill Company in the project area with modem streets for reference, permanent railroad lines, and the boundary of sugarcane and pasture land in 1922 (revised 1933) . ................................... 26 Figure 6 1918 Waiakea Mill survey of homestead lots and railroad lines (temporary and permanent) in the vicinity of the project area (see Figure 5 for street reference)...................................................... 27 Figure 7 Section of a map entitled 'Waiakea Cane Lots" surveyed by A.S. Chaney in 1925. This map shows the railroad line, areas of "waste" and cane for lots 17, 18, and 19, where the lower project area road alignments are located. ......... 28 Figure 8 Section (insert) of a map entitled "Waiakea Cane Lots" surveyed by A.S. Chaney in 1925. This portion of the map shows areas of "waste" and cane for lots 19, 20, and 20A, above Komohana Street . ........................... 29 Figure 9 Photograph of Waiakea cane harvesting about 1890. Note the multiple stone mounds in the harvested fields (from Conde 1975:122) ...................... 32 Figure 10 Upper project area showing location of sites . .................... 38 O Figure 11 Upper project area, showing location of Site 50-10-35-18921 .................. 39 Figure 12 Upper project area (above Komohana St.) showing location of sites 50 -10 -35- 18918, -18919 . ................................................... 40 Figure 13 Lower project area showing location of sites 50-10-35-18911 to -18917. ......... 41 Figure 14 Site 50-10-35-18914 Feature D, view to north ............................. 52 Figure 15 Site 50-10-35-18914 Feature D, view to southwest .......................... 52 Figure 16 Site 50-10-35-18916 Feature A, view to west .............................. 63 Figure 17 Site 50-10-35-18916 Feature A, view to north ............................. 63 Figure 18 Site 50-10-35-18919 Feature E, view to east . ............................. 73 Figure 19 Site 50-10-35-18919 Feature E, view to east showing railroad tie used as fence Figure 20 Post, in situ .................................................... Site 50-10-35-18919 Feature J, view to north . ............................ 73 76 Figure 21 Site 50-10-35-18919 Feature K, view to west .............................. 76 101 S O O C vi List of Tables Table 1. Land Commission Awards ................................................ 15 Table 2. Summary of Site Data, Significance, and Recommendations ........................ 96 M N O O a Acknowledgements Several people contributed significantly to this project. In particular, We would like to thank Paula DeMorales, Melissa Kirkendall, Eric Komori, Jonas Madeus, Jadelyn Moniz, Ted Novack, Michael Pfeffer, and Alexei Vranich. Special thanks go to Timothy Nicholson, and others at Okahara and Associates, Tim and his assistants provided project maps after many hours with the computer. My colleagues on the EIS team, Youngki Hahn, William Moore, and Ron Terry helped with the project in many ways. IN 101 N 0 Back rg ound Introduction 0 At the request of Okahara and Associates, Inc, Hilo, an archaeological inventory survey and historical background study were undertaken on the Pu'ainako Street Extension alternative alignments in Hilo (Figures 1 and 2). This study includes a review of previous archaeological work in the region, an historical literature and documents search, a Land Commission Award search, analysis of historic maps, in-depth interviews with knowledgeable local informants, intensive field recording of all sites/features, and excavation of five representative features in the project area. The objective of our work is to provide an inventory of the archaeological resources in the project area, make functional and significance designations, and recommendations for mitigating the impact of construction to historic resources. These objectives were set to satisfy all historic preservation regulatory review requirements of the State Historic Preservation Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources (SHPD-DLNR). A reconnaissance survey took place in July and August, 1992. This reconnaiscwce survey was oundertaken under the supervision of Field Archaeologist Melissa Kirkendall, M.A. With the initial field work we identified areas with no archaeological resources, as well as those with comparatively high densities of features. More intensive inventory -level archaeological field recording and test excavations, historical research, and interviews, were completed from May -July, 1993. This continued work focused on areas where archaeological features had been identified during reconnaissance. The 1993 field work was supervised by Field Archaeologist Matthew McDermott, B.A. Overall project direction and research were the responsibility of the author. Preliminary findings from field and historical research were reported in meetings with Okahara and Associates, Dr. Ross Cordy and Kanalei Shun of the State Historic Preservation Division, and with community members and University of Hawai'i-Hilo students. Scope of Work This report provides results of an inventory -level archaeological survey and the appropriate background research. The scope of work, established in consultation Ross Cordy and Kanalei Shun, IN O Archaeology NORTH o � vsos � O asw O� N T KCH '^o"• HAWAIIAN ISIANO$ ..•...< t9 LOCA➢OH NAP SOUTH KOHN.• H.WAI(UA 4011TH HLO PROJECT IB HILO LOCATION NOR1 XpA / SOUM HILO ( \ / 2 \ 3 sounl y KCH• vuw n KW 1 ORAPWO SOME N YLL FC Figure 1 Island of Hawaii showing project area in Hilo. 'O N m 4 4 O O Arrhaeologv C SHPD, includes three general objectives: 1) to identify all archaeological resources potentially affected (or destroved) by the proposed project; 2) to ascertain the age, function, and significance of the identified resources in the project area; and 3) to determine what steps to take to minimize impact to the archaeological resources, including preservation, data recovery, or other mitigative work necessary. These objectives were met by 1) historical (archival) research of lands in and around the project area; 2) interviews with local informants knowledgeable of the area and its history of occupation and land use; 3) a complete, intensive pedestrian survey of the project area (including detailed mapping, description, and photography of the archaeological remains) ; 4) limited subsurface testing of sites/features by hand excavation; 5) analysis of field, interview, and historical evidence; and 6) report preparation, with recommendations for impact mitigation and preservation. Significance of the archaeological remains identified in this project was assessed according to the criteria delineated in the National Register Criteria, Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 60), and Cby the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The site significance criteria include those that 1) reflect major trends in the history of the state or nation (Criterion A, Event); 2) are associated with the Lives of persons significant in our past (Criterion B, Person); 3) are excellent examples of site types (Criterion C, Design/Construction, e.g., interpretive value); 4) are likely to yield information important in history or prehistory (Criterion D, Information Potential); and/or 5) have cultural significance (Native Hawaiian, or other ethnic group). Applying these criteria to archaeological remains in Hawai'i most often suggests preservation, or as a form of mitigation, data recovery, where sites yield nfprnsailni: m+pc�rt,mt tp I,StutY or prci, , n (DI, hive a �t-t, ?-S :, b:. b:c SP ir.e pective putUntiai \�,.;), arld S'CflE c2, perhaps uniquely, the broad patterns of prehistory or history (B). In the case of Criterion D (information potential), following adequate data recovery, sites are no longer considered significant. Project Setting The proposed Pu'ainako Road Extension forms transects that cross lands from Kaumana O(Saddle Road) down to lower elevations (Kawili Street, see Figure 2) on the largely undissected uplands 0 Arrhaeo[oiCv O e t of Mauna Loa. Elevations of the project area extend from 1500' to 2W' (ca. 460 - tr) m), tr,ner,me ram forest, the recent (1881 A.D.) Mauna Loa lava flow, land previousiv in planted in commercial sugarcane, intermittent streams and flood zones, and residential neighborhoods. The project area crosses Mauna Loa lava flows that vary in radiocarbon age from the Punahoa (3,000-4,000 BP) in the lower areas (between Komohana and Kawili Streets), to the Kulaloa flow (1,100- 1,500 BP, above Komohana), to the well-known 1881 flow (see Lockwood and Buchanan -Banks 1981, 1982). As a consequence of these various ages, flow substrates form a mosaic of differential soil development, vegetation, and agricultural/land use potential- Soils form in limited deposits of volcanic ash and in lava from organic matter and small amounts of sediment; creating limited areas of continuous soil. In the younger substrates soil is found only in pockets. The predominant soils in the project area, especially where archaeological sites are found (see n O below), include the Series of Pana'ewa very rocky silty day loam and Keaukaha extremely rocky muck. In the early Soil Survey of the Territory of Hawaii (1955) the Pana'ewa and Keaukaha Series soils came o under "soils poorly suited or unsuited to mechanized agriculture" (USDA 1955:396): The soils are generally marginal, or in some places submarginal, for sugarcane. The shallow stony sods of this group were used for cane at the time of survey.... The introduction of mechanical harvesting, well underway by 1948, made the shallowness and stoniness of these soils an important handicap. Loose rock collected by the harvesting machines is carried to the mill, where it causes considerable damage. Removal of much of the surface rock was underway in 1948. Soils of greater agricultural potential (Kaiwiki silty clay loam) formed in volcanic ash deposited several thousand years ago. These soils found in the upper project area were recently under mechanized sugarcane cultivation. Rainfall over the project area is high (ca. 130-200 inches annually), increases with elevation, and occurs with little seasonal variation. Intermittent and perennial streams cross the project area, notably O a b O O O.4rchaeolo�v - the Alenaro (Waipahoehoe) and Waiakea streams. However, sections of the Waiakea drainage hate been artificially cut after ca. 1940 for purposes of flood control. Earlier maps show a poorly developed channel that in some sections flooded over wide areas dung periods of high rainfall. Historic and recent land use in the project areas has included woodland/rainforest, pasture, and commercial sugarcane. These uses correspond to the restrictions imposed by geologic substrate and soil development. Vegetation patterns—ranging from 'ohi`a forest to guava thicket to grassland --reflect these features as well. Secondary growth of non-native flora dominates those zones previously under commercial sugarcane cultivation or used as for pasture. Historic Background Prehistory and Early Hawaiian History The project area crosses the ahupua`a of Waiakea, Ponahawai, and Kukuau 1 and 2 in the South Hilo District. According to Place Names of Hawaii (Puku'i et al. 1974), Kukuau is the name for a Ospecies of graspid crab, Ponahawai means, "water circle," and Waiakea is named after a legendary man who lived in the Hilo area. The significance of Hilo in ancient times is suggested by Kamakau (1981:15-17) in his account of 'Umi-a-Liloa, a paramount chief who is reported to have ruled Hawai'i Island in the 16th century. The account mentions Umi taking Waiakea, the residence of Kulukulu, a Hilo chief. This reference suggests a prominent place for Hilo in the social and political prehistory of Hawaii Island, probably owing in part to the dense resources provided by fishponds and irrigated taro. Umi's securing of Kulukulu's chiefdom also u01ph2s detmst. pLfa!I?tico ir' the itdo mea in anew; tibics, It 6ic divisions of the Hilo area were created in the late 16th or early 17th century, and include Pu'u'eo, Pi'ihonua, Punahoa, Ponahawai, Kukuau, and Waiakea (Kelly et al. 1981:3). Several historic sources point to the varied and abundant resources of the Hilo area (e.g., McEldowney 1979; Kelly et al. 1981). Waiakea Ahupua'a runs from the ocean to the from the shoreline to about 3,800 ft in elevation, and Ponahawai extends to 2,700 feet before bordering the ahupua'a of O ,4rchaeoloKv O aF Pi lonua. annual rainfall in this area is between 130 and 200 inches and can be ditided into five land use zones: Coastal Settlement, Upland Agricultural, Lower Forest, Rainforest, and Sub -Alpine or Montane (after bicEldowney 1979). Prehistoric Land Use Zones An archaeological and historical overview of the Hilo region by McEldowney (1979) documents the presence, or previous existence of several significant resources of historic and prehistoric age in the Hilo region. These include heiau, legendary places, burial caves, lava tubes with evidence of extensive Hawaiian use, stone constructions (e.g., platforms, terraces, and enclosures), and historic structures. McEldowney's (1979) review also provides a basis for anticipating the distribution and kind of archaeological resources in the project area. In terms of expectations for archaeological resources, McEldowney (1979) used historic sources to outline ancient and post -contact land -use by zones. These include the sub -alpine or montane zone, rainforest, lower forest, upland agricultural, and coastal settlement zone. Sub Alpine or Montane Zone Only Waiakea Ahupua'a contains a representation of all five land -use zones, as the sub -alpine zone extends from the 5500 foot level upward. Waiakea ends at the 6,000 foot level where it meets the ahupua'a of Humu`ula. Humu'ula included the high quality basalt adze quarry near the summit of Mauna Kea (Kelly et al. 1981:5.6). Rainforest Zone The rainforest zone extends from 2,500 to 5,500 feet in elevation and, in the Hilo area, was extensively exploited by hunters and bird catchers. Both the mamo and o o, two extinct Honeycreepers, were found in great numbers in the Hilo rainforests. These birds were prized for their brightly colored yellow and red feathers (used to make feather helmets, leis,'and capes for the chiefs). The presence of these valuable bird species greatly increased the value of the rainforest region of these ahupua`a and S O N N a b O O.4n:haeologv O were jealously guarded (Kelly et al. 1981: 6-7). Waiakea, Kukuau, and Ponahawai extended into the rainforest zone and were likely exploited in prehistoric times for the birds with their prized feathers. Lower Forest Zone The lower forest zone, extending from 1,500 to 2500 feet in elevation, was utilized, according to McEldowney (1979), for some cultivation and gathering of forest products. Many of the woods used for canoe building, household needs, and religious idol making came from this zone. The large koa trees used for canoe building were found in this zone along with many species of plants such as olona, ie'ie (for fiber), and mamaki (for bark cloth). Food plants such as banana, taro, sweet potato, yam, and other crops were grown in small forest clearings (McEldowney 197925-28). One example of the use of this zone is Kamehameha's cutting of large koa trees by as he prepared his great fleet of war canoes during his conquest of the islands in the 1790s (Kelly et aL 1981:7). OConcerning archaeological potential, McEldowney (1979:25) writes: Historic accounts suggest that a duster of small huts, small religious shrines, and numerous paths were frequented by a family unit or group of workers for these purposes. The probability of finding structural or artifactual evidence of these activities appears low due to the temporary nature of the huts and the dense character of the ground cover, which would close unused paths and cleared areas. Upland Agricultural Zone The upland agricultural zone, extending in a belt from variable distances inland to the lower ftrest :one (1,500 irct), wa; planied in drvlznd taro, bananas, breadfruit, kuk"i (r. rule-t:utj :.t,d var;o s other plants. According to McEldowney (1979), this zone was probably transformed by extensive swidden, or slash -and -burn agriculture. Historic sources show that the upland agricultural zone had scattered huts, adjacent garden plots, and small groves of economically important trees up to the edge of the forest (McEldowney 1979:18). This zone of cultivation and with limited occupation corresponds to Oash -derived soils in the region, but may have extended beyond to the use of younger, more poorly O O d r .-t rchaeol oD developed soils (e.g., the Keaukaha and Pana'ewa Series). Consequently, prehistoric archacolou:ca O resources could occur in this zone, but preservation is unlikely given later land use. Coastal Settlement Zone The coastal settlement zone, extending from the shoreline to the upland agricultural zone (varying elevation) was the most intensively utilized land in ancient times. It was also the most densely inhabited. Irrigated and dry taro, bananas, breadfruit, kukui nut, pandanus, it, and other plants were intensively cultivated in this zone. In addition, large fishponds and pig enclosures were constructed in this zone. The fishponds in Waiakea, long known as the Royal Ponds, were an important resource that became the exclusive reserve of Kamehameha I. These ponds, along with a number of smaller ponds utilized by the rest of the population supported large populations of mullet, 'awa, chole, and 'o'opu, as well as other fish, and provided habitat for large numbers of water fowl. Fishing and shellfish and seaweed (limu) gathering were also important coastal resources exploited in this zone (Kelly et al. 1981:7, 11-19). O The wealth of resources and population in Hilo are reflected in the chiefly controls held oyer the District, especially the ahupua`a of Waiakea. Kamehameha I lived for a time in the Hilo area and built many of his large war canoes at Hilo. The availability of large koa trees in the forests of the Hilo area made it an ideal place to carve war canoes. When Vancouver visited Hilo in 1794, he found Kamehameha I stocking food and making war canoes for his conquest of the Hawaiian Islands. Kamehameha I had substantial land holdings in the Hilo area. At his death Kamehameha I gave his land holdings in the Hilo area to his son, and to various of his trusted chiefs. Waiakea, along with several other ahupua`a, were given to his son Liholiho. Kukuau 1 and 2 were given to his trusted haole advisor chiefs John Young and Isaac Davis. Ponahawai was given to Keawe-a-Heulu, one of Kamehameha's chiefs who died during an epidemic on O'ahu (Kelly et al. 1981:11). The ahupua`a of Waiakea, given to Liholiho at Kamehameha I's death in 1819 was given up in the Great Mahele in 1848 and became a Crown Land. However, the 'ili kupouo of Pi'opi'o, a part of O a b O 0 oArchaeology 11 Waiakea Ahupua'a, was held by Ka'ahumanu and descended to Kina'u and Victoria Kamamalu and became a part of B shop Estate (Kelly et al. 1981:40). Kukuau Ahupua'a 1 and 2 given to Isaac Davis and John Young went to their descendants. In the Great Mahele one of Davis' sons received a large portion of Kukuau 2 (3,450 acres. LCA 8521-B) and Young's son received 9,360 acres of Kukuau 1 (LCA 8515, see discussion below). Ponahawai Ahupua'a was given up in the Great Mahele by Kinimaka, the nephew of Keawe-a-Heulu, and became Crown land (Kelly et al. 1981: 40). Heiau Drawing on Native Hawaiian informants from around the turn of the century and extensive field survey, Thrum (1907a, 1907b) and Stokes (1991) documented heiau sites for the Island of Hawai i. For Hilo Thrum (1907b:55) wrote: oOf the heiaus of the district of Hilo little evidence of thew existence now remains, so complete has been their destruction, but though their stones are scattered, much of their history is yet preserved. Thrum (1907a:4041) lists 16 heiau for Hilo District. Of these, three were located near the coastline in the ahupua'a of Waiakea. Heiau sites are not known for Kukuau or Ponahawai ahupua'a. The Waiakea heiau included Kapaieie (unknown class, Site 18883) near Honokawailani; Makaoku (lualdni class, Site 188843) on the shore opposite Coconut Island connected with the Mokuola (Coconut Island) place of refuge (pu uhonua); and Ohele (luakini class, Site 18884) reported to have been near the old Pitman store. These heiau were entirely destroyed in the nineteenth century (see Thrum 19(fla, 1907b; Stokes 1991:154-155). Prehistoric Settlement Pattern A careful examination of archaeological evidence, combined with early historic accounts, maps, Land Commission Award information, and oral traditions can be used to reconstruct a picture of the osettlement pattern of particular areas in ancient Hawai'i. In the Hilo area prehistoric settlement was 0 o s Archaeology centered around the coast (coastal settlement zone), around Hilo Bay, and extended into the upland agricultural zone. The vast majority of the habitation, religious, utilitarian, and other structures would have been located near the coast (McEldowney 1979:15). Early descriptions of Hilo, by Vancouver (in 1794) and others, indicate that the coastal region was inhabited and under anthropogenic vegetation: Round the bottom of this bay was a track (sic.) of low land that extended a considerable distance to the eastward and adorned with beautiful groves of cocoa nut palms and bread fruit trees, amongst which were scattered the habitation of the natives. The whole was fertilized by two considerable streams of fresh water that emptied into the bottom of the bay (from Moniz 1992:7). William Ellis (1963) toured the island in the 1823 and described the Waiakea area of Hilo as: Niro [Hilo), which we had now left, though not so extensive and populous as Kona, is the most ,0 fertile and interesting division on the island. The coast from Waiakea to this place is bold and steep, and intersected by numerous valleys or ravines... This part of the island, from the district 0 of Waiakea to the northern point, appears to have remained many years undisturbed by volcanic eruptions. The habitations of the natives generally appear in clusters at the opening of the valleys, or scattered over the face of the high land... (Ellis 1969:353). In a letter From Goodrich (a missionary) to a Professor Silliman for the Philosophical Magazine published in September 1826, Goodrich describes the region from Waiakea to the summit of Mauna Kea as follows: Th.^re appeax to 1;- th:t:e i,r f,,,r diffr;PW g;01!,. it l �asatr• frne: ;hc 6 aa.^..-SLq"i: It, r1;C 5ii9 iYn;1L. The first occupies five or six miles, where cultivation is carried on in a degree, and might be to almost any extent; but as yet, not one twentieth part is cultivated. The next is a sandy region, that is impassible, except in a few foot -paths. Bracken, a species of tall fern, here grow to the size of trees; the bodies of some of them are eighteen inches in diameter. The woody region extends between ten and twenty miles in width. The region higher up produces grass, principally 0 0 oArchaeology 1 of the bent kind. Strawberries, raspberries, and whortle-berries flourish in this region, and herds of wild cattle are seen grazing. It is entirely broken up by hills and valleys, composed of lava, with a very shallow soil. The upper region is composed of lava in almost every form, from huge rocks to volcanic sand of the coarser kind.... (Ellis 1969:403). The population of Waiakea was, according to Ellis' best estimation in 1825, approximately 1000 persons living in 400 houses (Ellis 1917:753). This population may correspond to the precontact numbers, although introduced diseases may have already had a devastating affect on the Hilo population (Stannard 1989; Bushnell 1993). The settlement of Waiakea was concentrated largely near the coast. It was in this zone that the majority of the habitation sites, irrigated pondfields and some dry -land agricultural plots (e.g., including aboriculture), religious structures, fishponds, and animal pens were located. Further upslope, much of othe activity consisted of hunting birds, collecting food and other useful wild plants, and felling large trees (mostly koa and 'ohi`a) for canoe building, house construction, and other wood carving. Land Commission Awards in the Project Area The Great Mahele of 1848 brought the privatization of land tenure to Hawaii. Land was divided among the king, chiefs, and the government. Commoners (maka'ainana) could petition the court for land they already occupied and worked. Testimonies given in support of these commoner claims provide a rich history of land tenure, including details of residence patterns, cultivation (e.g., kula and lo't), and other economic or subsistence pursuits (e.g., fishponds, plant resources, pigs). When these sources are taken together they document patterns of Hawaiian settlement and land use for the early to mid -nineteenth century, and assuming a strong degree of continuity, for late pre -contact times as well. In order to establish local early historic (as recorded around 1848), and by extrapolation prehistoric land use patterns in the project area, the Land Commission Award (LCA) records were reviewed. These records include the Indices of Awards, the Native and Foreign Registers, the Native and OForeign Testimonies, and Registered Map 1561. The search determined that none of the smaller LCAs -Irchaeolog l,y O lie within the project area. Nonetheless, the records reveal land use patterns m the area at large during the early to mid -nineteenth century. The project area crosses the ahupua'a of Waiakea, Kukuau 1 and 21 and a small portion of 'onahawai. A total of 61 Land Commission awards were made to individuals within these native land units: 25 in Waiakea, 14 in Kukuau, and 22 in Ponahawai (Table 1). Additionally, large portions of Ponahawai and Waiakea ahupua'a were designated Crown lands. Although not listed in the Indices of Awards, several more recent maps show a major land unit named Kaumana in the more northern portion of the project area. LCAs of Kaumana, were there any made, are assumed to have been part of Ponahawai based on earlier maps. The LCAs were generally small, with most between one-half to four acres (Table 1). Large awards were limited to chiefs. Most of Kukuau 1 Ahupua'a (LCA 8515) was awarded to Keoni Ana (son of John Young and Kaoanaeha, the daughter of Keli'imaika'i). LCA 8521-B included most of Kukuau 2 Ahupua'a and went to G. D. Hueu, son of Isaac Davis (companion of Kamehameha I). Victoria O Kamamalu was given LCA 7713, a beachfront Ili 'aina in Waiakea Ahupua'a that paralleled the coast. B. Pitman was awarded a 3542 acre portion of Ponahawai Ahupua'a. Most of the small LCAs were made to native Hawaiians (Table 1). One Chinese individual, Y. Aiko, received a 1.01 acre parcel in Kukuau (LCA 3205). Two other claims were made by westerners. John G. Perkins (LCA 242) claimed a one-half parcel in Ponahawai Ahupua'a and John Anderson claimed a 0.66 acre parcel in the same land unit. According to the foreign testimonies, both of these lots F, ,e. ccmvcrteu t; t:;e a;nt htki (tht. 11,-d man sf an rl;t,p;.a'a or a pc;.;an who had charge of a land v%C.h others under him) as the claimants left Hawai'i for California prior to appearing before the Land Commission Board. Both LCAs, however, appear on Registered Map 1561 suggesting that they may have ultimately been awarded. N v C a O .-archaeology Table 1. Land Commission Awards. Grantee LCA W"ea Ahupua'a: Acreage Barenaba 2327 1225 Halal, L.K. 1279 0.60 Hale 4004 4.25 Kahue 2663 3.75 Kaiana, J.B. 2281 1025 Kaihenui 11050-B 5.19 Kalolo 1333 2.25 Kalua 8854 3.40 Kaluhikana 1738 2.98 Kamamalu, V. 1713 'Ri 'aina Kamanuhaka 8803 1.02 Kapu 1-F 1.60 Kealiko 11174 1.00 Keaniho 2402 5.00 Keawe 5018 0.24 10505 C Kuaio Leoi 4344 9982 1.22 0.80 Lolo 4738-B 1.27 Mahoe 1-E 4.46 Moealoha 4737 1.03 Nakai 4785 1.05 Napeahi 2603 1.30 Wahine 4737-B 1.01 Wahinealua 11173 2.50 Wahinenohoihilo 10004 1.69 Kukuau Ahuoua` Aiko, Y 3205 1.01 Haai 1106 4.66 Haoleopunui 3706 2.47 1 E 1091 119 Hoomoo 3993 2.05 Kahue 2664 0.33 Kaiwi 1104 4.33 Kanama 4239-B 2.90 Kanakaole 11045-B 1.52 Kauanui 234-B 0.55 Keoni Ana 8515 4840 8515 4520 Hueu, G.D. 8521-B 3540 O Ouluihi 11144 1.15 Puniono 2606 0.98 O 15 O � s Archaeology Table 1. Land Commission Aµards (continued) Grantee LCA Acreage Ponahawai Ahupua'a: Anderson, J. 2257 0.66 Hewahewa 2578 1.82 Hiona 1096 1.02 Kaapa 2228 3.69 Kahalehau 11048 1.56 Kaiaua 2281 2.87 Kaiu 5701 1.41 Kanoa 2406 028 Kapuaa 4994 5.80 Kaulua 1098 0.77 Keaniho 2404 1.94 Keawehano 1334 2.16 Keawekukane 5122 1.29 Kukeleau 4983 12.8 Lahaina 1107 1.53 Lumaina 1108 2.76 Nahalelepo 3996 0.63 Paakaua 1097 0.47 Peleula 1095 1.04 Perkins, J.G. 242 0.49 Puaa 1100 0.97 Puniana 1099 0.82 Io O C e S O 0 OArchaeologv 17 With few exceptions, the awards were located near to the coast and within the area of Hilo town proper (see Registered Map 1561 of 1891). Grants 2663 and 2402 were situated more inland at approximately 2 kilometers from the coast and straddled the boundary of Kukuau 2 and Waiakea Ahupua`a. Additionally LCAs 2106, 4994, and 4983 of Ponahawai could not be located on Registered Map 1561, indicating that they were located inland of Halal Hill. In the Native Register, the claimant described LCA 4994 as being close to the forest and formerly uncultivated. The Native and Foreign Registers and Testimonies identify many of the small coastal claims as houselots. Parcels were frequently enclosed and included from one to five houses. Usually the claimant occupied a house on the parcel, but occasionally persons with no claim to the land were also resident. In a few cases, the records indicate a traditional Hawaiian residential pattern was in place, with household units composed of separate dwelling and cook houses. oMany of the claims with houselots also included small kihapai or garden plots. Non-residential farm lands were also claimed. Taro (Colocasia esculenra) and bamboo are the only crops specifically mentioned. LCA 3293-I1, which was located on the coast near to Waiolama Stream and Iaina fishpond, included several /09. Some parcels were enclosed by d (Cordyline terminalis) "fences." In several cases, the adjacent land was referred to as "idle' and belonging to the konohiki. The testimonies also mention near -coastal "Fishponds" that belonged to the konohiki. Several of the awardees claimed their lands from their parents or grandparents. In other cases, specific persons, possibly lesser chiefs, were named as land grantors. LCA 5701, for example, was given to the claimant's parents by Alii Piopio. Frequently the claimant indicated the year that he had received his land from this specific person, with dates ranging from 1832 to 1848. Land Commission Award Summary In sum, the LCA evidence shows that claims were heavily concentrated on the coast, reflecting the continuation of the Hawaiian settlement pattern documented by early foreign visitors to Hilo (see OMcEldowney 1979; Kelly et al. 1981; Moniz 1992 for reviews). Of the ahupua`a under study, both Archaeoloj�v ISO Kukuau 1 acrd 2, and Ponahawai were ¢teen in entirety to Kamehameha I's trusted advisors, but Wa,Aea was divided up into both large tracts or land given to royalty, and into small LCAs awarded to people Living on coastal lands. No LCAs were either claimed or awarded to individuals for lands located in the upland region near or within the Pu'ainako Road Extension project area. A search of Land Commission Awards given in Waiakea Ahupua'a indicates that lands in the project area were not under use by Hawaiians in the early to mid -nineteenth century. The land in the project area could have been used in earlier times, but, the absence of claims documents the lack of significance to Hawaiians for these areas at the time of the Mahele. The exception being the recognition by Hawaiian chiefs that large tracts of land had increasing commercial value. Foreign Influence and Change Sandalwood Trade One of the first major changes to take place in the Hilo area with the arrival of foreigners in Hawai'i was the sandalwood trade in the 1790s. The sandalwood trade was controlled by Kamehameha 1 O until his death and continued by his son Liholiho and other favored chiefs until about 1830 when the trade collapsed. The over exploitation of the sandalwood endangered the species, and had an impact on the forest ecosystem. The trade also drove the chiefs into debt and forced thousands of commoners to lose their livelihood as they diverted their activities to gather sandalwood. The trade appears to have affected native life in Hilo (Kelly et al. 1981:25-26) as elsewhere in the islands, but little specific evidence is available. Miscionmy lrfluence The arrival of missionaries from the London Missionary Society and the American Protestant missionaries in 1822 had far reaching influences over Hawaiian populations. to Hilo, missionaries first arrived in 1822 and set up a permanent mission in 1824 under the guidance of two families, the Goodrichs and Ruggles. By 1825 a school had been set up and attendance at both the school and church increased steadily (Kelly et al. 1981:28-29). O 4 $ O 0 O,-lrchaeoioi�v 19 Other Historic Influences to Hilo Hilo, with its natural harbor became, by the mid -nineteenth century a popular stopover. The Wilkes expedition visited Hilo in 1840, representing increased American influence in the area. The arrival of tourists and other adventurers in Hilo had begun as early as 1842, and many stayed and took up residence in Hilo. The increase in foreigners also brought about an increase in the number of small businesses catering to foreign needs. Whaling, an important part of the economy in Honolulu and Lahaina, was present in Hilo in the mid -1800s. But Hilo was not as popular a port Lahaina or Honolulu, it ranked third. According to the sailors, it lacked liquor or women because of the strong missionary influence (Kelly et al. 1981:75). Agricultural Changes in the Hilo Area Several plants were cultivated or collected for export in the Hilo area in the early historic operiod. Among important plants were pia (arrowroot, Tacca leontopetaloides), taro (Colocasia esculenta), and pulu (Cibotium splendens). Arrowroot was refined and exported as a flour substitute, pulu was used for mattress and pillow stuffing, and taro was made into dried poi and sold as a dried food item (Kelly et al. 1981:80-81). Sugarcane Sugarcane was introduced to Hawaii and cultivated by ancient Hawaiians. Cultivated in small garden plots, the cane was eaten by simply chewing on the stalk. With the arrival of the missionaries in 1822, the cane began to be processed for sugar. Wailuku Mill was the first in Hilo. It was established by the missionaries to supply themselves with sugar. By the 1840s several commercial mills were in operation, including a mill owned by Governor Kuakini Adams. At about the same time, at least one Chinese entrepreneur had a small mill operating in the Hilo area. As early as 1.839 Governor Kuakiai Adams had a sugar mill and plantation on Ponahawai. However, much of Ponahawai Ahupua`a was covered by the 1880-1881 lava flow (Rosendahl, et al., 1992: Appendix A 21). 101 Arehaeolo v .0 O By the 1860s sugarcane had become the dominant crop in the Hilo area, and Iarge tracts of land came under commercial cultivation. Foreign interests quickly moved in and acquired large parcels of land in the Hilo area for sugarcane cultivation. One of the earliest foreigners in the Hilo area to acquire large tracts of land was Benjamin Pitman. Beginning in the 1830s he amassed large tracts of land which he then leased out to sugarcane growers, a coffee plantation, and a number of buildings and businesses in the Hilo area (Kelly et al. 1981:8485). In 1861 Pitman sold most of his interests in the Hilo area to Thomas Spencer. Spencer increased his holdings in sugarcane and bought up the old Chinese sugar mill and plantation. In 1876 the Reciprocity Treaty with the United States Government assured entry of Hawaiian sugar into the U.S. with no duty, making it a secure and profitable market. This marked the turning point for the sugar industry in the Hawaiian Islands, and by the 1880s there were a large number of sugar plantations in both the Hilo area and throughout the Hawaiian Islands (Kelly et al. 1981:88-89). As a consequence, large tracts of land in Hilo were planted in cane. Indeed, nearly all of the lower O slopes of the ahupua'a of Waiakea, was planted in cane by 1881. Despite profits, the industry had its difficulties, and by 1885, two large companies had bought out or taken over the smaller sugar growers. The Hilo Sugar Company (at Wainaku), formed in 1884, and the Waiakea Mill Company, formed in 1879. These two companies became the dominant sugar companies in the immediate Hilo Bay area. These companies developed the narrow gauge railroad lines that led from the sugarcane fields to the mills (Conde and Best 1973). By the late 1890s sugar was the ectah!;shed crop iJ th^ H;lo a: r.;+„ altho.igh coffec w;,s also a surcessful comriercial crop (Kelly el al. 1981:91-93). As the sugar industry grew larger tracts of land were cleared for planting in cane. This necessitated the construction of a large scale transportation infrastructure to carry the cane to the mills for processing. From the late 1870s through the fust twenty years of the twentieth century a large number of railroad tracks were constructed in the Hilo area to move cane to the mills. Both permanent O +8 O O Otrchaeologv 21 and temporary track were used for access to harvest areas (see Conde and Best 1973:117-126, for discussion of Waiakea Mill Company). Flumes were also used to transport harvested cane to areas where it could be loaded on rail cars (at 'flume-to-cas loading stations"). The flumes were primarily in higher elevations beyond the extent of railroad tines (Conde and Best 1973:119). The mill for Waiakea Company was located just mauka of the Waiakea fishponds and its lands extended up the mountains to at least 1,100 feet elevation. After 1918, when the Waiakea lease ended, the land was divided up into parcels that were then homesteaded by individuals who sold their cane to the company. A total of 700 acres was divided up in this manner into many lots of varying sizes (10-73 acres each) and house lots (1-3 acres each) set aside in a township along the Volcano Road (Kelly et al. 1981:121). The smallest of the large mills in the Hilo area was the Hawaii Mill Company. This mill was Olocated in Ponahawai Ahupua'a in Hilo town and owned or leased 1,780 acres of land. This mill only O lasted for a short time and was bought out by the Hilo Sugar Company in 1920 (Kelly et al. 1981:122- 127). The Hilo Sugar Company began operations in 1884 and steadily increased its size by taking over the smaller mills and plantations in the vicinity. By 1936 the area of land under cultivation exceeded 7,770 acres. However, the sugar company reported that it lacked railway facilities for its fields and relied instead on an extensive network of roads to harvest the cane (Kelly et al. 1981:127). The Hilo Sugar Company remained in operation until 1976. There were several other cane companies in the Hilo area along with several coffee ventures and other crop companies. In addition, a number of railroad companies developed in and around the Hilo area starting about the turn of the century. The Hilo Railroad operated from 1899 to 1946 and was involved primarily in hauling sugar cane to the mills for refining. However, it also transported passengers around the island (Kelly et al. 1981:142). O O 8 Archaeologv O Previous Archaeological Research Archaeological field research in the Hdo area has been comparatively rare. However, several Field projects have been undertaken in recent years (Note: sources covering significant archaeological research in the Hilo Bay area is provided in the bibliography). The problem for archaeology has been the profound historic transformations of the landscape, with early urbanization and especially commercial sugarcane cultivation, that destroyed much of the prehistoric archaeological record. Extensive synthetic works by McEldowney (1979), Kelly et al. (1981), and Moniz (1992) discuss the archaeological research accomplished, the kinds of sites (historic and prehistoric), and their distribution for the Hilo Bay area. McEldowney's (1979) review suggests that most sites of prehistoric age were located near the coast, and have been altered (e.g., fishpond sites) or completely destroyed (e.g., heiau sites). The distribution of historic era sites reflects early urbanization and plantation activities in the Hilo Bay area. Even in some of the earliest archaeological survey work, Hudson (1932) suggested that little, if any, archaeology will be found in the City of Hilo. Several field studies tend to support Hudson's O argument, with only historic remains discovered (e.g., Kelly and Athens 1982; , casen 1991; Goodfellow and Fager 1992; Borthwick et al. 1993). As Kalima (in Goodfellow and Fager 1992:22) recently concluded concerning archaeological survey in Ponahawai, Hilo: ...the extensive clearing needed in order cultivate sugarcane, in addition to the recent guava cultivation, it is highly unlikely that the land retains any prehistoric archaeological sites. Any sites found will probably be associated with sugarcane cultivation. T4as a: many ;<rcha"Iceisls have s:nmisrd, t}� fead4js.nal z, ? eixriy him;cc dPtaO! of Hitr «gip not often be supported by field evidence in archaeology of the area. Much of the land has been transformed, with both urbanization and large-scale commercial sugarcane cultivation. A review of reports and site records at the State Historic Preservation Division revealed that no archaeological sites had been previously recorded in the project area. In a closely adjacent area (TMK 2-4-01:40 &157, proposed Research and Technology lots, University of Hawaii -Hilo), Borthwick and O < a O 0 O Archaeology J others (1993, Draft) provide results from historical background research and archaeological survey with subsurface testing. They recorded (mapped, described etc.) four sites (with multiple features) determined to be from historic and recent agricultural land use (le., stone mounds from field clearing). They note plow furrows from sugarcane cultivation still visible in areas with adequate soil. Their test excavations yielded no cultural materials, and only artifacts of recent origin were observed on the surface in their project area. Borthwick et al. (1993, Draft) point to significance in terms of information content alone (Criterion D). They recommend no additional work, as adequate data have already been collected with mapping and testing of these sites. Prehistoric and Historic Background of Project Area Lands Prehistoric Period The project area encompasses parts of three ahupua'a Ponahawai, Kukuau 1, and Waiakea. The oarea where most archaeological sites exists is in the lower project area (from just above Komohana Street to Kawili Street) in the ahupua'a of Waiakea (see below). This portion of the project area is approximately 200-300 feet elevation. This area falls within McEldowney's Zone II (upland agricultural) where early historic sources show that scattered huts, adjacent garden plots, and small groves of economically important trees were once found up to the edge of the forest (McEldowney 1979:18). McEldowney (1979:18) links this zone to ash -derived soils in the region, rather than to lava flows and areas with poorly developed shallow and rocky soils. These younger, more poorly developed soils (e.g., the Keaukahn and Pana'ewa Series) of the project area are less likely to have seen preuistoric occupation or use, based on the observations of early visitors to the region (see McEldowney 1909). Consequently, some prehistoric use may have occurred in the project area, but preservation or other remaining archaeological integrity are very unlikely given the later documented land use of intensive sugarcane cultivation. EM rchaeologv Historic Period In historic times the project area has been used primarily to grow sugarcane, before it was converted to pasture and unused land. As documented in a series of historic maps and informant interviews, the project area, and vast tracts of surrounding land were planted in sugarcane. As mentioned above, sugar became the most important crop in Hilo by the end of the nineteenth century. Thus, vast tracts of sugarcane was already under cultivation in Hilo. Sugarcane cultivation was remarkably labor-intensive, and took advantage of an immigrant labor force. Prior to 1930 breaking of ground to plant sugarcane was done by mules. By 1935 most areas (where possible) was plowed by tractors to a depth of six inches. The fields were not irrigated, but relied on Hilo's high rainfall. Cane yields varied with rainfall. The fertility was good, but many fields were rocky (Kelly et al. 1981:121). ,4 O Several sugar companies operated in the Hilo area, but only Waiakea Mill Company grew cane in the project area. The Waiakea Mill Company operated from 1897 through 1946 and was one of the largest sugar companies to operate in Hilo. When the company's 30 year lease of Waiakea lands expired O in 1918, the government under homestead laws, subdivided a large tract of land into hundreds of lots granted to homesteaders in 1919 (Kelly et al. 1981:121; Figure 4). Analysis of Maps Analysis of historic maps provides the clearest evidence of land use for the lower project areas. A map produced in 1922 by Williams (Figure 4 from Kelly et al. 1981; also Figure 5 showing modern street locations) shows land under cultivation by the Waiakea Mill Company. This map shows residential c<,mps, t,)ad5 {:nclvd:rL dir c: ,e ads, .0 h wh+i w,::ld hcrouee. Pu'ainako avd Koi:tnl• ll - Streets), flumes, railroad lines, lease and homestead boundaries, the edge of cane cultivation, and drainages (e.g., the upper Waiakea drainage). The map places homestead lots near the northern (lower right in map) boundary that encompass the project area. In this area is the edge of sugarcane cultivation. The lots have soils of the Pana'ewa and Keaukaha Series, both of marginal value for sugarcane cultivation given M O,4irhaeology \ F C SAP OFTHE L.rG OAIAKEA MIL_ �\ r- -� ;.t..•'� Figure 4 Waiakea Mill Company map, 1922 of homestead lots and leased fields under sugarcane cultivation. Also shown are plantation residential camps - O (numbered), permanent railroad lines (from Kelly et al. 1981). O Archaeolgg O 'MAP Of THE LAND UNDER CULTIVATION BY THE WAIAKEA MILL CO., HILO. HAWAII - ORIGINAL DRAWN BY: W.L.S. WILLIAMS DATED: 1922. CORRECTED TO DECEMBER, 1933. 5 Map showing Waiakea Mill Companv in the proiect IN area with modern streets for reference, permanent railroad lines, and the boundary of sugarcane and pasture land in 1922 (revised 1933). 0 1�m 980 b0 -IL�y, ♦ A riltj Ij j9m 14 »nIIMIIIII LAVA rLXow 0" 1 5Li I ...324.. � I_ f � 'ti 510. % f ,• � ' � i� � �� .♦SODS �> X 1 517 1 ♦ 1 20.0 !' 1 517A 44, y L'2 2L:..:. y2 MGA \♦ S B ` 1 � 515 I 10.0 \ ♦ ♦ ♦ � • „v i • 4 ° uY . TSA - - %%5 • ti'.. t.. ♦ ,_� .. io o0j r ... Lm 10.01 I •. 1 � /'; • 'YJ.'O.. ,•ti � B L • 1519 : - ' 1•ta •� t ' � i o •� aD rte: V. Is ro OOJ `` �,1\. ,:JIB% 70.o`CZ� 1•. 1 . � tib. 1�m 980 b0 -IL�y, ♦ A riltj Ij j9m 14 »nIIMIIIII .-t rchaeologv 01• L q LO - IV -0 /_OT /S � o 0 C'Pn s' /619 Ae. •a w Cana za l4� L / hLI' '/P 9u/J,h t C 1a6.4�e /1 J7 An /.I is I GOT I GOT 7 A I 40T 6 LOT -5, Can..,l z s ♦{�.e.GN JAI it kj -- (-ppp 24..77.✓ar. 1 COiIC /•f.GZSI+ I F o 9 E _, _!?/a ..._. _- ___. q o No✓♦;P 4 B.S, a To/s/ tri .b_•.I� i3CL>�P c1 J6 70-14/ Z.7 � o /YPJ./c^ 4F 7ohsi s:t�3:J• �•I 1 n .T.�'K+CX OI3 LOT /6 pt y t� o �` Fe'�� < • � Lone Z/ &Z<< o 1``\ I •J was/a: V TON/ /d 7/�I -�>i • ''af Gr..�/Y /T /S.�K.. �� / p //J7a ' GDT /Z `j• vA'.o /% /.4/ ( �• far ' 01• L q LO - IV -0 /_OT /S � o 0 C'Pn s' /619 Ae. •a w Cana za l4� L / hLI' '/P 9u/J,h t C 1a6.4�e /1 J7 An /.I is I GOT I GOT 7 A I 40T 6 LOT -5, Can..,l z s ♦{�.e.GN JAI it kj -- (-ppp 24..77.✓ar. 01• L q LO - IV -0 /_OT /S � o 0 C'Pn s' /619 Ae. •a w Cana za l4� L / hLI' '/P 9u/J,h 7 Section of a map entitled Cane Lots" 6 0 O surveyed by A.S. Chaney in 1925. This map shows the railroad line, areas of "waste" and cane for lots 17, 18, and 19, where the lower project area o road alignments are located. is I GOT I GOT 7 A I 40T 6 LOT -5, Can..,l z s ♦{�.e.GN JAI it kj -- (-ppp 24..77.✓ar. 1 COiIC /•f.GZSI+ I F o 9 E _, _!?/a ..._. _- ___. q o No✓♦;P 4 B.S, a To/s/ tri .b_•.I� i3CL>�P c1 J6 70-14/ Z.7 � o /YPJ./c^ 4F 7ohsi s:t�3:J• 7 Section of a map entitled Cane Lots" 6 0 O surveyed by A.S. Chaney in 1925. This map shows the railroad line, areas of "waste" and cane for lots 17, 18, and 19, where the lower project area o road alignments are located. it a 0 0 O Amhaeologv 0 0 ,9 � M•P• C w,ll� J ¢ t {J:O(AKLA F4f77. GA Gre.oi Leose No 1 8 Section (insert) of a man entitled "waiakea Cane Lots" surveyed by A.S. Chaney in 1925. This portion of the map shows areas of "waste" and cane for lots 19, 20, and 20A, above Komohana Street. 6 . 17 Nnlnr� w nonca cnoa J ¢ t {J:O(AKLA F4f77. GA Gre.oi Leose No 1 8 Section (insert) of a man entitled "waiakea Cane Lots" surveyed by A.S. Chaney in 1925. This portion of the map shows areas of "waste" and cane for lots 19, 20, and 20A, above Komohana Street. 0 O 0 r Archaeology --4)o problems of rockiness. The 1922 map also shows permanent narrow-gauge railroad lines passing the project area. The original survey, from 1918, is represented in another map (Figure o). This map shows comparable sugarcane cultivation boundaries and the railroad in the project area in 1918, but the railroad line may have been in this location as early as ca. 1880 (Conde and Best 1973:117-126). It appears that the area north of what would become Pu`ainako Street (the northern or right side boundary) was under sugarcane cultivation, but not yet subdivided for individual leaseholds. By 1925 this area had been subdivided, and added brought into a lease, according to the map information. A more detailed map survey by Chaney in 1925 (Figures 7 and 8) shows the project area crossing homestead lots 17, 18, 19, and above Komohana Street, lots 20 and 20A. Shown on this map is the railroad right of way (this is the same line shown in the 1922 map, Figures 4 and 5), precise acreage planted in sugarcane, and a quantity of land designated "waste" for some parcels. All of these lots are o shown under complete, or nearly complete cultivation of sugarcane. As one would expect, the boundary of cane cultivation and Waiakea pasture land corresponds closely to the geological boundary of the older Punahoa (3,000-4,000 BP) and the younger Kulaloa (1,100-1,400 BP) flows --with the significantly rockier Kulaloa flow substrate used for pasture. Also, the archaeological sites/features (described for the project area below) are found almost entirely within the boundaries of areas with greater soil development and thus previously under commercial cultivation of sugarcane. This marked correspondence suggests the historic age and sugarcane -related function of the sites/features in, and near th:S pIJ;:At zai,,a. Other Documentary Sources A variety of sources provides a picture of plantation life and work on the land in the project area. Documentary sources also inform on the age and function of the archaeological features discovered in sugarcane lands. For example, in a Honolulu Advertiser article of 10 April, 1932, Jared N K0 O O O.-archaeology ; 1 Smith describes how Waiakea `till grinds the homesteaders' cane as well their own. Referring to the Waiakea leased lands and homesteaders' cultivation, Smith writes: Other items of interest are that the cultivation contract men tear down and rebuild every stone heap before starting a new crop. These field piles of loose rock are the centers.from which weeds and pests spread through the cane. Hence the workers "laundry" them. They also glean the rubbish as well as the loose stone. Smith also mentions the unusual prevalence of tanks used in the Waiakea fields for water storage. These tanks served in mixing herbicides: A feature not seen on any other plantation is the shed roofs stuck around all over the place to (ill tanks so that water for mixing the arsenical weed killer will be available in every field. OEvidence similar to that observed by Smith is found in a photograph of Waiakea Loll fields under harvest about 1890 (see Conde 1975:172, Figure 9). This very early photograph shows hand harvesting and numerous stone clearing mounds in the field. While the precise location of the field shown in this photograph is unknown (i.e., it certainly does not appear to be the project area), it illustrates the practice Smith described (above) for areas in the Waiakea homestead lots. In sections with rocky soils stone clearing mounds would necessarily be larger and more densely spread over the field. These clearing mounds took several forms, and were often made with faced sides to increase the efficiency and holding capabilities of the piles, thereby clearing more soil for sugarcane. Similar sugarcane ceasing mu°ands hsve been docu:nauted. amiaeologitally, :.nd cvn(trrueu'uy u:(oruv:wt interviews (see concluding section below). Solving problems of loading harvested cane onto small sleds, carts, or rail cars may also have utilized stone constructed features. Such features would allow workers loading harvested cane by hand (especially in the earliest days) to get the heavy bundles up into the loads headed to the mill. 0 0 oArchaeology -- Finally, in Story of Sugar to Hawaii (Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, 1926:69), the following information is given on other activities in tenant cane lots: The visitor to the fields will often notice vegetables planted along the outside rows next to the sugar cane, and further in the cane fields along the ditches and furrows vegetable gardens are often quite extensively planted in spaces between the cane growth. This is done by the workmen for their own use and saves them a considerable amount on the family food bill. Hilo Interviews Paula DeMorales (Hawaiian Language Inswctor, Waiakea High School) and I conducted seven interviews in Hilo. In a community notice in the Hawaii Tribune Herald we asked old-time residents near the project area (especially around the lower area where we knew sites existed) to talk with us oabout the history of the area as well as the age and function of the archaeological sites. Each of the informants who shared stories with us had been associated in various ways with the Waiakea Mill Company, or knew details of its operations. Each informant was also old enough to have clear memories dating to between the 1920s to 1940s. The interviews engendered detailed recollections of life in the Plantation Camps. We heard descriptions of plantation field work such as the use of sleds, mules, and the arduous labor of harvesting cane. Informants also recalled the permanent and temporary railroads, patterns of land use, and distinctive features of the local landscape and vegetation. Concerning the project area (i.e., near Pu'ainako-University of Hawai'i and Komohana Street), every informant confidently stated that all the land in question was iu sugarcane. Fur exawple, Mr. Joseph Kahe'e described sugarcane under cultivation in the present areas of Pu'ainako and Komohana, by the water tank (off Pu'ainako, adjacent to project areas), and that cane was planted wherever soil could be found. He also mentioned that the location of the present Waiakea flood control channel was previously only a little gully (corroborating changes documented in the analysis of maps). Mr. Isamu OKaneshiro mentioned the whole area being planted in cane. He went on to explain that as children O O b� Archaeology -4 O three large mango trees alongside the cane -fields served as landmarks for their adventures in the cane fields. Mr. Masato Hirata, Mrs. Lenora Ka'aukai, Mr. Kahe'e, and Mr. Kaneshiro spoke in detail of the railroads that were used to haul cane to Waiakea Mill. They also mentioned the sleds used to transport cane by the field laborers to carts or rail cars. Harvesting was by hand (using a cane knife) and done by adult men and women. Mr. Hirata mentioned permanent water flumes used to transport cane in mauka areas (above Camp Seven) beyond the plantation rail system. In some areas, including the lower fields, temporary flumes were assembled, disassembled, and moved as needed. Mr. Murashige recalled temporary flumes in or near the project area in about 1943. Concerning stone mounds, our interviews confirmed the need to clear stones from areas under sugarcane cultivation. Mr. Hirata referred to stone piles and "long fences" (stone alignments in the cane fields). He described cucumber commonly planted on the stone mounds in the cane fields. The O cucumbers were usually prolific, and they were given to friends or visitors. Mr. Hirata also mentioned that while stones were added to the piles, many were already pr ant in the fields in 1931. Mr. Isamu Kaneshiro, and later Mr. Kenji Kaaekuni, described the stone mounds in the cane fields as "marush" (derived from Japanese mart for round and ishi for stone). Mr. Kanekuni mentioned that the fields had a lot of rock and they had to be cleared to cultivate the cane. Kanekuni went on to say that sometimes when a field had plenty of rocks that the foreman would tell the workers to put them on the piles. Mr. Kaneshiro suggested that early Chinese labor had fust stacked rocks from the fields when they cleared the land for cane cultivation. indeed, he mentioned that the Reids of Waiakea Mill were known fou then rock piles. Finally, Mr. HiraM who had operated heavy equipment (a "furrow -man") in the cane fields mentioned bulldozing stone mounds to discover that they were often placed directly above bedrock, or very shallow soil. Once they discovered bedrock, they did not bother bulldozing more of the mounds, as it would not yield any more soil area for sugarcane planting. 0 O O O-irchaeolo.kv _ Results of Field Survey and Testing Field Methods Field work was conducted in three phases: 1) an initial reconnaissance survey; '_) inteasive survey and historical research/documentation; and 3) subsurface testing. The results of this work are presented below. The objective of the pedestrian survey was to locate and describe all archaeological features to the Pu'ainako Street Extension project. Pedestrian inspection of each alternative alignment was conducted on several different days between May and August, 1992. The centerline for each alignment had been cleared by a field crew hired by Okahara and Associates, and flagged at 10' intervals. These cleared, flagged centerlines made convenient transects for pedestrian archaeological survey in the project areas. A team of three to rive archaeologists covered 40-60 meters in width from the centerline. OVegetation was cleared by hand as necessary to search for archaeological remains. This coverage was greater than the 120' (ca. 38 m) right of way planned for the Pu'ainako Street extension and satisfies met the requirements for a 100 -percent coverage of the Project Area. All features identified were located on project maps, flagged, described, photographed, and in then in the second phase, mapped in detail. Excavation was conducted on features representing formal variability of the features in the project area. Recording included the presence or absence of historic or prehistoric artifacts, and notes on the possible function of each site. In the lower project area makai of Komohana Street, where site density is greater, features were sketched to scale on the overall Project Area uiap (scare V = 40'). This preliminary information was cvtipiled iu a project i.iterim report. The documentation and mapping phase of the survey was conducted in May and June, 1993. All features were described and mapped as individual units. Detailed information regarding surrounding topography, vegetation, feature location, feature construction, feature form, feature condition, feature excavation potential, and the presence or absence of any artifacts or midden were recorded on Ostandardized forms. A tape and compass map was made for each feature, showing vertical facing, 0 o b Archaeologv O V1 collapse, and vertical heights of the feature. These maps also show any internal features, such as depressions or post holes, observed on the feature. Notes regarding probable age, function, and relationships to other features were recorded. Excavation was conducted in June, 1993. The five features sampled by excavation were selected to represent formal variability recognized for features in the project area (see below). Terminology and Designations Features were described by structural form. These descriptions were could be further distinguished into categories of structural class and formal class. Structural class refers to the feature's relationship to the surrounding terrain, or it structural form. These consist of terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, platforms, enclosures, and wall segments. Terraces are defined as artificial accumulations of soil or stone, constructed on slopes, which modify the slope by creating an artificial level area upslope of the feature. Mounds are defined as free standing artificially constructed accumulations of soil or stone which lack the more square-shaped in cross-section construction considered "platforms." Modified outcrops are defined as accumulations of soil or stone added to, but not completely incorporating, the natural contour of the outcrop. Modified outcrops can consist other structural forms, but include use of the natural bedrock outcrop. Platforms are defined as free standing accumulations of soil or stone constructed with vertical faces and level surfaces. These are more squared in cross-section. The designation of platform does not, in itself, imply function. Enclosures are defined as curvilinear wall segments that delineate an interior area. Wall segments are consuucz..,l, free staLdin&, Ucer : r r., ,u tc.,i enc,, -au alicns u, oil or stone which at, ivager than Ln:;.: average wide by a ratio of greater than five to one. Formal class refers to the feature's form, as in shape in plan -view. Formal classes include shape designations such as rectangular, circular, irregular, or linear. Function designations were made at a general level to avoid over -interpretation of the field evidence. Features were grouped into W Archaeology 37 sites on the basis of proximity (i.e., clusters of features), and thus by inference, functional and temporal interrelatedness. Site Descriptions All sites located in the Pu`ainako project areas are shown in Figures 10-13. Figure 10 shows the upper project area (above Komohana Street). Figures 11 and 12 show detailed sections of the upper project areas, where sites are located. Figure 13 illustrates the lower project area (between Komohana and Kawili Streets) with site/feature locations. Copies of field maps of individual features and profiles of excavation cross-sections will be deposited with the State Historic Preservation Division in Honolulu. State Site #: 50-10-35-18911 Survey Site #: 1 Number of Features: 11 Areal Extent: 180 in east -west by 25 in north -south Probable Age: Historic Probable Function: Land Clearance Site 50-10-35-18911 is located in the easternmost portion of the project area where the proposed road alignments merge (AB) and run just south of Adult Student Housing. The features are scattered over the width of the road corridor for 180 in beginning just west of where the road corridor crosses Kawili Street. Site 50-10-35-18911 is located within an intermittent drainage which has banks of varying height. In portions they consist of high (4-6 m), vertical, exposures of bedrock. Other portions are lower (2-3 m), more gently sloping banks with soil development. Vegetation is dense and consists of low ferns, stands of California grass, rubber plants, ginger, d, strawberry guava, and larger trees which provide a low canopy. All of the features of site 50-10-35.18911 appear represent the remains of historic agriculture land clearance and associated activities. The 11 features of the site consist of alignments, terraces, and 11 /9M! 2F2 D WC/PLO 1 1"- 2000 C m �p O CA CD y n Archaeology 42 mounds constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The site is located in Lot 17 of the Waiakea Mill Company land maps, within an area designated as under cane cultivation in 1925 (see Figure 7). The features are constructed on the margins of the drainage, and/or on areas of exposed bedrock (i.e., most often where little or no soil exists). Several features are terrace alignments which are constructed along the edge of the drainage. The only artifacts observed in association with these features are wooden rail -road cross -ties (sometimes complete with spikes) that were noted on, or close to, several of the features. These ties were re -used as fence posts when the rail lines were abandoned (the ties have lengths of rusted barbed wire attached to them—as well as the original spikes in some cases). This evidence seems to mark the use of the area for pasture following the abandonment of sugarcane in the late 1940s. The stone constructed features appear to be associated with earlier railroad activities. There are accounts of using temporary track during the harvest of cane, and these features may have served as the foundations for loading docks or as railway beds. The use of temporary track is proposed because historic maps do not record a section of rail in this area. The features are poorly preserved due to periodic flooding of the drainage, the damage caused by the thriving vegetation, and the bulldozer activity of the housing construction of the past 20-30 years. Although some of the features exhibit well constructed vertical facing, generally the features appear mounded and somewhat collapsed. The features are littered with modern rubbish and miscellaneous refuse from small scale marijuana cultivation. Site 50-10-35-18911 is significant for its information content and is recommended for further data recovery. Continued research, including excavation of the features, and informant interviews from knowledgeable local residents, might prove useful in further interpretation. Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature A Feature A comprises two contiguous terraces located on the south side of the drainage approximately seven meters from the edge of Kawili Street. The terraces are constructed on the steep a O O O Archaeology " drainage slope, one above the other. The upper terrace runs along the upper edge of the drainage and was constructed to incorporate the natural bedrock outcrop along that edge. The lower terrace extends down slope from the upper terrace and encloses a steep, soil covered portion of the drainage bank. The feature measures :3.0 m northeast -southwest by 115 m northwest -southeast. Construction consists of piled boulders and cobbles. There is some remnant facing on the northwest side of the lower terrace, but overall the terraces have a mounded and tumbled appearance. The terrace walls vary from 1.5 to 3.5 m thick. The upper terrace has a maximum height of 1.7 in, while the lower terrace has a maximum height of 1.1 m. The feature is in fair to poor condition. No artifacts or midden were observed. Fxcavation potential is poor. Site 541435-18914 Feature B Feature B is a linear mound located 18.0 m north-northwest from feature A, on the opposite side of the drainage. The mound measures 13.4 m east -west by 3.4 m north -south and is constructed.of Opiled boulders and cobbles. It shows no vertical facing. This linear mound is constructed at the base of the north slope of the drainage below a bedrock outcrop. Feature B has a maximum vertical height of 1.4 m. It is in poor condition. No artifacts or midden were observed and excavation potential is poor. Site 541435-18911, Feature C Located 12.0 m west of feature B along the upper edge of the drainage, feature C consists of an area of exposed bedrock that has been modified by stacked boulders and cobbles. The feature measures 14.4 m northeast -southwest by a maximum 29 m northwest -southeast. The built-up areas of the outcrop form a well constructed vertical face that forms a sballow, terrace levet with upper edge or the drainage. The vertical face is 1.1 m high and is most evident on the west end of the feature. The feature is in fair to poor condition. No artifacts or midden were observed and excavation potential is poor. Site 541435-18911, Feature D Feature D is a roughly rectangular mound constructed of stacked and piled boulders and Ocobbles. It is located 9.0 m south of feature B, on the relatively level drainage bottom. Feature D O O b Archaeology a] measures 140 m northeast -southwest by 5.0 m northwest -southeast and has a maximum vertical heieh[ ,t 1.6 m. The feature is mounded in appearance and lacks vertical facing. No midden or artifacts wcre observed in association with the feature. The overall condiuon of the feature u poor, as is the excavation potential. Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature E Feature E is an irregular shaped mound located 30.0 m west of feature A on the relatively Oat bottom of the drainage. The feature measures 95 m north -south by 8.0 m east -west and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. Vertical facing is evident on the east and west sides of the mound. This vertical facing ranges from 1.2 to 0.95 m high. Tree growth has collapsed portions of the feature giving it a tumbled appearance. No artifacts or midden were observed and the feature's excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature F Located 15.0 m northwest of feature E, feature F consists of a linear terrace constructed of O stacked and piled boulders and cobblers. Because of its position at the base of the drainage's north slope, the terrace functions as a retaining wall which maintains a small level area up-slope. The terrace measures 22.0 m east -west by a maximum 4.5 m north -south, however, the average width of the terrace is 2.0 m. The southern (downslope) edge of the terrace is partially tumbled, but vertical facing is still evident. This facing measures 1.2 m high. A badly decomposed railroad cross -tie was observed just east of the terrace. Like many of the other ac;sem tics obscnved 'u, the this ,,,;t of the project area, this cross -tic v.;s probably bto.tgbt to the locality when it was re -used as a fence post. A crude depression was observed in the eastern end of the terrace. This depression in the boulder and cobble construction measured 03 m in diameter and 0.2 m deep. It is unclear whether this depression represents a intentionally constructed feature, such as a post hole, or whether it is a natural tree mold. M { O O O.-trchaeoiogv No other artifacts and no midden were observed in association with the feature. The o%erall condition of the feature is fair to poor. Excavation potential is poor. Site SP -10-35-18911, Featu.• G 45 Feature G is located directly north (9.0 m upslope) of feature F at the top of the drainage slope. This roughly rectangular mound measures 10.4 m northeast -southwest by 7.4 m northwest -southeast and has a maximum vertical height of 1.2 m. The feature is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles and has no vertical faces. The feature is in fair to poor condition. No artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is low. Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature H Located 25.0 m west of feature F, feature H is a terrace similar to feature F. It is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles and its position at the base of the drainage slope creates a small level area up-slope of the feature. The feature measures 14.0 m east -west by a maximum of 3.7 m Onorth -south. Vertical facing was observed on both the north (upslope) and south (downslope) edges of the terrace. This facing measured 03 m on the upslope edge and 0.60 m on the downslope edge. The overall maximum vertical height of the feature is 1.4 m. The downslope portion of the feature is partially collapsed. Two railroad cross -ties were observed just south of the feature. Approximately 5.0 m north (upslope) of the feature is a large area of bulldozer push—most likely from the construction of the Adult Student Housing complex. This push extends along the top of the drainage's north slope for approximately 8.0 m. The overall condition of the feature is fair to poor and excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18911, Feature 1 Feature I is a roughly L-shaped terrace constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. Feature I is located at the base of the drainage's north slope, 25.0 m west of feature H. The L -shape is Oopen to the north (upslope) and retains a level area of the drainage slope. The terrace measures 18.0 m .-tirnaeoiogv -0 in length and averages 2.0 m in width. The terrace, measured from the southern (downslope) side, has a maximum vertical height of 1.5 m. Vertical facing was observed on the southwestern edge of the feature Four railroad cross -ties were observed just to the south of the feature. These ties still ha%c spikes in them, but also have rusted fragments of barbed wire --suggesting their secondary use as fence posts. The feature is, in part, collapsed and is in fair to poor condition. Excavation potential is poor. Site Sa10-35-18911, Feature ! Located 27.0 m west of Feature I along the base of the north slope of the drainage, Feature J consist of an irr^•-alar shaped mound. It is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles and is very tumbled in appearance due to the destructive forces of vee growth. The mound measures 4.6 m east - west by 43 m north -south and has a ;maximum vertical height of 1.4 m. A small portion of vertical facing was observed on the west side of the mound, measuring 1.1 m high. No artifacts or midden were observed in association with feature J. Feature condition and excavation potential are poor. O Site 50.10-35-18911, Feature K Feature K consists of an irregular shaped mound located 12.0 m south of Feature J in the relatively level area of the drainage bottom. The feature is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles. No vertical facing was observed, rather the feature has a mounded appearance. Feature K measures 13.7 m east -west by 7.2 m north -south and has a maximum vertical height of 1.05 m. Except for modern garbage, no artifacts or midden were observed. The condition and excavation potential of Feature K is poor. State Site #: ;0.10.35-184L Survey Site #: 2 # of Features: 1 Areal Extent: 20 m north -south by 20 m east -west Probable Age: Historic Probable Function: Land clearance/Foundation O LV 0 0 O.-trchaeologv 3' The single feature of site 50-10-35-15911 consists of an irreguiax shaped mound constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. Like site 50-10-35-18911, site 50-10-35-18912 represents historic agncultural field clearing. The site is located approximately 110.0 m west of site 50-10-35-18911 in the same drainage feature. In the locality of site 50-10.35-18912 the drainage has become wider and less pronounced, with poorly defined banks. Site 50-10.35-18912 is located in the relatively flat bottom of the drainage. The surrounding vegetation is dense, consisting of California grass, low ferns, strawberry guava, and medium sized trees, which form a low canopy. The mound is roughly triangular in shape and extends southwest off a low bedrock outcrop that has been modified by bulldozer activity. Site 50-10.35-18912 measures 16.0 m northeast -southwest by 14.0 northwest -southeast and has a maximum vertical height of 15 m. The dense vegetation and numerous trees growing on the mound have contributed to the mound's tumbled condition. Remnant vertical faring was observed on the west and north sides of the mound. A channel -like feature is constructed across the surface of site 50-10-35-18912. The channel curves from the west side of the feature to the north side, where the feature abuts the bedrock outcrop. The channel averages a depth of 0.4 to 05 m (below the mound surface) and a width of 15 m. The northwest side of the channel is well faced with stacked boulders and cobbles, however, as with much of the site, the vegetation growth has greatly disturbed the rest of this channel feature. No artifacts or midden were observed. The overall condition and the excavation potential for site 50-10-35-18912 are Sito 50-10-35.18912 is -.igni6eant for it[ i.fcarnation content on plantation agrieulttve in the region and is recommended for further data recovery (test excavation). LO] Archaeolo*, State Site #: Survey Site #: # of Features: Areal Extent Probable Age: Probable Function: 50-10-35-13913 3 1 115 to northeast -southwest by 4.0 m northwest -southeast Historic Land clearance Site 50-10-35.18913 is another single feature site consisting of a linear mound constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The site is located approximately 200.0 to northwest of site 50- 10-35-18912, or, about 50.0 to southeast of site 50.10-35-18914. The centerline of Road Alignment A runs through site 50-10-35-18913. Site. 50-10-35-18913 represents a clearing mound from historic agricultural activities. 10 The mound is constructed on the edge of a shallow incline which slopes down to the east below O the feature. The surrounding topography is undulating, sloping gradually to the east. The surrounding vegetation consists of strawberry guava. low grasses and ferns, n, and various taller trees that from a medium canopy. The vegetation makes the area around the site fairly open. A modern foot path runs Past the southwest end of the site. Site 50-10-35-18913 measures 115 to northeast -southwest by 4.0 m northwest -southeast and has a maximum vertical height of 1.6 m. The mound is in poor condition and has been partially collapsed by the roots of a large tree which grows out of the mound's northeast end. Although tumbled in 31;10earaace, veruu:al facing •.yes observcd oa tht southeast side of tue mound. No artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18913 is significant for its information content on historic agriculture in the region. Adequate data have been collected on this site, and no further work is recommended. O N n 0 .4rchaeologv State Site #: Survey Site #: # of Features: Areal Extent: Probable Age: Probable Function: 0 50-10-35-19814 4 8 91.0 m northwest -southeast by 41.0 to northeast -southwest Historic Land clearance/Foundation The features of Site 50-10-35-19814 are scattered over the width of Road Alignment A, approximately 50.0 m northwest of site 50-10-35-19813. Feature G of site 50-10-35-19814, the westernmost of the features, is located 20.0 m northeast of the northeast corner of the Pu`ainako Reservoir property. The eight features of the site consist of terraces, mounds, platforms, and modified outcrops. All features are constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The surrounding topography is slightly undulating, sloping gently to the east. Although not located within an obvious drainage like sites 50-10-35-18911 and 50-10-35-18912, during heavy rain water collects and probably flows through site 50-10.35-18914. A small pool of standing water was noted during the survey southwest of feature A. Vegetation consists of low ferns, thimble berry, strawberry guava, weeds, and taller trees that form a medium canopy. The southeastern portion of the site is predominantly tall califoraia grass. Many of the features have d plants growing on or near them. Site 50-10.35-18914 is located in Lot 18 of the Waiakea Mill land maps, in an area that was under sugarcane cultivation in 1925 (see Figure 7). Historical research indicates that this activity would iacluds Gearing motmds, fore slatic•as for orate. tanks and loadira platforms, and features assc>:iated with the railroad lines. All of the features of site 50-10-35-18914 reflect this historic agricultural activity. The site is significant for its information content and is recommended for some further data recovery. Site 50-10.35-18914, Feattwe A Feature A is located approximately 50.0 northwest of site 50-10-35-18913. This feature is a orectangular mound measuring 7.2 m northwest -southeast by 4-5 m northeast -southwest with a maximum Archaeoiogv vertical height of 1.2 m. The feature is constructed with near right angle corners and vertical faces on A sides --except for the southwest cover, which is partially collapsed. The top surface of the platform is even and fairly level --sloping slightly to the northwest. The surrounding vegetation is mostly tall grass and strawberry guava. A pool of standing water was observed just southwest of the feature. Five depressions were observed on the top surface of the platform. These depressions averaged 0.2 m in diameter and appeared to have part of the original surface of the platform. These depressions may represent post holes, perhaps once supporting a water tank. No artifacts or midden were observed in association with Feature A. The feature is in good condition and excavation potential is fair. Site 50-10-35-18914, Feature B Located 8.0 m northwest of Feature A, Feature B consists of a roughly rectangular platform with a well-constructe-d earthen ramp -like feature that bisects the platform. The feature is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The sides of the platform are vertical faces except in the O northwest corner and along the northeast side, where the feature is somewhat collapsed. The feature measures 7.5 m northwest -southeast by 8.0 m northeast -southwest and has a maximum vertical height of 2.1 m. The feature is constructed on a natural bedrock outcrop. This bedrock is exposed and forms a rise in the platform surface on the northeast half of the platform. The ramp -like feature is a consistent 15-1.7 m wide and has a soil floor that forms a uniform slope down from the renter of the platform in either direction. The sides of the ramp are well faced, Like a curbing. Interestingly, Feature F (located 19.0 m to the northwest) is very similar with a sr conespanding ramp like feature. Hotii"pYa dorm arb cowtruued on bedrock outcrops that are slighuy elevated from the surrounding land surface. The two ramp -like features align perfectly, facing each across an area of lower ground. It is postulated these features were some kind of loading ramps. No artifacts or midden were observed in association with Feature B. The feature is in good condition and excavation potential is fair. • U to O 0 OArchaeology ;1 Site =0.10-35-16914, Feature C Feature C is located 10.0 m southwest of Feature A and consuls of an irregular shaped mound. Feature C measures 4.3 m north -south by 5S m east -west and has a maximum vertical height of 1.5 m. The feature adjoins an area of exposed bedrock to the south. The interior of the mound forms a rouzb depression. Feature C has no vertical facing. No artifacts or midden were observed. The feature is m poor condition and the excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18914, Feature D Feature D is an irregular shaped mound located 12 0 at northwest of feature C at the upper edge of a short slope. The feature measures 65 m north -south by 3.8 m east -west with a maximum vertical height of 1.0 m on the west (upslope) side and 2.4 m on the east (downslope) side. Feature D is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles (Figures 14-15). Vertical facing exists on the feature's east and west sides. The surface of the feature is fairly even and feveL Tree growth and Oerosion along the adjacent slope have collapsed portions of the feature. No artifacts or midden were observed. The overall condition of the feature is fair. Excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18914, Feature E Feature E is located 18.0 m north of feature D and consists of a linear terrace constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature is constructed along the edge of a shallow incline which slopes to the southeast. The terrace forms a roughly level area. The boulder and cobble surface of the terrace is roughly even with the level of the ground surface at the top of the slope. The feature measurc-i AO5 to nortitast-uiuthwest b 45 no uortha,Tst-.vauGhe®,t and ha. a maxrzrem vrrtical height of 1.05 m. The terrace is well faced on the northeast and southeast sides. The southern portion of the terrace has tumbled. No artifacts or midden were observed. The overall condition and excavation potential of the feature are poor. M .: AT AL i 1 r •f.t �t I y w• � i a p 1 � 1� '� � rlb!•, -1.- ' .. .:. r AN 1 •ter . � - ' r> � � , j. -: •` - ,� -. .,z_L�z tea- -'�-' rli Site 50-1435-19814, Feanim G Feature G is located 15.0 in west-northwest of Feature D and consists of an irregularly shaped modified outcrop. The outcrop is a large area of slightly upraised bedrock which has been modified by the stacking and piling of boulders and cobbles around its perimeter. The outcrop measures 24.6 m north -south by N.R in east -west with a smaller constructr-d section that comes off the southwest i ortie,= of the outcrop. This smaller, southwest portion measures 10.2 m northeast -southwest by 9.3 m northwest -southeast. Most of the modification consists of the haphazard piling and heaping of boulders and cobbles, however, some portions of the south and southeast perimeter are roughly faced with stacked boulders. The surface of the outcrop consists of soil areas among undulating bedrock. The N O O Afchaeolog- _ Site 50-10-35-IS914, Feature F Already menuoned in the feature description of Feature B, Feature F consists of a roughly rectangular platform with a ramp -like feature which bisects the platform. Feature F is located 19.0 m northwest of feature B across a shallow depression. The feature measures 9.4 in northwest -southeast by 7.0 in northeast -southwest with a maximum vertical height of 1.15 in. Like Feature B, Feature F is constructed on a bedrock outcrop which is slightly elevated from the surrounding land surface. Also like Feature B, Feature F is well constructed with vertical faces on all sides. The central portion of the platform surface is soil and exposed bedrock. The platform surface is built up to the level of this soil and bedrock core --forming a level surface. The ramp -like feature is a consistent 13-15 in wide and the sides of the ramp are well faced. The ramp slopes downward evenly in either direction from the elevated surface at the center of the platform. The ramp -like features of features B and F align with each other. These features may have Cserved as loading platforms. No artifacts or midden were observed. Feature F is in fair condition and excavation potential is fair. Site 50-1435-19814, Feanim G Feature G is located 15.0 in west-northwest of Feature D and consists of an irregularly shaped modified outcrop. The outcrop is a large area of slightly upraised bedrock which has been modified by the stacking and piling of boulders and cobbles around its perimeter. The outcrop measures 24.6 m north -south by N.R in east -west with a smaller constructr-d section that comes off the southwest i ortie,= of the outcrop. This smaller, southwest portion measures 10.2 m northeast -southwest by 9.3 m northwest -southeast. Most of the modification consists of the haphazard piling and heaping of boulders and cobbles, however, some portions of the south and southeast perimeter are roughly faced with stacked boulders. The surface of the outcrop consists of soil areas among undulating bedrock. The N Archaeoloiy -o surface has been modified with threc rough linear aLgnments and a low mound of piled boulders and cobbles. The smaller, southwest portion of the outcrop shows evidence of bulldozer activity. The bulldozing likely occurred in conjunction with the construction of the adjacent Pu`ainako Reservoir (18.0 in to the southwest). No artifacts or midden were observed. This feature is in poor condition. Excavation potential is Site 50-10-35-18914, Feature H Feature H is exposed bedrock that has been modified by the construction of a curvilinear alignment of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The alignment forms a rough C -shape, open to the southwest. Feature H is located 3.0 in north of feature G. Like Feature G, there appears to have been bulldozer activity around Feature H. Feature H measures 103 in northwest -southeast by 6.0 in northeast -southwest. The linear alignment has an average width of 2.1 in and has a maximum vertical height of 1.15 in. A small portion of the north side of the feature has vertical facing. No artifacts or midden were observed. This feature is in poor condition. Excavation potential is poor. State Site #: Survey Site #: # of Features: Probable Age: Probable Function: 50-10-35.18915 5 9 70.1) rn e2ai-Y.+eSi by 50 in north=south Historic Land clearance/Foundations The nine features of site 50-10-35-18915 are located directly north and northwest of the Pu`ainako Reservoir in Road Aligttment A. Feature A is located 30.0 in northwest of the northeastern u C* O O OArchaeology corner of the reservoir property. The features of site 50-10-35-19SL consist of an enclosure, a railroad bed, mounds, and platforms. The topography is fairly level, sloping shghdy to the east. This area of the project area appears to be a flood plain for the drainage that runs parallel to and just north of Road Alignment A in this area. The surface in this area shows dear signs of regular flooding, indicating that this drainage overflows its banks on a regular basis. The water has scoured away the shallow soil in numerous places, exposing the underlying pahoehoe bedrock. The vegetation consists predominantly of low ferns and strawberry guava. There is also a, ginger, banyan, rubber and'ohi'a trees. The vegetation, especially the strawberry guava, could be very dense, however, it has been kept in check by use of the hiking trail and visitors that dear vegetation. Site 50-10-35-18915 is located in lot 18 of the Waiakea Mill cultivation map, in an area designated as being under sugarcane cultivation in 1925. Plotted on these maps are the permanent railroad lines, one of Cjwhich runs through the area of Site 50-10-35-18915 (rail bed with a cross -tie in situ). This site consists of features that are remnants of both the historical agricultural activity as well as the related railroad operation These features include land clearance mounds, foundations for loading structures and possibly water tanks, and the railroad bed. Site 50-10.35-18915 is significant for its information content regarding this historical agricultural activity and is recommended for further data recovery. A 1.5 meter square test unit was excavated in feature H. The results of this excavation are discussed in the feature H description (below). Site 50.70.35-I.391.� Fewum 4 Feature A is located 30.0 m northwest of the northeastern corner of the Reservoir property. This feature consists of a crude mound -like enclosure which is roughly oval in shape and opens to the west. The enclosure opening is 1.5 m wide. The enclosure is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles and measures 124 m northeast -southwest by 92 m northwest -southeast. The enclosure wall Ovaries in thickness from 1.1 to 3.1 m. The wall ranges between 0.8 and 12 m in height. The interior of O O • Arrhaeoiogy O the enclosure measures 75 in northeast -southwest by 4 0 m northwest -southwest and is a jumble of loose boulders and cobbles. The northeast portion of the enclosure has vertical facing. The feature appears to be partially collapsed and in poor conchtion. However, the original construction was not well made No artifacts or midden were observed. Excavation potential is fair. This feature directly abuts the permanent railroad bed (Feature B). Given this feature's Proximity to the railroad bed, it is likely that feature A was associated with railroad use. Possibly it served as the foundation for a wooden structure loading platform or a water tank. Site 5410.35-18915, Featwe B Feature B is located directly south-southeast of Feature A and consists of a remnant of the railroad bed which passed through this part of the project area. The bed consists of a terrace -Blue linear mound, constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles, built along the edge of a shallow erosional depression. The bed is 4.0 m wide. The intact section of the bed is 8.0 m (northeast- O southwest) long. At either end the bed appears to have been washed out by intermittent stream flow caused by the periodic flooding of the area. Two cross -ties were found on the bed surface (one in situ) with spikes still in place. The distance between the spikes is three feet, indicating the rail was three-foot (narrow) gauge. A large, formed, piece of concrete, measuring OS m by 03 m by 0.2 in, was observed on the bed surface. This piece of concrete looked like some sort of piling. No other artifacts or midden were observed. The feature is in fair condition and excavation potential is fair. Vey similar rcautaw seciions of the s"At tailroau-bcd (according to historic maps) were observed just north of the project area and west of the Adult Student Housing complex The form was the same, consisting of a terrace -like mound along the edge of a depression. These sections outside the project area also had in situ cross -des with spikes still in place. One section also had a length of in situ rusted railroad track. It is clear that the information from the historic maps can be correlated with the • U O O O OArcnaeoiogv physical remains still extent on the landscape. In this case we have the remains of the cane railroad that traversed Lots 17 and 18 (see Figures -1-7). Site 30-10-35-185915. Feature C Feature C is located 155 m north of feature A and consists of a roughly rectangular platform constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. Like features B and F of site 50-10-35-18914, the Feature C platform is built around an area of natural outcrop and has a ramp -like feature bisecting it. The feature measures 5.7 m northeast -southwest by 73 m northwest -southeast and has a maximum vertical height of 1.8 m. The northwest and southeast sides of the platform have vertical facing measuring 0.6 m high. The surface of the platform is rough and not level. Like the rest of the platform, the ramp -like portion is in a poor state of preservation. It averages 1.2 m wide, but its sides appear collapsed. The surface of the ramp is soil and it slopes down from the level of the platform surface. Like features B and F of site 50-10-35-18914, the ramp -like Cfeature of platform C could have facilitated loading from the surface of the platform. Feature C is located on the edge of the intermittent drainage which periodically floods this part of the project area. The poor condition of feature C is likely a function of its location adjacent to this drainage which frequently floods. No artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential for the feature is poor. Site 50.10-35-18915, Feature D Feature D consists of a low, roughly rectangular mound of stacked boulders and cobbles. It is loe-tec! 7.0 m northe. st of feature. C, -approximately 7.0 rn east of the drainaUr. ^dge. The feature measures 2-2 m northeast -southwest by 15 m northwest -southeast and has a maximum vertical height of 0.9 m. The mound is well constructed with remnant vertical facing. A length of fencing wire was found running completely under this feature. No other artifacts or midden were observed The feature is in fair condition. Excavation potential is poor. l— O O d Arrhaeologv _ O Site 50-10-35-18915, Feature E Feature E is located 4.5 in northeast of Feature D and 45 to east of the drainage edge. Feature E consists of a rectangular platform constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. It measures 55 m northwest -southeast by 75 in northeast -southwest and has a maximum vertical height of 1.1 m. The sides of the mound are well faced on the northwest and southwest sides, averaging 1.0 m high. The other sides have partially collapsed. The surface of the platform slopes to the southeast and forms a shallow depression located in the platform's center. Three smaller depressions averaging 020 m in diameter were observed on the surface of the platform. These depressions are possible post holes, although they could be the result of tree growth. A single artifact was observed in association with feature E. A piece of strapping iron measuring 30 cm long by 3.5 cm wide; was found providing from under a rock (i.e., embedded) on the southwest side of the platform. The piece of von had an 'iron bolt passing through one end. The O artifact was not collected. The condition of this feature is fair. Excavation potential is fair (i.e., other metal artifacts may be recovered with disassembling of the mound). Site 50-10-35-18915, Feature F Feature F is located 13.0 m northwest of feature A and consists of a rectangular platform that has been badly disturbed on its northwest side by Flood water and a large tree -fall. The feature measures 62 m northwest -southeast by 7.0 m northeast -southwest and has a maximum vertical height of 1.4 m. Although the feature is highly disturbed, there are still remnants of verticil fat9ng on the southwest and southeast sides of the platform. The surface of the platform consists of jumbled boulders and cobbles. No artifacts or midden were observed in association with the feature. The overall condition and excavation potential of the feature are poor. r 1 5 O O OArehaeol0gv Site 50-10-35-18915. Feature G Located 15.0 m north-northwest of Feature F, Feature G consists of a roughly rectangular mound constructed of piled boulders and cobbles. The feature is located directly southwest of the relatively recently formed drainage (associated with constructed flood control channels upslope). Across the drainage, outside the project area, is a similar mound that has been marked "Cultural Surveys Hawaii #2 'B'--12/15/92'. Feature G measures 4.2 m northwest -southeast by 3.1 m northeast -southwest and has a maximum vertical height of 1.75 m. No vertical facing is evident. No artifacts or midden were observed. The feature is in poor condition. The excavation potential is also poor. Site 50-10.35-18915, Feature H Feature H is a roughly oval-shaped platform constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. It is located 25.0 to west of feature F. It measures 75 m north -south by 6.1 m east -west and has a maximum vertical height of 13 m. Nearly the entire perimeter of the feature has vertical facing Omeasuring between 1.1 and 13 m high. The platform surface is rough and uneven and forms a roughly circular depression measuring 2.8 m in diameter. This depression has a maximum depth of 035 m below the surrounding platform surface. No artifacts or midden were observed prior to the excavation of the feature. The feature is in fair condition and the excavation potential poor. resting Results of Feature H Excavation in Feature H was undertaken to test for the presence of cultural materials (content) that would inform on its age, form of construction, and function. Feature H was selected for excavation brca.ue its sine, method of construction, and state of Fres-.�<.teou :re similar to many of the platforms recorded in the project area. Thus providing, by inference at this stage, an understanding of other (non - excavated) features of comparable form. A 15 meter -square unit was excavated in the anter of Feature H, encompassing approximately two-thirds of the depressed area. The excavation reached a maximum depth of 150 m below the M .4rchaeolog: platform surface, terminating in a stratum of weathered (basal) bedrock. Four distinct strata were encountered in the excavation. .o Stratum I is made up of the boulders and cobbles of the platform construction U. This stratum is 1.0 m thick. No internal structure was observed in the platform fill. Indeed, the stones were jumbled together in an unstable manner. Only in profile did a slight size -sorting of the fill material become apparent. The lower 65 cm of the stratum consisted of slightly smaller boulders and cobbles than the upper 35 cm. The distinction is faint and may not have been intentional in the mounds construction, which perhaps occurred only by accretion. Stratum I contained large quantities of fresh organic material, including leaves, roots, and twigs. No artifacts or midden were observed in this layer. Because of the unstable nature of the platform fill, the trench walls had to be slightly sloping for stability. Consequently, the dimensions of the unit were reduced from 1.5 to 1.0 meter square during the excavation of this fust stratum. Stratum Ila consists of a silty clay loam (Munsell 10YR 2/2, very dark brown), organically enriched, friable, and containing numerous small boulder and cobble inclusions. This sediment largely comprised of the material that has filtered down through the platform since its construction. It has incorporated the lowest levels of the platform fill as it accumulated over time. Stratum IIa begins at approximately 100 cm below the platform surface and is 12 rm thick. No midden or artifacts were observed in this layer. Stratum Ilb is similar to IIa, consisting of a slightly lighter, more compact, very cobbly silty clay loam (Mussell lOYR 3/3, dark brown). This layer contained a much smaller amount of organic material, consisting primarily of small rootlets. The cobble inclusions in this layer were smaller and less numerous than in Stratum Ha above. Stratum Ilb begins at approximately 112 cm below platform surface and is 18 cm thick. This layer represents the pre -platform A -B soil horizons. At 120-125 cm C below platform surface, three pieces of non-diagnostic debitage of volcanic glass were recovered. Based on stratigraphy, the volcanic glass fragments were deposited before the construction of the platform. O 9 10 O O O.-irchaeologv �� I Stratum III was encountered at approximately IM cm below platform surface. Stratum Ili consists of a cobbly silty clay loam (Munsell 10YR 4/3, brown). This sediment is the C sod horizon. No organic material, artifacts, or midden were observed in this stratum. Excavation continued to a depth of L50 an below the platform surface where we reached culturally sterile (and undisturbed) decomposing bedrock. The three volcanic glass pieces (non-diagnostic debitage) found in stratum IIb may provide evidence for pre -contact, Hawaiian activity in the area. However, with such a small sample of artifacts it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions. The three Oakes are the only prehistoric artifacts that were found in the project area. Site 50-10-35-19815, Feature I Feature I consists of an irregular shaped mound that is located 10.0 in northwest of Feature H. The mound measures 7.0 in northeast -southwest by 3.8 in northwest -southeast and has a maximum vertical height of 1.6 m. The mound is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The west side of the feature has remnant vertical facing, although this side of the feature also appears to have been disturbed --many of the stones have tumbled and sections of facing have collapsed. The feature is in fair to poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. Excavation potential is poor. State Site #: 50-10-35-18916 Survey Site #: 6 # of Features: 2 Areal Extent 55.0 in northwest -southeast by 220 in northeast -southwest Probable Age: Historic Probable Function: Land clearance/Foundation \0J .4rchaeo1ogv 'Q Testing Results of Feature A Excavation in Feature A was undertaken to test for the presence (and kind) of cultural matenal- to assess the feature's age, form of construction, and function. Feature A was selected for excavation because its size, method of construction, and state of preservation are similar to many of the platforms recorded in the project area—thus representing a preliminary sample of one formal class of features. Feature A is particularly comparable to feature A of site 50.10-35-18914. Where feature H of site 50-10- 35-18915 was selected for excavation to represent the square to oval-shaped platforms, feature A was selected to represent the elongate, rectangular forms. A 1.0 by 1S m test trench was excavated in the southeastern comer of the platform. The excavation reached a maximum depth of 1.05 m below the platform surface, terminating in a stratum of undisturbed weathered bedrock. Three distinct strata were encountered in the excavation. Stratum I is made up of the boulders and cobbles of the platform construction fill. This stratutro is 75 rm thick. No internal structure was observed in the platform fill. Indeed the boulders formed a jumble that held together only in an unstable fashion. Stratum I contained large quantities of organic material, including fresh leaves, roots, and twigs. No artifacts or midden were observed in this layer. Stratum Il consists of an organically rich, very cobbly silty clay loam (Munsell 10YR 3/3, dark brown). This sediment has filtered down through the platform since its construction. It has surrounded the lowest levels of the platform fill as it accumulated over time. Stratum II begins at approximately 75 cm below the platform surface and is 8 cm thick. No midden or artifacts were observed in this layer. Stratum III was encountered ar approximately 82 cm below platform surface. Stratum III consists of a cobbly silty clay loam (Munsell 10YR 4/3, brown). This sediment is the natural C horizon. No organic material, artifacts, or midden were observed in this stratum. Excavation continued to a depth of 105 an below the platform surface to ensure the excavation had reached culturally sterile (and undisturbed), decomposing bedrock. In sum, no artifacts or midden were observed in association with the platform. O 0 o 0 CArchaeology 0 Site 50-10-35-18916 is located on Road Alignment B, 12.0 m west of the southwest corner of the Pu'ainako Reservoir property. Feature A is a rectangular platform (Figures 16-1.7). Feature B is a substantial terrace -like wall segment that partially encloses feature A and extends to the northwest. Site 50-10-35-18916 is built along an incline which slopes to the northwest, north, and northeast forming a natural half -bowl. Feature A is built at the base of this slope, within the half -bowl, and feature B snakes along the incline's top edge. The vegetation consists almost exclusively of strawberry guava, which forms a low canopy. There is little undergrowth, only a few low bushes, ferns, and ti plants. One breadfruit tree was observed. Site 50-10-35-18916 is located in Lot 18 of the Waiakea Mill cultivation map in an area designated as completely in sugarcane cultivation in 1925. Like the other stone constructions in the oproject area, this site reflects the historic agricultural activities. This site is significant for its information content and is recommended for additional data recovery. A 1.0 by 15 m test unit was excavated in Feature A. The results of the excavation are reported following the feature description. Site SO -10-35-18916, Feature A Feature A is located 12.0 m west of the Southwest comer of the Pu'ainako Reservoir Property. The feature consists of a rectangular platform constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. It measures 8.8 to northwest -southeast by 5.0 m northeast -southwest and has a maximum vertical height of 1.4 m. The north corner of the feature is collapsed. The other sides of the feature lave well constructed vertical faces. The platform surface is rough, but relatively level. No artifacts or midden were observed in association with the platform. The platform is well constructed with near right-angle comers and well made vertical faces—it is in good condition. Excavation potential is fair to poor. M tr,.� 40 M Lel M 0 Archaeology Site=0-10-35-1S916, Feature B 0 Feature B partially encloses Feature A. Feature B is a retaining wall segment that is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The overall plan -view resembles a quesuon mark. It is built along the top edge of an incline and measures 42.0 m long. The wall width ranges from 4.4 m to 1.4 m and averages 2.4 m. The wall is faced in few places, but crudely piled in most sections. The overall construction is of loosely piled boulders. The northwest portion of the wall segment hooks back on itself, forming a three -sided enclosure that opens to the southeast. The interior of this enclosure measures 3.0 m north -south by 5.0 m east. west. At the northwestern tip of the wall segment there is a shallow depression measuring 2.0 to in diameter. No artifacts or midden were observed in association with the feature. The feature is in fair to poor condition and the excavation potential is poor. State Site #: ' 50-10-35.18917 Survey Site #: 7 # of Features: 3 Areal Extent: 27.0 to north -south by 15.0 m east -west Probable Age: Historic Probable Function: Land clearance Sita. ?0-](? 35.1801' i=_ locrlPt1 in Road Aligmtnent A approximately 45.0 m west of Frrttr,: site 50.10-35-18915. The three features of the site are two mounds and a linear alignment, all constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The surrounding landscape is relatively flat. The site is located in what is likely the floodplain of the drainage which runs to the north of the site. The surrounding soil appears to have been eroded by O O a Archaeology chaeology O 1 periodic flooding, and there are patches of freshly exposed bedrock. The vegetation consists of abundant strawberry guava, some grasses and ferns, and a few 6 plants. Site 50-10-35-18917 is located in Lot 18 of the Waiakea Mill cultivation map m an area marked as completely under sugarcane cultivation in 1925. The features of Site 50.10-35-18917 reflect historic agricultural activity. Although modest in size and in poor condition these features are significant for their information content. The features of site 50-10-35-18917 are recommended for additional data recovery. Site 50-10-35.18917, Feature A Feature A consists of a roughly constructed linear alignment of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature measures 6.6 m north -south by 1.9 m east -west and has a maximum vertical height of 0.7 m. No vertical facing was observed. The feature is in poor condition. No midden or artifacts were observed. Excavation potential is poor. O Site SO -10-35-18917, Feature B Feature B is located 9.0 m west of Feature A and consists of a small, roughly rectangular, mound'of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The mound measures 3.0 m northeast -southwest by 3.2 m northwest -southeast and has a maximum vertical height of 0.85 m. The feature has remnant facing on the northeast and southeast corners. No artifacts or midden were observed. Excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18917, Feature C Feature C consists of a roughly tectar, War motmu consuucied of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. It is located 15.0 m south-southeast of Feature B. The mound measures 5-5 m northwest - southeast by 3.9 m northeast -southwest and has a maximum vertical height of 1.25 m. Feature C is crudely constructed, only the south side of the mound has vertical facing. The mound surface slopes to the north. No midden or artifacts were observed. The excavation potential is poor. O ill M C 101 0 -lrchaeoloi� State Site #: Survey Site #: # of Features: Areal Extent Probable Age: Probable Function: 0 50-10-35-18918 8 4 30.0 m northeast -southwest by 20.0 to northwest -southeast Historic Land Clearance 'lb Site 50-10.35-18918 is located on Road Alignment A mauka of Komohana street between datum stakes 240 + 00 and 238 + 00. The four modest features of the site consist of three modified outcrops and an oval-shaped stone mound. The surrounding topography is undulating with many shallow depressions and low rises. This rough topography is the Kulaloa pahoehoe flow (1,100-1,400 BP), a significantly rockier substrate previously used for pasture. There are many areas of exposed bedrock amid what appears to be very shallow deposits of soil. The land surface slopes gently to the east. Vegetation at site 50-10-35-18918 consists predominantly of strawberry guava and low fern. A few ti plants were observed. Unlike the previous sites in the project area, site 50-10-35-18918 is not located in an area designated under cane cultivation on the Waiakea Mill cultivation map of 1925. On this map site 50-10- 35-18918 is located in the area designated 'pasture land' north of Lots 20 and 21. Not surprisingly, the boundary of sugarcane cultivation and pasture land follows the geological boundary of the older Punahoa (3,fYJ0 c;;"2G BP) sr -4 the ycia er Kulaloe (1,1041,400 BP) fin: 'ihe p�,r sou iev lupu a and undulating surface of the younger of the two flows makes it inadequate for sugarcane cultivation. The few, simple features of site 50-10.35-18918 reflect limited activities carried out in pasture land, probably in this century alone. In this area, to the south of Road Alignment B (and north of Alignment A) are numerous features that include cattle walls with fence wire (sometimes found on old railroad ties), enclosures, stone mounds, and foundations and earthen excavations for livestock water and feed troughs. Archaeologv These features are not in either alignment of the project area, and were not surveyed, only briefly examined. Site 50-10-35-18918 is significant for its information content. Data have been acquired in the form of maps, photographs, and descriptions. Limited additional data might be recovered with further work. Site 50-10-35-18918, Feature A D Feature A is the easternmost feature of the site and consists of a portion of a pahoehoe outcrop that has been modified by the stacking of boulders and cobbles along its west edge. The feature measures 3.2 m north -south by 1.0 m east -west. The feature has a vertical face ranging from 0.6 to 1.0 m high. No artifacts or midden were observed. The feature is in fair to poor condition and the excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-1891$ Feature B O Located 16.0 m west-southwest of feature A, Feature B also consists of a portion of a pahoehoe outcrop that has been modified by the stacking of boulders and cobbles along its west edge. The feature measures 1.5 m north -south by 1.2 m east -west. The feature forms a roughly rectangular constructed area which is vertically faced on two sides. This facing ranges from 0.6 to 0.85 m high. No artifacts or midden were observed. The feature is in fair to poor condition. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18918, Feature C Feature C consists of a roughly oval-shaped mound located 8.0 m southwest of Feature B. The mound is constructed of stacked boulders and cobbles, measures 3.7 m north -south by 2.1 m east -west, and has a maximum vertical height of 1.4 m. The entire perimeter of the feature has vertical facing, ranging from 1.1 to 1.4 m high. The only artifact observed was a modern brown beer bottle. The feature is in fair condition. Excavation potential is poor. IN 4 a O O OArrhaeoiogy "q Site 50.10-35-1891L� Feature D Feature D is a modified outcrop. It consists of an L -shape of stacked and piled boulders constructed to utilize a portion of natural outcrop to form, overall, a U-shaped enclosure. The feature is located 7.0 in west of Feature B. The enclosure opens to the southeast. The interior area of the enclosure measures 15 east -west by 2.0 in north -south. The walls of the enclosure average 0.8 in thick and have a maximum vertical height of 1.1 m. The interior portion of the feature is well faced. Several modem beer bottles were observed within the feature. No other midden or artifacts were observed. Feature D is in fair condition. Excavation potential is poor. State Site #: 50-10-35-18919 Survey Site #: 9 # of Features: 36 Areal Extent: 200.0 in northeast -southwest by 50.0 m northwest -southeast Probable Age: Historic Probable, Function: Land clearance/Foundations Site 50-10-35-18919 is located in an area surrounding survey stakes 232 + 00, 233 + 00, 234 + 00, and 235 + 00 of Road Alignment B. The 36 features of the site occupy the width of Road Alignment B (and continue beyond, truncated by the drainage channel to the south). The site consists of mounds, wall segments, platforms, and most commonly, modified outcrops (Figures 18-21). The swiouzding topography is ur;:litlt.fing; a Luidwapc: ir,adc tip or Ir:v: ir,r_s wd shallow depressions. The raised areas are exposed paboehoe bedrock and the low areas are usually accumulations of soil. Directly to the south of the site, outside the road alignment, there is a deep, artificially cut concrete -lined drainage which was constructed in modern times for flood control. M Archaeologv The vegetation at the site includes kuktu nut trees, ti, ginger, Ferns, and 'ohi'a trees. The most predominant plant is strawberry guava which forms a low canopy. The vegetation cover is mixed, Dery dense in places and fairly open in others. The majority of this site's features adjoin the natural land forms or modify them in some way. The most common form is the modified outcrop that consists of a linear or rectangular section of stacked and piled stones. These formations are built against the side of an outcrop, forming an artificial surface that is level with the surface of the outcrop. The sides of these features that do not abut the outcrop are usually vertical faces. In some instances it appeared as though these features were blocking openings that might extend into the outcrop. However, when a number of stones were carefully removed from several of these features, it was clear that only rock outcrop, and not deeper openings, were covered over. Site 50-10.35.18919, according to historic maps, is located along the boundary that divided the O sugarcane land from pasture land. Variation in vegetation reflects this boundary to some degree. The features of site 50-10-35-18919 represent historic agricultural activity, and the division between cane and pasture land. These features are the primarily clearing mounds, field boundaries, and'possibly foundations for cane loading platforms and water tanks that were part of field activities. This site is significant for its information content regarding this historic period and it is recommended for additional data recovery where excavation is possible. Test excavations were undertaken in features Q, R, and AA. The results of these excavations are described following the description of each feature. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature A Feature A is located in the center of the site 50.10-35.18919, approximately 45 in west of survey stake 134 + 00 of Road Alignment B. The feature is a linear -shaped area of raised pahoehoe that has been modified by the stacking of boulders and cobbles at different locations around its perimeter. The feature measures 34.0 m north -south by 14.0 in east -west. Around the perimeter of the outcrop there O 0- O O O.4rchaeolot�v -, are four separate areas of modification. Starting at the north of the outcrop and continuing counter Jockwue, the areas of modification have the following dimensions: The first area measures 2.2 m northwest -southeast by 1.0 m northeast -southwest and has a maximum vertical height of 0.8 m. The second area measures 8.0 m northwest -southeast by 2.0 m northeast -southwest and has a maximum vertical height of 0.4 m. The third area measures 6.0 m northwest -southeast by a maximum 2.0 m northeast -southwest and has a maximum vertical height of 1.0 m. The final area measures 18.0 m north - south by a maximum of 15 in east -west. The vertical heights of the facing range from 1.1 to 1.2 m high. In each of these areas the modification conforms to the natural outline of the outcrop. No artifacts or midden were observed associated with Feature A. The feature is in fair condition --the constructed areas are well faced and fairly well preserved. Excavation potential is poor. Site 5410-35-18919, Feature B Feature B is located 2.5 m north of stake 234 + 00 of Road Alignment B, 4.0 to east of Feature OA. The feature is a roughly rectangular modified outcrop constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. It measures 5.0 m northeast -southwest by 2.8 m northwest -southeast and has a maximum vertical height of 1.1 m. The southeast side of the constructed area abuts the outcrop. The three sides not abutting the outcrop are well faced ranging in height from OS to 1.1 m. The surface of the modified area is uneven but level. No artifacts or midden were observed. The feature is in fair condition. The excavation potential is poor. Site 5410-35-18919, Feature C Feata,a C is located 6.0 m ou%hcasi of Y -cis wi B and consis€c of a section of outc,op that Lae been modified by the stacking and piling of boulders and cobbles. The modification measures 8.0 m by 1.75 to and follows the perimeter of the outcrop. The constructed area abuts the outcrop to the north. Portions of the feature's south side are well faced with a maximum vertical height of 1.2 m --other portions are tumbled. No artifacts or midden were observed. The feature is in fair to poor condition Oand the excavation potential is poor. 4rchaeologv Site SO -10-35-18919, Feature D Feature D is located 4.4 in southeast of Feature C and consists of a small rectangular mound constructed of stacked boulders and cobbles. The feature measures 15 meters square and has a maximum vertical height of 0.6 in. The feature is faced on all sides and is in fair condition. No artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature E Feature E is a wall segment constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The wall is located 6.0 m southeast of Feature D. The wall segment runs 23.0 in northeast -southwest, is an average 2.0 in wide, and an average 0.75 in high (Figure 18). The wall segment is faced in sections, and partially collapsed in others. Several portholes were observed on the top surface of the wall --some of which still contained the rotted remains of the posts (Figure 19). Lengths of fencing wire and rotted posts were observed on or adjacent to the wall as well. The posts were made from railroad cross -ties. The wall O was undoubtedly topped by a wooden post and wire fence. The feature is in fair condition. Excavation potential is poor. The wall segment is .in the right location and has the proper orientation to have been part of the long boundary fence which historic maps show divided the sugarcane fields and pasture lands in this region. Site 5410-35-18919, Feature F Feature F is located 7.0 m north of Feature B and consists of a natural bowl -shaped indentation in a pahoehoe outcrop. This bowl -shaped indentation has been modified by the stacking of boulders and cobbies around it's inicrior. The teature measures 6.0 in northeast -southwest by 43 w northwest - southeast. The interior area measures 3.6 in northeast -southwest by 3.0 m northwest -southeast. The interior of the feature has well constructed vertical faces measuring between 12 and 1.4 in high. Also part of Feature F is a rectangular mound located 5.0 at north of the bowl -shaped indentation. The mound is well constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles and measures 2.4 in north -south by 2.1 in east -west. Its well constructed vertical faces have a maximum vertical height of 0 a rJ Yrs + 0 X_. .. AThaeologv 13 m. Only the northeast comer of this mound is somewhat collapsed. No artifacts or midden were observed at Feature F. The feature is in fair condition. The excavation potential LS poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature G Feature G is located 10.0 in SE of Feature F and consists of a roughly rectangular section of '4O modified outcrop. The feature measures 4.0 in northeast -southwest by 2.1 in northwest -southeast and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature abuts the outcrop to the northwest. The southeast side of the feature is a vertical face with a maximum vertical height of 1.0 m. The feature is in poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10.35-18919, Feature H Feature H is located 9.0 in northeast of Feature G and consists of a small, roughly rectangular section of modified outcrop. The feature measures 1.8 in northeast -southwest by 1.9 in northwest- O southeast and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature abuts the outcrop to the north. The south side of the feature is a vertical face with a maximum vertical height of 0.9 m. The feature is in poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature 1 Feature I is located 8.5 in northwest of Feature H and consists of a section of outcrop that has been modified by the stacking and piling of boulders and cobbles. The modification is built around the norih hrlf a. a aawal depressioa i;A the bedrock. 11c modificattac is 8.0 in long aw! vaiics ii. width from 0.75 to 1.5 m. The surface of the feature is uneven but level. The south side of the feature (the interior of the natural depression) has vertical facing measuring LO in high. The feature is in fair condition. No artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. 101 O.4rchaeologv Site i0.10-35-18919, Feature J Feature J is located L3.0 m southeast of Feature G. Feature J consists of a section of outcrop that has been modified by stacked boulders and cobbles on its north and south sides (Figure A). The feature measures 9.0 m north -south by 63 m east -west. The north side of the feature has vertical facmq measuring 13 m high. The south side of the feature is somewhat collapsed and mounded. No midden or artifacts were observed The feature's condition is fair to poor. Excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10.35-18919, Feature K Feature K is located 3.0 m northeast of Feature J and consists of a small rectangular mound of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles (Figure 21). The feature measures 1.6 meters square and has a maximum vertical height of 0.6 M. No vertical facing, midden or artifacts were observed. The feature is in fair condition. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50.10.35-18919, Feature L OLocated 6.0 m northeast of Feature K, Feature L consists of a roughly rectangular section of modified outcrop. The feature measures 3.6 m northeast -southwest by 11.1 m northwest -southeast and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles.. The feature abuts the outcrop to the northeast. The southwest side of the feature is a vertical face with a maximum vertical height of 1..3 m. The feature is in poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature M Located 7.0 m east of Feature L, Feature M consists of a roughly circular section of modified outcrop. The featurc mea-surea 3.0 m in diameter, acrd is constructed o f st-Ae-il Sud piled boulder; :u.; cobbles. The feature is built on top of the outcrop and has a maximum vertical height of 1.15 m. No vertical facing was observed. A length of metal wire, embedded in Feature M, extends to the northeast end of Feature E, the wall segment. This is the same fencing wire observed in association with Feature E further southeast along the wall segment. Feature M is in poor condition. The excavation potential is 0 Poor. • fY' a 1 I Y �14�% iF; -trrhaeoiogv O Site `410-35-18919, Feature .V Feature N is located SS m southeast of Feature M and consists of an oval-shaped area of modified outcrop. The feature measures 3.6 m north -south by 2.4 m east -west and has a maximum vertical height of 0.7 m. No vertical facing was observed. Like Feature M, a length of fencing wire was found in association with Feature N. Feature N is in poor condition. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature O Feature O is located 13.0 m west of Feature A, adjacent to Road Alignment B survey stake 233 + 00. This feature consists of an irregularly shaped mound constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. It measures 2.8 m northwest -southeast by 1.4 m northeast -southwest and has a maximum vertical height of 0.65 m. The southwest side of the feature is disturbed by tree growth. The other sides of the feature are faced. No artifacts or midden were observed specifically with Feature 0, however, two rotted railroad cross -ties were noted directly west of the feature. Feature O is in fair to poor condition oand excavation potential is poor. Site 50.10-3S-18919, Feature P Located 3.0 m north of Feature O, Feature P consists of a roughly rectangular section of modified outcrop. The feature measures 3.4 m north -south by 1.4 m east -west and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature abuts the outcrop to the east. The south, west, and north sides of the feature are vertical faces, ranging from 1.2 to 1.4 m high. The feature is in good condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature Q Feature Q is located 8.5 m west of Feature P and consists of a roughly rectangular platform constructed of stacked boulders and cobbles. The feature measures 42 m northwest -southeast by 2.4 m northeast -southwest and has a maximum vertical height of 1.4 m. The feature is well faced on all sides except the northwest, which is partially tumbled. The platform surface is rough boulders and cobbles, but is level. No artifacts or midden were observed in association with the platform, however, two rotting O Archaeology o railroad cross -ties were observed near the feature. Feature Q is in good condition. Excavation pocenual is poor. Testing Results of Feature Q Excavation was undertaken in Feature Q to test for the presence of cultural materials that might aid in assigning an age (spec) and function to the feature. Feature Q was selected for excavation because its size, method of construction, and state of preservation represent (in form) several other platforms recorded in the project area. A 1.0 by 1.5 m test trench was excavated in the northwest end of the platform. The excavation reached a maximum depth of 1.12 m below the platform surface, terminating at the underlying pahoehoe bedrock. Two distinct strata were encountered in the excavation. Stratum I is made up of the boulders and cobbles of the platform construction fill. This stratum is 105 cm thick. No internal structure was evident in the platform fill. The stones were jumbled together in an unstable manner. o Stratum I contained organic material, including fresh leaves, roots, twigs, and kukui nut endocarps. No artifacts or midden were found in this layer. Stratum fI consists of a cobbly silty clay loam (Munsell IOYR 2/2, very dark brown) organically enriched, with friable texture. This sediment is the layer of material that has filtered down through the platform since its construction. It has filled-in the lowest levels of the rocks as it accumulated. The upper 5 cm of stratum II contained kukui out endocarps, roots, and fresh leaves --indicating material is accumulating in the feature rapidly. Stratum II begins at approximately 100 cm below the platform surface and u 12 cm thick. No ruidden or artifacts were observed in this layer. In sum, excavation results confirm a field clearing origin, age, and function for Feature Q. Site 50.10-35-18919, Feantm R Feature R is located 12.0 m south-southwest of Feature O on top of a bedrock outcrop. Feature R is a well -formed circular mound measuring 2.1 m in diameter and standing 0.7 m high. The M 0 9 O O O Archaeology perimeter of the mound is well faced. No artifaeu or midden were observed. The feature is m fair condition and excavation potential is poor. Testing Results of Feature R Excavation in Feature R allowed us to test for the presence (and kind) of cultural matenal, to assess the feature's age, form of construction, and function. Feature R was selected for excavation because its size, method of construction, and state of preservation are representative (in form) of many the features recorded in the project area. A 1.0 meter square test pit was excavated in the northeast side of the mound. The excavation reached a maximum depth of 0.85 m below the platform surface, terminating at the underlying pahoehoe bedrock. Two distinct strata were encountered in the excavation. Stratum I is made up of the boulders and cobbles of the platform construction fill. This stratum is 65 to 85 cm thick. No internal structure was evident in the construction. The stones were jumbled together in an unstable manner. Stratum I Ocontained organic material, including fresh leaves, roots, twigs, and kukui nut endocarps. No artifacts or midden were found in this layer. Stratum II consists of a cobbly silty clay loam (Munsell 10YR 2/2, very dark brown) organically enriched, with friable tenure. This sediment has filtered down through the platform since its construction. It has buried the lowest levels of rock with recent accumulation as indicated by fresh leaves and other organic debris. Stratum II begins at approximately 65 cm below the platform surface and is a maximum 8 cm thick. No midden or artifacts were observed in this layer. Again, excavation results confirm the r-ceni o6j,,irr of this leatufc, avd support a ctesZing. utound functional designation. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feanur S Feature S is located 4.0 m northwest of Feature P and consists of a roughly rectangular section of modified outcrop. The feature measures 3.0 m northwest -southeast by 0.8 m northeast -southwest and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature abuts the outcrop to the M -trchaeologv northeast. The southwest side of the feature is a vertical face measuring 1.0 m high. The feature is m fair condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature T Feature T is located 4.0 in west of Feature R and consists of a natural channel -like depression between two raised areas of outcrop. The depression runs north -south and has been modified by the stacking and piling of boulders and cobbles along its sides. Feature T measures 22.0 in north -south by 8.0 m east -west. Several of the modified areas along Feature T are faced. Other areas are mounded with piled boulders and cobbles. The feature is in poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. Excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature U -o Feature U consists of a roughly rectangular platform. It is located 4.0 m west of Feature T and measures 7.0 m north -south by 3.0 m east -west. Its sides are well concocted vertical faces measuring o between 1.0 and 13 m high. The surface of the platform is rough boulders and cobbles, but level. No artifacts or midden were observed. The feature is in good condition. Excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature V Feature V is a roughly circular mound located 5.5 m southeast of Feature R. The mound measures 1.6 m in diameter, stands 1.4 in high, and is constructed of stacked boulders and cobbles. The mound's perimeter is well faced. No artifacts or midden were observed. The feature is in fair condition and the excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, r'eatw- W Feature W is located 7.0 m northwest of Feature Q and consists of a roughly rectangular -shaped mound. The mound measures 1.4 m square and has a maximum vertical height of 0.8 m. The perimeter of the mound is well faced except in the southwest and southeast corners, where the feature is somewhat tumbled. No artifacts or midden were observed. The feature is in fair condition. Excavation potential is poor. 0 9 D O O OArchaeoiogv Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature X Located 4.8 m southwest of Feature W, Feature X is a roughly rectangular -shaped mound measuring 1.0 m north -south by 1.6 m ea ;t. The west, south, and east sides of the mound ue yell faced with a maximum vertical height of 1.0 in. The feature is in fair to poor condition. No artifacts or midden were observed. Excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature Y Feature Y is an oval-shaped mound located 6.0 m west of Feature X. It measures 1.8 in northeast -southwest by 1.1 m northwest -southeast and has a maximum vertical height of 0.95 in. The perimeter of the mound is well faced. The feature is in fair condition. No artifacts or midden were observed. Excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature Z Feature Z is located 12.0 m southwest of Feature Q and consists of a roughly rectangular Omound measuring 2.0 m northeast -southwest by 1.0 m northwest -southeast. The west end of the mound is well faced with a maximum vertical height of 1.05 m. The east end is collapsed. The feature is in poor condition. No artifacts or midden were observed. Excavation potential is poor. Site 50.10-35-18919, Feature AA Feature AA is located 8.0 m southeast of Feature Z and consists of a roughly rectangular - shaped section of modified outcrop. The feature measures 4.0 m northeast -southwest by 1.9 in northwest -southeast and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature abuts the out:cral: to tht south. The north side of !h€ fpaw c is a vertical One mcasurutg 1.0 m nigh. The feattn is in fair condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Testing Results for Feature AA Excavation in Feature AA was undertaken to test for the presence (and kind) of cultural material, to assess the feature's age, form of construction, and function. Feature AA was selected for 101 .4irhaeology o excavation because its size, method of construction. and state of preservation are representative l is form i of manv other features recorded in the project area. A 1.0 meter square test pit was excavated in the southwest comer of the feature. The excavation reached a maximum depth of 1.82 in below the platform surface, terminating in a stratum of undisturbed weathered bedrock. Three distinct strata were encountered in the excavation. Stratum I is made up of the boulders and cobbles of the feature construction fill. This stratum is 150 cm thick. At a depth of 90 cm a level bedrock surface was reached. However, a hole approximately 80 cm in diameter led to a small lava 'bubble' beneath this surface. The stratum I construction fill material had been placed inside this opening during construction of the feature. When stratum I was completely removed the interior of low lava bubble could be seen. The subsequent strata were excavated from inside this small, low, lava bubble, which turned out to be only approximately 30 cm highi. o No internal structure was observed in the feature fill. The stones were jumbled together in an unstable manner. Stratum I contained large quantities of organic material, including fresh leaves, roots, and twig$. No artifacts or.midden were observed in this layer. Stratum II consists of an organically enriched, cobbly silty clay loam (Munsell 10YR 2/2, very dark brown) with friable texture. This sediment has filtered down through the feature since its construction. It has filled the lowest levels of the feature with recent accumulation. Stratum II begins at approximately 145 ® below the feature surface and is 10-20 cm thick. Stratum II contained large annums of flesh Itaves and the only artifact found was a modern plastic bandage that was uncovered at a depth of 162 tmz. Material appears to wash-in and filters through the feature rapidly. Stratum III was encountered at approximately 165 cm below feature surface. Stratum fill consists of a cobbly silty clay loam (Munsell 10YR 4/3, brown). This sediment is the natural C horizon. No organic material, artifacts, or midden were observed in this stratum. Excavation continued to a W OArrhaeologv 83 depth of 182 cm below the platform surface to : -sure the excavation had reached culturally sterile (and undisturbed) decomposing bedrock. In summary, the only artifact observed in association with the feature was a modern plastic "band-aid" brand bandage. The absence of other materials, along with the context of the feature, again points to the historic origin of the construction as a clearing mound that could have served some secondary function. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature BB Feature BB is a modified outcrop consisting of a few stones piled on top of a pahoehoe outcrop. This modest feature is located 8.0 in west-southwest of Feature AA. It measures 150 in north -south by 80 in east -west. This feature is in poor condition. No artifacts or midden were observed. The feature has no excavation potential. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature CC OFeature CC is located 6.5 in southwest of Feature Y and consists of a linear section of modified outcrop. The feature measures 0.5 in northeast -southwest by 2.0 in northwest -southeast and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature abuts the outcrop to the southwest. The northeast side of the feature is a vertical face with a maximum vertical height of 0.8 in. The feature is in poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature DD Feature DD is a roughly rectangular -shaped section of modified outcrop located 85 in northwest of Feature CC. The feature measures 1.5 in northeast -southwest by 1..4 m northwest -southeast and i., constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature abuts the outcrop to the south. The northwest and northeast sides of the feature are vertical faces measuring 9.0 in high. The feature is in poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. M 0 o a Archaeolokv Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature E£ Feature EE is located 5.0 in southwest of Feature DD and consists of a linear section of .4O modified outcrop. The feature measures 0.6 in northeast -southwest by 3.4 in northwest -southeast and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature abuts the outcrop to the southwest. The northeast side of the feature is a vertical face with a maximum vertical height of 1.10 in. The feature is in poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature FF Feature FF is a roughly rectangular -shaped pile of stones that fill in a portion of a natural channel -like depression in the pahoehoe bedrock. It is located 6.0 m northwest of Feature U. The feature measures 2.0 in northeast -southwest by 1.7 in northwest -southeast. The single course of stones fills the depression to the level of surrounding land surface. This modest feature is in poor condition. No artifacts or midden were observed. The feature has no excavation potential. ^ Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature GG /� Jl Feature GG is located 5.0 m west of Feature U and consists of a linear section of modified outcrop. The feature measures 6.4 in northeast -southwest by 1.4 in northwest -southeast and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature abuts the outcrop to the northwest. The southeast side of the feature is a vertical face that ranges in height from 1.0 to 1.35 in. The feature is in fair condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature HH Feature WN is In ted 3.5 m su::tliwcst of Fc:: -cure GC- and cors i;t. of ,: lineai zL.ainr o: modified outcrop. The feature measures 4.2 in north -south by 0.5 in east -west and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature abuts the outcrop to the west. The east side of the feature is a vertical face that ranges in height from 1.0 to 1.15 in. The feature is in fair condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. 101 t 0 O O C Archaeologv Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature 11 Feature II is located 135 in northwest of survey stake 231 + 81.81, approximately 20 in southwest of Feature EE. Feature II consists of a linear section of modified outcrop. The feature measures 5.0 in northwest -southeast by 05 in northeast -southwest and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature abuts the outcrop to the southwest. The northeast side of the feature is a vertical face that measures 0.9 in high. The feature is in poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature JJ Feature JJ is located 65 in northwest of survey stake 'curve P.I. '7-C'", approximately 20 in southwest of Feature II. Feature JJ consists of a linear section of modified outcrop. The feature measures 2.0 in northwest -southeast by OS in northeast -southwest and is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The feature abuts the outcrop to the southwest. The northeast side of the Ofeature is a vertical face that measures 0.9 in high. The feature is in poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. State Site #: 50-10-35-18920 Survey Site #: 10 # of Features: 8 Areal Extent: 140.0 to northeast -southwest by 30.0 in northwest -southeast Probable Age: Historic Probable Function: Land clearance Site 50-10-35-18920 is located between survey stakes 137 +00 and 145 +00 on the mauka portion of Road Alignment 2. The eight features of the site consist entirely of mounds constructed of piled boulders and cobbles. All the features are in a poor state of preservation. M 85 0 , Archaeologv O The surrounding topography is undulating, sloping gently to the east. There is evidence of Soil erosion caused by heavy rains. The vegetation is predominantly strawberry guava, which forms a low canopy. There is also ti, low ferns, and ginger. Site 50-10-35.18920 is located on land that was formerly under sugarcane cultivation. Ail the features of the site are remnants of the extensive field clearing that was part of plantation sugar production. The documentation of these features is complete. No further work is recommended. Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature A Feature A, the southeasternmost of the site, is a roughly rectangular mound measuring 4.0 in east -west by 6.0 m north -south. It is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles and shows no vertical facing. Feature A has a maximum vertical height of 1.1 in. It is in poor condition. No artifacts or midden were observed and excavation potential is poor. Site 50.10-35-18920, Feature B Feature B is located 30 m northeast of Feature A. This roughly circular mound measures 25 in north -south by 35 in east -west. It is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles and shows no vertical facing. Feature B is in poor condition and has a maximum vertical height of 0.9 m. No artifacts or midden were observed and excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature C Feature C, located 8.0 m northeast of Feature B, consists of a circular mound measuring 25 in east -west by 3.0 m north -south. It is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles and shows no vertical facing. Feature A has a -maximum vertical heigbt of 1.2 m. Its :u p foz wndi;ion, NO ari i; Cts ; midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10.35-18920, Feature D Feature D is located 10.0 m northeast of Feature C. This roughly circular mound measures 25 in north -south by 3.5 in east -west. It is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles and shows no vertical M t0 O O M Archaeology facing. Feature D is m poor condition and has a maximum vertical height of 1.0 m. No artifacts or midden were observed and excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature E 87 Feature E, located 30.0 m northeast of Feature B, is another circular mound. It measures 3.0 m in diameter and is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles. It shows no vertical facing. Feature A has a maximum vertical height of 1.0 m. It is in poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature F Located 7.0 m north of Feature E, Feature F is a roughly circular mound measuring 23 m north -south by 2.8 m east -west. It is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles and shows no vertical facing. Feature B is in poor condition and has a maximum vertical height of 1.1 m. No artifacts or midden were observed and excavation potential is poor. OSite 50-10-35-18920, Feature G Feature G is located 8.0 m northeast of Feature C. This roughly circular mound measures 2.7 m north -south by 8.1 m east -west. It is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles and shows no vertical facing. Feature G is in poor condition and has a maximum vertical height of 1.0 m. No artifacts or midden were observed. Excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18920, Feature H Feature H, located 8.0 m northeast of Feature B, is another circular mound. It measures 3.0 m north -south by 2.5 m east -west and is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles. no vertical facing was observed. Feature H has a maximum vertical height of 1.1 m. It is in poor condition and no artifacts or midden were observed. The excavation potential is poor. M 4rchaeolo,�, State Site #: Survey Site #: # of Features: Areal Extent: Probable Age: Probable Function: 50-10-35-18921 11 5 110.0 m east -west by 50.0 m north -south Historic Land clearance Site 50-10-35-18921 is located between survey stakes 63 + 00 and 70 + 00 of Alternative Alignment 1. The five features of the site consist of mounds, terraces, and a wall segment --all constructed of piled boulders and cobbles. The features are in fair to poor condition. The surrounding topography is a gentle slope. The vegetation at the site includes mango trees, ti, ginger, ferns, and 'ohi'a trees. The .most predominant plant is strawberry guava which forms a low canopy. The vegetation cover is mixed, very dense in places and fairly open in others. Site 50-10-35-18921, according to historic maps, is located in land that was formally under s'sO commercial sugarcane cultivation. The features of site 50-10-35-18921 represent this historic agricultural activity. These features are the primarily clearing mounds, field boundaries, and possibly foundations for cane loading platforms and water tanks that were part of field activities. This site is significant for its information content regarding this historic period and it is recommended for additional data recovery where excavation is possible. Site 50.10-34-18921, Feature A Feature.'. is an itrt.gtdar-s`_•aped mouuu located at survey stake 63 s W, The Fear,uo 4.0 m northeast -southwest by 12.0 to northwest -southeast, has a maximum vertical height of 0.6 m, and is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles. No vertical facing was observed and the feature is crude in its construction. The feature is in poor condition. No artifacts or midden were observed. Excavation potential is poor. M M C Arrhaeoiogv Site 50-10-34-18921, Feature B Feature B is a linear terrace constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The Feature is located 75.0 m east of Feature A along the bank of an intermittent drainage. Feature B :o measures 25.0 m east -west by a maximum 3.0 m north -south and has a maximum vertical height of 1.1 m (measured from the base of the drainage). No vertical facing was observed and the feature is m poor condition. No artifacts or midden were observed and excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18921, Feature C Located 8.0 m east of Feature B, Feature C is a linear mound. The mound measures 105 m northwest -southeast by 25 m northeast -southwest and has a maximum vertical height of 0.8 m. This low stone alignment is partially tumbled. No artifacts or midden were observed. The feature is in fair condition. Excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-35-18921, Feature D OFeature D is located 15.0 m east of Feature C and consists of a curvilinear wall segment and a recent earthen excavation. The wall segment forms an L -shape that measures 12.0 m long by 2.0 m wide. It is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles and has a maximum vertical height of 0.9 m. The feature is not faced and is partially tumbled. The earthen excavation is rectangular measuring 2.8 on a side. It has regular, vertical sides (appearing to have been recently formed) and is 1.5 m deep. This excavation appears to have been made to hold a water tank. No artifacts or midden were observed in association with Feature D. Feature D is in fair to poor condition. Excavation potential is poor. Site 50-10-34-18924 Feature E Feature E is a linear terrace constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The Feature is located 30.0 m east of Feature C. Feature E measures 16.0 m east -west by 2.0 m north -south and has a maximum vertical height of 0.4 m. No vertical facing was observed and the feature is in poor condition. No artifacts or midden were observed and excavation potential is poor. M 0 Archaeology Summary of Archaeological Finding N Our field survey records in detail 11 sites (complexes of features in spatial association), comprising 88 individual features within or closely adjacent to the alternative road alignments of the project area. Historical research (discussed above), including early and later historic documentary sources, Land Commission Awards, analysis of maps, and interviews corroborates the field evidence of the historic origin for all of the structures recorded. Original, intentionally conservative speculations that prehistoric structures might exist in the, project area are clearly not supported by the evidence. In terms of the field archaeology, over the course of our intensive mapping and documentation of the features it was evident that the features shared similar methods of form, construction, and location in areas with arable soil. We also observed while crawling over the features, pulling tape and making measurements, a significant lack of construction stability. Regardless of feature form, state of preservation, and size. -in many instances the stacked and piled boulders and cobbles tended to shift, o reflecting their instability. This was true of the well constructed, vertically faced platforms, whose edges could not support weight or movement, as well as the mounds of more crude construction. This lack of stability was substantiated by the subsurface testing. In the five test excavations the construction fill was jumbled with no internal structure. This unstable construction contrasts with indigenous Hawaiian architecture, where stable, weight bearing vertical faces and stable mounds, often with paving stones, etc., are the norm. Additional aspects of the field evidence confirm the historic origin of the structures, and not f'eatures Oat iepi sent iudigwgous i-lawa, an ;t:ohiicziure. It is especially sipifiicant that no definitive prehistoric artifacts, or the usual activity area features (Le., non-portable artifacts), such as paving stones or pebble paving (YOU), hearths or earth ovens are found in, or associated with these features. Such features are common components of prehistoric Hawaiian sites. Furthermore, numerous historic artifacts were recorded in (indeed embedded in some features), or near several features. As already described, these include artifacts such as railroad ties, fencing and barbed wire, etc. o B fl O O A chaeologv ql 101 The potential evidence fo. prehistoric activity in the area comes from excavation of Site -15915, Feature H. In this feature we recovered three volcanic glass fragments (non-diagnostic debitage, less than 15 cm in maximum dimensions) beneath the structure in a stratigraphic context clearly predating its construction (see above). These pieces may point to some Hawaiian use of the area (as described by McEldowney 1979 using the earliest historic sources, see above), potentially for agriculture as early sources would suggest. It is also possible that in this relatively high energy floodplain, artifacts can be fluvial sediments transported and redeposited by natural agents --a problem for archaeologists in many parts of the world. In short, like modern materials found, ancient ones could be in secondary depositional context. The complete lack of prehistoric portable artifacts on the surface or in the features themselves is consistent with an historic origin, age, and use of the sites. Archaeological Comparisons Examination of documented prehistoric sites in Hawaii reveals that the structures in the project Oarea share little in the way of construction methods, form, variability of components, and importantly, context at the scale of feature relationships and location. The structures recorded in detail do not resemble sites of prehistoric age --sites best known by archaeologists in Hawai'i. As archaeological field work increases in the Hilo area, it is becoming clear that where commercial sugarcane cultivation occurred, stacked and faced stone features are common. For example, Smith (1992) describes "several stacked stone walls and linear mounds... well made, often faced, and reaching a height of 1 meter" and large stone mounds that are "generally faced, as high as 15 meters, and tend to be round or ovoid in planview" with diameters ranging from two to three meters. These features are found in an area of former sugarcane cultivation in a parcel at Kawili and Kapi`olani Streets, not far from project area lands. He notes the soil substrate as Keaukaha extremely rocky muck, the same as in parts of the project area. Also in the Hilo area, Spear (1992) reports linear mounds (similar in form to those in the project area) along Waianuenue Avenue. He determined that these features were historic in age, and resulted from activities associated with sugarcane or cattle pasture use. Similar 0 O O Arrhaeologv O sites in Hilo sugarcane land have been recorded by other archaeologists (e.g., Goodfellow 1991; Goodfellow and Fager 1992). In numerous locations around the islands, archaeologists have documented remarkably similar stacked and faced stone features in areas of former sugarcane cultivation. For example, in a recent detailed historical and archaeological study in Kohala, Erkelens and Athens (1993) describe several clearing mounds in land previously under commercial sugarcane cultivation. They excavated four of these mounds as a check against local informants who identified the recent origin of the features as Geld clearing mounds. Concerning these gearing mounds, Erkelens and Athens (1993:46) write that thev: consisted of a loosely stacked wall, approximately a meter in height, which kept the pile of interior rock contained within. Although a stacked wall may at first seem an unlikely construction component for an informal mound, it allows a cart or drag sled to be pulled up close to the edge of the pile. Subsequently, rock does not have to be lifted far to be added to the pile. The end result is sometimes a pile with a depression in the O center (emphasis added). This description, especially of mounds with depressions in the center, fits many features in the Pu`ainako project area. Similarly, in their work in Kohala and ours in Hilo, knowledgeable informants have identified the presence, form, and function of rock clearing mounds. Informants and historic sources have described their place in early labor-intensive forms of sugarcane cultivation. The dual function -- rock field clearing and potential loading platform --discussed by Erkelens and Athens (1993) fits the va:iabi'•ity dr cuncutr.d for the feaiureit the prnjeet ar^a. Conclusions Detailed historical and archaeological investigations have been completed as an inventory level survey of alternative alignments for the Pu'ainako Road Extension project. As discussed above, this work has included a review of previous archaeological work in the region, an historical literature and documents search, a Land Commission Award search, analysis of historic maps, in-depth interviews with O EM 0 Arehaeologv 0 knowledgeable local informants, intensive field recording of all sites/features, and excavation of representative features in the project area. Our objective at this stage of work is to provide a complete inventory of the archaeological resources in the project area, determine site function and significance, and make recommendations for 03 historic preservation, and where needed, recommend measures to mitigate the impact of construction to historic resources. These objectives were set to satisfy all historic preservation regulatory review requirements in consultation with Dr. Ross Cordy and Kanalei Shun of the State Historic Preservation Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources (SHPD-DLNR). Diverse lines of complementary evidence discussed in this report places the archaeological structural remains of the Pu`ainako Road Extension project firmly within the historic period. However, while some prehistoric use of the area may have occurred, its vestige remains difficult to document. An exhaustive review of the earliest accounts of Hilo (McEldowney 1979) provides a clear opicture of traditional settlement, land use, and community patterning. Hawaiian habitation, formal religious worship, intensive irrigated agriculture, and fishponds were concentrated along, or near the shoreline. Land Commission Awards from around 1848 confirm this pattern, and show that Hawaiian occupation and land use was along the coast, and not in the project areas. The LCA evidence reveals continuity between ancient and early historic times in Hilo. Above the Coastal Settlement zone was an upland, largely non -irrigated agricultural zone. This upland zone is known to have had scattered swiddens and groves of economic tree crops, as well as huts for temporary use. The kind of activity synthesized by McEldowney (1979) for this zone would not produce any clear archaeological signature. Only subtle evidence might exist and be detected, such as isolated artifacts or paleoenvironmental indications of land use. For example, volcanic glass discovered in one excavation in the project area suggests possible evidence of ancient Hawaiian activity in the area. However, it is not associated with the surface structures. Instead, if subtle evidence of Hawaiian use of the area exists, it will likely be found only in sparse and unpredictable spatial distributions. Such M 0 Arrhaeolog- M )_o evidence will be associated with depositional environments, and may be discovered (almost "at random-) with subsurface test excavations. The significance of such evidence is restricted to its potential informadou content (Criterion D), as other historic preservation criteria would not apply. Historical research on Hilo (see especially Kelly et al. 1981) shows the development of land use, including the advent of commercial sugarcane cultivation over vast areas as early as the late 1870s. Sugarcane was planted and harvested by hand by immigrant labor, at fust predominantly Chinese. This land use suggests that the archaeological features of the project area date to the late nineteenth, and early twentieth century. Some of the features seem to have been present by the 1920s, a time recalled in informant interviews. Stone clearing mounds, that served additional, secondary functions, would grow by accretion as fields continued to be cultivated for sugarcane. Railroads, water tanks, loading platforms, temporary flumes, boundaries of cane and pasture land, and later conversion of sugarcane land to pastures will add their mark to the stone structural evidence, sometimes in complex and ambiguous ways. o In sum, the structures and artifacts recorded in the project area date from about 1880 to 1950. These remains reflect the historically documented land use of the project area. Significance Large portions of the Pu'ainako Street Extension project are free of archaeological resources. In some cases, very recent, mechanized sugarcane cultivation has destroyed any sites that may once have existed on those lands. In other locations, such as the 1881 lava flow, or upland areas of rainforest vegetation, no historic or prehistoric sites were found. the archaeological suuctures (daia summarized is fable 2) documented in .he inventory sLa-vey are plantation -era in origin, dating to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In terms of historic preservation significance criteria, many of the sites are significant for their information content (Criterion D). Other sites in the project area will not provide any further information on the history of the region, and are according to the criteria used, no longer significant. Where sites are "no longer significant" or "no further work" is recommended, it is because adequate data have been collected with o archaeology 95 O the level of work conducted for this study. The significance and recommendations for each site are Listed in Table :, and discussed in the text above. Additional historical and archaeological research on several of the sites could provide information on the early plantation history of the Waiakea Mill lands of Hilo. Recommendations All other considerations being equal, the Pu`ainako Road extension alignments with the fewest archaeological features should be selected for development. This would minimize the loss of the plantation -era sites documented in this report. While this study provides detailed documentation of the archaeological remains and their historical context, additional data recovery is recommended as impact mitigation. Once the altemative alignment set is determined, a data recovery program should be devised in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division. This data recovery program could include additional excavation of a representative sample of features, where such potential exists. This additional Oexcavation may yield further information on the content and spec function of features in early plantation activities. As discussed above, excavation (as pan of the data recovery program) could potentially yield isolated traces of prehistoric use of the area, presumably for dryland agriculture. This would yedd information important to the prehistory of the area, if such evidence exists. A data recovery program could also include continued historic research, focused on interviews and archival sources to inform on the diversity of field activities and the specific function (i.e., beyond their use as field clearing mounds) of features. C Archaeology Cable 2. Summary of Site Data Significance, and Recommendations. `;• 18911 Struautsat�`""`•s,l.�a 'g ciass""=it�s„�W�: 'w'=got 1 1 Complex class-.�::..ym,r'�.»., ,�4;;„ Ftm n dais. 4�m ing'i><'• . - •_.,..r A ncuRure otr:;•:. Sigrtif- :-Rac�oclr,_-�, icartce." I H D mendaticn DR A Terrace Curv4near 276 Y Retairwall H B Mound Linear 43 N Clearing H C Mod.outcrp Linear 20.5 Y Clearin H D Mound Rea. B4 N Clearing H E Mound Irregular re ular 56 Y Clearin H F Terrace Linear 132 Y Retainwall H G Mound 1p.a. 96 N Clearing H H Terrace Linear 64 Y Retainwall H I Terrace Curv-linear 99 ly Retainwah H J Mound Irregular 225 Y Clearin H K Mound Irregular 96.5 N Clearin H 18912 Mound Irre ular 54 Y Agriculture H D DR 18913 Mound Rea. 29 Y cuRure H NLS NFW 18914 Cam lex H D DR A Platform Rea. 34Y !AHcufture ar/Found. H B Platform Rea. 60 Y ar/Found. H C Mound ]rte ular 25 N Clearin H D Mound Ire ular 34.5 Y Clearin H E Terrace Linear 55 Y Retwall/Found: H F Platform Rea. 66 Y Clear/Found. H G Mod.outcr Irre ular 1092 Y Clearin H H Mod.outcrp Curv-linear 625 Y Cleadnq H 18915 Complex Agriculture H D DR A Enclosure Oval 112.5 Y Clear/Found. H B Terr/mound Linear 20 Y RR bed . H C Platform Sect. 42 Y ea /Found H D Mound Rea. 3.5 N —Clearing H E Platform Rea. 42 Y Clear/Found. JH F Platform Rea. 46 Y Clear/Found. H G Mound Rea. 13 N Clearin H H Platform Oval 45 Y Clear/Found. H I Mound Irregular 29.5 Y Clearinq H 18916 Complex Agriculture H D IDR A _ P�_ Revi. I `+5 YLles.;Fcund 1,1 .�--- B Teatform r/wall Curv-linear 217.5 Y Retainwall H 18917 Complex Agriculture H D DR A Wall seg. Linear 13 N Clearin H B Mound Rea. 9 Y Clearin H C Mound Rea —20.5 Y Clearin H 18918 Complex Pasture H D DR - A Mod.outcrp Irregular 3.5 YClearin H B Mod.outcrp Rea. 1.5 Y Clearin H C Mound Oval 8.5 Y Clearin H D Mod.outcrp Irregular 15.5 Y Enclosure H • U N N • U • �i O AL haeologv O For"�'«"wa" Mdx. 18919 Complex \% A Mod.outc Irre ular m 490 Y i..�+ ' 00•;; ..$f mom_._ l mance ^7 m sndatlon A riculture H a D e I DR Clear/Found. H B Mod.outcrp Rect. 15 Y Clear/Found. H C Mod.outcrp Curv-linear 15.5 Y Cleann H D Mound Rect. 2 Y Clearin H E Wall Linear 81.5 Y Boundary H F Mod.outcrp Curv-linear 10 Y Clearin H G Mod.outc Rect. 7 Y Clearing H H Mod.outc Irre ular 3 Y Clearing H I Mod.outcr Curv-linear 12 Y Clearing H J Mod.outcr Irre ula 18 Y Clearin H K Mound Rect. 2 N Clearin H L Mod.outc Rea. 30 Y Clearin H M Mod.outcr Circular 23 Y Clearin H N Mod.outcr Oval 14 N Clearin H 0 Mound Irre ular 4 Y Clearin H P Mod.outc Rett. 5 Y Clean H 0 Platform Rect. 11 Y Clear/Found. H R Mound Circular 4 Y Clearin H S Mod.outc Rea. 3 Y Clearin H T Mod.outc Irre ular 72 Y Clearin H U Platform Rea. 21 Y Clear/Found. H v Mound Circular 25 Y Clearin H W Mound Rea. 2.5 Y Clearin H X Mound Rea. 2 Y Clearin H Y Mound Oval 2 Y Clearin H Z • Mound Rea. 2 Y Clearin H AA Mod.outcrp Rea. 7.5 Y Clear/Found. H BB Mod.outcr Irre ular 2 Y Clearin H CC Mod.outcrp Linear 1.5 Y Clearin H DD Mod.outor Irre ular 2 Y Clearin H EE Mod.outcrp Irre ular 3 Y Clearin H FF Mod.outc Rea. 3.5 N Clearin H GG Mod.outcrp Linear 8 Y Clearin H HH Mod.outc Linear 3.5 Y Clearin H 11 Mod.outc Linear 1.5 Y Clearin H JJ Mod.outcr- Linen' _ 2 Y Clearin HH"—"' •__. T ___.__.._ 18920 A Complex Mound Rect. 20 N A riculture Clearing H NLS H NFW 8 Mound Circular 8.5 N Clean H C Mound Circular 7.5 N Clearin H D Mound Circular 8.5 N Clearin H E Mound Circular 9 N Clearin H F G Mound Mound Circular Circular 6.5 G c N ra Clearin H ..... P• Ivicaun9 Irl 97 0 0 0 Archaeology 90 Significance criteria codes (from Code of Fedem! Regufaaons, 36 CFR Part 60; these criteria are used by Hawai'i DLNR-SHPD): A Site reflects major trends in the history of the state or nation B Site is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past C Site is an excellent example of a site type D Site may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory E Site has cultural significance (Native Hawaiian, or other ethnic group) Recommendation codes: DR Additional data recovery (excavation, etc) as mitigation NFW No further work required in mitigation phase NLS No longer signficant (in terms of historic preservation criteria) M O 0 Archaeology M 0 Finally, once a road alignment has been selected and a data recovery phase completed. monitoring by an experienced archaeologist should accompany initial clearing and earthwork activities. Monitoring would assure that no unexpected finds are lost with initial construction activities. C M ,)q Archaeology 1000 Bibliography American Association of University Women (AAUW) 1989 The Hilo March: A guided tour through historic Hilo. A.A.U.W. Barrera, W. 1991 Archaeological Survey of Proposed Wailuku River Hydroelectric Facilities. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. 1986 Waduku River Hydroelectric Project., Archaeological Reconnaissance. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Best, G. M. 1978 Railroads of Hawaii: Narrow and standard gauge common carriers. Golden West Books, San Marino. Bonk, W. J. 1979 An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of Hawaiian Home Lands of Panaewa, Tract 1, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. 1979 An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of Hawaiian Home Lands of Panaewa, Tract 1, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawail. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Borthwick, D., J. Collins, W. H. Folk, and H. H. Hammatt 0 1993 Archaeological Survey and Testing of Lands Proposed for Research and Technology Lots at the University of Hawaii at Hilo (TMK 2-4.01:40 and 157). Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Buchanan -Banks, J., and J. Lockwood 1982 Geologic map of the Alenaio-Waipahoehoe Stream area, South Hilo District, Hawaii. Open - file Map, U.S. Geological ,Survey. Ching F., and C. Stauder 1974 The Archaeology of South Hilo, Hawaii: Archaeological reconnaissance and preliminary historical investigation of the proposed 2& 1/2 mile alignment (alt. A) between Keauhou and the South Hilo -Puna Boundary. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Conde, J. C. J!"11 Jarrow vauge ui o Kingdon: 7?:e Fiawati,ut Railroad 6ompany, 1878-1897. Glenwoc,d Publishers, Felton. 1975 Sugar Trains Pictorial. Glenwood Publishers, Felton. Cordy, Ross 1986 Parcel Assessment—Watakea, South Hilo, Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Cox, D. 1983 Reconnaissance Of Historic Resources for the Laupahoehoe Navigation Improvements Project, 0 Laupahoehoe Point, Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. M 0 0 Archaeology 101 1983 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Wailu/at River and Honolii Stream Hydropower Studv Areas, Punahoa, South Hilo, Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Cuddihy, L. W., and C. P. Stone 1990 Alteration of Native Hawaiian Vegetation: Effects of humans, their activities and introductions. University of Hawaii Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Honolulu. Ellis, W. 1963 Journal of William Ellis. Honolulu Advertiser Publishing Co, Ltd, Honolulu. Erkelens, C., and J. S. Athens 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Kohala Plantation Village, North Kohala, Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Goodfellow, S. T. 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey Noelani Gardens Project: Land of Puueo, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK3-2-6-2:1,2). Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Goodfellow, S. T., and M. Fager 1992 Archaeological Inventory Survey Kaumana Property. Land of Ponahawai, South Hilo District, O Island of Hawaii (TMK3-2-S-03:27). Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Haus, A. 1986 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Proposed Boundary Fences and Cabin Site At Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Island of Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association 1926 Story of Sugar in Hawaii. Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, Honolulu. Hommon, R. 1982 An Aerial Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Two Areas Near Pohakuloa Training Area, Island of Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Jensen, P. M. 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey Komohana Golf Course: Lands of Ponahawai and Punahoa 1-2 South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK3-2-3.44:09). Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Kam, W. 1983 Unrecorded Heiau on State Land Waiakea, South Hilo, HawaiS Island. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Kelly, M., and S. Athens 1982 Archaeological and Historical Studies for the Alenaio Stream Flood Damage Reduction Studv, Hilo, Hawaii; Report 1: Background history; Report 2: Cultural Resources Reconnaissance. 0 Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Archaeology t.0 Kelly, M., B. Nakamura, and D. B. Barrere 1981 Hilo Bay: A chronological history; Land and water use in the Hilo Bay area, Island of Hawai't. Bernice Puahi Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Kennedy, J. 1991 Archaeological Inventory Report Located a1 Pu ueo, Island of Hawaii; Revised November 1991. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. 1992 Archaeological Inventory Final Report; Located at Pu ueo on the Island of HawatI; Revised July 1992. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Lockwood, J., and J. Buchanan -Banks 1981 Preliminary Geologic report for the Alenaio Stream Flood Damage Reduction Study area, Hilo, Hawaii. Open -file Report 81.791, U.S. Geological Survey. McEldowney, H. 1979 Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design: Lava flow control stud%, Hilo, Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Moniz, J. 1992 Historical and archaeological synthesis of land use and settlement patterns Waiakea Ahupua'a, Hilo, Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. 0 Nagata, R. 1985 Letter Report: Field Inspection of Cave Site, Fodder Growing Project, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Pietrusewsky, M. P. 1989 Human Remains Found at Wailoa Bridge, Renovation Project Site No. 50-10-35-11, 115, Lihiwai Street. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Rosendahl, M. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for EIS, Hilo Judiciary Complex Sites, Hilo, District of South Hilo, Island of Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Hilo Wastewater Treatment Facility Site, Land of Waiakea, District of South Hilo, Island of Ilawai'i Rcpo.t; State F?isWtic Preserrati:m Divisiou Library, 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey For Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Proposed Irradiation Plant Site. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Rosendahl, M. L. and T., Lawrence 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Proposed Irradiation Plant Site, Land of Wuakea, District of South Hilo, Island of Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. 0 Archaeology 103 Rosendahl, M., and P. Rosendahl 1988 Archaeological Survev for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Honolii Hcdroeiectnc Project Area, Lands of Kikala and Paukaa, District of South Hilo, Island of Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Rosendahl, P. H. 1981 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survev of the Eucalyptus Biomass Farm Site, Puueo, South Hilo, Island of Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. 1989 Letter Report: Mauluanui Fence Line Survey, Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Island of Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Rosendahl, P., and J. Head 1992 Archaeological Field Inspection, Paukaa Development Parce4 Land of Paukaa, South Hilo, Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Rosendahl, P., and L. Kalima 1991 Historical Research: Old Government Road Hawaii Tropical Botanical Garden Project Area, Land of Onomea, South Hilo, Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Sinoto, A. 1975 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Wailuku-Alenaio Watershed Project, Hilo, Island of Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. O 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Proposed Kaumana Springs Wilderness Park Hilo, Island of Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Smith, M. 1988 Wailoa Bridge Renovation Project, Site No. 50-10-35-11, 115. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. 1991 Site inspection of the University of Hawaii -Hilo perimeter road alignment, Research and Technology Park Phase 1, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii (TMK• 3-2-4-01:7). Memorandum, State Historic Preservation Division Library. 1991 Field Inspection for State Land Disposition of the Proposed Depanment of Water Supply Office Site in Hilo, Waiakea Homesteads, South Hilo, Hawaii. Memorandum, State Historic Preservation Division Library. 1992 Field Inspection for State Land Disposition of the Proposed Department of Water Supply Office Site in Isla, Waiakea Cane Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii Island. Mcworandum, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Smith, M., and P. Tourtellottee 1988 Wailoa Bridge Renovation Project, Site 50-10.11, 115, Burial Removal from Lihiwai Street, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Spear, R. 1992 An Archaeological Inventory Survey for the H.C.E.O.C. Project, Hilo, Island of Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. 101 Archaeologv Stokes, J. F. 1991 Heiau of the Island of Hawaii: A historical survey of native Hawaiian temple sites. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Thrum, T. G. 1907a Heiau and heiau sites throughout the Hawaiian islands. Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908. 1907b Tales from temples. Part U. Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908. Vandercook, J. W. 1934 Idng Cane: The story of sugar in Hawaii. Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York. Walker, A. T. 1991 Archaeological Field Inspection, Hawaii Tropical Botanical Garden Project Area Land of Onomea, South Hilo, Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Walker, S. 1990 Archaeological Subsurface Test Excavations for Alenaio Stream Flood Damage Reduction Measures, Hilo, Hawail Island. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. Wickler, S. 1992 Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Investigations, Alenaio Stream Flood Control Project, O Hilo Hawaii. Report, State Historic Preservation Division Library. C C C APPENDIX E2 SUPPLEMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY, ROBINS AND SPEAR, 1995 s -fl, V -F 6 C -s c SCS Project Number 058-3 AN INVENTORY SURVEY OF THE PUAINAKO STREET REALIGNMENT/EXTENSION PROJECT EXPANDED CORRIDOR, WAIAKEA, KUKUAU 1 AND 2 AND PONAHAWAI, SOUTH HILO DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAII By: Jennifer J. Robins, B.A. and Robert L. Spear, Ph.D. Revised January 1996 Prepared for: Okahaia and;Associates, 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawai' i 96720, SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANT SERVICES. Inc. 711 Kapiolani Blvd: Suite 777 Honolulu, Hawafl 96813" O O ABSTRACT At the request of Dr. Younki Hahn, representing Okahara and Associates Inc. Scientific OConsultant Services, Inc. (SCS) conducted an archaeological inventory survey of the widening of four proposed road alignments (Alternate 1, 2. A and B) and intervening road sections. The road alignments are part of the proposed Pu`ainako Street Realignment/ Extension Project, located in the ahupua'a of Waiakea, Kukuau, and Ponahawai, South Hilo District, on the Island of Hawai'i. The original "Pu`ainako Street Extension Project" consisted of proposed road alignments measuring 120 -feet wide. These project corridors were previously subjected to an inventory survey level of work (Hunt and McDermott 1994) that resulted in the identification of 13 sites. The 13 sites were attributable to historic cane cultivation associated with the Waiakea Mill Co. The Hunt and McDermott survey work and resulting report were accepted by the Department of Land and Natural Resources/State Historic Preservation (DLNR/SHPD letter to D. Kiyosaki, dated July 20, 1994). The present project survey followed the same general course of the original project corridors surveyed by Hunt and McDermott, except that the width of the corridors were expanded to 300 feet wide and slightly realigned. In general, the present project area extended roughly 90 feet beyond the original Right -Of -Way (outer boundaries) of Hunt and McDermotts' survey area. During the survey, a total of 46 architectural features were identified in the expanded project corridors, specifically within the eastern portion of the corridors between Komohana Street and Kawili Street. Based on proximity and a similarity in construction, 30 of these features are Oconsidered to be associated with three of the sites (sites 18912, 18914, and 18919) previously identified by Hunt and McDermott (1994) and the remaining 16 features comprised a new site (Site 20681). Using criteria generated by previous researchers, all 46 of the newly identified features are interpreted as being associated with historic cane cultivation activities. The criteria of interpretation includes: (1) the site features are located in designated cane lands; (2) the site features match cane -related structures anticipated in the historic background research and are comparable to other known sugar plantation structures; (3) the site features have architecture that is atypical to traditional Hawaiian site types; and (4) the site features are associated with historic artifacts that are specific to plantation -related activities. Significance evaluations and recommended treatment of the 13 sites identified in the original 120 -foot wide road corridors (i.e., Hunt and McDermott 1994) have been accepted by the DLNR/SHPD. Since the additional 30 features identified in the expanded corridors are affiliated with the 13 sites, the same significance and recommended treatments are appropriate for the newly identified features. Of the total 14 sites, 12 are considered significant for information content (criterion D) and 2 of these 12 sites (sites 18914 and 18915) are also considered excellent site types (criterion Q. The remaining 2 sites are no longer significant. The two sites assessed as excellent site types and the adjacent Site 18917 are to be preserved, preferably as an educational preserve for UH -Hilo or other regional schools. Seven sites are recommended for mitigation through data recovery. No further work is to be done at the remaining four sites O because an adequate amount of data has already been obtained during the inventory survey level of work. A. 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................... iii O LIST OF TABLES ........................................... iv PROJECT BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ...................... 1 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ............................. 1 SCOPE OF WORK ............................... .. ..... 3 PHYSICAL SETTING ......................................... 5 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY .................................... 7 HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK .................................... 12 IMPLICATIONS OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH ....................... 18 METHODOLOGY...........................................19 SURVEY RESULTS..........................................19 SITE DESCRIPTIONS....................................24 Site 50-10-35-18911 .................................. 24 Site 50-10-35-18912 .................................. 25 O Site 50-10-35-18913 .................................. 28 Site 50-10-35-18914 .................................. 28 Site 50-10-35-18915 .................................. 32 Site 50-10-35-18916 .................................. 33 Site 50-10-35-18917 .................................. 34 Site 50-10-35-18918 .................................. 34 Site 50-10-35-18919 .................................. 35 Site 50-10-35-18920 .................................. 40 Site 50-10-35-18921 .................................. 41 Site 50-10-35-18922 .................................. 42 Site 50-10-35-18923 .................................. 42 Site 50-10-35-20681 .................................. 43 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................... 49 INITIAL SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT ............................ 53 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................53 REFERENCES CITED.........................................57 ii O LIST OF FIGURES OFigure 1 Portion of USGS Hawaii Island Topographical Map, Showing General Area of Project Corridors .............................. 2 Figure 2 Pu`ainako Street Extension Project Corridors, Showing Approximate ,ei Course of Road Alignments (Alternate 1, 2, A and B) and Existing Roadways Figure 3 Site 50-10-35-18914 Area, Showing Secondary Vegetation Growth Surrounding Feature 1 ................................ 6 Figure 4 Site 50-10-35-18919 Area, Showing Secondary Vegetation Growth Surrounding Feature 29 ................................ 6 Figure 5 Locations of Previous Archaeological Studies (in bold) in Proximity to the East Portion of the Pu`ainako Street Extension Project Corridors 10 Figure 6 1933 Waiakea Mill Co. Map Showing Homestead lots, Leased Cane Fields, and Railroad Routes (in Kelly et al. 1981); Map modified to indicate Location of Pu`ainako St. Extension Project Corridors (bold line)...........................................14 O Figure 7 1933 Waiakea Mill Co. Map Showing Cultivated Cane Fields, Railroad Routes and Pasture Land (in Hunt and McDermott 1994); Map modified to Indicate Location of Pu`ainako St. Extension Project Corridors (dashed line) ................................ 15 Figure 8 1933 Waiakea Mill Co. Map Showing Homestead Lots, Leased Cane Fields and Railroad routes in Area of Puainako St. Extension Project Corridors (see Figures 6 and 7 for approximate corridor locations) ..... 16 Figure 9 1890 Photograph Taken of Waiakea Mill Cane Field, Showing Cane Loader, Train, and Clearing Mounds (taken from Conde and Best 1973) ...........................................17 Figure 10 Site Locations in the Pu`ainako Street Extension Project Corridors, Based Partly on Previous Inventory Survey Locations (Hunt and McDermott 1994:38-41) . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 11 Site 50-10-35-18912 Complex, Features 1 Through 3; Plan View and Cross Section ...................................... 26 Figure 12 Site 50-10-35-18912 Feature 4; Plan View ................... 27 iii Figure 13 Site 50-10-35-18914 Complex, Feature 1 through 5; Plan View ....... 29 O Figure 14 Portion of Alternate A Project Corridor; Showing Site 50-10-35-18914: Feature 1, 3-5 and approximate Boundary of Previously Identified Features (Hunt and McDermott 1994:41) ................. .... 30 Figure 15 Site 50-10-35-18914, Feature 4 Platform; View East .............. 32 Figure 16 Site 50-10-35-18919 Complex, Features A -GG (recorded by Hunt and McDermott 1994:App. A) and Features 11-32 (recorded during present project survey), Dashed Line Indicates 120 -Foot Wide Corridor Boundary; Plan View ..... ............................ 36 Figure 17 Site 50-10-35-18919 Feature 2, Area of Excavation; View North ...... 39 Figure 18 Site 50-10-35-20681 Complex, Features 1-10 and 33-38, Dashed Line Indicates 126 -Foot Wide Corridor Boundary; Plan View ........... 44 Figure 19 Site 50-10-35-20681, Feature 7; View South ................... 46 Figure 20 Site 50-10-35-20681, Feature 9; View South ................... 46 Figure 21 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature 35; View South .................. 47 O Figure 22 Site 50-10-35-18919, Feature 37; View Northeast ................ 47 Figure 23 Pu`ainako Street Extension Project Corridors Between Komohana Street and Kawili Street, Showing Approximate Site Boundaries (shaded) Within 300 -Foot Right-Of-Wa.y (ROW) of Road Alternates A and B ... 54 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of Sites in the Pu`ainako Street Extension Project, with Significance Evaluations and Recommended Treatment ............ 20 Table 2 Pu`ainako St. Extension Project: Site Significance and Recommended Treatment ........................................ 55 iv o PROJECT BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION O At the request of Dr. Younki Hahn, representing Okahara and Associates, Inc., an Archeological Inventory Survey was conducted by Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) of two alternate road corridors within the proposed Pu`ainako Street Realignment/Extension Project. The two road corridors span a total length of 6.6 miles, through the ahupua'a of Waidkea, Kukuau 1 and 2, and Kaumana, in the South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (Figure 1). The fieldwork was carried out November 28th, 1994 through December 31st, 1994 and continued again from January 8th, 1995 through January 28th, 1995. The fieldwork was conducted by Field Supervisor William R. Fortini and Field Archaeologist Leina`ala Blomfield Benson. The field work and report production was done under the overall direction of Robert L. Spear, Ph.D. serving as Principal Investigator. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION OThe present project is an expanded study of four proposed road alignments of the Pu`aianako Street Extension Project previously subjected to an archaeological inventory survey (Hunt and McDermott 1994). The original Pu`ainako Street Extension Project was conducted along a 120 foot (60 feet on either side of the street centerline) corridor of the four road alignments and common portions. The present project area represents a lateral expansion of the original road alignments, which changed its initial 120 -foot wide course to the present width of 300 feet; some minor realignments of the original routes were also included (Figure 1). This new expansion area was delineated in the field by professional surveyors who set stakes on the centerline and survey flagging along the outer perimeters of the expanded corridors or Right -Of -Way (ROW). The perimeter of three existing road sections were also surveyed during the present project. These road sections extend south of the existing Pu`ainako Street and include proposed expansions (between 10 and 20 feet) along the perimeters of Kilauea Avenue, Kinoole Street and Komohana Street. u m m Figure 1 Portion of USGS Hawaii Island Topographical Map, Showing General Area of Project Corridors 0 /I »I o C.) s y IN S4 a - 8 of W s w . l� a , 0 O •'J: N of - 5y7 a m Figure 1 Portion of USGS Hawaii Island Topographical Map, Showing General Area of Project Corridors 0 i A The Pu`ainako Street Extension Project has been classified into two locational portions: the lower portion east of Komohana Street and the upper portion west of Komohana Street. The upper portion comprises two separate alignments designated Alternate 1 and 2 and the lower portion comprises two separate alignments designated Alternate A and B (Figure 2). Upper Portion Alternate 1 extends in an east to northeast direction from the intersection of Malulani Drive and Kaumana Drive (marking its mauka or west boundary), beyond the south end of Kulua Road (south of Kaumana School), until merging with Alternate 2 at roughly the 520 - foot contour. The west end of Alternate 2 branches off of Alternate 1 at about 1000 ft east of the intersection of Kaumana Drive and Maulana Drive. Alternate 2 continues to run in a southeasterly direction until diverting northeast at the south end of Wilder Road and rejoining Alternate 1, approximately 1.3 miles west of Komohana Street. A common portion (single alignment) of the upper portion extends east of Alternate 1 and 2 until merging with two other alternate alignments to the lower portion designated Alternate A and B. The upper portion of the project terminates at Komohana Street. Lower Portion The lower portion continues east of Komohana Street and includes the Alternate A and B and a common portion (single alignment) extending east of Alternate A and B and terminating at Kilauea Drive SCOPE OF WORK The primary goal of this survey was to complete a 100% ground survey - as feasible - of the project area and to record all archaeological sites and features in the expanded road corridors. An attempt was made to relocate the sites previously identified in the road corridors (Hunt and McDermott 1994) and to correlate any of these features with those identified during the present survey in the expanded 300 -foot corridors. This report presents the results and interpretative analysis of the sites identified during the supplementary 3 Irl m ME U w.h,wahS. 0 O inventory survey work including: (1) an overview of the physical setting and historical Oframework (the reader is referred to the Hunt and McDermott report (1994) for a more inclusive historical background); (2) survey results: including site descriptions, maps and photographs and interpretive functional analyses of the sites; (3) discussion and conclusions of the survey results; and (3) significance evaluations and recommendations for future treatment of the project sites. Limited testing was conducted during the present survey to determine the presence or absence of a lava tube adjacent to one of Site 50-10-35-18919's features. No additional testing was deemed necessary during the present inventory survey because of prior approval by the Department of Land and Natural Resources/State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR/SHPD) that an appropriate amount of sites had been previously tested in the project area by Hunt and McDermott (SHPD review letter to D. Kiyosaki, July 20, 1994). PHYSICAL SETTING OThe project area (comprising the four separate alignments and common portions) crosses over relatively undissected terrain between roughly 100 ft a.m.s.l. at Kilauea Drive and 1460 ft a.m.s.l. at Kaumana Drive. The proposed road corridors provided inspection of a range of differing geological and vegetation landscapes (Figures 3 and 4). Among the natural landscapes a variation of land alterations was observed, including those associated with historic cane cultivation and urban development. The project corridors cross over three main lava flows that were derived from Mauna Loa (Hunt and McDermott 1994:6). Radiocarbon dating suggests that the flows were formed during a succession of time periods: beginning with the 3000-4000 BY Punahoa flow encountered between Komohana and Kawili streets, the 1000-1400 BY Kulaloa flow located mauka of Komohana Street and the historic 1880 flow that roughly parallels the west half of Alternate 1, west of where Alternate I and 2 diverge. The predominant soils in the mauka portion of the project area Oust west of Komohana St.) are defined along Alternate 2 as rocky muck of the Keakaha soil series and Kaiwiki silty clay loam in the west portion of both road corridors; Alternate 1 crosses the O 5 • �' (ti.+ fir~.;: xj 1f �•'m�yr 7. 1` .�s' 1 r Ir'i'i , tat'\'��I�.#'' j� .. -} t �• � .!' iy tI; � }. �. i rI .';x \ .Q\\- r_ 0 1881 lava flow along most of its mauka course (Sato et al. 1973). In the eastern end of the oroad corridor, where most of the sites are located, the soils consist of Paneawa very rocky silt and Keaukaha extremely rocky muck (25-50% rock surface) (ibid.). The Paneawa and Keaukaha soils were considered to be an insufficient matrix for mechanized agriculture, whereas the Kaiwiki soil series in the upper portion of the project corridors were more optimal for mechanized agriculture (Hunt and McDermott 1994:6). Rainfall in the project area is high, ranging between 130-120 inches per year. Waiakea Stream crosses the eastern portion of the project corridor. Sections of Waikea Stream had been altered in the 1940s for flood control (Hunt and McDermott 1994:7). The project road corridors extend through a mix of vegetation types including woodland -Ghia forest, rain forest, and previously altered land for pasture and commercial sugarcane. Secondary, non-native vegetation growth flourishes in the lands once cultivated in cane or used for pasture. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY OThe first inventory of archaeological sites was done by T.G. Thrum and John F. Stokes during the early 20th century. Thrum and Stokes account of three heiau in Waiakea Ahupua `a that were located near the coast. All three of these heiau were reported as being destroyed in the 19th century (Thrum 1907a, 1907b and Stokes 1991). Another early study, but more specific to the Hilo region, was Alfred E. Hudson's site inventory and survey of the east coast of Hawaii (Hudson 1932). Hudson's survey identified heiau and fishing shrines, platforms (presumably house sites), shelter caves, trails, and agricultural features, all of which were mostly on the coast between Hilo and Kumukahi Point (McEldowney 1979). One of these heiau he mentions was in Waiakea "along the old Hilo-`Ola`a trail (not far from the route of modem day Kilauea)" (Maly et al 1994). However, Hudson did not relocate the heiau during his survey, nor could he find any local informants who had known about it (ibid.). Two reports provide thorough regional summaries of the history of the Hilo region O 7 0 o e (Kelly et al. 1981 and McEldowney 1979). Based on early historic accounts of the lands between Hilo and Kumukahi Point, McEldowney proposes that Hawaiians utilized the land in accordance to five elevational zones, a land use sequence that specifically embraces the far- reaching Waiakea Ahupua'a (McEldowney 1979:14). McEldowney's land use zones are classified as the (I) coastal zone; (II) upland agricultural zone; (III) lower forest zone; (IV) rainforest zone; and (V) Subalpine or Montane Zone. The present project area extends almost completely through the elevations of Zone 11. The following is a synopsis of these five zones as described by McEldowney (ibid.:15-25). Coastal Settlement Zone I Elevation: sea level to 50 ft or extending 1/2 a mile inland Resources: marine goods, canoe access, dry and wetland cultivation grounds, potable and brackish water Site Types: heiau, high -rank residences, temporary and permanent habitation, aquaculture, garden plots and small plantations, Pattern: highest population density of all zones; settlements centered at Hilo Bay and six small villages from Hilo to Kumukai Point; otherwise habitation occurred in small clusters. Upland Agricultural Zone II Elevation: App. 50 ft to 1,500 ft Resources described as "unwooded grasslands", extensive dryland cultivation grounds Site Types: scattered houses and adjacent garden and tree plots, utilization of lava tubes, agriculture features on older pahoehoe and a`a flows and ash soils Pattern: more extensive dryland agriculture with wetland methods still focused along streams; zone suggested to have been deforested prior to contact as a result of "shifting agriculture" (i.e., swidden and slash and burn). Zone III - Lower Forest Zone III Elevation: 1,500 to 2,500 feet Resources: timber and wild forest goods, consistently wet environment Site Types: temporary habitation, minor agriculture, shrines, and trails 1 IN 8 0 0 O Pattern: less manipulation of landscape than in the lower zones with agriculture limited Cto small cultivation plots (along streams, trails, and forest clearing); collection of wild forest goods primary initiative (e.g. timber for canoes and house construction, olona for net making, wild plants for dye and medicine, birds for feathers, etc.). Rainforest Zone IV Elevation: 2,500 to 5.000 ft Resources: seasonal bird population Site Types: Temporary habitations next to trails Pattern: No manipulation of landscape among dense rainforest vegetation; shorter -term habitation expected in association with seasonal bird catching (March -April and August -October) and long-distance travel across districts. Subalpine or Montane Zone V Elevation: 5,000 to 9,500 ft Resources: birds, hardwood timber, stone source, potential water sources, lava tubes, easy landscape to traverse (cool, dry and open) CSite Types: temporary habitations, cross -district trails Pattern: No manipulation of landscape; highly valued resources sought in this zone (e.g., hardwoods, specific types of birds, quality stone for tools); traversable terrain advantageous for trade and communication. The McEldowney report also contributes a chronology of historic land use in the Hilo region between 1824 and 1946. During this period McEldowney identifies four "major shifts in the economic and social character" of the Hilo region (McEldowney 1979:34), beginning with the establishment of a christian mission in Hilo in 1824 and ending in 1946 when a destructive tidal wave caused the final closing of Waiakea Sugar Mill. During the past four years several contract -related archaeology projects have been done in Waiakea Ahupua`a, most of which were conducted on lands near the makai or east end of the project corridor (Borthwick et al. 1993; Hunt and McDermott 1994; Maly et al. 1994; Kennedy and Ireland 1994; and Spear 1995) (Figure 5). 9 0 0 0 0 Figure 5 Locations of Previous Archaeological Studies (in bold) in Proximity to the East Portion O of the Pu`ainako Street Extension Project Corridors 10 The most relevant of these studies to the present project is the inventory survey conducted by Dr. Hunt of the original Pu`ainako Street Extension alternate road corridors O(Hunt and McDermott 1994). This survey focused on the same alternate road corridors as the present project survey, except the original road corridors were narrower, measuring 120 feet wide. As a result of this survey, 13 sites were identified within the road corridors. Of these 13 sites, nine are clustered makai (east) of Komohana Street in land north of the existing Pu`ainako Street, two sites are located immediately west of Komohana Street and two sites are located in the mauka portion of the corridors. Based on a number of historic documents (histories, maps, and photos), oral histories, archaeological evidence and external correlations with other sites in Hawaii, all 13 of the sites contain structures that are interpreted as field clearing mounds or remnant infrastructure (ramps and water tank foundations) related primarily to cane cultivation for the Waiakea Plantation and Mill. Three volcanic glass flakes were recovered from a stratigraphic layer that predated the construction of one of the numerous cane field features (Site 18915-H). Although Hunt and McDermott allude that these artifacts may indicate Hawaiian use of the area, they also caution that the artifacts could have been redeposited from an original context elsewhere because of regional 0 flooding. In regards to the potentiality of traditional Hawaiian sites in the project area, the Hunt and McDermott report concludes that "if subtle evidence of Hawaiian use of the area exists" (for example the volcanic glass recovered in the excavation) "it will likely be found only in sparse and unpredictable spatial distributions" (ibid.:108). Similar types of archaeological sites said to be attributable to historic sugar plantation activities were also identified in three of the other study areas near the eastern portion of the project corridors (Borthwick 1993; Maly et al 1993; and Spear 1995). Cultural Surveys Hawaii identified five sites in an approximately 174 -acre lot situated just north of the present project corridor and east of Komohana Street (Borthwick et al 1993). Three of the recorded sites were interpreted specifically as historic cane fields (evidenced by clearing mounds, field walls and earthen furrows) and two of the sites were reported to be a temporary shelter and "lunch station" once utilized by the sugar plantation workers. Subsurface testing of mounds at two of the sites confirmed their function as clearing piles, as is substantiated by the mounds' construction on bedrock and the lack of associated artifacts. O 11 0 0 0 Four sites were identified during an inventory survey of a 4.5 -acre lot on Kawili Street, north of the present project area (Maly et al. 1994). Three of these sites (sites 19431, 19433 and 19434), represented by enclosures, were interpreted as historic habitation sites. 0 The fourth site, as characterized by a ubiquitous distribution of walls and mounds throughout much of the property, was interpreted as being associated with historic sugar plantation activities. Limited testing at one of the suspected habitation sites (Site 19431) yielded a few pieces of modified volcanic glass and charcoal that produced a radiocarbon date range of A.D. 1309-1516 (85% probability). Both the charcoal and artifacts were recovered from a cultural layer that stratigraphically predated the construction of Site 19431's surface feature. All four of the sites were subjected to a subsequent data recovery program (Spear 1995). This mitigation work indicated that Site 19432 was associated with sugar plantation activities and the remaining three sites were temporary shelters (and a possible animal pen) that, given that their construction utilizes the cane features, were utilized after cane was no longer being grown in the area. The Kennedy and Ireland report (1994) details a survey conducted on a small lot on the comer of Kawili Street and Kilauea Drive. No archaeological remains were identified during the survey. 0 HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK The Hunt and McDermott report (1994) provides a complete background of the prehistory and history of the project area. The reader is also referred to the McEldowney report (1979) and Kelly et al report (1981). A summary of the cultural and historical material is presented below. The lands of Waiakea, Kukuau and Ponohawai provided a wide variety of valuable subsistence resources to the prehistoric Hawaiians residing there and various ah'i whom claimed the lands. Settlement in these lands was mainly focused on the coast with the exception of some residences being established upland among the agricultural fields. The ahupua'a residents utilized the uplands in accordance to specific elevational zones (cf. McEldowney 1978, see summary of these zones in Previous Archaeology of this report). These land use zones reflected different environments (predicted by climate and terrain) where specific natural resources were readily acquired (i.e., Zones III, IV and V) and where 0 12 D varying degrees of modification of the terrain produced a surplus of dryland and wetland agricultural goods (primarily in Zone II). Thus, the project area lands'being part of the CUpland Agriculture Zone II were probably subjected to extensive cultivation during prehistoric times. As suggested by McEldowney (1978:21) "shifting agriculture" methods that entailed constant burning of significant forest floors may have been responsible for 1 causing the "unwooded plains" observed there following western contact. During prehistory the coastal settlement at Waiakea was a well-known political center, most notably under the Kulukulu chiefdom which was subsequently conquered in the 15th or 16th century by the paramount Hawaii chief Umi-a-liloa. The Hawaiian ali`i were probably drawn to Waiakea for its fish ponds, easy ocean access and wealth of food and other material -- all of which assisted in sustaining a strong political dominion in prehistoric Hawai'i. Following western contact (ca. late 18th century) five main events successively changed the traditional and natural landscape of the project area ahupua `a. These events in chronological order include: (1) development of Hilo as a shipping port; (2) arrival of missionaries beginning in 1824; (3) mahele land tenure of the 1840s; and (4) the establishment of Waiakea Sugar Mill and Plantation in 1879. In combination with other ill- effects of western contact with Hawaii (e.g., disease and emigration), these historic events allowed the project lands of Waiakea, Kukuau and Ponahawai (once part of an ahupua`a- based economy with traditional crop lands and associated residences) to become foreign- owned and cultivated in a non -subsistence crop (sugarcane) primarily for foreign profit. Historic maps associated with the Waiakea Sugar Plantation indicate that the present project's proposed road corridors extend through lands once cultivated in cane or that were on the edge of pasture lands (Figures 6 through 8). The sugar plantation's methods of land clearing and mechanized tilling described by the various historians (e.g. Conde and Best 1973:117-126 and Kelly et al. 1981:118-123) indicates that the existing ground surface was disturbed, but only to a 6 -inch plowing depth due to the stoney lands (Kelly et al.:121), and that the fields were cleared of rock, much of which was piled in mounds (Figure 9). A 1932 newspaper article also accounts for how these field mounds were torn down and rebuilt before each new crop was planted in order to rid them of "weeds and pests" (J. Smith, in Hunt and McDermott 1994:31). The Waiakea cane fields were also notorious for the abundance of tanks used for water storage in the Waiakea fields (ibid.). 13 0 0 6000 Ft. O 101 rigure o 1933 Waiakea Mill Co. Map Showing Homestead lots, Leased Cane Fields, and Railroad Routes (in Kelly et al. 1981); Map modified to indicate Location of Pu'ainako St. Extension Project Corridors (bold line) 0 14 N ® o 0 -MAP OF THE LAND UNDER CULTIVATION BY THE WAIAKEA MILL CO.. HILO. HAWAII" ORIGINAL DRANM BY, W L.S. WILLIAMS DATED 1922. CORRECTED TO DECEMBER. 1933 Figure 7 1933 Waiakea Mill Co. Map Showing Cultivated Cane Fields, Railroad Routes o and Pasture Land (in Hunt and McDermott 1994); Map modified to Indicate Location of Pu`ainako St. Extension Project Corridors (dashed line) 15 \ �? i . �.\' MAP OF z . WA)MA! MILL CO H ILO HAWAIIIw tF ne +..1 i t • C ted M1 0¢embe 133 ol . eu3 �, ._v:ie. - � ri �\d � i \ ' \ \ i { I r.'F $ sib . '^J• a,! y - P L jjj . • " t ttt F . ,,, \ - � - �I , I■ i I r f� e 1 s III 11 i f wal •�y�' - � - it i c 6 W i i - a +x III a C N Q w -72 b0 IMPLICATIONS OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH The background research provoked expectations of what type of sites (architectural and functional) would likely be found in the present project area. The proposed road corridors of the project extend between approximately 100 ft and 1,500 ft a.m.s.l. This elevational range places the project area within Holly McEldowney's "Upland Agricultural Zone", an area she proposes represents one of five differential land use zones traditionally utilized in early historic times and possibly during prehistoric times (McEldowney 1979:14). The early historic observations of Hilo suggest that the project area corridors extend through what was an unwooded plain that contained scattered permanent residences and adjacent cultivation plots and tree crops. McEldowney suggests that the unwooded plain was indicative of a landscape that had been extensively cultivated (mostly dryland) and subjected to agricultural methods of "shifting agriculture (i.e., swidden or slash -and -burn)" (ibid.:21). Sites evidencing these activities may have included well aggregated (suggesting antiquity and continuous use) field walls, mounds and terraces especially in the soil expanses of the region and adjacent to streams. Scattered residences if indeed present may have been located O outside of the more optimum cultivation grounds, i.e., on outcrop ridges or bluffs. However, since most of the project area crosses over historic cane fields or boundaries between the cane fields and pasture land, it was expected that evidence of traditional activities (habitation and agriculture) was probably destroyed by extensive historic land alterations associated with commercial cane cultivation (i.e., hand -tilling, mechanized plowing, and field clearing). This expectation was also substantiated by Hunt and McDermott's report (1994) that reported only historic era sites within the same project corridors. All of these sites are believed to be specifically associated with commercial cane activities. 18 O a a METHODOLOGY OThe ground survey of the proposed road corridors was completed generally in a west to east direction, beginning at the west end of both alternates at the intersection of Kaumana Road and Malulani Drive. A crew of two archaeologists conducted the ground survey at transect intervals spaced approximately 15 to 25 in apart (49 to 82 ft), depending on ground visibility and accessibility. The majority of the project area, although difficult, was accessible for ground survey. However, the density in vegetation in many areas prohibited 100% ground visibility. The actual survey area was defined on the ground by survey stakes spaced 100 ft apart along the centerline of the project road corridors. Thus, at minimum, the survey area included 90 feet on each side of the Right -of -Way of the previous inventory survey (i.e., Hunt and McDermott 1994) . Sites were recorded in the field using SCS Site Record forms and all of the newly identified site features were mapped using a metric scale of 1 cm = 2 in or 4 in Photographs were taken of the general project and site areas using black and white and color film and each photo was recorded on a photo record. All project materials are stored at the OSCS office in Honolulu. SURVEY RESULTS A total of 13 sites (including 90 features) were identified as a result of the previous inventory survey of the original 120 foot road corridors (Hunt and McDermott 1994). An attempt was made to relocate all 13 of these sites. Three of the 13 sites (Site 18918, 18922 and 18923) could not be found during the present project survey. During the present project survey, an additional 46 features were recorded in the expanded project corridors, 22 of the features are spatially and functionally associated with Site 18919, four features with 18914, and four features with Site 18912. The remaining 16 features comprise a new site (Site 20681) located just east of Site 18919. Thus, a total of 136 archaeological features have been recorded, as result of both surveys, in the 300 -foot wide project corridors (Table 1). Figure 10 shows the general locations of all 14 sites in the designated road corridors. O 19 Table 1 - Summar(. Sites in the Pu'ainako Street Extensl, *''roject, with Significance g Evaluation, and Recommended Treatment Site No. (50-10-35) *Feat. No. of Feat. Architectural Type Size (sq. m.) Interpreted Functionicance Signif- Recommended Treatment 18911 11 Complex of structures Historic agriculture D DR A Curvilinear terrace 276 Retaining wall B Linear mound 43 Clearing C Linear Mod. outcrop 205 Clearing D Rectangular mound 84 Clearing E Irregular-shaped mound 56 Clearing F Linear terrace 132 Retaining wall G Rectangular mound 96 Clearing H Linear terrace 64 Retaining wall I Curv-linear terrace 99 Retaining wall J Irregular mound 225 Clearing K Irregular mound 96.5 Clearing 18912 5 Complex of structures Historic agriculture D DR no Irregular mound 54 Clearing 1 Circular platform 16 Water tank foundation 2 Retaining wall 14 Clear/slope retaining 3 C-shaped enclosure 45 Clear/slope retaining 4 Retaining wall - Clear/slope retaining 18913 none 1 Rectangular mound 29 Historic agriculture NILS IN FEW 18914 - 12 Complex of structures Historic agriculture C,D P A Rectangular platform 34 Clearing/foundation B Rectangular platform 60 Clear/ramp C Irregular mound 25 Clearing D Irregular mound 34.5 Clearing E Linear terrace 55 Retaining wall F Rectangular platform 66 Clear/ramp G Irregular mod. outcrop 1092 Clearing L H Curvilinear mod. outcrop 62.5 Clearing 1 Irregular platform 49.2 Clearing 3 Rectangular mound 32.2 Clearing 4 Rectangular platform 54.2 Clear/ramp 5 Circular mound 0.7 Clearing 18915 9 Complex of structures Historic agriculture C, D P A Oval enclosure 112.5 Clear/foundation B Linear terrace -mound 20 railroad bed C Rectangular platform 42 Clear/ramp D Rectangular mound 3.5 Clearing E Rectangular platform 42 Clear/foundation F Rectangular platform 46 Clearing G Rectangular mound 13 Clearing H Oval platform 45 Clear/foundation I Irregular mound 29.5 Clearing 18916 2 Complex of structures Historic agriculture D DR A Rectangular platform 45 Clear/foundation B Curvilinear terrace -wall 217.5 Retaining wall 18917 - 3 Complex of structures Hlstorlc agriculture D I P A Wall 13 Clearing B Rectangular mound 9 Clearing C Rectangular mound 20.5 Clearing 18918 4 Complex of structures Hlstorlc agriculture D DR A Irregular mod, outcrop 3.5 Clearing B I Rectangular mod. outcrop 1.5 Clearing C Oval mound 8.5 Clearing P C C C 0 O OTable 1 - Continued Site No. *Feat. 50-10-35) No. of Architectural Feat. Type Size (sq. m.) Interpreted Signif- Recommended Function icance Treatment D Irregular mod. outcrop 15.5 Enclose 18919 5$ Complex of structures Historic agriculture, Q QR A Irregular mod outcrop 490 Clear/foundation 6 Rectangular mod. outcrop 15 Clear/foundation C Curv-Imear mod. outcrop 15.5 Clearing D Rectangular mound 2 Clearing E Wall 81 5 Boundary F Curv-Imear mod. outcrop 10 Clearing G Rectangular mod outcrop 7 Clearing H Irregular mod outcrop 3 Clearing I Curv-linear mod. outcrop 12 Clearing J Irregular mod. outcrop 18 Clearing K Rectangular mound 2 Clearing L Rectangular mod. outcrop 30 Clearing M Circular mod. outcrop 23 Clearing N Oval modified outcrop 14 Clearing O 1 Irregular mound 4 Clearing p Rectangular mod. outcrop 5 Clearing O Rectangular platform 11 Clear/foundation R Circular mound 4 Clearing S Rectangular mod. outcrop 3 Clearing T Irregular mod. outcrop 72 Clearing U Rectangular platform 21 Clear/foundation v Circular mound 2.5 Clearing W Rectangular mound 2 5 Clearing X Rectangular mound 2 Clearing Y Oval mound 2 Clearing Z Rectangular mound 2 Clearing AA Rectangular mod. outcrop 7.5 Clear/foundation 88 Irregular mod. outcrop 2 Clearing CC Linear mod. outcrop 1.5 Clearing DD Irregular mod. outcrop 2 Clearing EE Irregular mod. outcrop 3 Clearing FF Rectangular mod. outcrop 3.5 Clearing GG Linear mod. outcrop 8 Clearing HH Linear mod. outcrop 3.5 Clearing II Linear mod. outcrop 1.5 Clearing JJ Linear mod. outcrop 2 Clearing 11 Retaining wall 4.2 Clearing 12 Linear terrace 12.4 Clearing 13 Modified outcrop 7.8 Clearing 14 Modified outcrop 16 Clearing 15 Modified outcrop 2 Clearing 16 Circular mound 4.4 Clearing 17 Retaining wall 9.8 Clearing 18 Retaining wall 102 Clearing 19 Rectangular mound 2.8 Clearing 20 Retaining wall 14 Clearing 21 Oval mound 1.1 Clearing 22 Rectangular mound 4.8 Clearing 23 Modified outcrop 2.6 Clearing 24 Modified outcrop 1.1 Clearing 25 Retai ing wall 2.2 Clearing 21 Table 1 - Continued Site No. (50-10-35) 'Feat. No. of Feat. Architectural Type Size (a 9'm,, .m. Interpreted Function Signif- icance Recommended Treatment 26 Terrace 1 3 Clearing 27 Rectangular mound 4 Clearing 28 Rectangular mound 1 9 Clearing 29 Rectangular mound 2.3 Clearing 30 Rectangular mound 8.7 Clearing 31 Retaining wall 2.7 Clearing 18928 32 8 Rectangular mound Complex of structures 3 6 77-7 Clearing Hfstorlo agriculture, NLS NFW A Rectangular mound 20 Clearing B Circular mound 8.5 Clearing C Circular mound 7.5 Clearing D Circular mound 8 5 Clearing E Circular mound 9 Clearing F Circular mound 6 5 Clearing G Circular mound 8 5 Clearing H Circular mound 7.5 Clearing 1$921 5 Com IexoEsiruduras':::::'::;: Historic agriculture D DR A Irregular mound 48 Clearing B Linear terrace 50 Clearing C Linear mound 35 Clearing D Wall segment 24 Clearing E Linear terrace 32 Clearing 1$923:.:': 3::.::::_: 7 ..: Modffodbutom:..r.:;,..;.r:.1$::;°:.`.`..;:Hlstoria Modified oultao '. .1 r3C4ifGre:;:.:..:,..D,,....:::..::'.NfRhF';:: Hiswriaa owifure : .; p NfW X0684 ;:. i6 , :Carty* leaf b! Structures ; H)titor€c a Hcrrltura p. :: faR .` 1 Oval mound 1.4 Clearing 2 Circular mound 2 Clearing 3 Rectangular mound 1.9 Clearing 4 Modified outcrop 1.6 Clearing 5 Modified outcrop 1.2 Clearing 6 linear mound 5.4 Clearing 7 Circular mound 5.2 Clearing 8 Retaining wall 2.3 long Clearing 9 Circular mound 4.8 Clearing 10 Modified outcrop 7.8 Clearing 33 Linear mound 30 Clearing 34 Oval mound 3.7 Clearing 35 Circular mound 2.4 Clearing 36 Retaining wall 0.7 Clearing 37 Circular mound 9 Clearing 38 Circular mound 3 Clearing Key: Significance Criteria (used by Hawaii DLNR/SHPD) C Site is an excellent site type D Site may be likely to yield information important in history and prehistory P Preservation DR Data recovery NFW No further work O OW III U Limited testing was conducted at Feature 20B of Site 18919; results of this testing is presented with its site description. The following site descriptions reflect a summary of all 13 sites recorded in the original 120 foot corridors (as described in the Hunt and McDermott 1994 report), and general observations of the sites and descriptions detailing the 30 additional features and newly identified site (Site 20681) recorded during the present project survey. The reader is referred to the Hunt and McDermott report for more details of the previously recorded sites. SITE DESCRIPTIONS Site 50-10-35-18911 Site 18911 is a complex of 11 features (designated Feature A through K) identified in Waiakea Ahupua`a at approximately 220 ft a.m.s.I. The site area extends from just west of Kawili Street to roughly 180 in (590 ft) to the west, on the east end of the road corridor. All of the features of the site were previously recorded during the project's 1992 survey (Hunt and McDermott 1994). The site features cover practically the width of the 300 foot corridor. No additional features of the complex were identified during the present project survey. The site is located within a forested, eroded channel which is bound by a prominent east -west trending ridge on the north. The site consists of six mounds, four terraces (including retaining alignments), and one modified outcrop. The features measure between 43 mZ and 276 m.2 Wooden railroad cross ties were observed in close proximity to many of the features. The Hunt and McDermott report asserts that these ties were re -used (after abandonment of the railroad) for fence posts because the ties had sections of barbed wire attached to them. Site 18911 is interpreted as being associated with historic cane agriculture. The construction of the features was primarily the result of clearing the soil expanses for cane cultivation. This functional interpretation is also supported by the fact that the site is located within Waiakea Cane Lot 17 that was designated as cane lands in 1925 (see Hunt and McDermott 1994:28-29). The DLNR/SHPD has approved the initial assessment by Hunt and McDermott that the site is significant for information content (significance criterion D) specific to historic 24 J0 b Ocane cultivation. Concurrently, the site is slated for data recovery. Site 50-10-35-18912 Site 18912 is a complex of five features located in Waiakea Ahupua`a, at an elevation of roughly 260 ft a.m.s.l. The site is located in the same eroded channel as Site 18911, approximately 328 in (1,000 ft) to the west of Kawili Street on the east end of the road corridor. The site is situated on the level basin of the channel and extends over the ridge to the north. Vegetation ranges from high grasses in the channel basin and a high -canopy of trees along the ridge. One of the site features, a mound, was recorded by Hunt and McDermott at the base of the channel. Four additional features (Feature 1 through 4) were recorded during the present project survey along the ridge top and ascending slope to the south (Figures 11 and 12). Feature 1 is a circular platform constructed on top of the ridge. It measures 4.5 in. (14.7 ft) in diameter by 0.8 in (2.6 ft) high and it has a concrete mortar and basalt boulder Oconstruction. Feature 1 is probably a water tank foundation. Feature 2 is a 14 in (45.9 ft) long retaining wall constructed at the base of the slope of the ridge, on the edge of the channel. The wall is well faced on its south side to a maximum height of 1.6 in (5.1 ft). It is stacked with cobbles and boulders and lies practically flush to the slope on its north side. Feature 3 is a C-shaped structure and attached soil berm situated along the slope of the ridge and base of the channel. The C -shape is mounded with cobbles and boulders and measures an exterior of roughly 9 m (29 ft) N/S by 6 in (19 ft) E/W. The structure is a maximum height of 0.9 m (2.9 ft) on its west side where it meets the base of the slope. A soil berm extends to the northwest of Feature 3's southwest corner. It is 2 in (6.5 ft) wide and roughly 0.5 m (1.6 ft) high. The C -shape was probably the result of clearing the adjacent cane field once maintained in the channel. The soil berm may represent a furrow that cane was planted in. O 25 ¢ F .� W • N I' z 1 ¢ ¢ IJ W EIL m � a � � a / — a i N W w rlgure 11 Site 50-10-35-18912 Complex, Features 1 Through 3; Plan View and Cross Section 26 J l 6 C m m 0 10 M I KEY ±ROCK . 'SLOPE Ip, PAHOEHOE O;p BEDROCK RUBBLE C 11 HEIGHT N METERS [0.5] SOIL BERM Figure 12 Site 50-10-35-18912 Feature 4; Plan View 27 0 0 is Feature 4 consists of a level, rectangular -shaped soil area that is bound on its east O and west sides by a natural ridge and on its south side by a soil -stone wall. The soil area is cleared and measures roughly 10 in. (33 ft) E/W by 15 in (49 ft) N/S. The south wall is mounded and measures roughly 1 in (3 ft.) wide. This feature was probably utilized for cane cultivation. A piece of metal strapping was observed next to Feature 1, the foundation structure. The SHPD/DLNR has approved the initial assessment by Hunt and McDermott that the mound of Site 18912 is significant for information content (significance criterion D) specific to historic cane cultivation. The site is slated for data recovery. Site 50-10-35-18913 Site 18913 is a linear mound located in Waiakea Ahupua`a, at an approximate elevation of 280 ft a.m.s.l. The site is situated at the point where Alternate A and B of the project corridor converge. The site occurs among a relatively open canopy of high trees. The rectangular mound is in poor condition due to root disturbance. No cultural material was observed in association with the site. The SHPD/DLNR has approved the initial assessment by Hunt and McDermott that Site 18913 is considered to be no longer significant beyond the information that was already collected at the site. Therefore, no further work is warranted at the site. Site 50-10-35-18914 Site 18914 is a complex of 12 features located in Waiakea Ahupua `a, at approximately 280 ft a.m.s.l. The site is situated within road Alternate A. Eight of the site features (Feature A through H) were previously recorded during the 1992 survey (Hunt and McDermott 1994) while the remaining four features (Feature 1 and 3-5) were recorded during the present project survey in the northern expansion of Alternate A (Figures 13 and 14). (Feature 2 was originally assigned to Hunt and McDermotts' Feature F). In total, the site consists of five platforms, four mounds, two modified outcrops, and K one linear terrace covering an area of roughly 5,555 m1(60,000 ft2). The following 28 0 e M U N M b O N Ya O W 80 =r LU x i -i Lei T Figure 13 Site 50-10-35-18914 Complex, Feature 1 through 5; Plan View 29 s _G Z_ r � I Y � r f F I I H n N Ya O W 80 =r LU x i -i Lei T Figure 13 Site 50-10-35-18914 Complex, Feature 1 through 5; Plan View 29 n N N Figure 14 Portion of Alternate A Project Corridor; Showing Site 50-10-35-18914: Feature 1, 3-5 and approximate Boundary of Previously Identified Features (Hunt and McDermott 1994:41) O b U descriptions detail the four newly identified features (Feature 1 and 3-5). OFeature 1 (see Figure 3) is a roughly rectangular -shaped platform that is built against the slope of a soil berm (on its southwest side). The platform measures 13.5 in (44.2 ft) NW/SE across slope by 3.6 m (11.8 ft). It rises 1.5 in (4.9 ft) on its northeast side and almost terraces the slope at a height of 0.2 in (0.6 ft) on its southwest side. The terrace has a level surface of a cobbles and boulder fill. Feature 3 is a rectangular mound located 3 m (9.8 ft) northwest of Feature 1. It measures 7 in (22.9 ft) E/W by 4.6 in (15 ft) N/S, with a maximum height of 1.1 m (3.6 ft). The mound construction is tumbled and comprises cobbles and boulders. A depression 0.7 in (2.2 ft) deep occurs at its center. Feature 4 is a rectangular -shaped platform (Figure 15) intersected by the northern boundary of the proposed road expansion. The platform measures 11.8 m (38.7 ft) NW/SE by 4.6 m (15 ft), with an average height of 1 in (3.3 ft). The platform is constructed of cobbles and boulders that are now tumbled along its perimeter. A semi -circular platform, probable ramp structure is also located immediately northwest of the platform. The Oplatforms are situated on a level soil surface. Feature 5 is a circular cobble -boulder mound roughly 6 m (19.6 ft) west of Feature 4. It measures a diameter of 2.4 in (7.8 ft) with heights ranging between 0.6 to 1.3 in (1.9 to 4.2 ft). The mound is well faced and constructed on a slope. Site 18914 is interpreted as being associated with historic cane cultivation. All of the site features are believed to be the result of clearing the land for cane cultivation, with the subsequent use of three of the features (Feature B, F and 4) being loading ramps and one (Feature A) functioning as a foundation possibly for a water tank. This site is located within a Waiakea Cane Lot designated as cane lands in 1925 (see Hunt and McDermott 1994:28- 29). The SHPD/DLNR has requested that Site 18914 be evaluated as an excellent site type (Criterion C) in addition to having information potential (Criterion D). The site is currently slated to be preserved. O 31 =.s...� .0 o,« .,v-iv-»-io7v+, reaLurc w riattorm; view Last Site 50-10-35-18915 Site 18915 is a complex of nine features located in Waiakea Ahupua`a at roughly 300 ft a.m.s.l. The site area begins at about 260 in (852 ft) east of Komohana Street and is within road Alternate A. All of the features of the site were previously identified during the 1992 survey (Hunt and McDermott 1994), which apparently extended into the 300 foot corridor. No additional site features were identified during the present project survey of the expanded corridor. The site is located in a flood zone which appears to experience regular flooding from an adjacent drainage. Vegetation is relatively dense. The site consists of an enclosure, four mounds and three platforms, all of which are concentrated in an area measuring roughly 3500 m.' The site is interpreted as being associated with historic cane agriculture and also contains two features (Feature A and B) that are likely related to the railroad once used to haul cane from the fields. Feature B probably is a section of the actual railroad bed as d K 32 O 0 O evidenced by the presence of in situ railroad ties and its raised, flat surface. Feature B, adjacent to the railroad berm, has a concrete surface that probably functioned as a foundation N for infrastructure associated with the operation of the rail system. The historic cane features were probably constructed as the result of clearing the fields for cultivation and four of the features (Feature C, E, F, and H) may have functioned additionally as foundations for water tanks or served as a ramp of sorts. This functional interpretation is also substantiated by the fact that the site is located within an Waiakea Cane Lot 18 designated as cane lands in 1925 (see Hunt and McDermott 1994:28-29). Historic Waiakea Mill Co. maps (see Figure 6 through 8) show one of the permanent railroad lines - possibly evidenced by Feature B - that passed through the site area. Three pieces of volcanic glass were recovered from a soil layer that conclusively predates the construction of one of the cane features (Feature H). In response to the initial assessments by Hunt and McDermott, the DLNR/SHPD has requested that Site 18914 be evaluated as an excellent site type (Criterion C) in addition to its being significant for information content (Criterion D). The site is currently slated to be preserved. Site 50-10-35-18916 Site 18916 is a complex of two features (Feature A and B) located in Waiakea Ahupua`a at about 300 ft a.m.s.l. The site begins roughly 228 m (750 ft) east of Komohana Street, and is situated in the north half of Alternate B's 300 foot corridor. Both site features were previously recorded during the 1992 survey (Hunt and McDermott 1994), which apparently extended into the expanded 300 foot corridor. No additional site features were identified during the present project survey of the expanded corridor. The site consists of a rectangular platform (Feature A) and a long, curvilinear wall (Feature B) that forms a semi -circular enclosure around the platform. The site is located in a bowl -shaped depression, with Feature B curving around the upper edge of the depression and Feature A being below at the base of the depression. Subsurface testing was conducted at Feature A, but no cultural material was recovered from the excavation. Site 18916 is interpreted as being associated with historic cane cultivation. Hunt and McDermott suggest that Feature A may have functioned as a ramp associated with the 0 33 a d loading and hauling of cane, while Feature B may have been a boundary wall once delineating a specific cane field. This functional interpretation is also supported by the fact o that the site is located within Waiakea Mill Lot 18 that was designated as cane lands in 1925 (see Hunt and McDermott 1994:28-29). The DLNR/SHPD has approved the initial assessment made by Hunt and McDermott that the site is significant for information content (significance criterion D). Concurrently, the site is slated for data recovery. Site 50-10-35-18917 Site 18917 is a complex of three features (designated A through C) located in Waiakea Ahupua`a at about 300 ft a.m.s.I. The site is roughly 190 in (625 ft) east of Komohana Street in road Alternate A. The site is located on a flood plain adjacent to an intermittent drainage. Vegetation is densely concentrated in the site area. The site features consist of two mounds and a wall segment. Site 18917 is interpreted as being associated with historic cane cultivation and the structures were primarily the result of clearing the soil expanses for cultivation. This functional interpretation is supported by the fact that the site is located within Waiakea Mill Lot 18, designated as cane lands in 1925 (see Hunt and McDermott 1994:28-29). The DLNR/SHPD has approved the initial assessment made by Hunt and McDermott that the site is significant for information content (significance criterion D). Due to the site's proximity to sites 18914 and 18915, Site 18917 is recommended for preservation (SHPD letter to SCS, 2/28/96). Site 50-10-35-18918 Site 18918 is a complex of four features (Feature A through D) located in Waiakea Ahupua`a at approximately 340 ft a.m.s.l. The site is just west of Komohana Street within road Alternate A. All four of the site features were recorded during the 1992 survey. No. additional features were observed during the present project survey in the expanded 300 -foot corridor. In contrast to the other sites located to the east and south, Site 18918 is situated on a 34 A- S 0 0 rocky landscape of the Kulaloa pahoehoe flow, not suitable for cane cultivation. The site Oarea was designated as pasture land on the 1925 Waiakea Mill field map (see Hunt and McDermott 1994:28-29). Thus, the site, being composed of three modified outcrops and a mound, is suggested by Hunt and McDermott to have been the result of land clearing activities associated with pasture maintenance. The DLNR/SHPD has approved the initial assessment made by Hunt and McDermott that Site 18918 is significant for information content (significance criterion D). Concurrently, the site is slated for data recovery. Site 50-10-35-18919 Site 18919 is the largest recorded complex (58 component features) in the project corridor, located in Waiakea Ahupua`a at approximately 340 ft a.m.s.l. The site covers almost the entire width of the expanded 300 -foot corridor of Alternate B and includes 36 features (Feature A through "B") previously recorded during the Hunt and McDermott 1992 survey and 22 features (Feature 11 through 32) recorded during the present project survey O(Figure 16). There is a gap in the numbering sequence of the newly identified feature designations. This is because 16 features (ie., Feature 1-10 and 33-38) were originally considered to be associated with Site 18919. In accordance with the SHPD's request, these 16 features (ie., Feature 1-10 and 33-38) are now regarded as a separate site (Site 20681). The feature number designations are being retained to facilitate the relocation of these sites' features since each structure was labelled as such in the field. The site area is characterized by an undulating pahoehoe lava surface with intermittent soil -filled depressions. Vegetation is generally dense with some forested areas providing more open canopies. In total, the features of Site 18919 consist of 29 modified outcrops, 18 mounds, seven retaining walls, two terraces, and two platforms. The majority of these features are built on or against outcrop exposures and the differing architectural types range in shapes, from linear to circular and all variations in between, including rectangular platforms. The site features vary in shape and size and they commonly modify exposed outcrop. A common architectural feature type of the site consisted of modifications that O 35 rJ a M S o appeared to block openings to lava tubes, blisters or potential overhang shelters. Several of these feature types were carefully dismantled during both the 1992 and present project surveys, but none of these explorations identified any sizable openings that would have been appropriate for human use (e.g. shelters). Several features were also tested during the Hunt and McDermott survey primarily to assist in the age and functional interpretation of the site and to examine cultural deposits if present. The testing included nine individual feature excavations. The testing indicated that the stone structures were loosely constructed (lacking "internal structure" - meaning stacking or substantiality) and lacked any associated prehistoric cultural deposits. A wire observed in the wall construction of Feature E suggests that it was constructed during the historic period. The 22 features recorded during the present project survey occur in the northern portion of the expanded road corridor (north of the center line) and extend across the width of the 300 -foot corridor in the eastern portion of the site. The following descriptions detail the 22 newly identified features. Feature 11 is a cobble -boulder terrace measuring 2.8 in (9.1 ft) E/W by 1.5 in (4.9 oft) N/S. The north side of the terrace abuts outcrop and the south side is faced to a maximum height of 1 in (3.3 ft). N Feature 12 consists of three areas of modification (A, B, and C) that basically terrace the edge of an outcrop. Modification A measures 7.8 in (25.5 ft) long by 1-2 rows of cobbles and boulders, with a maximum height of 0.8 in (2.6 ft). Modification B measures 3.6 in (11.8 ft) long and is faced to a height of 2 in (6.5 ft). Modification C measures 2 in (6.5 ft) N/S by 3.0 in (9.8 ft) E/W, with a maximum height of 0.9 in (2.9 ft). Feature 13 is a modified outcrop defined as a linear pile of cobbles and boulders on outcrop. The modification measures 5.2 in (17 ft) NW/SE by 1.5 in wide. It has a maximum height of 0.8 in (2.6 ft). Feature 14 is a modified outcrop of piled cobbles and boulders measuring 8 in NW/SE by 2 in (6.5 ft) wide. It has a maximum height of 1.3 in (4.2 ft). Feature 15 is a modified outcrop defined as a linear pile of cobbles and boulders crossing a depression in the surrounding pahoehoe flow. It measures 2 in (6.5 ft) SW/NE by 1 in (3.3 ft) with a maximum height of 0.6 in (1.9 ft). 37 0 0 Feature 16 is circular mound measuring a diameter of 2.1 in (6.8 ft) and maximum height of 1.2 m (3.9 ft). It is well faced (4-7 courses high) and comprised of cobbles and boulders. Feature 17 is a retaining wall extending through a gully. The wall is about 7 m (22.9 ft) long and 1-2 rows of cobbles and boulders wide. It is faced to a maximum height of 1.1 in (3.6 ft). Feature 18 is retaining wall measuring 12 in (39.3 ft) by 0.8 in (2.6 ft) wide, but extends beyond the northern ROW boundary. The wall is constructed on outcrop and is well faced with cobbles and boulders to a maximum height of 1.3 in (4.2 ft). Feature 19 is a rectangular mound measuring 1.8 in (5.9 ft) N/S by 1.6 in (5.2 ft) E/W, with a maximum height of 1.3 in (4.2 ft). The mound is well faced and constructed with cobbles and boulders on bedrock. Feature 20 refers to two retaining walls (A and B) that are built against the edge of outcrop. Wall A measures 7 in (22.9 ft) long by 2-3 rows of cobbles and boulders. Wall B is L-shaped and measures a total length of 7.2 in (23.1 ft) by 1.5 in (4.9 ft) wide. Site 18919 Feature 20B Testing Results 0 Feature 20B was systematically dismantled to determine whether or not a lava tube or deep overhang existed behind the wall. The testing removed a roughly 1.0 m.2 area of the wall construction .(Figure 17). Approximately 2.2 in behind the wall's vertical face a small 2.5 in deep overhang was encountered. No cultural material was observed below the overhang, nor within the wall construction itself. Feature 21 is an oval mound measuring 1.3 in (4.2 ft) NW/SE by 0.9 in (2.9 ft) NE/SW. It is a piled cobble -boulder mound constructed on outcrop. Feature 22 is a rectangular mound measuring 2.4 in (7.8 ft) NW/SE by 2 in (6.5 ft) NE/SW, with a maximum height of 1.5 in (4.9 ft). The mound is constructed on outcrop and is well faced on its southwest side. It is composed of cobbles and boulders. Feature 23 is a modified outcrop defined as a linear pile of cobbles and boulders piled across the opening of an outcrop overhang. The modification measures 3.2 in (10.4 ft) SW/NE by 0.8 in (2.6 ft) wide. 38 0 S M M n rrgure t ane ev-iv-»-iayiy reature /-, Area or Excavation; View North Feature 24 is a modified outcrop constructed across the opening of a lava blister. The narrow blister interior extends to the east approximately 2 in (6.5 ft). The modification is a linear pile of cobbles and boulders measuring 2.3 in (7.5 ft) long NE/SW. Feature 25 is three cobble -boulder retaining wall sections (A, B and C) that extend along the edge of an outcrop ridge. Wall A measures 4.5 in (14.7 ft) NW/SE long and 0.5 m (1.6 ft) wide, by a maximum height of 0.9 in (2.9 ft). Wall B measures 3.5 in (11.4 ft) long with a height of 0.9 in (2.9 ft). Wall C measures 1.6 in (5.2 ft) with a maximum height of 0.7 in (2.2 ft). 39 0 0 a Feature 26 is a cobble -boulder terrace measuring 1.3 in (4.2 ft) N/S by 1 in (3.3 ft) O E/W, with a maximum height of 0.7 in (2.2 ft) The terrace is rectangular and abuts outcrop on its east side. It is well faced on all raised sides. Feature 27 is a rectangular mound measuring 2.7 m (8.8 ft) N/S by 1.5 in (4.9 ft) E/W, with a maximum height of 0.9 in (2.9 *ft). The cobble -boulder mound is well faced and built on outcrop. Feature 28 is a rectangular mound measuring 1.8 in (5.9 ft) by 1.1 in (3.6 ft), with a maximum height of 0.8 in (2.6 ft). The cobble -boulder mound is faced on three sides, but the south side is tumbled. Feature 29 is a rectangular, cobble -boulder mound measuring 1.9 in (6.2 ft) by 1.3 m (4.2 ft), with a maximum height of 0.9 in (2.9 ft). The perimeter of the mound is tumbled. It is constructed on outcrop. Feature 30 is a rectangular mound measuring 3.5 in (11.4 ft) by 2.5 in (8.2 ft), with a maximum height of 0.7 in (2.2 ft). It is constructed of cobbles and boulders, tumbled along its perimeter and built on outcrop. Feature 31 is a retaining wall measuring 5.5 in (18 ft) long by 0.5 m (1.6 ft) wide. 0 It is constructed of stacked cobbles and boulders and it lies on outcrop. Feature 32 is a rectangular mound measuring 2.6 in (8.5 ft) by 1.4 in (4.5 ft), with a maximum height of 0.9 in (2.9 ft). The mound is built against and on top of outcrop. It is well faced with cobbles and boulders. Site 18919 is interpreted as being associated with both Historic cane agriculture and the clearing of pasture land. The site area is situated along the boundary between designated cane land and pasture land (see Figure 7), with Feature E (located near the southern ROW boundary) probably being remnant of the boundary fence denoted on historic maps that separated the cane lands from the pasture lands (Hunt and McDermott 1994:78). The site features themselves (including the boundary wall of Feature E) were likely the resulting waste piles from clearing the cane fields and pasture lands. Many of the more substantial structures (e.g., with high vertical faces) may have had subsequent functions as foundations or ramps associated with the cane cultivation activities. 40 0 The DLNR/SHPD has approved the initial assessment by Hunt and McDermott that OSite 18919 is significant for information content (significance criterion D). The site is currently slated for data recovery. Site 50-10-35-18920 Site 18920 is a complex of eight features located in Kukuau 2 Ahupua`a, at approximately 800 ft a.m.s.l. The site is situated within road Alternate 2. Eight of the site features (Features A through H) were previously recorded during the Hunt and McDermott 1992 survey. No additional features were identified during the present project survey in the expanded 300 -foot project corridor. The site is located within a low canopy of guava trees allowing a clear ground visibility. All eight of the site features are in poor structural condition and consist primarily of circular -shaped mounds, ranging in size between 24 m.' and 48 m.2 The site is interpreted as being associated with historic cane agriculture. Given the lack of substantial facings on any of the mounds, the site features were probably merely the oresult of clearing the cane fields. The DLNR/SHPD has approved the assessment that the site is no longer significant beyond the information collecting during the Hunt and McDermott survey. Concurrently, no further work has been slated for the site. Site 50-10-35-18921 Site 18921 is a complex of five features (Feature A through E) located in Kukuau 2 Ahupua`a, at approximately 1,060 ft a.m.s.l. The site is situated within Alternate 1 about 1,830 in (6,000 ft) east of its intersection at Kaumana Road. All five of the site features were previously recorded during the 1992 Hunt and McDermott survey. Additional observations were made of the site during the present project survey. These observations are noted below. Vegetation at the site provides variable ground visibility. The site is situated between two streams. The Hunt and McDermott report recorded two mounds (Feature A and C), two terraces (Feature B and E) and a wall segment (Feature D) in the site. During the present 0 41 a project survey, it was noted that Feature B and C are contiguous structures, with Feature C being damaged by root intrusion. Feature B was originally recorded by Hunt and O McDermott as being located 75 in (246 ft) east of Feature A. However, the present project survey identified Feature B at about 10 in (33 ft) east of Feature A. The site has been interpreted by Hunt and McDermott as being associated with historic cane agriculture, such as clearing mounds, foundations and/or ramps. During the present project survey a land owner told the SCS field archaeologists that the site area had been used as a pig farm up until 1989. Since the site is situated within land designated as cane land during the historic period (Hunt and McDermott 194:99), it is plausible that the site features originated during this time, but were reused and possibly modified for a piggery during modern times. Site 50-10-35-18922 Site 18922 is a modified outcrop located in Waiakea Ahupua`a at an elevation of approximately 200 ft a.m.s.l. It is situated on the road corridor roughly 50 in (164 ft) east of Kawili Street, immediately north of the corridor's center line (Hunt and McDermott O 1994:101). The modified outcrop was defined as a mound on raised outcrop. The site was not relocated during the present project survey and no additional features of the site were identified in the expanded 300 -foot road corridor. The DLNR/SHPD has approved the assessment by Hunt and McDermott that Site 18922 is "significant for its information content on historic agriculture in the region. Adequate data have been collected on this site, and no further work is recommended" (ibid.:102). Site 50-10-35-18923 Site 18923 is relatively similar to Site 18922 in size and form. It is a modified outcrop located in Waiakea Ahupua`a at roughly 200 ft a.m.s.l. The site is situated within the original 120 -foot road corridor, approximately 150 in (492 ft) east of Kawili Street. The site was not relocated during the present project survey and no additional features 42 O g O O of the site were identified in the expanded 300 -foot road corridor. OThe DLNR/SHPD has approved the assessment by Hunt and McDermott that Site 18923 is "significant for its information content on historic agriculture in the region. Adequate data have been collected on this site, and no further work is recommended" (ibid.:103). Site 50-10-35-20681 Site 20681 is located in Waiakea Ahupua'a at approximately 320 ft a.m.s.l. The site covers almost the entire width of the expanded 300 -foot corridor of Alternate B and includes 16 features (Feature 1-10 and 33-38) (Figure 18). There is a gap in the numbering sequence of the feature designations of Site 20681 because the site was originally recorded as being part of Site 18919 (see Site 18919 description). The site area is characterized by an undulating pahoehoe lava and soil surface descending moderately to the southeast. The site is bounded by a ridge ascending to the west and by a stream drainage to the southeast. (Site 18919 is located to the west of the site on Otop of the ridge.) Vegetation is generally dense with some forested areas providing more open canopies. Feature 1 is an oval mound measuring 1.4 m (4.5 ft) NE/SW by 1.0 in (3.3 ft) by a height of 0.4 in (1.3 ft). It is constructed on outcrop, and is well faced with stacked cobbles and boulders. Feature 2 is a circular mound measuring 2 in (6.5 ft) in diameter and height of 0.35 in (1.1 ft). The mound is constructed on outcrop and is faced with stacked cobbles and boulders. Feature 3 is a rectangular mound measuring 1.5 m (4.9 ft) N/S by 1.3 in (4.2 ft) E/W, with a maximum height of 0.9 m (2.9 ft). The mound is constructed on top of and adjacent to outcrop. It is faced on the south and west sides with stacked cobbles and boulders. Feature 4 is a modified outcrop defined as a rough pile of boulders and cobbles on outcrop. The pile measures 1.5 in (4.9 ft) by 1.1 in (3.6 ft) with a maximum height of 0.6 O 43 a C Figure 18 Site 50-10-35-20681 Complex, Features 1-10 and 33-38, Dashed Line Indicates 120 -Foot Wide Corridor Boundary; Plan View 44 0 34_0 37--�!p 9-� I-36 35--Q 19-0 \ 8 7-0 STEEP SLOPE - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 6-A - - - - - - - - - - 5-46 238+00 239+00 t_ 240+00 a 3'§ 2-& 10- _ ----------A- ----------------- 1 33 0 40 M a C Figure 18 Site 50-10-35-20681 Complex, Features 1-10 and 33-38, Dashed Line Indicates 120 -Foot Wide Corridor Boundary; Plan View 44 0 0 0 m (1.9 ft). The modification is constructed of cobbles and boulders. CFeature 5 is a modified outcrop defined as a pile of cobbles and boulders on outcrop. The modification measures 1.6 in (5.2 ft) E/W by 0.7 in (2.2 ft) N/S, with a maximum height of 0.4 m (1.3 ft). Feature 6 is a linear mound measuring 3 in (9.8 ft) long by 1.8 in (5.9 ft) wide, with a maximum height of 0.9 in (2.9 ft). It is constructed against outcrop and consists of an intact face on its south side, stacked 3-4 courses high. Feature 7 is a circular mound measuring 2.3 m (7.5 ft) in diameter, with a maximum height of 0.9 in (2.9 ft) (Figure 19). The mound is well faced around its perimeter (4-5 courses high) and has a cobble -filled surface. A java plum and ohia tree are growing in the center of the mound. Feature 8 is an L-shaped retaining wall measuring 2.3 in (7.5 ft) long by one row of cobbles or boulders. The L -shape is built against outcrop on its north side and comprises an intact facing on the south side, a maximum of 1.3 in (4.2 ft) high. Feature 9 is a circular mound measuring 2.3 in (7.5 ft) in diameter by a maximum height of 1 in (3.3 ft) (Figure 20). The mound is well faced and constructed of cobbles and boulders. Feature 10 is a modified outcrop defined as a linear pile of cobbles and boulders on sloped terrain. The modification measures 3.4 in (11.1 ft) E/W by 2.3 in (7.5 ft) N/S, with a maximum height of 0.7 m (2.2 ft). Feature 33 is a linear mound constructed of piled cobbles and boulders on top of a ridge that descends steeply to a stream. The mound measures 6 m by 5 m (16.4 ft), with a maximum height of 0.8 in (2.6 ft). Feature 34 is an oval mound measuring 2.5 in (8.2 ft) by 1.5 in (4.9 ft), with a maximum height of 0.9 in (2.9 ft). The mound is located on an outcrop slope. It is well faced and constructed of cobbles and boulders. Feature 35 is a circular mound measuring 2 in (6.5 ft) by 1.2 m (3.9 ft), with a maximum height of 1 in (3.3 ft). The mound is composed of stacked cobbles and boulders. It is situated on and against outcrop. C 45 't' /( ;fA { k v ir t k;� M 't' /( ;fA { k t k;� M 't' /( ;fA { k b 0 0 Feature 36 is a retaining wall (Figure 21) measuring 1.2 in (3.9 ft) SW/NE by 0.6 in 0 (2.9 ft) wide. It is faced to a maximum height of 1 in (3.3 ft). It is built in between outcrop. Feature 37 is a circular mound (Figure 22) measuring 3 in (9.8 ft) in diameter with a height of 1.5 in (4.9 ft). The mound is constructed of piled cobbles and boulders and is situated on outcrop. Feature 38 is a circular mound measuring 3 in (9.8 ft) in diameter, with a maximum height of 0.8 in (2.6 ft). It is situated on outcrop and composed of cobbles and boulders. Site 20681 is interpreted as being associated with historic cane agriculture. The site area is situated along the boundary between designated cane land and pasture land (see Figure 7). The site structures were likely the resulting waste piles from clearing the cane fields close by. Site 20681 is evaluated as being significant for information content (significance criterion D). The site is recotnmended for data recovery. C 0 47 ZV j 'I {{ r I t ►<� �r. I ', v v .+� y64 ice." i� � * r1 ($ Y� Tom• Cl' �I f -�1 .1 G ]•{7 V 1 _t i4Z I� '1( � �j�N[C/`j�, L � C I II ? •\ • ° � � a�.% � is � ,� �-��� � ��� _� lb -77 t t R� a 6 O O DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS C The proposed expansion of the Pu'ainako Street Extension Project resulted in the identification of 46 new features, 30 of which are clearly associated (spatially and functionally) with three sites previously identified in the original 120 -foot road corridors (i.e., sites 18912, 18914, and 18919) and 16 features comprise a new site (Site 20681). These four sites occur in the eastern portion of the project corridors between an area just west of Komohana Street and Kawili Street to the east. Most of the sites in the project corridors (70%) were identified within this area. The following discussion refers more specifically to the three sites (18912, 18914 and 18919) where additional features were identified in the extended width portion of the project corridors and the newly identified Site 20681. The 46 newly identified site features include 22 mounds (circular, linear and rectangular); 10 retaining walls; eight modified outcrops, two terraces, three platforms (circular and rectangular); and one C -shape. These formal feature types match the feature Otypes reported in the Hunt and McDermott report for these same sites. The site features identified during the present and previous project survey are ordinarily constructed on natural formations - outcrop, ridge tops and sloped terrain - not optimal for cultivation. Site 18919 is a good example of feature configurations that conform to the natural topography and that are located beyond the optimum cane cultivation areas (i.e., soil expanses). Among the more undulating, rocky landscape of Site 18919 features are predominantly linear or rectangular in shape, with most being built against the edge of raised outcrop or soil -filled depressions. Features that are not built against outcrop or other ground surfaces usually have vertical sides (Hunt and McDermott 1994:72). Site 18919 and Site 20681 are unique to the other sites in the project area in that they are located on the boundary between the designated cane fields and maintained pasture land to the north, instead of being located directly in designated cane fields. Although most of the features of Site 18919 and Site 20681 probably originated as refuse piles from cane field or pasture clearing, the more substantial structures (e.g. with vertical sides or level surfaces) probably had secondary functions such as ramps for cane hauling or as water tank foundations. O 49 Site 18912 contains evidence of cane cultivation (a modified planting area and o possible cane furrow), field clearing structures and a water tank foundation. The clearing structures identified during the present project survey include a C -shape and wall that essentially retains the base of a steep -sided ridge. The water tank foundation located on top of the ridge is circular and composed of a concrete -stone construction. Site 18914 features are more substantially constructed than sites 18912, 18919 and 20681 (including some with surface depressions and vertical sides) and they appear to be spaced more distantly apart. These characteristics are also found at sites 18915 and 18917 located to the northwest -- probably because all three sites are located in an area historically under cane cultivation. Over the past few years a profusion of archaeological work has focused specifically on the clarification that extant sites in the historic Waiakea cane lands are associated primarily with historic sugar plantation activities (e.g., Borthwick et al 1993; Hunt and McDermott 1994; Maly et al 1994; and Spear 1995). The following criteria distinguishes the historic -era cane sites from traditional Hawaiian sites: (1) Sites are located within or adjacent to designated historic cane fields; (2) Site structures match cane -related structures anticipated o in the historic research and are comparable to other known sugar plantation sites; (3) Site structures have architecture atypical to traditional Hawaiian structures; and (4) Sites are associated with historic -era artifacts that are specific to sugar plantation or ranching activities. At least two historic Waiakea Mill Co. maps (see Figures 7 through 9) indicate that most of the project sites are located on lands once under cane cultivation (i.e., sites 18911- 18917 and 18922 and 18923) or along the boundary between the active cane fields and pasture land (i.e., sites 18918, 18919, and 20681). Historic research reveals that the Waiakea Mill Co. intensively altered the landscape for cane cultivation with mechanized plowing (tilling at least a 6 -inch depth of ground surface [Kelly et al 1981]) and by clearing the soil areas of stone debris -- including probably the dismantlement of pre-existing structures if present. If traditional Hawaiian sites existed in the historic cane fields, such as extensive agricultural features and scattered "huts" anticipated McEldowney (1987) in this 50 0 zone, it is believed that such surface remains were inevitably destroyed by the Waiakea sugar Oplantation activities. In fact Hunt and McDermott (1994) propose that these traditional site types "would not produce any clear archaeological evidence..." and..."only subtle evidence might exist and be detected, such as isolated artifacts or paleoenvironmental indications of land use" (ibid.:108). An example of this "subtle evidence" was the recovery of indigenous artifacts beneath historic cane -related features in the present project area and at a nearby PHRI project (Maly 1993). Both of these excavations revealed that the strata in which the artifacts were located clearly predated the construction of the site structures -- again, suggesting that the extant surface structures in cane fields are historic in origin. Therefore, given the apparent lack of prehistoric sites on the surface of historic cane fields, the discovery of prehistoric cultural deposits would be discovered almost at random through subsurface testing (Hunt and McDermott 1994:108). Many of the sites in the project area contain feature types that are indicative of historic sugar plantation activities, such as ramp structures for cane hauling, foundations for water tanks and in one case, a railroad track for transporting the harvested cane. Ramps Ostructures are characterized by high faced sides of a structure (sometimes one-sided facing) for a wagon or truck bed to abut, whereas a water tank foundation may be circular in configuration (replicating the shape of a water tank) and its surface composed of stone and mortar for stability (e.g., Feature 1 of Site 18912 and Feature A of Site 18915). One site feature is clearly a railroad bed (Feature B of Site 18915) because of its high -faced sides, linear configuration and intact railroad ties on the surface. These same kind of feature types have been documented outside of the Hilo area among similarly altered historic cane fields (e.g., in Hana, Maui [Borthwick et al. 19921; Kohala, Hawaii [Erkelens and Athens 1993]; South Kona, Hawaii [Hamman 1995]; among others). Another distinguishing characteristic associated with these sites are depressions at the center of cane field clearing mounds. Erkelens and Athens propose that the depressions may be the result of piling the stone refuse at the closest venue around the perimeter of the structure (Erkelens and Athens 1993:46). All of the site structures in the project corridors are considered to be contemporaneous in origin because they have a similar state of preservation and architectural nature. In contrast to traditional Hawaiian sites which are commonly stable in construction, O 51 the historic cane structures are uniformally unstable and lack "weight bearing vertical faces" (Hunt and McDermott 1994:104). Based on subsurface testing results, the Hunt and o McDermott report contends that the site structures were indiscriminately constructed with a loose, internal fill that was retained by a more sturdy facing (ibid.): thus evidencing that the primary function of most of the sites' structures was as clearing piles. The presence of recent historic material incorporated into the construction of some of the cane structures also supports the interpretation that they are historic in construction and use. These items included barbed wire fencing within a wall feature (Site 18919 Feature E) probably delineating a cane field boundary, various pieces of metal strapping, and railroad ties, some of which were found in situ on a railroad bed (Site 18915, Feature B). Upon review of the Hunt and McDermott report and in response to concerns of the UH -Hilo Hawaiian Awareness Club that traditional Hawaiian sites exist inside the project corridors, representatives of the DLNR/SHPD inspected most of the sites in the project area. In a review of the report (SHPD letter to D. Kiyosaki, May 20, 1994) the SHPD concurred with the interpretation that the sites "makai of Komohana Street are plantation era in age", but that further testing would be required at "the sites mauka of Komohana Street to see if some prehistoric use is likely" (ibid.:6). No evidence of prehistoric use was identified o during the additional testing conducted by Dr. Hunt's crew at Site 18919, mauka of Komohana Street. In a final review letter (SHPD letter to D. Kiyosaki, July 20, 1994) the SHPD agreed that all 13 sites in the project corridors are plantation era in age, "clearly not fitting prehistoric era type of structures" (ibid.:l). Using the criteria outlined above, the findings of the present project survey support the functional interpretations made in the Hunt and McDermott report (ibid.) that the original 13 sites - including the additional 30 associated features identified during the present project area - and the newly identified Site 20681 are predominately attributable to historic sugarcane cultivation undertaken between late 19th and mid 20th centuries. Two of the project sites (Site 18918 and 18919) may also have components associated with historic pasture clearing. A property owner has also mentioned that Site 18921, located in the mauka portion of the project corridors, was used as a piggery up until 1989. Thus, this site may have modern modifications that were made in association with the pig farm. 52 0 ID b INITIAL SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT oOf the 13 sites previously identified in the project corridors, eleven sites have been evaluated as being significant for information content (significance criteria D) and two sites (sites 18920 and 18913) were considered to be "no longer significant" because adequate data had been collected (ibid.:109). Upon review of the Hunt and McDermott report, the DLNR/SHPD has requested that two of the sites (sites 18914 and 18915), in addition to being important for information content (significance criteria D), are excellent site types (significance criteria C) "of plantation era clearing mounds, railroad beds, and ramps and perhaps water tank foundations" (SHPD letter to D. Kiyosaki, May 20, 1994:6). These same significance evaluations are being retained for the additional 30 features that were identified in association with three of the sites (sites 18912, 18914 and 18915) during the present project survey. The newly identified site, Site 20681, is evaluated as being significant for information content (significance criteria D). Table 2 lists the significance evaluations and recommended treatments of the 14 sites. In the interest of site preservation, the foremost recommendation is that if an extension and widening of Pu`ainako Street is to occur, the selected route should be the one with fewer archaeological sites. Thus, the selection of Alternate B is recommended because it has fewer sites than Alternate A and it would effectively bypass the two "excellent site types" (sites 18914 and 18915) in Alternate A (Figure 23). In the advent of potential impact to the original 13 sites, Hunt and McDermott (1994) recommended that nine of the 13 sites be subjected to data recovery and that no further work be conducted at the remaining four sites (sites 18913, 18920, 18922, and 18923). It was believed that an adequate amount of data had been collected from the four sites that were slated for no further work. The SHPD agreed that no further work was necessary at the four sites, but since Site 18914 and 18915 were to be evaluated as "excellent 0 53 U 0 a Table 2 - Pu'ainako St. Extension Project: Site Significance and Recommended Treatment Site No. Formal Site Type Significance Recommended Treatment 18911 Complex of structures D DR 18912 Complex of structures D DR 18913 Rectangular mound NLS NFW 18914 Complex of structures C,D P 18915 Complex of structures C,D P 18916 Complex of structures D DR 18917 Complex of structures D P 18918 Complex of structures D DR 18919 Complex of structures D DR 18920 Complex of structures NLS NFW 18921 Complex of structures D DR 18922 Modified outcrop D NFW 18923 Modified outcrop D NFW 20681 Complex of structures D DR site types" the SHPD requested that these two sites be recommended for preservation (SHPD letter to D. Kiyosaki, May 20, 1994:6 and July 20, 1994). Preservation of these two sites, the SHPD letter explains, would enable the area to be used as an "educational reserve" for UH Hilo because " not only are planation -era sites present, but it is an excellent setting to point out that this was once a Hawaiian landscape -- a suitable lesson in itself for the Hilo District" (ibid.:7). Five additional features were identified with Site 18914 during the present project survey, thereby expanding the area recommended for preservation. Originally we maintained the previous recommendations of Hunt and McDermott (1994: 109- 113) and SHPD requested revisions that of the 13 previously identified sites, seven sites be subjected to data recovery, two sites (Site 18914 and 18915) be preserved and no further work be done at four sites (see Table 2). Subsequently the SHPD requested that Site 18917, located in proximity to sites 18914 and 18915, also be preserved (SHPD letter to SCS, 2/28/96). 54 L C C L;- - 0 W G _Er c o W rD C,� oo� 00 fD C, b ] w a w C/) O CD ti F CL O ° H n o. b •wi :o ry CD N N ca.o a� ;v ] C4 oCD ow 0 0 o a v of O In addition, it is recommended that the newly identified site, Site 20681, also be subjected to data recovery. As is suggested in the Hunt and McDermott report, data recovery at these eight sites should consist of excavation and further historical research (informant interviews and archival work) in the hopes of obtaining further information concerning historic sugar plantation activities. To ensure that the sites have been accurately located within the road corridor selected for construction, it is suggested that a professional land surveyor plot the sites on to an appropriate project map prior to or during the data recovery work. 56 o 8 REFERENCES CITED Borthwick, D. F., J. Collins, W. H. Folk, and H. H. Hammatt 1993 Archaeological Surrey and Testing of the Proposed University of Hawaii at Hilo Expansion (TMK 2-4-01:40 and 157), For Engineering Concepts by Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Kailua, HI. Borthwick, D. F., J. R. W. H. Folk and H. H. Hammatt 1992 Archaeological Inventory Survey and Subsurface Testing for the Proposed Hana Ranch Golf Course, Hana, Maui, Hawaii, (TMK:1-4-07:4,6; 1-4- 02:8,9,10 and 1-4-03:9), Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Revised November 1992, Kailua, Oahu. Conde, Jesse C. and Gerald M. Best 1973 Sugar Trains, Narrow Gauge Rails of Hawaii, Glenwood Publishers, Felton Calif. Erkelens, Conrad and J.S. Athens 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Kohala Plantation Village, North Kohala, Hawaii. IARII, Honolulu Hammatt, Hallett H., Douglas F. Borthwick, Brian L. Colin, Ian Masterson, Jennifer J. Robins, and Helen Wong -Smith 1995 Archaeological Inventory Survey and Limited Subsurface Testing of a 1,540- 0 Acre Parcel in the Ahupua'a of Honuaino, Hokukano, Kanaueue, Haleki'i, Ke'eke'e, 'Ilikahi, Kanakau, Kalukalu, and Onouli, Districts of North and South Kona, Island of Hawaii, Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Kailua, Oahu Hudson, Alfred E. 1932 Archaeology of East Hawaii, Ms. in Dept. of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Hunt, Terry L. and Matthew J. McDermott . 1994 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pu'ainako Street Extension Project, Lands of Waiakea, Kukuau 1 and 2, and Ponohawai, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii, Terry Hunt, Honolulu. Kelly, Marion, Barry Nakamura and Dorothy B. Barrere 1981 Hilo Bay: A Chronological History, Land and Water Use in the Hilo Bay Area, Island of Hawaii, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kennedy, Joseph and Sandra Ireland 1994 An Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Hilo Forestry Office Complex Extension Located at TMK 2-2-27-01 in Waiakea Ahupua'a, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (Draft), Archaeological Consultants of Hawaii, Inc. O 57 0 0 Maly, Kepa and Alan T. Walker, with Paul H. Rosendahl O 1994 Archaeological Inventory Survey Waidkea Cane Lots Portion of Parcel 6, Land of Waidkea, South Hilo District, Island of Hawai `i (TMK:2-4-5701), PHRI, Hilo McEldowney, Holly 1979 Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design: Lava Flow Control Studv, Hilo, Hawai'i, Dept. of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer District, Pacific Ocean. Sato, H. et al. 1973 Soil Survey of the Island of Hawaii, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Univ. of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. Spear, Robert L. 1995 Data Recovery Excavations for Sites 50-10-35-19431, 19432, 19433, and 19434, Land of Waiakea, South Hilo District, Island of Hawai `i [TMK: 2-4-57], SCS Archaeology, Honolulu. Stokes, John F. G. 1991 Heiau of The Island of Hawai `i: A Historic Survey of Native Hawaiian Temple Sites, ed. Tom Dye, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Thrum, T.G. 0 1907a "Heiau and heiau sites throughout the Hawaiian Islands". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908. 1907b "Tales from the Temples," Part II, The Hawaiian Annual for 1908 191 W a C C C C C APPENDIX F DRAINAGE REPORT N C SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING & EXTENSION KAUMANA DRIVE TO KILAUEA AVENUE in Hilo, County of Hawaii, Hawaii Prepared For: The County of Hawaii Department of Public Works Hilo, Hawaii Prepared By: Okahara & Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii, 96720 O August 1998 0 O 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS O Page Introduction ........................................ 1 Hydrologic Methodology ............................... 5 Culvert Hydraulic Design Methodology .................... 11 Lower Puainako Alignment Overall Alignment Hydrology ........ 17 Lower Puainako Pre-Construction/Post Construction Rainfall Runoff Summary .......................... 20 Lower Puainako Preliminary Drainage Structures .............. 21 Upper Puainako - Alternative #1 Overall Alignment Hydrology .... 23 Upper Puainako - Alternative #1 Rainfall Runoff Summary ....... 25 Upper Puainako - Alternative #1 Preliminary Drainage Structures .. 26 Upper Puainako - Alternative #2 Overall Alignment Hydrology .... 27 Upper Puainako - Alternative #2 Rainfall Runoff Summary ....... 30 Upper Puainako - Alternative #2 Preliminary Drainage Structures .. 31 O Conclusions/Recommendation .......................... Preliminary Culvert Locations .... 32 Appendix. 36 ................. Figure #1 Project Location Map ..................... 37 Figure #2 Approximate Limits 100 Year Flood Zone ....... 38 Figure #3 Lower Puainako Pre -Construction Drainage Map 39 Figure #4 Lower Puainako Post -Construction Drainage Map .. 40 Figure #5 Upper Puainako Alternate #1 Rainfall Runoff Map 41 Figure #6 Upper Puainako Alternate #2 Rainfall Runoff Map 42 Figure #7 Lower Puainako Preliminary Culvert Locations .... 43 O Figure #8 Upper Puainako Preliminary Culvert Locations .... 44 . g O O C INTRODUCTION The Puainako Street widening and extension plan, prepared for the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works, is a preliminary plan for the widening and extension of the existing Puainako Street in Hilo, Hawaii. (See Figure 1). At present, Puainako Street is a two lane urban arterial from Kanoelehua Avenue to Komohana Street. It is approximately 1 .5 miles long. The proposed extension would lengthen the roadway by 4.6 miles, extending it to Kaumana Drive in the vicinity of the Country Club Drive / Kaumana Drive intersection. The portion of the project from Kilauea Street to Komohana Street was identified and designated as the "Lower Portion." The portion of the project from Kaumana Drive to Komohana Street was identified and designated as the "Upper Portion". This preliminary drainage report is a summary and discussion of the initial investigations, findings, proposals and recommendations for the drainage issues associated with both the "Upper" and "Lower" portions of the project. The information contained in this report is for preliminary discussion only and the Oinformation contained within will need to be revised as more accurate data becomes available. In the preliminary stages of the design of the "Upper" portion of the project, two alternative roadway alignments were considered; namely Alternative Alignment 1 and Alternative Alignment 2. Each alignment was studied in detail. For the "Lower" portion of the project, two roadway alignments were also considered namely Alignment A and Alignment B. Only Alignment B was studied in detail. However, Alignments A & B generally follow the same route. This report is concerned with the drainage issues associated with the alternative roadway alignments of both the upper and lower portions. (See Figure 2). The construction activities for the extension of the roadway would include tree removal, clearing and grubbing, excavation, embankment construction, paving of the roadway and shoulders, lawn / vegetation replication and the construction of drainage facilities. 1 GT The proposed roadway typical section will be crowned to shed water o and prevent standing water on the roadway. This runoff will be collected in roadside ditches and drainage structures (i.e.: drywells, catch basins, retention ponds and / or detention ponds) and disposed of by both infiltrating it into the ground and discharging it into the natural drainage paths. The paving of the roadway will increase the amount of impervious surface area within the project limits. Attempts will be made to dispose of any increase in runoff associated with the increase in impervious area through the utilization of drywells and percolation ponds. Route design for all alignments had among its goals routing the road around floodplains where practical and avoidance of longitudinal crossings of floodplains. Nevertheless, all "Build Alternative" alignments involve several crossings of areas identified as within the 100 -year floodplain. (See Figure 2). Alignments A and B each encroach once on a floodplain, for a total of 0.31 HA (0.75 ACRE ) and 0.09 HA (0.22 ACRE) respectively. Alignment 1 makes a total of six floodplain crossings, with a total of 2.17 HA (5.36 ACRES), while o Alignment 2 would make nine floodplain crossings, with a total area of 2.93 HA (7.25 ACRES). The Upper Portion alternative alignments traverse a number of intermittent streams. These streams are believed to be tributaries to an isolated flood plain located in the tracts of land "Kukuau 1 " and "Kukuau 2". This flood plain was mapped as shown on the "Flood Insurance Rate Map", as part of the National Flood Insurance Program, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and as duplicated and shown within. (See Figure 2). At locations where the proposed roadway crosses a stream or obvious drainage path, culverts will be installed to permit the runoff to pass beneath the roadway. The culverts will be sized to allow the passage of the normal or base flow of the stream along with the runoff associated with the design rain storm. The design storm will have a frequency of return of 50 years or less. In the final design stage, the proposed culverts will be checked against a design storm having a o 2 t9 O O Ofrequency of return of 100 years and recommendations made based upon their performance. In locations where the proposed roadway crosses flood hazard zones, measures will be taken to prevent changes in the flood water patterns. Flood water elevation and flow characteristics would be integrated into the design of flood zone crossings to determine the best design, and at the same time, evaluating upstream areas for potential flood damages. Flood plain management strategies would include sizing culverts at the flood plain crossings, to allow the passage of 100 year frequency of return flood waters and to prevent any increase in the flood water elevations or limits of inundation. This could also include replicating flood storage volumes in areas where flood plain is proposed to be filled to maintain the existing volume of storage for flood waters within the project limits. In any such case, acceptable flood plain management measures shall be implemented to prevent any alterations in the flood patterns within the project limits in accordance with the applicable sections of Chapter 27 of the County of Hawaii Ordinances. ODuring the construction grading and earthwork, provisions will be made to minimize the potential for soil erosion and measures will be taken to minimize the amount of sediment that leaves the construction limits. Soil erosion and sediment control standard management practices, as described in the "Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Hawaii", prepared by the Soil Conservation Society of America, Hawaii Chapter, dated March 1981, shall be implemented. These management measures could include: O 1 . Timing construction activities, such as grading or the installation of culverts, during periods of minimum rainfall. 2. Limiting the amount of surface area graded at any given time to reduce the area subject to potential erosion. 3. Constructing temporary drainage ditches to divert runoff away from areas susceptible to soil erosion. 3 4. Implementing the use of soil erosion protective materials o such as mulch or geotextiles on areas where soils have a high potential for erosion, until permanent provisions, such as lawns and grasses can be developed. Lawns and grassing shall be installed as soon as grading operations permit, to minimize the amount of time soils are exposed to possible erosion. 5. Sediment management could include the use of sedimentation basins to collect sediment which enters runoff waters. Geotextiles such as siltation fencing could be utilized to minimize the amount of sediments which would leave the site to collect in drainage structures and streams. The final design and recommendations shall conform to the following design standards where they are determined applicable: 1 . "Storm Drainage Standards", Department of Public Works, o County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, dated October 1970. 2. "Erosion and Sediment Control, Guide for Hawaii", U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Hawaii Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the Soil Conservation Society of America, Hawaii Chapter, dated March 1981. 3. "Hawaii Administrative Rules", Department of Health, Chapters 11-55, Sec. 34, as revised as of October 1992. 4. "County of Hawaii Ordinances Chapter 27", County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. M O 0 O HYDROLOGIC METHODOLOGY The methodology used to estimate rainfall runoff and address the other drainage concerns with in the project vicinity are as follows: 1 . A base map was prepared showing the approximate location of all roadways, property lines and easements. 2. Existing topographic features were added to the base map, taken from a number of sources. 5' and 20' contours, existing houses, buildings, pavement and vegetation / ground cover were taken from aerial photographs and contour maps prepared by R.M. Towill Corporation, dated • Oct., 1977. Existing features not covered in these sources were supplemented from maps prepared by U.S.G.S. and actual field surveys. Existing flood hazard zones were taken from the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. O 3. The major drainage paths, streams and rivers within the project limits were delineated and identified. 4. Where the proposed roadway traverses natural drainage paths or flood hazard zones, it was proposed to construct culverts to pass the rainfall runoff flows beneath the' roadway. 5. It was noted the construction of the roadway pavement would add additional impervious surface area within the project limits. This additional impervious ground cover was expected to increase the amount of rainfall runoff within the project limits. It was proposed to construct a series of drainage structures such as drywells, retention / detention ponds or percolation ponds to inject any increase in runoff from the site into the ground. That is, attempts would be made to balance or make equal the preconstruction and post construction rates of runoff and volume of runoff leaving the project limits. To develop these preconstruction and post construction runoff rates and volumes, ambiguous Odesign point were chosen down gradient of the project limits 5 A 7 e along all the natural drainage paths which traversed the O project limits. These points were strategically located as to include the entire limits of the roadway construction within the rainfall runoff tributary areas to the design points. The expected rainfall runoff to each of the points was then calculated using either the Rational Method, the F.E.M.A. Regression Equation Method, or the Soil Conservation Service Method (S.C.S. TR -55). The Rational Method was used for all drainage areas 100 acres in area or less. For areas greater than 100 acres, the F.E.M.A. Regression Equation Method was used for the upper alignments, and the S.C.S. Method was used for the lower alignments. These runoff rates and volumes represented the expected "preconstruction runoff". A second base map was prepared showing the location and limits of the proposed roadway and the rainfall runoff to the design points was recalculated. These runoff rates and volumes represented the "post - construction runoff". In areas where the runoff showed an increase, structures were designed to detain or inject the O increase in runoff into the ground within the associated tributary areas within the project limits. In areas where the proposed roadway crosses natural drainage paths, culverts were proposed to pass the expected runoff flow beneath the roadway. The tributary area to each of the required structures was delineated and the "post -construction" runoff to each of the culverts calculated using either the Rational, F.E.M.A. Regression Equation, or S.C.S. Method as described above. The design storm for these culverts was a storm having a frequency of return of 50 years or less. In areas where the proposed roadway crosses flood hazard zones it was proposed to construct culverts to pass the flows below the proposed roadway. These culverts were sized similar to those at drainage path crossings but the design storms these culverts were sized for was a storm having a frequency of return of 100 years. In these areas where the proposed roadway crosses flood hazard zones it O A O O Owas also proposed to replicate flood storage volume in areas where flood plain is proposed to be filled. This would insure that the existing flood storage volume, within the project limits, would be maintained. These volumes would be calculated in the final design using the average end area method commonly used in earthwork quantity calculations. IN L01 7 0 0 RATIONAL METHOD O Q = CIA Where: Q = Peak runoff in c.f.s. C = Coefficient of runoff -- depends on drainage characteristics of watershed area. Coefficient is dimensionless. I = Average rainfall intensity for a storm duration causing the entire drainage area to contribute to Q; this duration equals Tc Where: Tc = Time of concentration in minutes; minimum tc = 5 min. L = Length of Tc travel route in ft. S = Slope of watershed area in ft. / ft. 1 . Rainfall Intensities taken from "Technical Paper 43, Rainfall 0 Atlas of the Hawaiian Islands"; U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau. 2. Runoff coefficients taken from Table 1, County of Hawaii D.P.W. "Storm Drainage Standards", dated October 1970. 3. Design storm frequency = 50 year recurrence interval. 4. Reference, Rational Method; ASCE Manual of Practice #37. 5. Tc; Taken from Plate 5, County of Hawaii D.P.W. "Storm Drainage Standards", dated October, 1970. K E3 o SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (S.C.S. TR -55) METHOD O Q jEjaj (P -la) +S Where: Q = Runoff (in.) P = Rainfall (in.) S = Potential Maximum Retention After Runoff Begins (in.) la = Initial Abstraction (in.) la = 0.2S S = 1000/CN - 10 Where: CN = Curve Number; dependent on soil characteristics and ground cover type. Tc = Tc sheet flow + Tc shallow concentrated flow + Tc O channel flow. (See "Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Urbanizing Area in Hawaii", Soil Conservation Service, for a more detailed discussion of methodology.) Design storms calculated for 50 year recurrence interval. O 9 F.E.M.A. REGRESSION EQUATION METHOD o Q50 = 641 (DA)°.64(PA)0 70 Qioo = 822(DA)0.64(PA)0.50 Where: Qso = 50 -Year Runoff (cfs) Q,00 = 100 -Year Runoff (cfs) DA = Drainage Area (miZ) PA = Average Annual Precipitation (in/100) 1 . "Flood Insurance Study", Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hawaii County, Hawaii, May 16, 1994. C N HN O CULVERT HYDRAULIC DESIGN METHODOLOGY DESIGN CRITERIA 1 . Tm = 50 Years Design Storm Frequency of Return 2. 1.5D < Hi < Hmax A. Hi = Inlet Headwater B. D = Diameter of Culvert C. Hmax = Vertical Distance between Invert of Culvert and Bottom of Pavement Subgrade. 3. Minimum Culvert Diameter (inside) Dmin. = 24" 4. Minimum Culvert Slope Smin. = 0.5% C 5. Pipe Class Class III 6. Entrance Loss Coefficient Ke = 0.50 7. Mannings Coefficient of Roughness Concrete Pipe: N = 0.013 8. Assumed Tailwater See Tailwater Calculations 9. Culvert Lengths Taken from Preliminary Sketch Plans 10. Minimum Velocity of Flow Vmin = 2-1/2 Ft./Sec. 11 0 0 1 1 . Maximum Velocity of Flow at Culvert Outlet 0 Vmax = 5 Ft./Sec. IF: 5 < V < 18 Ft./Sec. Channel at outlet of culvert will be lined. IF: V > 18 Energy dissipators will be provided 12. Maximum Velocity of Flow in all Channels Unlined Channels Vmax = 5.0 Ft./Sec. Lined or Rock channels Vmax = 15 Ft./Sec. 13. Design Equations and Parameters N fWA 4 o 0 0 O INLET CONTROL DESIGN EQUATIONS UNSUBMERGED1 Inlet control design equations. HWS H� MForm (I) ----- _ --- + K[__Q ---- O.SS (A) D D ADO- ----- HWi M Form (2) = K (B) D [�� Do.6 SUBMERGED H = . WS - = c Q ----- + Y - 0.5S 1 P OD ADo.6 191 Definitions HWj Headwater depth above inlet control section invert, ft D Interior height of culvert barrel, ft HC Specific head at critical depth (dc + VC 2/2g), ft Q Discharge, ft6/s A Full cross sectional area of culvert barrel, ft= S Culvert barrel slope, ft/ft K,M,c,Y Constants from table 9 NOTES: Equations (26) and (27) (unsubmerged) apply up to about Q/AD0.6 = 3.5. ? For mitered inlets use +0.7S instead of -0.5S as the slope correc- tion factor. s Equation (28) (submerged) applies above about Q/ADO 6 = 4.0. Taken from: "Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts", FHWA Report No.: FHWA-IP-85- 15, Hydraulic Design Series No. 5, September 1985. 13 Contents for m(et cmtrot denim CKART SHVE AW RpUGROM UNS(.9NER ED"MERCED EOLL1TI01 MD. "TER IAL SME INLET EDGE DES' IIm PORN C M c T Referwew 1 Cirmlar 1 Spee edge w/hedwal1 1 0.009E 2.0 0.039E 0.67 (56) (57) Concrete 2 Groove end WWS"It .007E 2.0 .0292 .74 (56) (57) 3 Graw end projecting .0045 2.0 .0317 .69 (56) (57) 2 Cirmter 1 Need's ll 1 .007E 2.0 .0379 .69 CS6) (S7) COOP 2 mitered to slap .0210 1.35 .0463 .75 (57) 3 pro)ectirg .DUO 1.50 .0553 .0 (57) 3 Cirmiar A Reveled ring, 450 bevels 1 .001E 2.50 .0300 .74 (57) s Beveled ring, 33.70 beveIs- ,001E 2.50 .0243 .83 (57) 8 Rectogutar 1 300 to 750 Ningwtt dares .026 1.0 .0355 .61 (56) sas 2 900 and 150 clrprit flares 1 .061 0.75 .04W .EO (56) 3 00 wingwall flares .061 0.75 .0423 .82 (0) 9 Rectangular 1 450 wingwit flan d..043D 2 .510 .667 .0309 .80 (E) gas 2 150 to 33.70 NifwAU flan 0•.080 .456 .667 .0249 .83 (E) 10 Rectangular 1 906 headwatL e,/3/4e, drefsn 2 .SIS .667 Am .79 (E) am 2 900 headwall NASO berate .493 .667 .0314 .82 (8) 3 900 hedrtt 79/33.70 berets .456 .667 .0252 .56E (5) 11 Rettangdr 1 UP cMafsn; 450 skewad heabi0ll 2 .522 .667 .0402 .73 (8) ses 2 3/4• clreefeta; 300 skewed headwall .533 .667 .0425 .705 (6) 3 3/4e ch- en; 150 skewed Madeil .545 .667 .04505 .68 (8) 4 450 britt.; 100.450 skwd hagnll .49E .667 .0327 .75 (5) 12 Rectangular 1 450 rm-offset dnpell flare, 2 .497 .667 .0339 .503 (6) Box 2 18.40 r Vffw wifrpwll flare .493 .667 .0361 .Em (E) 3/4e, charfen 3 15.40 mon-offset 79ingwit flare, .495 .667 .0356 .71 (E) 300 skwed barrel 13 Rmierouler 1 450 wirprll flares • offset 2 .497 .667 .0302 An (E) sOR 2 33.70 wirownU flares offset .495 .667 .0252 .881 (8) Tap 6ewels 3 18.40 drywall flares offset .493 •667 Aw .557 (a) 16-19 C N a"" 1 900 heedelt 1 .0053 2.0 .0379 .69 (57) 2 Thick wall projecting .0165 1.75 .0419 .64 (57) 3 1 Thin 79dl projecting 1 .0340 1.5 .0496 .57 (57) 14 C 0 4 ri C OCHART 4 % g 00 10 20 30 40 O DISCHARGED -CFS f 6 T r w 6 LL u 0 Z yr w W O J Q )o2 r DISCHARGE -O -CFS g Ir L) O BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1964 DISC H AH Gt- u-t.ra 15 CANNOT EXCEED TOP OF PIPE CRITICAL DEPTH CIRCULAR PIPE 00 10 20 30 40 O DISCHARGED -CFS f 6 T r w 6 LL u 0 Z yr w W O J Q )o2 r DISCHARGE -O -CFS g Ir L) O BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1964 DISC H AH Gt- u-t.ra 15 CANNOT EXCEED TOP OF PIPE CRITICAL DEPTH CIRCULAR PIPE 0 O a OUTLET CONTROL DESIGN EQUATIONS O D = Diameter of Culvert Q = Q Total / Number of Culvert Barrels (CFS) TW = Tailwater (Ft.) do = Critical Depth (see attached) ho = Tw or (dc + D) (Whichever is greater) 2 H = Headwater H = [ I + Ke + (29n2L) / R1.331 V2 / 2g El -ho = Elevation of Headwater O Outlet Invert + H + ho C V to o 0 O LOWER PUAINAKO ALIGNMENT OVERALL ALIGNMENT HYDROLOGY The present drainage patterns of the area the proposed alignment traverses is as follows; In the area between Komohana Street and Kilauea Street, rainfall which falls to the south & southwest of Puainako Street flows north / northeast overland through primarily residential areas. Along the south side of Puainako Street from Komohana Street to Kawili Street there exists an earth / rock drainage channel which intercepts the flow and directs it down gradient to a large drainage channel which runs along the west side of Kawili Street which eventually ends in Waiakea Pond. There are a number of existing drywells along the south side of Puainako Street that currently inject some of the runoff into the ground. The existing channel is relatively shallow and very irregular in cross section. Where driveways or side streets cross over the existing channels culverts have been installed to pass the flows. These culverts vary widely in cross section, size and configuration. Although the channel and drainage Ostructures may be adequate for smaller flows it is expected these structures will be inadequate to pass the flows associated with the project design storm. It is expected the runoff`to the south / southwest of Puainako Street will cross over the Puainako Street roadway and enter the project limits during the design year storm. Throughout the length of the proposed roadway alignment there are a number of natural drainage paths where the flows are expected to converge and transform into channel flow. In the area between Komohana Street and Kawili Street these drainage paths flow toward the Waiakea Flood Control Channel. In the area between Kawili Street and Waiakea Intermediate School the flows are expected to flow through a wooded area toward Waiakea High School and into the drainage channel which runs along the north / northwest side of Kawili Street. In the area between Waiakea Intermediate School and Lokahi Street the flows are directed by means of an open and closed drainage system located on the school parcel toward an intermittent stream which runs toward the north and passes to the north / northwest of the residential area on Lokahi Street and eventually ends in Waiakea OPond. In the area between Lokahi Street and Kinoole Street the natural 17 e drainage paths intercept the flows and direct it toward an intermittent O stream which flows toward Kinoole Street. Upon inspection where this stream intersects Kinoole Street it appears the culverts required to pass this flow beneath Kinoole Street is either completely blocked by sediment or nonexistent. This concern requires further investigation. In the area between Kinoole Street and Kilauea Street the runoff is directed to a single drywell to the northwest of the Kilauea / Puainako Street intersection. The Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT) was contacted to determine where existing drainage problems or where drainage runoff crosses the existing Puainako Street. Mr. George Nakayama of Hawaii DOT maintenance department cited that water crosses the existing alignment during heavy rains on the vicinity of Santos Road. Testimony from the owner of the dwelling north of Puainako Street and Kuhilani Street intersection, he indicated that flooding occurs behind and on his property. The extent of the flooding is unknown. O The proposed roadway alignment was delineated and the tributary drainage areas, to each of the required drainage structures or culverts, were determined, identified and labeled "A" through "T" (See Figures 3 and 4). The corresponding quantity of runoff for each of the subareas was calculated using the Rational Method or Soil Conservation Service Method and the structures sized accordingly. Due to length, the calculations are not included in this preliminary drainage summary report. However, a copy of the calculations are available for review at the office of: OKAHARA & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 KOHOLA STREET HILO HAWAII 96720 PHONE: (808) 961-5527 14 a In addition, due to the fact that only preliminary design calculations were required, no effort was made to design minor roadside ditches, and preliminary drainage construction costs do not reflect these potential construction costs. Well I -u�O N A 00 m A I ZZ rr 71� + O+m00 W D ON r + + x + Z - W O + - x v �Z pZ m Ca m j m D o m N V A D Om I Z N OD D m v N O N W N N 0 ' O O A N (P (O N A O O O b O- W W rn V J m D D .0 Z p �"� O O> N? Ou l I ' m J OD A- N i �_ J O 01 y M O_ 000"1000 C o 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 m p O W 0 0 O A O C1 55 Z 0 O N w N m D m;7 �D 00 0 (A > OZm 0 0 O W S OZ A m A N O w W J A V O 01 m (P L4 m -' co V W A n O Zl O Z Z O m W W I I I I W (P 0 W 0 0 W W N CA V N� 0 O 07 V �� 0 C m' m 01 m 0 0 v 0' W O (0P (0 (A•'N. m ZO �m > x C �o cy N D D AC)=� m co V V J N Z S N 0 W p1 O m co V ;'l .17 ,-p =0 N A A O U) M. m TD N Z O00 O O Z O O O 0 o \ O Z ? N M V A Am J V W V V 0 co N (A(7C ti m N W? W ONj I A J O 01 O O O1 (P (O V N� O) A m N 0 m 00 00 M A A 0) 0 0 v O 0 L4 00 0 0 bD N bo Z W 00 0 0 0 0 l J Z0 -u X0 �z =pA N O NO I O O O N O A N N O O O W m'� � DNo C U) D 0 A W_ (WO (0 O W A (00 A v W 0 01 v rn A m V W \ O O Z m m N A A I O1 N (O J (P U Ot O m m O in m f m 0 0 0 LA m U O Ln O L4 J 0 O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 �"� W> O \ ^ou M> I v O m O D N W N D V/ .Z y o in O 0 W f m D O W W 0 u- u O. o A W A (JP 01 U v v Z7 O - N N t0 0 N 0^ O N W O W A J i-. O A (0 01 Lw (P -. N J C.1 A m �..� W A f' W W CP A V N 01 o D ^ \ J m N O r O 0) WV A m CA Z f W V m -i W A o Co W m V N N J J 4 A Z A D t0 O O1 V m ._ m (P N V J O o 01 W W N � N' m N 0 V V V U 0 N W (P 0) N 0 W m a O O (n C -) N N O mA (7N N N o o� mp D_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n m "= c') 0 z O C:) Z Ln � D W A m m J 01 N W m N W m V A m W OD A Ln (O N W 00 O m N co m A A J A A m A N O C 0 O Z r O N N o m 0 W J N J (P U O (P O 01 N N O W m N N p o �T7 co 4�O O 0 0 4+ O O W N C Z Z�-u O o� �� O= 00 u -1n 11 D 0>�> D 00 W x m'mO x �. O 0 II 11 ^ Dnmrm-Z D A J W� Dr0 N 0 �N > OD 3 C Q (P m N O rn{�{ -m N O `— A N f f V W W 0) N 09F O l o V N T Z W A W W V OD 01 A W W Co W j O (P O W A A A ;' mm N r �\ I II C W N m J m A N' O) OD O V N OD OD 01 W W 01 01 . (P Of O O A 0 A O (A O V A j' N W 01 01 N r C \ r (n D .� II A m A -u Z OD A O 0 O 0 (0 J N V U1 O O W O O N o W' O m zJ 0 0 O,Z7O DOJO 0, D, n O v v N? m A N D Z + + W + l + I + I + + + I + + + + O A 0) f (P m O (0 0 J N OD O O 06 O A 0o O O V J W W N O (P O O W O 0 m J OD (P v o w O N N N N N NOTES Q O LOWER PUAINAKO - ALIGNMENT B PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STRUCTURES O Culvert I, D. Approx, Sta, Min. Recommended COW, Remark 1 242+30 36" Dia RCP Culy, L=130' 2 243+50 54" Dia RCP Culy, L=160' 3 248+15 30" Dia RCP Culy, L=140' 4 254+25 O/S 80RT 30" Dia RCP Culy, L=70' 5 254+80 30" Dia RCP Culy, L=130' 6 258+30 48" Dia RCP Culy, L=130' 7 259+50 72" Dia RCP Culy, L=130' 8 265+10 60" Dia RCP Culy, L=180' 9 274+20 48" Dia RCP Culy, L=370' (2) 24" Dia RCP Culy, L=80' 10 275+20 24" Dia RCP Culy, L=130' 11 279+20 30" Dia RCP Culy, L=150' 12 284+00 24" Dia RCP Culy, L=260' 13 287+00 24" Dia RCP Culy, L=130' 14 289+00 O/S 70' RT 24" Dia RCP Culy, L=130' 15 289+85 24" Dia RCP Culy, L=130' 16 294+50 O/S 75' LT 24" Dia RCP Culy, L=70' 17 294+50 O/S 70' RT 48" Dia RCP Culy, L= 100' 18 295+15 TO 297+50 48" Dia RCP Culy, L=235' 19 297+50 TO 305+50 90" Dia RCP Culy, L=800' 20 306+10 96" Dia RCP Culy, L=220' 21 309+20 O/S 70' RT 36" Dia RCP Culy, L=70' 22 309+80 36" Dia RCP Culy, L=130' 23 @ KINOOLE ST INTER. 24" Dia RCP Culy, L=400' 24 318+95 24" Dia RCP Culy, L=130' * See Figure 7 for approximate locations. 21 LOWER PUAINAKO - ALIGNMENT B 0 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STRUCTURES (CONTINUED) . :. ... ' MA,fQR RQkpSlp� CHANNE1.$ANDPETENTION.BASIN$, Location Size Remarks To be determined To be determined CATCH BASINS Location No. Remarks (See Plan) 9 MODIFIER CATCH BASIN 7 DRY WELL Location No. Remarks (See Plan) 30 STANDARD DRYW ELLS Location No. Remarks (See Plan) 1 22 N O O O UPPER PUAINAKO - ALTERNATIVE #1 OVERALL ALIGNMENT HYDROLOGY The present drainage pattern of the area the roadway Alternative Alignment #1 traverses is as follows: In the areas between Country Club Drive and Wilder Road, rainfall which falls to the south & south- west of the alignment flows north northeast overland through primarily old cane fields overgrown with dense grass and brush. This runoff eventually makes it's way into one of the two existing streams that converge at Wilder Road and pass beneath Wilder Road through two existing 8' diameter C.M.P. culverts. In the area between Wilder Road and Pacific Plantation Subdivision, rainfall which falls to the south & southwest of the alignment flows north / northeast overland through residential areas and into undeveloped areas and eventually into the existing stream which flows to the east / southeast. Rainfall which falls to the north of the alignment flows overland through some residential areas, but mainly through undeveloped land to the stream which flows east / southeast. OIn the area between Kilua Road and Edita Street, runoff which falls to the north & northwest of the alignment flows overland through undeveloped land (mainly scrub and brush) into the Pacific Plantation Subdivision. In the area between Edita Street and Sunrise Ridge Subdivision, rainfall which falls to the north of the alignment flows overland through scrub and dense woods eastward where it eventually enters the Waipahoehoe Stream which flows to the northeast. Rainfall which falls to the south of the alignment flows northeast / east overland through dense woods where it eventually enters the existing flood control channel / Waiakea Stream which flows to the northeast and passes beneath the Komohana Street bridge. It is proposed to construct a series of drainage structures along the alignment to allow.the existing drainage patterns to remain with as little disturbance as possible due to the roadway construction. The Oproposed rainfall runoff quantities will be estimated using the Rational 23 Method and the F.E.M.A. Regression Equation Method, as described o herein. The proposed drainage structure will be sized so as to allow the passage of runoff from a design storm with a 50 -year or less return interval. The proposed roadway alignment was delineated and the tributary drainage areas, to each required drainage structure or culvert, were determined, identified (17 total) and labeled "A" through "P". The corresponding quantity of runoff for each of the 17 subareas was calculated using the Rational Method, or F.E.M.A. Regression Equation Method, and the structures sized accordingly. The sub basins A through K drain via intermittent stream into an isolated flood plain located on the tracts of Land Kukuau 1 and Kukuau 2. The runoff waters are believed to flow down to the low point within this flood plain, located about 2,500 ft. east northeast of the existing Edita St. cul-de-sac / intersection. (See Figure 5). Sub basins L through P are believed to flow overland into the Waiakea Stream Tributary No. 3 and Waiakea Stream, and eventually into Waiakea Pond. Due to the fact that only preliminary designs were required, no effort was made to 0 design minor roadside ditches, and preliminary drainage construction cost estimates do not include these potential construction costs. In addition to the preliminary design of the proposed roadway culverts, the existing 8' diameter C.M.P. and the 5' diameter R.C.P. culverts along Wilder Road were checked for adequate capacity to ensure proper drainage of the proposed roadway. The calculations are not included in this preliminary drainage summary report. However, a copy of the calculations are available for review at the office of: OKAHARA & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 KOHOLA STREET HILO, HAWAII 96720 PHONE: (808) 961-5527 N 24 m m m UPPER PUAINAKO - ALTERNATIVE #1 RAINFALL RUNOFF SUMMARY Area Designation Area (Ac ) Rational 050 lc f s l FEMA. Regression 050 to f s I 050 Used to f s l 050 !c f s I/ Area IAc 1 A 5675 4209 4209 0 74 8 2001 2160 2160 1 08 C 329 680 680 2 07 D 320 668 668 1 2 09 Ali E1 11 57 33 80 33 285 E2 64 27 184 239 184 2 86 F 42 60 210 184 210 4 93 G 54 68 192 216 192 3 51 H 15 66 51 97 51 3 26 1 6 73 27 56 27 4 01 J 28.26 86 141 86 3 04 K 317 10 35 10 315 L 409 16 41 16 319 M 475 19 45 19 400 N 7 21 27 59 27 3 74 0 9 86 35 72 35 3 55 R 19 09 53 110 53 2 78 D - EXISTING 5' CULVERT 297 297 F+EXISTING 5' CULVERT 581 555 581 A+C+D+E1+E2+F+G 6497 4589 4589 Olt H+I 22.39 78 122 78 348 J, K 31.43 1 96 151 96 1 3 05 A+B+C+D+Et+E2+F+ G+H+I+J+K 8552- 5472 5472 064 25 UPPER PUAINAKO - ALTERNATIVE #1 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STRUCTURES *See Figure 8 for approximate locations. 26 K 101 ROADWAY CULVERTS• CWvert 1.D, Approx Sb Size Remarks 1 32+70 (2) 84" Dia RCP Cul, L=150' 45+60 141 12 X 9'-0" Box Culy, L=65' 3 20+30 015 300' LT 36" Dia RCP Culy, L=75' 1 53+25 131 48" Dia RCP Cul, L= 105' 5 53+25 0/S 350' LT 24" Dia RCP Colo, L=75' 6 53+25 O/S 400' RT 60" RCP Culy Enistin- Overlaps 7 53+25 0/S 740' LT 121 96" Dia CMP Culy Existing Overto s 8 53+25 O/S 60' LT 36" Dia CMP Culy Existing 9 66 + 00 121 72" Dia RCP Culy L=75' 10 84+20 151 12' x 8' Bax Culy, L=115' 11 131+70 42" Dia PCP Culy, L=75' 12 131 +90 CIS 70' RT 60" CMP Dia Culv Existing; 13 182+00 48" Dia RCP Culy, L=250' 14 195+50 161 12' x 0' Bax Cul, L=115' 15 205+70 24" Dia RCP Cul, L=75' 16 210+40 24" Dia RCP Culy, L=00' 17 218+30 30" Dia RCP Cu Iv, L=80' 18 224+60 30" Dia RCP Culy, L=70' MAJOR ROADSIDE CHANNELS* Low Hon 5@e Remerkr STA 129 + 75 0' x 3' IVariesl Existing STA 90+00 -0 100+00 To be determined STA 145+00 —> 180+00 To be determined STA. 180+00-,193+00 6' Deep (Varies) \ / Channel Existing DRYWELLS Dercrl Hoe Q'r Remarks Dr wells 115 Subtotal *See Figure 8 for approximate locations. 26 K 101 O UPPER PUAINAKO - ALTERNATIVE #2 OVERALL ALIGNMENT HYDROLOGY The present drainage pattern of the area the roadway alternative alignment #2 traverses is as follows: In the areas between Country Club Drive and Wilder Road, rainfall which falls to the south & south- west of the alignment flows north / northeast overland through primarily old cane fields overgrown with dense grass and brush. This runoff eventually makes it's way into one of the two existing streams that converge at Wilder Road and pass beneath Wilder Road through two existing 8' diameter C.M.P. culverts. In the area between Wilder Road and Pacific Plantation Subdivision, rainfall which falls to the south & southwest of the alignment flows north / northeast overland through dense woodland areas and into undeveloped areas and eventually into the existing stream which flows to the east / southeast. Rainfall which falls to the north of the alignment flows overland through some residential areas but mainly through undeveloped land to the stream which flows east / southeast. O In the area between Edita Street and Sunrise Ridge Subdivision, rainfall which falls to the north of the alignment flows overland through scrub and dense woods eastward where it eventually enters the Waipahoehoe Stream which flows to the northeast. Rainfall which falls to the south of the alignment flows northeast / east overland through dense woods where it eventually enters the existing flood control channel / Waiakea Stream which flows to the northeast and passes beneath the Komohana Street bridge. It is proposed to construct a series of drainage structures along the alignment to allow the existing drainage patterns to remain with as little disturbance as possible due to the roadway construction. The proposed rainfall runoff quantities will be estimated using the Rational Method and F.E.M.A. Regression Equation Method, as described herein. The proposed drainage structure will be sized so as to allow the passage of runoff from a design storm with a 50 -year or less return interval. Pa►i t The proposed roadway alignment was delineated and the 0 tributary drainage areas, to each required drainage structure or culvert, were determined, identified (23 total) and labeled "A" through "W". The corresponding quantity of runoff for each of the 23 subareas was calculated using the Rational Method, or F.E.M.A. Regression Equation Method, and the structures sized accordingly. The sub basins A through Q drain via intermittent stream into an isolated flood plain located on the tracts of Land Kukuau 1 and Kukuau 2. The runoff waters are believed to flow down to the low point within this flood plain, located about 2,500 ft. east northeast of the existing Edita St. cul-de-sac / intersection. (See Figure 6). Sub basins S through W are believed to flow overland into the Waiakea Stream Tributary No. 3 and Waiakea Stream, and eventually into Waiakea Pond. Due to the fact that only preliminary designs were required, no effort was made to design minor roadside ditches, and preliminary drainage construction cost estimates do not include these potential construction costs. In addition to the preliminary design of the proposed roadway culverts, the existing 8' diameter C.M.P. and the 5' diameter R.C.P. O culverts along Wilder Road were checked for adequate capacity to ensure proper drainage of the proposed roadway. The County of Hawaii Department of Public Works was contacted to determine where existing drainage problems occur along and in the vicinity of the propose Puainako Street extension. According to Mr. Thomas Nakasone of the County of Hawaii DPW maintenance department, flooding problems occur at the following locations during heavy rains. 1 . On Wilder Road, from Uhaloa Road to approximately end of Wilder Road. 2. On Uhaloa Road between Eiei Road and Uluhe Road. 3. On lots TMK: 2-5-46:06, 2-5-46:07, 2-5-41:01, 2-5- 46:09 and various lots on the east side of Wilder Road. There may be other locations where flooding occurs as drainage runoff flows down gradient to the FEMA flood zone areas. O 28 0 O O In addition, Mr Nakasone cited that the existing 5 -feet diameter RCP culvert and 2 -8 -feet diameter CMP culverts on Wilder Road had been overtopped and therefore insufficient for the existing drainage runoff. C L91 The calculations are not included in this preliminary drainage summary report. However, a copy of the calculations are available for review at the office of: OKAHARA & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 KOHOLA STREET HILO HAWAII 96720 PHONE: (808) 961-5527 29 UPPER PUAINAKO - ALTERNATIVE #2 RAINFALL RUNOFF SUMMARY Afire Designation Area 1,4c I Rational 050 (c.f s / f E MA050 Regfess ca 050 (c Is.l Used (aI s l 050 (cls 1 Area (Ac.) A 5626 4186 4186 0 74 B 671 1073 1073 1 60 C 213 515 515 242 D 41 25 191 180 191 463 E 33 88 150 159 150 443 F 124 364 364 294 G 7 26 30 59 30 4 13 H 5492 188 216 188 3.42 1 1234 46 83 46 3.73 J 4741 144 197 144 1 304 K 176 456 456 2 59 L 108 -- 334 334 309 M 493 881 881 1.79 N 30 87 110 150 110 3.56 0 98 44 268 314 268 2.72 R 43.08 122 185 122 2 83 0 402 13 41 13 323 R 757 1159 1159 1 53 S 4.09 16 4/ 16 3 91 T 4 68 19 45 19 4.06 U 5 96 23 52 23 3 86 V 7 31 26 60 26 3 56 W 6.64 19 56 19 2.86 A+C+D+E+F+G+H+K +L+M 6877 -- 4759 4759 069 D+R+O 146 604 404 277 A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H +I+J+K+L+M+N+D+R +G+R 8541 -- 5468 5468 064 From FEMA Flood Insurance Study, May 16, 1994 30 0 K • a o �J O UPPER PUAINAKO - ALTERNATIVE #2 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STRUCTURES IN N ROADWAY CULVERTS - Culvert 70. Approx. Sta, Min. Recommended Cu/vert Remarks 1 13+40 60" Dia RCP Culy. L=75' 2 18+20 121 72" Dia RCP Culy, L=75' 3 23+50 60" RCP Culy, L=75' 4 32+20 141 12' x 9' Box Culy, L=05' 5 34+80 30" Dia RCP Culy, L=75' fi 41 +20 84" Dia RCP Culy, L=75' 7 49+50 60" Dia RCP Culy. L=75' 8 107+75 48' Dia RCP Cul, L=75' 9 168+00 151 12' x 8' Box Culy, L = 85' 10 205+50 121 60" Dia RCP Culy, L=250' 11 219+00 (61 12' x 8' Box Culy, L=115' 12 229+20 24" Dia RCP Culy, L=75' 13 235+00 24" Dia RCP Culy, L=75' 14 241 +40 30" Dia RCP Culy, L=75' 15 250+30 30" Dia RCP Cul,, L=75' 16 268+40 24" Dia RCP Cul,, L=75' MAJOR ROADSIDE CHANNELS* Loca on Siza Remarke STA. 50+00-> 68+00 10'x6 5' STA 68+00 -> 100+50 20'x8' II STA 175+00 -> 205+00 TO BE DETERMINED DRYWELLS aaseri n'on O'r Remerka Drywells 115 *See Figure 8 for approximate locations. 31 P, CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS O In order to insure proper drainage of the area within the vicinity of the proposed roadway alignment, it is recommended the proposed drainage structures as designed within and as shown on the enclosed hydrologic plans, be provided as a minimum effort. In the final design stage it is recommended that the drainage study include a preconstruction hydrologic study and a post construction study. If the study indicates any increase in runoff, it is recommended a series of drainage structures be designed to temporarily store or percolate into the ground any increase in rainfall runoff. The detailed design of these structures is not included as part of this study due to the fact that the design of these structures requires detailed topographic information which is not yet available. The structures might include drywells, detention ponds, retention ponds and percolation ponds. As the design progresses and more data becomes available it will be necessary to revise these calculations and recommendations to incorporate more precise data. O Flood plain management strategies would include sizing culverts at the crossings to allow the passage of the 100 year design storm and to prevent any increase in flood water elevation or limits of inundation. This would also include replicating flood storage volumes in areas where the flood plain is proposed to be filled. This would insure that the existing flood storage volume, within the project limits, would be maintained. During the construction grading and earthwork, provisions should be made to minimize the potential for soil erosion, and measures taken to minimize the amount of sediment that leaves the construction limits. Soil erosion and sediment control standard management practices, as described in the "Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Hawaii", prepared by the Soil Conservation Society of America, Hawaii Chapter, dated March 1981, could be implemented. These management measures would include: 32 V O1. Timing of construction activities, such as grading or the installation of culverts, during periods of minimum rainfall. 2. Limiting the amount of surface area graded at any given time to reduce the area subject to potential erosion. 3. Constructing temporary drainage ditches to divert runoff away from areas susceptible to soil erosion. 4. Implementing the use of soil erosion protective materials, such as mulch or geotextiles, on areas where soils have a high potential for erosion, until permanent provisions, such as lawns and grasses can be developed. Lawns and grassing should be installed as soon as grading operations permit, to minimize the amount of time soils are exposed to possible erosion. 5. Sediment management could include the use of O sedimentation basins to collect sediment which enters runoff waters. Geotextiles such as siltation fencing could be utilized to minimize the amount of sediments which would leave the site to collect in drainage structures and natural drainage paths. N The final design and recommendations should conform to the following design standards where they are determined applicable: 1 . "Storm Drainage Standards", Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, dated October 1970. 2. "Erosion and Sediment Control, Guide for Hawaii", U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Hawaii Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the Soil Conservation Society of America, Hawaii Chapter, dated March 1981. 33 N 3. "Hawaii Administrative Rules", Department of Health, o Chapters 11-55, sec. 34, as revised as of October 1992. 4. "County of Hawaii Ordinances Chapter 27", County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. In the Upper Portion, both alternative roadway Alignments 1 & 2 cross a number of intermittent streams and F.I.R.M. flood hazard zones. Alternative 1 makes a large flood zone crossing southeast of Kilua Rd. This is at the point where a large number of the streams and isolated flood ways converge. The roadway culvert at this point would need to be designed to pass the combined flows of each of the flood ways which converge at this point. It is expected, crossing at this point, a very large culvert or even a bridge structure would be required to pass the design year flow. Alignment 1 also crosses three more independent flood ways in the vicinity of Wilder Road. These crossings are the tributary streams and flood ways to the previously mentioned crossing. Since these crossings are up gradient and crossings would be made independently, the flows for which the o culverts are designed are expected to be much smaller. Alternative roadway Alignment 2 crosses a F.I.R.M. flood hazard zone to the southeast of Pacific Plantation subdivision. Of all the alternative roadway alignments studied, this crossing was the one located at the lowest elevation within the isolated flood plain of Kukuau. This point is the furthest down gradient of any other crossings and is expected to have the largest storm runoff flow rate. It is expected for a crossing at this point, a very large culvert or even a bridge structure would be required to pass the design year storm flow. Alignment 2 makes four additional flood zone crossings, one to the east of Wilder Rd. and three to the southeast of Country Club Drive. The three crossings to the southeast of Country Club Drive are located at the highest elevations of any proposed crossings. Since these points are the farthest up -gradient, these crossings are expected to have the smallest flows of any proposed crossings. The culverts required to pass the flows at these crossings would be expected to be the smallest, and in turn the least expensive. It is expected, Alignment #2 would require a large concrete channel be constructed to the south of Wilder Road to 0 KL! 0 O O Ointercept offsite runoff and prevent runoff from crossing the roadway. This channel adds a high additional cost to Alignment #2. One area of concern for both alignments is the F.E.M.A. floodzone located east of the Pacific Plantation Subdivision. This is the area where the F.E.M.A. floodzones converge and appears to pond. However, during large storm events, this area does overflow and fills up the existing ditch located just south of the Sunrise Estates Subdivision as witnessed by the developers of the subdivision. From this account, a large culvert structure has been designed to pass this flow for both alignments at a point just southeast of the Sunrise Estates Subdivision. In conclusion, Alignment #2 will make more floodzone crossings and will encroach into a larger floodzone area than Alignment #1. Because of this fact, Alignment #2 will require extra culverts and extra drainage ditches. Therefore, from a hydraulic/hydrologic as well as an economic standpoint, it is recommended that Alignment #1 be chosen Cas the preferred alignment. M 35 0 O O C M U C APPENDIX 36 0 0 O THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK EO O Page 37 TITLE O Q PPCIFlC � CCEAry b oO eAwal AVIAN ISLANDS -ATION MAP PROJECT LOCATION MAP COUNTY OF HAWAII, STATE OF HAWAII PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING/EXTENSION HILO, HAWAII 9I016/M / /PRELIM-DRNG/RG-1 DWG/SCALEI=1 38 PROJECT LOCATION r 10 30 SCALE IN MILES `1 8/19/98 X IN. X X J• �o m 0 m 00 D \ \ % t } a AKALA OA �1 O _0 V 00 D x O O a �'' gO> N CHONO STREET O m N 9G r o �9 N� `D ry n 2 Q — o "� Z� m_ > I— (D - a + O U) 3 A O O rt O tp to r r mom -urEi ---_ o Mr -z mzA D m ' mD X;z 5 D N O -AL -Z- = Z� A rn Oz� 0 u c c z p� k Z - --V m X "r X A of V O D D �' ` O o z fTl X Fo FO x 1 O � 0`� V ZT oP _ b'MdHOWO>i A A o rn m O N 1332! OA oat. N 15 INV11Y1 d, O D pA apT, n Z M is INVTtln&O N = D m x A -0 m 15 tlINONIYM O r Z O m p O r '� D X 15 INVTIHfIN m Z rn— m Z D Z is IemnNVHoa 400 m ;o Kx m O is INV IVMI �� 'Ls nvAVN ; D 04 .O4 _ =!> is INtll30NtlN O W Z Z 133HIS V1311 Av o 133tl1s tl3NVINVN —�� � 1 w o I o m h 2 � Fc: 0Z => D 0 D(A 0 mu = m p mu �0 m z x mO 1 D Z z Om w N �r Z N- Z mcf) X IN. X X J• �o m 0 m 00 D \ \ % t } a AKALA OA �1 O _0 V 00 D x O O a �'' gO> N CHONO STREET O m N 9G r o �9 N� `D ry n 2 Q — o "� Z� m_ > I— (D - a + O U) 3 A O O rt O tp to r r mom -urEi ---_ o Mr -z mzA D m ' mD X;z 5 D N O -AL -Z- = Z� A rn Oz� 0 u c c z p� k Z - --V m X "r X A of V O D D �' ` O o z fTl X Fo FO x 1 O � 0`� V ZT oP _ b'MdHOWO>i A A o rn m O N 1332! OA oat. N 15 INV11Y1 d, O D pA apT, n Z M is INVTtln&O N = D m x A -0 m 15 tlINONIYM O r Z O m p O r '� D X 15 INVTIHfIN m Z rn— m Z D Z is IemnNVHoa 400 m ;o Kx m O is INV IVMI �� 'Ls nvAVN ; D 04 .O4 _ =!> is INtll30NtlN O W Z Z 133HIS V1311 Av o 133tl1s tl3NVINVN —�� � 1 w 0 A � � � m m n r= C 0 oD O z _> Z CO �o D M i C) O5 m Z Z c� xDD m Z z —n z r X rO C Z O mn mn D F�o �m �m CD A m W -P, 00 �o � D 00 ti A 0 m n 2 T C OD Z a:> D;r� *0 D N A m 0 M z z c� m x I z L 0 z 00 00 V Tm T aT Z C r c0 OF- ri m �n m L, N S O O O O R m N 0 0 � O m m \ � 1 r r� rc oz z x> e- DO Z Y N r -M O M z c Z r ror- m < mz m C M A 41- N m n mz z -� z DZ Op n D O z yv» Or ANEU MGA i mz �z NANKKEA 5 �N ;� iz J n x � � < 's n � NOHEA Sii � KERAUUNI n J k ' N � C myps m qP �O C SANTOS F —_— _ - — NNKN =EE yv» Or MGA i mz �z o--1 �N ;� yv» 00 0 cD > Oo O N 8 O O O O r A A M � MKZ m mom b 2 c Fc ~ m D i 0D Z = 1 N O � m yp z O � F Z DC v Z O �-0 n.o r_� m o n �v z z c r m m x CC m m M Z N �z� _ p-� Z D 00 O z CO 00 0 cD > Oo O N 8 O O O O r c A M MKZ m mom AZA mZA ~ m D m A AZ N O � Z A m O � F Z AD m—D Z O W n.o r_� VI D ti A m m D a1 m APPENDIX G TRAFFIC REPORT C C e C TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION PREPARED FOR OKAHARA & ASSOCIATES, INC. OFEBRUARY 14, 1997 PREPARED BY 0 -- THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT MMM / me .:..— �.M ......:..,... m.: _..,.:.....,. e._:: w:..:_:.,:.,...:....:...._. .................:.....:...:..:..... RANDALL S. OKANEKU, P. E., PRINCIPAL • 1188 BISHOP STREET, SUITE 1907 • HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 o 0 C TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 1 A. Purpose and Scope 1 B. Background 1 C. Project Description 2 II. Existing Conditions 2 A. Study Area 2 B. Area Roadway System g C. Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions 6 1. General 6 Oa. Traffic Count Data Collection 6 b. Capacity Analysis Methodology 7 2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis 8 3. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis at Waiakea Schools 10 4. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis 10 III. Projected Traffic 14 A. Long Range Travel Forecast 14 B. Year 2020 Peak Hour Traffic .Analysis Without Project 14 1. General 14 2. Year 2020 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis - "No -Build" Scenario 16 3. Year 2020 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis - "No -Build" Scenario 18 N O O TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) O IV. Traffic Impact Analysis A. General B. Kanoelehua Avenue Intersection 1. Proposed Improvements (Not Included in This Project) 2. Traffic Analysis C. Kilauea Avenue Intersection 1. Proposed Improvements 2. Traffic Analysis D. Kinoole Street Intersection 1. Proposed Improvements 2. Traffic Analysis E. Lokahi Street/Santos Lane Intersection 1. Proposed Improvements 2. Traffic Analysis F. Kehaulani Street 1. Proposed Improvements 2. Traffic Analysis G. Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate Schools Driveways 1. Proposed Improvements 2. Traffic Analysis H. Anela Street Intersection Page is 18 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 u u O TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) Page I. Kanoelani Street Intersection 32 1. Proposed Improvements 32 2. Traffic Analysis 32 J. Kawili Street Intersection 33 1. Proposed Improvements 33 2. Traffic Analysis 33 K. Kapualani Street Extension Intersection 33 1. Proposed Improvements 33 2. Traffic Analysis 34 CL. Komohana Street Intersection 34 1. Proposed Improvements 34 2. Traffic Analysis 34 A Edita Street Intersection 35 1. Proposed Improvements 35 2. Traffic Analysis 35 N. Wilder Road Intersection 35 1. Proposed Improvements 35 2. Traffic Analysis 35 O. Kaumana Drive Intersection 35 1. Proposed Improvements 35 2. Traffic Analysis 36 oP. Traffic Impact Analysis Summary 36 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) V. Recommendations A. Kanoelehua Avenue Intersection B. Kilauea Avenue Intersection C. Kinoole Street Intersection D. Lokahi Street/Santos Lane Intersection E. Intersections between Lokahi Street and Kanoelani Street F. Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate School Driveways G. Kanoelani Street Intersection H. Kawili Street Intersection I. Kapualani Street Extension Intersection J. Komohana Street Intersection K. Edita Street Intersection L. Wilder Road Intersection M. Kaumana Drive Intersection VI. Conclusions Page 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42 43 43 C X F N LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Puainako Street Widening/Realignment 3 Figure 2. Puainako Street Extension 4 Figure 3. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic - Kaumana Drive 9 Figure 4. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic - Puainako Street 11 Figure 5. Existing AM Peak Hour at Waiakea Schools 12 Figure 6. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic - Kaumana Drive 13 Figure 7. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic - Puainako Street 15 Figure 8. 2020 AM Peak Hour (No -Build) - Kaumana Drive 17 Figure 9. 2020 AM Peak Hour (No -Build) - Puainako Street 19 Figure 10. 2020 PM Peak Hour (No Build) - Kaumana Drive 20 O Figure 11. 2020 PM Peak Hour (No -Build) - Puainako Street 21 Figure 12. 2020 AM Peak Hour - Puainako Street Extension 22 Figure 13. 2020 AM Peak Hour Traffic - Puainako Street 23 Figure 14. 2020 AM Peak Hour At Waiakea Schools 24 Figure 15. 2020 PM Peak Hour - Puainako Street Extension 25 Figure 16. 2020 PM Peak Hour - Puainako Street 26 M LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. State DOT 1994 Traffic Survey Data 7 Table 2. Puainako Street Year 2020 Travel Forecasts (No -Build) 16 Table 3. Puainako Street Year 2020 Travel Forecasts - Improved Conditions 27 Table 4. AM Peak Hour Traffic Impact Analysis Summary on Puainako Street 36 Table 5. PM Peak Hour Traffic Impact Analysis Summary on Puainako Street 37 Table 6. Peak Hour Traffic Impact Analysis Summary on Edita Street and Wilder Road 38 101 U L �i Q TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION I. Introduction A. Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study is to analyze the traffic impacts resulting from the proposed Puainako Street Extension. This report presents the findings and recommendations of the traffic study. The scope of this study includes: 1. Description of the proposed project. 2. Description of the study area. O3. Evaluation of existing roads. 4. Analysis of existing peak hour traffic conditions. 5. -Development of peak hour traffic forecasts for the Year 2020. 6. Evaluation of the Year 2020 peak hour traffic under existing roadway conditions. 7. Analysis of the Year 2020 peak hour traffic under the proposed improvements. 8. Assessment of the AM peak hour access conditions for Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate Schools. 9. Recommendation of improvements based upon the findings of this study. B. Background The "Island of Hawaii Long Range Highway Plan" (IHLRHP), May 1991, was prepared for the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and County of Hawaii Departments of Public Works and Planning, in cooperation with the U.S. ODepartment of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration. The purpose of the study was to identify major highway corridors that would require roadway improvements to accommodate traffic demands projected for the Year 2010. The II. O O treet Extension Existino Conditions O widening of Puainako Street, between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street, and the extension of Puainako Street, from Komohana Street to Kaumana Drive are ranked Nos. 17 and 19 on Tier 1 of the priority listing. The IHLRHP is being updated at this writing by State DOT. C. Project Description The proposed project is located in South Hilo, Hawaii. The proposed road improvement consists of three components: the widening of the existing Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue and Anela Street) the realignment of Puainako Street between Anela Street and Komohana StreetI, north of its existing alignment; and the extension of the Puainako Street realignment from Komohana Street to Kaumana Drive, near Country Club Road. Six (6) alternative alignments were developed for the Puainako Street Extension. Only Alignments 1 and 2 were retained for further consideration. Alignments 3 through 6 were eliminated due to conflict with existing and/or planned developments. Two (2) alternatives were considerled for the Puainako Street realignment. For the purpose of the traffic analysis, the alternative O alignments do not have a significant effect on the traffic assignments. Figures 1 and 2 depict the alternative alignments for the proposed project. Existing Conditions A. Study Area The study area includes Puainako Street, between Kat Komohana Street, and Kaumana Drive, between Edita Str Drive. The land uses along Puainako Street are prim numerous driveways accessing directly onto Puainako Stree commercial activities is located at the east end of Fuainako Avenue, including the Prince Kuhio Plaza. Other signific include Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate Schools, loc of Puainako Street between Anela Street and Kehaulani Str -2- lehua Avenue and and Country Club ly residential with A concentration of reet at Kanoelehua land use activities d on the north side Puainako Street Extensi�. _ Existing Conditions a 0 JOE b� "6� 0 8� �� 191 O p o g a oo�ea o JU- a e QY 9 Do 4 � •'h'�°.f� o wiwi 3 O 6 0 O o O sAxiw Y Figure 1. Puainako Street Widening/Realignment -3- T ftj C N N A � C y 7 n O D N r rrl m s m N II y (U O CD 0 0 T O U Puainako Street Extension Existing Conditions OB. Area Roadway System Puainako Street is a two lane, two way collector' street between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street, running in the east -west directions. Between Kilauea Avenue and Kanoelehua Avenue, Puainako Street is a four lane, two way roadway. West of Kinoole Street, sight distances are restricted on sections of Puainako Street, because of the rolling vertical alignment. Puainako Street is signalized at its intersections with Kanoelehua Avenue, Kilauea Avenue, Kinoole Street, and Iwalani Street/Kawili Street. Puainako Street is stop -controlled at its intersection with Komohana Street. Kanoelehua Avenue is the primary arterial highway between Hilo and the Keaau and Volcano areas. Kanoelehua Avenue is a four lane divided highway, and is fully channelized at its traffic signalized intersection with Puainako Street. Kaumana Drive is a two lane, two way roadway with a curvilinear horizontal alignment and a rolling vertical alignment. Kaumana Drive is the continuation of Saddle Road, which connects East and West Hawaii. At the makai end, OKaumana Drive connects to Waianuenue Avenue, which passes Hilo High School and terminates at the Hilo Bayfront Highway. N The traffic circulation system in the project vicinity is a rectangular grid network comprised of major east -west streets such as Puainako Street, Kawailani Street, and Haihai Street; and major north -south streets such as Komohana Street, Iwalani Street/Kawili Street, Kinoole Street, and Kilauea Avenue. Several north -south local roads connect Puainako Street and Kawailani Street to the south, such as Naniakea Street, Anela Street, and Kapualani Street. -5- o Puainako Street Extension Existing Conditions C. Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions O 1. General a. Traffic Count Data Collection The field investigation was conducted in May and June 1992, while school was in session. Supplemental traffic counts were taken in 1995. Manual traffic count surveys were conducted from 6:30 AM to 8:30 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM at the following intersections: i. Puainako Street and Kanoelehua Avenue ii. Puainako Street and Kilauea Avenue iii. Puainako Street and Kinoole Street iv. Puainako Street and Lokahi Street/Santos Lane v. Puainako Street at Waiakea Elementary School Driveways (AM peak period only) vi. Puainako Street at Nohea Street O vii. Puainako Street at Waiakea Intermediate School Driveways (AM peak period only) viii. Puainako Street at Naniakea Street ix. Puainako Street at Anela Street x. Puainako Street at Kanoelani Street xi. Puainako Street and Iwalani Street/Kawili Street xii. Puainako Street at Kapualani Street xiii. Puainako Street and Komohana Street xiv. Kaumana Drive at Edita Street xv. Kaumana Drive at Wilder Road Additional traffic data were obtained from the State DOT. Table 1 shows the State DOT 1994 24-hour and peak hour traffic volumes. (State O DOT traffic count survey was conducted in July, when school was out of session.) -6- u K O O Puainako Street Extension Existing Conditions Table 1. State DOT 1994 Traffic Survey Data Total Traffic Volumes For Both Directions Roadway Section 24 -Hour AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Volumes Volumes Volumes Puainako Street 20,164 1,057 1,600 West of Kanoelehua Avenue Puainako Street 17,527 1,065 1,402 East of Kilauea Avenue Puainako Street Between 11,580 685 941 Kilauea St and Kinoole St Puainako Street 8,743 569 688 West of Kinoole Street Puainako Street 7,460 484 632 East of Iwalani Street/Kawili Street Puainako Street 8,427 621 786 West of lwalani Street/Kawili Street Puainako Street 6,622 527 519 East of Komohana Street Kaumana Drive Northeast of 1,630 130 146 Country Club Drive b. Capacity Analysis Methodology The highway capacity analysis performed for this study is based upon procedures presented in the "Highway Capacity Manual' (HCM), Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, and the "Highway Capacity Software", Federal Highways Administration. Level of Service (LOS) is "defined as a qualitative measure describing Ooperational conditions within a traffic stream". Several factors are included in determining LOS such as: speed, delay, vehicle density, -7- 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Existing Conditions freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, driver comfort, and safetv. 0 LOS "A", "B", and T" are considered satisfactory levels of service. LOS "D" is generally considered a "desirable minimum" operating level of service. LOS "E" is an undesirable condition and LOS "F" is an unacceptable condition. From an operational perspective, LOS "F" results in traffic queues backing up from downstream intersections, affecting the traffic flow at the study intersection. It also can occur when the traffic demand meets or exceeds the intersection's capacity, which results in queuing from the study intersection. From a planning perspective, LOS "F' indicates that the traffic demand exceeds the roadway's carrying capacity. 2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis The existing AM peak hour of traffic generally occurs between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM. In general, the major direction of the flow of AM peak hour traffic is northbound on Kaumana Drive and across the Puainako Street screenline. 0 Kaumana Drive operates at satisfactory LOS during the existing AM peak hour of traffic. The major traffic activity along Kaumana Drive, within the -study area, occurs at Kaumana Elementary School with students being dropped off before school begins. Figure 3 depicts the existing AM peak hour traffic along Kaumana Drive within the study area. The westbound approach of Puainako Street at Komohana Street operates at LOS "F" during the existing AM peak hour of traffic. The heavy northbound traffic on Komohana Drive results in long delays on Puainako Street. The intersection of Puainako Street and Iwalani Street/Kawili Street operates at capacity conditions during the AM peak hour. The eastbound approach on Puainako Street and the southbound approaches on Kawili Street operate at LOS "F". LOS "E" conditions occur on the Iwalani Street approach (northbound). The LOS "F' and "E" conditions are the result of the lack of separate turning lanes on Puainako Street and on northbound Iwalani 0 Street. -8- m C O Puainako Street Extension Existing Conditions KAUMANA DRIVE 1• 1 164 60 KAUMANA DRIVE KAUMANA DRIVE jto WILDER 0 0 6 WILDER ROAD ROAD 4 65 D i6�T�2 103 KAUMANA DRIVE KAUMANA DRIVE 424 EDITA Q STREET 132 8 12 q� B \ 30 J rcy�nx Waa 90 LEGEND TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPH) LANE CONTROL LEVEL OF SERVICE (UNSIGNALIZED CONDITION) Figure 3. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic - Kaumana Drive -9- 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Existing Conditions The Puainako Street intersections at Kinoole Street, Kilauea Avenue, and 0 Kanoelehua operate at satisfactory LOS during the AM peak hour of traffic. Figure 4 depicts the existing AM peak hour traffic and results of the capacity analysis at the major intersections along Puainako Street. 3. Existing ANI Peak Hour Traffic Analysis at Waiakea Schools Puainako Street, between Anela Street and Lokahi Street, is congested during the AM peak hour, due to the traffic turning off Puainako Street to the school access driveways. The left turn movements from the Waiakea Inter- mediate School's exit driveway operate at LOS "D". The left turn movement from the Waiakea Elementary School Exit Driveway operates at LOS Y'. Vehicles on the eastbound Puainako Street turn left to the school entrance driveways from the through traffic lane. "Gridlock" conditions can occur when eastbound vehicles, turning left from the through lane on Puainako Street to the school driveways, queue traffic back to the adjacent exit driveway, blocking exiting vehicles turning left from the school driveways onto eastbound Puainako Street. Figure 5 depicts the AM peak hour traffic 0 volumes on Puainako Street, fronting the Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate Schools. 4. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis The existing PM peak hour generally occurs between 4:15 PM and 5:15 PM. The primary directions of traffic flow during the PM peak hour are southbound on Kaumana Drive and across the Puainako Street screenline. The study intersections along Kaumana Drive operate at satisfactory LOS during the existing PM peak hour. Figure 6 depicts the existing PM peak hour traffic on Kaumana Drive and the results of the capacity analysis. The westbound approach of Puainako Street at Komohana Street continues to operate at LOS 7' during the existing PM peak hour of traffic. The southbound approaches on Mnoole Street and on Kilauea Avenue at Puainako Street operate at LOS "D". Similarly, the westbound approaches of Puainako Street at Kilauea Avenue and at Kinoole Street also operate at LOS "D" during the existing PM peak hour of traffic. The critical movements at the 0 intersection of Kanoelehua Avenue and Puainako Street operate at LOS "D". -10- m 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Existing Conditions PUAINAKO STREET 0 rE1r� +BDA-_ o✓.00 ,�, � =r ne KOMOHANA KOMOHANA STREET STREET I ®—T �AzSK Seo F J 20 V KAPUALANI STREET 252 1 21 e 37 3] 00 101 2 0 231^ � 31 25 �bV - IWALANIKAWIU STREET STREET 101 Be KANOELANI STREET (',15112 19 y� I 1 11 m� �A' L ©/ NOT TO SCALE 'NOM' SEE FIGURE S FOR SCHOOL DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC LEGEND 90 TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPH) bLANE CONTROL rcD LEVEL OF SERVICE (UNSIGNAUZED COND TION) ® LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNAUZED CONDITION) (FOR CONTINUATION SEE BELOW LEFT) PUAINAKO STREET 2EJ SANTOS LOKAHI LANE STREET C A� 13B 21(AkW 131 0 351 82 WNOOLE KINDOLE STREET STREET 9+ TIII/ 317 <2� � � � Be 83 393 / 4 103 MLAUEA / KILAUEA AVENUE_AVENUE 472 83 PUAINAKO STREET 185 IIat2 S KANOELEHUA Q--- 6;- A ELEHUA AVENUE �i AVENUE PUAINAKO STREET Figure 4. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic - Puainako Street -11- E Lel Puainako Street Extension Existing Conditions PUAINAKO STREET 3B8 ANELA STREET I210 PUAINAKO S REST 524 ��i A 192 6 (—t0 88 SOS WAIAKEA INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL E%R Y � PUAINAKO STREET 280 384 WAIAKEA INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL C�V�V ENTRANCE I \ 211 PUAINAKO STREET Sr 3]5 NANIAKEAJ STREET 580 'a I A C 90 202 PSTREETO STREET (FOR CONTINUATION SEE ABOVE RIGHT 4 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPH) IIcCIY4U91= y�y�, (FOR CONTINUATION SEE BELOW LEF-) PUAINAKO STREET fi y 525 52 WAIAKEA INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL ENTRANCE 81/ B PUAINAKO STREET 281 aL F1 20B 525 WAIAKEA SCHOOLS EXIT 382 PUAINAKO O STREET 0 y .f, ]34 i NOHEA STREET 380 � 2 1 Ig� B PUAINAKO STREET STREET m 8 W 213 501 LEVEL OF SERVICE (UNSIGNALIZED CONDITION) IA` \ WAIAKEA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENTRANCE 381 274 PUAINAKO STREET m Figure 5. Existing AIM Peak Hour at Waiakea Schools -12- 0 Puainako Street Extension Existing Conditions OKAUMANA DRIVE 102 T 93 I KAUMANA DRIVE NOT TO SCALE LEGEND 90 TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPH) KAUMANA LANE CONTROL DRIVE 0 LEVEL OF SERVICE (UNSIGNALIZED CONDITION) A 0 97 2 O WILDER ..�� WILDER ROAD Jn '� ROAD 4 � 1447A, 0) �i n'A 3 28 KAUMANA DRIVE u KAUMANA DRIVE 4�- 157 j EDITA STREET 229 22 3 A 13 KAUMANA DRIVE Figure 6. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic - Kaumana Drive -13- O O Puainako Street Extension Projected Traffic Z The other intersections in the study area operate satisfactorily. Figure 7 O depicts the existing PM peak hour volumes and results of the capacity analysis at the major intersections on Puainako Street. III. Projected Traffic A. Long Range Travel Forecast The travel forecast, presented in this study, is generated from the long range forecast model, developed in the IHLRHP. The IHLRHP Year 2010 improved highway network, which includes the improvement of Saddle Road as well as the Puainako Street Extension, is used in the analysis. The Year 2020 travel forecast is based upon the preliminary land use forecast for the Year 2020, obtained from the ongoing update of the IHLRHP. The proposed improvement of Saddle Road would further reduce travel times between East and West Hawaii, which would increase the travel demand on Kaumana Drive without the proposed Puainako Street Extension. The proposed Puainako Street Extension is expected to divert traffic between Kaumana Drive O and Hilo. B. Year 2020 Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Without Project 1. General The updated travel forecast is assigned to the existing highway network to develop future traffic conditions under a "No -Build" scenario, i.e., under existing roadway conditions. While it is highly unlikely that no other highway improvements would be implemented by the Year 2020, it is even more unlikely that the peak hour traffic demands, presented in this section, would actually occur. Where the projected demands exceed the intersection capacity, traffic would divert to alternative routes, if available. Otherwise, motorists would adjust their travel patterns to avoid the peak hours of traffic, resulting in longer peak periods instead of higher peak hour traffic demands. The purpose of analyzing the "No -Build" scenario is to assess the benefits derived by the construction of the proposed project by comparing the Year 2020 travel forecast under existing roadway conditions and under the improved roadway conditions. Table 2 summarizes the Year 2020 travel O forecasts on Puainako Street under the "No -Build" scenario. -14- 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Projected Traffic (FOR CONTINUATION PUAINAKO SEE BELOW LEFT) PUAINAKO C STREET STREET 0 8 � 2 F� � L 13� 14 KOMOHANA KOMOHANA SANTOS LOKAHI STREET STREET LANE STREET n3n 2 F 1; 1, 0 70 PUAINAKO PUAINAKO STREET STREET 83 L 280 2 Q f � KAPUALANI QNOOLE 1� pN0OLE STREET 281 STREET STREET 5 b 3 ] I 22 182 I��SIJ/I 18 PUAINAKO PUAINAKO STREET STREET 21] ]J B � ]75 ]4 18 �® 5 m 0 IWALANI p �/ KAWIU IOLAUEA - - �7 - - I I AUEA STREET /� Ov STREET AVENUE AVENUE 17 A 128263 11 ] SS (�'j`�,10 PUAINAKO 23d 'IIIWLYeJJl(II STREET 24 ( 1 `L 83 PUAINAKO STREET 2]/ KANOELANI '�` STREET 370 213 C `L � 114 BHI 14 7 10 11 o-. AINAK PSTREETO KANOELEHUA - - - STREET N SOR EE A3OVENUATION RGW �KANOE EHUA AVENUE _ _ 1 C- NOTTO SCALE -{> AVENUE LEGEND 80 iJ3 J72 _..f TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME "M 511 1®Ejl81J LANE CONTROL ODo LEVEL LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNAUZED CONDITION) 101 ® LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNAUZED CONDITIONM PUAINAKD STREET Figure 7. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic - Puainako Street -15- O O Puainako Street Extension Projected Traffic Table 2. Puainako Street Year 2020 Travel Forecasts (No -Build) Total Traffic Volumes For Both Directions Roadway Section 24 -Hour AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Volumes Volumes Volumes Puainako Street 36,300 1,983 2,798 West of Kanoelehua Avenue Puainako Street 30,600 1,935 2,376 East of Kilauea Avenue Puainako Street Between 22,500 1,346 1,812 Kilauea St and Mnoole St Puainako Street 20,100 1,485 1,407 West of Kinoole Street Puainako Street 18,000 1,403 1,284 East of Iwalani Street/ Kawili Street Puainako Street 15,200 1,186 1,347 West of Iwalani Street/Kawili Street Puainako Street 15,000 1,009 1,364 East of Komohana Street Kaumana Drive Northeast of 5,500 468 467 Country Club Drive 2. Year 2020 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis - "No -Build" Scenario The side streets along Kaumana Drive continue to operate under satisfac- tory LOS conditions during the Year 2020 AM peak hour under the "No - Build" scenario. Figure 8 depicts the Year 2020 AM peak hour traffic on Kaumana Drive. The projected traffic demands at the Iwalani Street/Kawili Street, Kinoole Street, Kilauea Avenue, and Kanoelehua Avenue intersections along O Puainako Street would exceed the existing capacities during the Year 2020 -16- 0 • U O 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Projected Traffic KAUMANA DRIVE V d 340 128 T T KAUMANA DRIVE KAUMANA DRIVE 2 �.�T T0 398 WILDER < 0 0 12 WILDER ROAD ROAD 8 0 166 32 �� j4 0 203 KAUMANA DRIVE KAUMANA DRIVE 12j 816 EDITA Jihittl 314 16 59 KAUMANA DRIVE NOT TO SCALE (0 LEGEND TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPH) LANE CONTROL LEVEL OF SERVICE (UNSIGNALIZED CONDITION) Figure 8. 2020 AM Peak Hour (No -Build) - Kaumana Drive -17- 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis AM peak hour of traffic under the "No -Build" scenario, resulting in overall LOS "F' conditions. Puainako Street at Komohana Street also would operate at LOS "F". Figure 9 depicts the Year 2020 AM peak hour traffic along Puainako Street. 3. Year 2020 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis - "No -Build" Scenario The side streets along Kaumana Drive are expected to operate under satisfactory LOS conditions during the Year 2020 PM peak hour under the "No -Build" scenario. Figure 10 depicts the Year 2020 PM peak hour traffic on Kaumana Drive. The projected traffic demands at the Iwalani Street/Kawili Street, Kinoole Street, Kilauea Avenue, and Kanoelehua Avenue intersections along Puainako Street would continue to exceed the existing capacities during the Year 2020 PM peak hour of traffic under the "No -Build" scenario, resulting in overall LOS "F' conditions. Figure 11 depicts the Year 2020 PM peak hour traffic on Puainako Street. IV. Traffic Impact Analysis 0 A. General .The traffic impact analysis is performed assuming improvements have been constructed as proposed by the IHLRHP, which includes the Puainako Street extension project, analyzed in this study. The Puainako Street improvements and the traffic impact analysis are discussed in the following sections. Table 3 summarizes the Year 2020 travel forecasts along Puainako Street under improved conditions. The Year 2020 AM peak hour traffic volumes are depicted on Figures 12, 13, and 14. The Year 2020 PM peak hour traffic volumes are depicted on Figures 15 and 16. N W. 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis (FOR CONTINUATION E BELOW LEFT) PUAINAKO SEPUAINAKO STREET STREET O 01 18 257 KOMOHANA KOM011ANA SANiOS "/ LOKAHI STREET YY STREET LANE STREET 1 alb FF a 0 JI PUAINAKO PUAINAKO STREET STREET (JI ' (FmI7 18] 9 38 �L 7( F a8� �1� (J a SOB � I1J f as KAFUALANI gNOOLE 4�- STREET 151 STREET -T !NOOLE 29 — — — STREET 1dB j 5J8 et 3] ee 361 PSTREETO S REET 111 L PUAINAKO STREET 1 ,�\ go 2]8 3 C `L � 321 59 e .L y 118 C 382 — — 318 114 IWALANI " KAWIU STREET \\ STREET gLAUEA AVENUE _ AVENUE 51 � 198 PUAINAKO 79 670 — 108 18 (�� �j 552 9 STREET � n5 ®I 511 138 PUAINAKO STREET 28• KANOELANI STREET SJ2 161T411 111 SIM 31 r � b S1 57 PUAINAW KANOELEHUA �- CONTINUATION N SEE ABOVE RIGHT�KANOE E UA AVENUE NOT TO SCALE AVENUE LEGEND 80 TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPH) 585 287 UNE CONTROL BB ((, 38 tete (jj fl O � LEVEL OF SERVICE iUNSKiNAU2ED CONDRION( ® LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZED CONDITION) 205 PUAINAKO STREET Figure 9. 2020 AM Peak Hour (No -Build) - Puainako Street -19- Puainako Street Extension O Traffic Impact Analysis KAUMANA DRIVE 1� 213 256� KAUMANA DRIVE KAUMANA DRIVE �I 0 7J�JO 0 204� 5 WILDER WILDER ROAD ROAD 9 T 321 no na(7 63 Lmsia KAUMANA DRIVE 9�� - 350 n EDITA STREET 7 n 29 549 10 A DRIVE NOT TO SCALE LEGEND 90 TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPH) ILANE CONTROL 4) LEVEL OF SERVICE (UNSIGNALIZED CONDITION) Figure 10. 2020 PM Peak Hour (No Build) - Kaumana Drive -20- 101 • U m O (FOO CONTINUATION SEE BELOW LEFT) PUAINAKO PUAINAKO O STREET STREET 0 9 F�_ 0j �t —a 1 �Ae B 1l 341 dpd C1 �� 4`1 KOMOHANA •L\• KOMOHANA SANTOS car LOKAHI STREET STREET LANE /.� STREET 1 � d88 F iC< 0 1 PUAINAKO PUAINAKO STREET STREET 81 38( d]7 45 .G� do � dol � zio KAPUALANI MNOOLE STREET 883 STREET95 d— KINOOLE 10 �iJ STREET �h1.-0 g0 � 28 238 PUAINAKO STREET 70 33B PUAINAKO STREET 511 LI (Q� � 117 r }�1 lze112f�1NI yzdy1� IWALANI KAWIU 7ET STREET MAUEA — — MLAUEA I AVENUE AVENUE 51 <'j`�y 102 I�lyl/I — �1 201�j` �j 238 PUAINAKO 57 I(�' STREET d25 95 PUAINAKO STREET 873 ���I Rlwv[Iy�� STREET NI 983 351 .x`3253 .1�-(v0J 1387 �—Q <11 37 �%u 8 PSTREETO KANOELEMUA — — STREET N SECONNUN 4—KANOELEHUA T�� AVENUE NOT TO SCALE AVENUE LEGEND 3o Iy// TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPIf) ���...,,, 1'''8fff7 787 LANE CONTROL 750 581 ( TSS O 0 LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNAUZED CONDMOM 147 © LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZED CONDITIOM PUAINAKO STREET Figure 11. 2020 PM Peak Hour (No -Build) - Puainako Street -21- N O Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis PUAINAKO STREET I JI �\ A B) 4 KAUMANA DRIVE La WILDER QQQQ 'V WILDER ROAD ROAD 3 9�Tr,e A �„ I PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION 4 QJ14 I 348 83 EDRA QQ EDITA STREET STREET 14 \C`�✓/✓ 132 PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION (FOR CONTINUATION SEE FIGURE 13) O (4 NOTTO SCALE KAUMANA DRIVE T 0 �r- n9 f 4 WILDER WIUJER ROAD pyl✓ ROAD O 773<3 35 1Is A KAUMANA DRIVE KAUMANA DRIVE 139 � .� 280 EDRA STREET 73 18%� T g 31 KAUMANA DRIVE Figure 12. 2020 AM Peak Hour - Puainako Street Extension -22- LEGEND 80 TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPN bLANE CONTROL 0C LEVEL OF SERVICE (UNSIGNAUZED CONDRION) KAUMANA DRIVE T 0 �r- n9 f 4 WILDER WIUJER ROAD pyl✓ ROAD O 773<3 35 1Is A KAUMANA DRIVE KAUMANA DRIVE 139 � .� 280 EDRA STREET 73 18%� T g 31 KAUMANA DRIVE Figure 12. 2020 AM Peak Hour - Puainako Street Extension -22- A N C C O O Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis (FOR CONTINUATION NOTE SEE CGURE 12) PUAINAKO STREET PUAINAKOSTREET 16 EXTENSION I I IC i I 10 B 2 (J 6 C 232'0 l) I, t6 t dJ�5 � 275 I �� SANTOS LOKMI 2 i - r� rJ '� 1 48 LANE STREc KOMOHANA STREET — 1 �— KOMOHANA STREET Y 1� D2d 1d88 C» ,dso I I I M] PUAINAKO STREET REAUGNMENT pI I 6 � ]55 55 I I I KAPUALANI ST }��• EXTENSION —p 511 ?4- 1 n I I� ��r I I I 1]B PUAINAKO STREET REAUGNMENT 121 L43411) 4 r� r -- ro KAWIU STREET STREET 22 655108 PUAINAKO STREET REAUGNMENT pp I II I ]66 ] b KANOELANI ST EXTENSION -� q 4 B85 I I I I 2d5 PUAINAKO STREET LEGEND NOTE W I c • NOTE: FOR WAIAKEA INTERMEDIATE AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ACCESS, SEE FIGURE td 4 NOT TO SCALE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPH) LANE CONTROL fR—, �� ~ PUAINAKO STREET I I n6t� 50 11 1�108 bl I'V 4 KINOOLE STREET — 4— KINOOLE STREET � � O� ®rte 38 PUAINAKO STREET >n I I I 250 e2 IM -D KILAUEA— AVENUE ICAUEA AVENUE I I I I 133 PUAINAKO STREET 251 I I I I �7}7�}7T� 5w 1)0 did dB - - KANOELEHUA— KANOELEHUA AVENUE�— AVENUE —41 — — — — 2 �97 N N) LEVEL OF SERVICE NSXiNAUZEO CONOrt10 � 1381 LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZED CONDRION) 20, PUAINAKO STREET Figure 13. 2020 AM Peak Hour Traffic - Puainako Street -23- 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis 4 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND 90 J TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPH) LANE CONTROL © LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNAUZED CONDITION) © LEVEL OF SERVICE(SIGNAUZED CONDITION) (FOR CONTINUATION SEE FIGURE 10) PUAINAKO STREET 9 OTt 228 V �l V NANWKEA iTREET 16 o 0118 202 B `eJ 0 � IrV 219 628 0 NOHEA STREET 2 B 1' 615 PUAINAKO STREET PUAINAKO STREET 192 WAIAKEI INTERMEDATE SCHOOL ORNEWAY 662 39r I� 255 A ,- 150 to _209 WAIAKE4 ELEMENTARY n.N fi'JIII QV�V DRNEWAY 7% Y � 'l\ 27 008 122 WALAKEA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DRIVEWAY Sat 247 PUAINAKO STREET (FOR CONTINUATION SEE FIGURE 10) Figure 14. 2020 AM Peak Hour At Waiakea Schools -24- 191 W1 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis 1 9U 46 a 175 15 WILDER WILDER 0 v ROAD ROAD 62 PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION , 225 I SLLL���JJJJJJ EDTA EDRA STREET STREET d 071 B B 18 PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION (FOR CONTINUATION SEE FIGURE 18) 0 WILDER KAUMANA DRIVE 0 d �0 29 WILDER ROAD P /`���py�✓ ROAD 70 L Te7 51 \ 1 T 2 A 5 11 KAUMANA DRIVE KAUMANA DRIVE 2�� 110 EDTA QQQ STREET 128 15 17 KAUMANA DRIVE Figure 15. 2020 PM Peak Hour - Puainako Street Extension -25- KAUMANA DRNE I ]d NOT TO SCALE 175 ae XTs 5 LEGEND KAUMANA �` TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPR) DRIVE LANE CONTROL LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNAUZED CONDITION) PUAINAKO STREET 1 9U 46 a 175 15 WILDER WILDER 0 v ROAD ROAD 62 PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION , 225 I SLLL���JJJJJJ EDTA EDRA STREET STREET d 071 B B 18 PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION (FOR CONTINUATION SEE FIGURE 18) 0 WILDER KAUMANA DRIVE 0 d �0 29 WILDER ROAD P /`���py�✓ ROAD 70 L Te7 51 \ 1 T 2 A 5 11 KAUMANA DRIVE KAUMANA DRIVE 2�� 110 EDTA QQQ STREET 128 15 17 KAUMANA DRIVE Figure 15. 2020 PM Peak Hour - Puainako Street Extension -25- 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis (FOR CONTINUATION (FOREBELOW UTION E FT) SEE FIGURE 15) PUAINAKO STREET PUAINAKOSTREETET 9 0 EXTENSION ,� 782 C) 1 56 82 SAMOS (�\32J LANE 5ti<< KOMOHANA T STREET _ y � KOMOHANA �0 � �J STREET 1 - - - - - PUAINAKO STREET 178 I 7. 4261 'M o 0456 �:tl IONCOLE 1W PUAINAKOSTREEI STREET KIN00= REALIGNMENT - - - STREc 80f .l, moi/ t_ 4zs Y -S -S O—J` I( 71 19,41 r n 23o� KAPUALANI ST EXTENSION -%' PUAINAKO STREET 185 3 q 25 ^�Y 1072 I 870 III 871 PUAINLIGNME T 1 _ _ — - - REAUGNMEM 388 gLAUEA r �® AVENUE �' 4 _ q AUEA 16 �? t48 I 508 L -$ - - - - -{� AVENUE 110 - - - IQ a - - - - - - - - - " ,I � KAwlu —5' — — luwlu 0 Jaa I ( �, STREET STREET 93 c�, I q 1 I 850 PVAINAKO STREET 742 �"5 . 97 1 I 1 1 L. 179 1313 -57— PUAINAKOU9 STREET 126 FIEALJGNMEM 9 35(4J'�, I -_-_- 4 b N <r KANOELANI ST KANOELEHUA -r- E NSION NOT TO SCALE � KANOELEHUA � Y q 2r4� AVENUE - � AVENUE 9 PUAINUGNMr EET LEGEND - - - - - - - - REAUGNMENT 90 (FOR CONTINUATION �" TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME .j, /� SEE ABOVE RIGHT) �M 7:�732 787LANE CONTROL 561 !1 �` 7Im LEVEL OF SERVICE (UNSIGNAUZED CONDITION) 'P�)DI ® LEVEL OF SERVICE(SIGNAUZED CONDITION 1M PUAINAKO STREET Figure 16. 2020 PM Peak Hour - Puainako Street -26- l— 0 Puainako Street! Traffic Table 3. Puainako Street Year 2020 Travel Forecasts - Improved Conditions Total Traffic Volumes For Both Directions Roadway Section 24 -Hour AM Peak Hr Pi11 Peak Hr Volumes Volumes Volumes Puainako Street 37,500 2,040 2,903 West of Kanoelehua Avenue Puainako Street 31,800 1,994 2,481 East of Kilauea Avenue Puainako Street Between 25,000 1,476 2,029 Kilauea St and Kinoole St Puainako Street 23,400 1,654 1,707 West of Kinoole Street Puainako Street 21,100 1,572 1,584 East of Iwalani Street/Kawili Street Puainako Street 19,400 1,509 1,727 West of Iwalani Street/Kawili Street Puainako Street 19,800 1,381 1,744 East of Komohana Street Puainako Street 8,400 709 706 West of Komohana Street Kaumana Drive Northeast of 5,500 468 467 Country Club Drive Kaumana Drive Northeast of 1,800 182 125 Puainako Street -27- Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis B. Kanoelehua Avenue Intersection O 1. Proposed Improvements (Not Included in This Project) a. Kanoelehua Avenue is proposed to be widened from four lanes to six lanes, per the IHLRHP. b. It is further recommended that dual left turn lanes should be constructed on northbound Kanoelehua Avenue to Puainako Street. c. The existing right turn only lane on northbound Kanoelehua Avenue can be converted to a shared through/right turn lane. d. On eastbound Puainako Street, an additional shared through/left turn lane is recommended for a total of one exclusive left turn lane, one shared through/left turn lane, one through only lane, and one exclusive right turn lane. e. On westbound Puainako Street, it is recommended that an additional left turn lane and an additional through lane should be constructed for a total of two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane. O 2. Traffic Analysis During the AM peak hour of traffic, the intersection of Puainako Street and Kanoelehua Avenue is expected to operate at an overall LOS "D" under the proposed improvements. During the PM peak hour of traffic, the inter- section of Puainako Street and Kanoelehua Avenue again operates at an over- all LOS "D", however the expected volume -to -capacity ratio is 0.94, indicating near capacity conditions. The left turn movements in both directions on Kanoelehua Avenue are expected to operate at LOS "E". U -28- O O Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis OC. Kilauea Avenue Intersection 1. Proposed Improvements a. Puainako Street is proposed to be widened to provide an exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane in the westbound direction. b. In the eastbound direction, Puainako Street is proposed to be widened to provide an exclusive left turn lane, a through -only lane, and a shared through/right turn lane in addition to two through lanes in each direction. c. Kilauea Avenue is proposed to be widened on the east side of the street to provide exclusive left turn lanes in both directions. 2. Traffic Analysis During the AM peak hour, the intersection of Puainako Street and Kilauea Avenue is expected to operate at an overall LOS 'B". All traffic movements are expected to operate at satisfactory LOS during the AM peak Ohour. The intersection of Puainako Street and Kilauea Avenue is expected to operate at LOS "C" during the PM peak hour. The individual traffic movements at the intersection are expected to operate at LOS "D" or better. D. Kinoole Street Intersection 1. Proposed Improvements a. Puainako Street is proposed to be widened to provide exclusive left turn lanes in both directions, in addition to the two through lanes. Since the field investigation, Kinoole Street has been widened to provide exclusive left turn lanes in the northbound and southbound directions. b. The left turn lane lengths on Kinoole Street should be extended, as needed. 2. Traffic Analysis The improved intersection of Puainako Street and Kinoole Street is expected to operate under LOS 'B" conditions during both the AM and PM Opeak hours of traffic. -29- 0 N Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis E. Lokahi Street/Santos Lane Intersection o 1. Proposed Improvements a. The intersection of Puainako Street and Lokahi Street/Santos Lane should remain a full -access, unsignalized intersection. b. Exclusive left turn lanes should be provided in both directions on Puainako Street. 2. Traffic Analysis The intersection of Puainako Street and Lokahi Street/Santos Lane does not meet necessary peak hour volume warrant for traffic signals, according to the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" (MUTCD), Federal Highways Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation. Lokahi Street is expected to operate at LOS 'E" during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. Santos Lane is expected to operate at LOS 'E" and "D" during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, respectively. o F. Kehaulani Street 1. Proposed Improvements a. Kehaulani Street should be restricted to right -turn -out and right -turn -in movements only. b. Median openings should be provided at appropriate spacing to permit U-turn movements to mitigate the left turn restrictions. 2. Traffic Analysis The restricted movements at these minor intersections should improve traffic flow on Puainako Street by eliminating left turn movements to and from the side streets. The traffic demand on these movements would be diverted to the proposed signalized intersection at Nohea Street. -30- r O O Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis OG. Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate Schools Driveways 1. Proposed Improvements a. The three (3) existing access driveways to Waiakea Intermediate School are proposed to be realigned and consolidated to a single two-way driveway access, located opposite Naniakea Street. b. The new Waiakea Intermediate School Driveway/Naniakea Street intersection is recommended for traffic signalization. c. Exclusive left _ turn lanes are proposed on Puainako Street in both directions at the Waiakea Intermediate School Driveway/Naniakea Street intersection. d. A frontage road, parallel to and north of Puainako Street, is also recom- mended to provide access to the intermediate school facilities. The frontage road should be extended to Waiakea Elementary School. e. The exit driveway for Waiakea Elementary School is proposed to be Orealigned and upgraded to. a two-way driveway access located opposite Nohea Street. f. The Waiakea Elementary School Driveway/Nohea Street intersection is recommended for traffic signalization. g. Exclusive left turn lanes on Puainako Street also are recommended in both directions at the Waiakea Elementary School DrivewayiNohea Street intersection. h. Nohea Street should be upgraded to provide a thoroughfare between Kawailani Street and Puainako Street. i. The existing entrance driveway on the east side of Waiakea Elementary School is proposed to remain, however it should be converted to a two- way driveway, restricted to right -turn -in and right -turn -out only movements. 2. Traffic Analysis OThe existing exit driveway for Waiakea Intermediate School meets the necessary MLJTCD peak hour volume traffic signal warrant. The existing exit driveway for Waiakea Elementary School also meets the necessary MUTCD -31- 0 N Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis 9 peak hour volume traffic signal warrant. A traffic circulation scheme for the o elementary and intermediate schools was developed with input from the respective school officials. The consolidated access driveways for the Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate schools, opposite Naniakea Street and Nohea Street, provide opportunities to install traffic signals at these intersections. School traffic, originating south of Puainako Street, is expected to divert to Naniakea Street. A similar situation should occur on an upgraded Nohea Street. H. Anela Street Intersection The Puainako Street Realignment begins immediately east of Anela Street, crossing Kawili Street, north of its existing alignment. It is proposed that Anela Street terminate at the existing Puainako Street. Access between Anela Street and the Puainako Street Realignment would be provided by the Kanoelani Street extension via the section of the "old" Puainako Street, between Anela Street and Kanoelani Street. I. Kanoelani Street Intersection o 1. Proposed Improvements a. Kanoelani Street is proposed to be extended to the Puainako Street Realignment. The Kanoelani Street Extension would - intersect the Puainako Street Realignment at an unsignalized, full -access, Tee - intersection. b. An exclusive left turn lane should be provided on westbound Puainako Street Realignment at the Kanoelani Street Extension. 2. Traffic Analysis Kanoelani Street Extension is expected to operate at LOS "F and LOS "E" during the Year 2020 AM and PM peak hours of traffic, respectively. The LOS "E" and "F" conditions can be mitigated by widening Kanoelani Street to provide separate left turn and right turn lanes. Furthermore a median left turn shelter lane should be provided on westbound Puainako Street Realignment to facilitate the left turn movement from the Kanoelani Street o Extension. -32- Q O O Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis OJ. Kawili Street Intersection 1. Proposed Improvements a. The Puainako Street Realignment at Kawili Street is proposed to include exclusive left turn lanes in both directions. b. In addition to the two through lanes on Puainako Street in both directions, an exclusive right turn lane should be constructed in the westbound direction. c. Kawili Street is proposed to be widened to include an exclusive left turn lane, a through -only lane, and a shared 'through/right turn lane in both directions. 2. Traffic Analysis The intersection of Puainako Street and Kawili Street operates at LOS "C" during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The individual traffic movements operate at LOS "C" or better. OK. Kapualani Street Extension Intersection 1. Proposed Improvements a. Kapualani Street is proposed to be extended to the Puainako Street Realignment. The Kapualani Street Extension would intersect the Puainako Street Realignment at an unsignalized Tee -intersection. Access between the section of "old" Puainako Street and the north -south streets and the Puainako Street Realignment would be provided by the extension of Kapualani Street. b. The Kapualani Street Extension should provide separate left turn and right turn lanes at the Puainako Street Extension. c. The westbound Puainako Street Realignment should provide an exclusive left turn lane at the Kapualani Street Extension, in addition to two through lanes in each direction. d. The westbound Puainako Street Realignment should provide a median 0 shelter turn lane to facilitate the left turn movement from Kapualani Street Extension to Puainako Street Realignment. -33- Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis 2. Traffic Analysis o The left turn movement on the Kapualani Street Extension is expected to operate at LOS "D" and LOS "C" during the Year 2020 AM and PM peak hours of traffic, respectively. L. Komohana Street Intersection 1. Proposed Improvements a. The Puainako Street Realignent is proposed to provide separate left turn, through and right turn lanes in the westbound direction. b. Komohana Street is expected to be widened to four lanes, two lanes in each direction, per the IHLRHP. c. The Puainako Street Extension is proposed to provide an exclusive left turn lane, a through -only lane, and a shared through/right turn lane in the eastbound direction. d. Exclusive left turn lanes should be provided on the northbound approach and on the southbound approach of Komohana Street at the Puainako Street Real ignment/Extension. e. In addition, an exclusive right turn lane on northbound Komohana Street at Puainako Street should be provided. 2. Traffic Analysis Under improved conditions, the intersection of Komohana Street and the Puainako Street Realignment is expected to operate under overall LOS "C" conditions during both the Year 2020 AM and PM peak hours of traffic, respectively. The individual traffic movements also are expected to operate at LOS "C" or better. -34- 0 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis OM. Edita Street Intersection 1. Proposed Improvements a. The Puainako Street Extension is proposed to cross Edita Street, forming a four -legged, unsignalized intersection. Edita Street would be stop - controlled at the Puainako Street Extension. b. Exclusive left turn lanes should be provided in both directions on the Puainako Street Extension at Edita Street. 2. Traffic Analysis During both the Year 2020 AM and PM peak hours of traffic, the traffic movements at the intersection of the Puainako Street Extension and Edita Street are expected to operate at LOS "C" or better. N. Wilder Road Intersection 1. Proposed Improvements 0 a. The Puainako Street Extension is proposed to cross Wilder Road, forming a four -legged, unsignalized intersection. Wilder Road would be stop- con- trolled at the Puainako Street Extension. b. Exclusive left turn lanes should be provided in both directions on the Puainako Street Extension at Wilder Road. 2. Traffic Analysis Wilder Road is expected to operate at satisfactory LOS during the Year 2020 AM and PM peak hours of traffic. O. Kaumana Drive Intersection 1. Proposed Improvements a. The Puainako Street Extension should be aligned so that it forms a continuous roadway with the mauka leg of Kaumana Drive. b. The makai leg of Kaumana Drive should be realigned, as necessary, to intersect Puainako Street Extension/Kaumana Drive at a stop -controlled OTee -intersection. -35- 0 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis c. An exclusive left turn lane should be provided on makai bound Kaumana o Drive at this intersection. d. Separate left turn and right turn lanes should also be provided on mauka bound Kaumana Drive. 2. Tragic Analysis The intersection of the Puainako Street Extension and Kaumana Drive is expected to operate at satisfactory LOS during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. P. Traffic Impact Analysis Summary Table 4 summarizes the AM peak hour traffic impact analysis at the major intersections on Puainako Street and the Puainako Street Realignment for the existing conditions, under the Year 2020 "no -build" conditions, and under the Year 2020 improved conditions. The overall intersection Levels of Service are indicated for the signalized intersections. For unsignalized intersections, the LOS shown represents the critical traffic movement at the intersection. o Table 4. AM Peak Hour Traffic Impact Analysis Summary on Puainako Street Intersection Existing LOS No -Build LOS Improved LOS Komohana Avenue F F C Kapualani Street B C D Kawili Street F F C Kanoelani Street C E C Lokahi Street/Santos Lane C F E Kinoole Street C F B Kilauea Street B F B Kanoelehua Avenue C F B Notes: LOS - overall intersection Level of Service, signalized condition LOS - Level of Service on critical movement, unsignalized condition -36- 101 ® 0 C� Puainako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis OTable 5 summarizes the PM peak hour traffic impact analysis at the major intersections on Puainako Street and the Puainako Street Realignment for the existing conditions, under the Year 2020 "no -build" conditions, and under the Year 2020 improved conditions. C C Table 5. PM Peak Hour Traffic Impact Analysis Summary on Puainako Street Intersection Existing LOS No -Build LOS Improved LOS Komohana Avenue F F C Kapualani Street B C C Kawili Street B F C Kanoelani Street B D B Lokahi Street/Santos Lane C D E Kinoole Street D F B Kilauea Street C F C Kanoelehua Avenue C F D Notes: LOS - overall intersection Level of Service, signalized condition LOS - Level of Service on critical movement, unsignalized condition Table 6 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour traffic impact analysis at the major intersections on the Puainako Street Extension and on Kaumana Drive for the existing conditions, under the Year 2020 "no -build" conditions, and under the Year 2020 improved conditions. The Levels of Service, shown on Table 6, represent the LOS on the critical traffic movements on the stop -controlled side streets. -37- O a42 Puainako Street Extension Recommendations Table 6. Peak Hour Traffic Impact Analysis Summary on Edita Street and Wilder Road Scenario Peak Hour Wilder Road LOS Edita Street LOS Existing Conditions at Kaumana Dr. AM B B PM B A Year 2020 No -Build Conditions at Kaumana Drive AM C C PM C B Year 2020 Improved Conditions at Kaumana Drive AM C C PM A A Year 2020 Improved Conditions at the Puainako Street Extension AM B C PM B B Note: LOS - Level of Service on critical movement, unsignalized condition V. Recommendations A. Kanoelehua Avenue Intersection By the Year 2020, the intersection of Puainako Street and Kanoelehua Avenue is expected to be improved to accommodate the projected traffic demands. The proposed improvements at the intersection of Kanoelehua Avenue and Puainako Street are not included in this project. 1. Kanoelehua Avenue should be widened four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes by the Year 2020. The existing right -turn -only lane on northbound Kanoelehua Avenue can be converted to a shared through/right turn lane. 2. Dual left turn lanes should be constructed on northbound Kanoelehua Avenue to Puainako Street. M M M M © O O Puainako Street Extension Recommendations C3. An additional shared through/left turn lane on eastbound Puainako Street is recommended for a total of one exclusive left turn lane, one shared through/left turn lane, one through only lane, and one exclusive right turn lane. 4. An additional left turn lane and an additional through lane on westbound Puainako Street should be constructed for a total of two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane. B. Kilauea Avenue Intersection 1. The westbound Puainako Street improvements should include a 200 -foot long exclusive left turn lane and a 300 -foot long exclusive right turn lane, in addition to the two through lanes. 2. The eastbound Puainako Street improvements should include a 200 -foot long exclusive left turn lane. 3. Kilauea Avenue should be widened on the east side of the street to provide exclusive left turn lanes, with lengths of 150 feet in the northbound direction Cand 300 feet in the southbound direction. C. Kinoole Street Intersection 1. The Puainako Street widening should include exclusive left turn lanes with lengths of 150 feet and 200 feet in the eastbound and westbound directions, respectively. 2. The recently constructed exclusive left turn lanes on Kinoole Street should be extended, as needed, to provide 250 -foot and 300 -foot lengths in the northbound and southbound directions, respectively. D. Lokahi Street/Santos Lane Intersection 1. The intersection of Puainako Street and Lokahi Street/Santos Lane should remain a full -access, unsignalized intersection. 2. Exclusive left turn lanes (100 feet in length) should be provided on Puainako Street in both directions. N -39- O N Puainako Street Extension Recommendations E. Intersections between Lokahi Street and Kanoelani Street O 1. The streets located between Lokahi Street and Kanoelani Street should be restricted to right -turn -out and right -turn -in movements only, unless located opposite signalized school access driveways. 2. Median openings should be provided at appropriate spacing to permit U-turn movements to mitigate the left turn restrictions. F. Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate School Driveways 1. The three (3) existing access driveways to Waiakea Intermediate School should be realigned and consolidated to a single two-way driveway access located opposite Naniakea Street. 2. The Waiakea Intermediate School Driveway/Naniakea Street intersection is recommended for traffic signalization. 3. Exclusive left turn lanes should be constructed in both directions at the Waiakea Intermediate School Driveway/Naniakea Street intersection (300 - foot length in the eastbound direction and 200 -foot length in the westbound O direction). 4. A frontage road, parallel to Puainako Street, is also recommended to provide access to the intermediate school facilities. The frontage road should be extended to Waiakea Elementary School. 5. The exit driveway for Waiakea Elementary School should be realigned to a two-way driveway access located opposite Nohea Street. 6. The Waiakea Elementary School Driveway/Nohea Street intersection is recommended for traffic signalization. 7. Exclusive left turn lanes should be constructed in both directions at this intersection (300 -foot length eastbound and 200 -foot length westbound). 8. A frontage road, connecting to the intermediate school frontage road, is also recommended to provide access to the elementary school. 9. The existing entrance driveway on the east side of Waiakea Elementary School is proposed to be converted to a two-way driveway, restricted to right -turn -in O and right -turn -out only movements. M a 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Recommendations CG. Kanoelani Street Intersection 1. The intersection of Puainako Street and Kanoelani Street should remain a full - access, unsignalized intersection. 2. A 200 -foot long exclusive left turn lane should be provided on westbound Puainako Street. 3. A median shelter lane (100 -foot length) should be provided to facilitate the left turn movement onto westbound Puainako Street. 4. The Kanoelani Street approach also should be widened to provide separate 100 -foot long left and right turn lanes. H. Kawili Street Intersection 1. A 300 -foot long exclusive left turn lane should be provided on eastbound Puainako Street at Kawili Street. 2. A 200 -foot long exclusive left turn lane should be provided on westbound OPuainako Street at Kawili Street. 3. A 300 -foot long exclusive right -turn lane should be provided on westbound Puainako Street at Kawili Street. 4. Kawili Street should be widened to provide an exclusive left turn lane, a through -only lane, and a shared through/right turn lane in both directions. I. Kapualani Street Extension Intersection 1. Kapualani Street should be extended to the Puainako Street Realignment to provide access to the section of Puainako Street, between Komohana Street and Iwalani Street/Kawili Street, and its intersecting roadways. 2. The Kapualani Street Extension should provide separate left turn and right turn lanes at the Puainako Street Extension. 3. The Westbound Puainako Street Realignment should provide a 200 -foot long exclusive left turn lane at the Kapualani Street Extension. 4. A median shelter lane (100 -foot length) should be provided on the westbound O Puainako Street Realignment to facilitate the left turn movement from the Kapualani Street Extension. -41- 0 N Puainako Street Extension Recommendations J. Komohana Street Intersection 1. The Puainako Street Realignment should provide separate left turn, through, and right turn lanes on the westbound approach. The left turn lane length on the westbound approach should be 250 feet. 2. The Puainako Street Extension should provide an exclusive left turn lane, a through -only lane, and a shared through/right turn lane on the eastbound approach. The length of the left turn lane on the eastbound approach should be 250 feet. 3. Komohana Street should be widened to four lanes, two lanes in each direction, by the Year 2020. 4. Exclusive left turn lanes should be provided on the northbound approach (100 feet in length) and on the southbound approach (300 feet in length) on Komohana Street at the Puainako Street Realignment/Extension. 5. A 300 -foot long exclusive right turn lane on northbound Komohana Street at Puainako Street should be provided. K. Edita Street Intersection 1. Edita Street should be stop -controlled at its intersection with the Puainako Street Extension. 2. Exclusive left turn lanes should be provided in both directions on the Puainako Street Extension at Edita Street. The lengths of the left turn lanes should be determined by the appropriate design deceleration distances. L. Wilder Road Intersection 1. Wilder Road should be stop -controlled at its intersection with the Puainako Street Extension. 2. Exclusive left turn lanes should be provided in both directions on the Puainako Street Extension at Wilder Road. The lengths of the left turn lanes should be determined by the appropriate design deceleration distances. -42- E C L L CP 0 0 Puainako Street Extension Conclusions CM. Kaumana Drive Intersection 1. The Puainako Street Extension should be aligned so that it forms a continuous roadway with the mauka leg of Kaumana Drive. The makai leg of Kaumana Drive should be realigned, as necessary, to intersect the Puainako Street Extension at an unsignalized Tee -intersection. 2. An exclusive left turn lane should be constructed on the north leg of Hilo - bound Kaumana Drive. The length of the left turn lane should be determined by the appropriate design deceleration distance. 3. Separate left turn and right turn lanes should be constructed on the makai leg of Kaumana Drive. VI: Conclusions The proposed Puainako Street Extension, combined with the future improvement of Saddle Road, is expected to encourage travel between East and West Hawaii. The IHLRHP estimates an increase of about 4,000 trips per day on the improved Saddle CRoad. Without the proposed Puainako Street Extension, Kaumana Drive and Waianuenue Avenue would experience a similar increase. The proposed Puainako Street Extension is expected divert a portion of the projected traffic by providing direct access to Puainako Street. The two-lane Puainako Street operates under congested conditions at existing signalized intersections and at heavily -utilized unsignalized intersections and driveways. The lack of exclusive turning lanes creates queuing conditions in both directions on Puainako Street during the peak hours of traffic. The numerous driveways and local streets on the south side of Puainako Street, would restrict the effectiveness of improved Puainako Street. The proposed road widening should include a raised median, which would restrict driveway and local road access to right -turn -in and right -turn -out movements only. Median openings would be provided, at proper spacing, to allow U-turns. Motorists, desiring to turn left from driveways and minor streets, would instead turn right then make a U-turn at the nearest median opening. The existing grid network also provides the motorist with the option to select alternate routes. The restricted access on Puainako Street Oat local street intersections would discourage the use of local roads by through traffic, and thereby reduce the traffic volumes on the local residential streets. -43- O O Extension Conclusions The school access driveways on the north side of Puainako Street, are proposed O to be consolidated to two signalized intersections at existing intersections. The exclusive left turn lanes and traffic signals would accommodate the consolidated traffic demand entering and exiting the respective school campuses. The "Island of Hawaii Long Range Transportation Plan" (IHLRTP), is being updated by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and County of Hawaii Departments of Public Works and Planning, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration. The purpose of the study is to identify major highway corridors that would require roadway improvements to accommodate traffic demands projected for the Year 2020. The preliminary land use data and forecasts, that were made available for use in this study, were used to develop the travel forecasts for this study. The travel forecast for Puainako Street is subject to the Final Report on the IHLRTP. The revised prioritization of the Puainako Street widening and extension, per the IHLRTP, is not available at this writing. M -44- 0 IN C C 0 APPENDIX H NATER QUALITY REPORT f 0 N 01 WATER QUALITY REPORT for PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION AND WIDENING Hilo, Hawaii Prepared by: Sherri A. Miller, B.A. P. 0. Box 91 Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760-0091 Y.K. Hahn and Associates 1180 N. Kumuwaina Hilo, Hawaii 96720 O8 November 1995 W N U 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Roadways and Pollution Floodplain and Drainage Soil Erosion Wetlands Chemical Pollution Conclusion 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Description of Project Area 2. ROADWAYS AND POLLUTION: BACKGROUND 2.1 Roadway Contaminants 2.2 Pollutant Transport 2.3 Receiving Waters 3. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 3.1 Floodplain and Drainage 3.1.1 Probable Impacts 3.1.2 Mitigation 3.2 Soil Erosion 3.2.1 Probable Impacts 3.2.2 Mitigation 3.3 Wetlands 3.3.1 Possible Impacts 3.3.2 Mitigation 3.4 Chemical Pollution 3.4.1 Probable Impacts 3.4.2 Mitigation 4. CONCLUSION 5. LITERATURE CITED 6. CONTACTS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 25 TABLES O Table 1: 8 Variables Affecting Magnitude of Roadway Contaminants Table 2: 9 Common Contaminants on Roadways Table 3: 12 Urban Runoff Impacts on Receiving Waters O L . O O OEXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report has been prepared for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Puainako Street Widening and Extension project in Hilo, Hawaii. ROADWAYS AND POLLUTION Impacts to the quality of water from a highway project, including construction, use, and maintenance, contribute to non -point source pollution, which can have a detrimental effect on the environment far from the source of the pollution. These impacts can include flooding, soil erosion, pathogenic bacteria and viruses, oxygen demanding materials, toxic substances, heavy metals, nutrients, inorganic salts, and particulates. In the case of this highway project the potential areas impacted, in addition to the area within the highway project and its appurtenances, are Wailoa estuary, greater Hilo Bay, and the subsurface aquifer. The possible impacts to water quality from this project can be organized into four categories: floodplain and drainage, soil erosion, wetlands, and chemical pollution. FLOODPLAIN AND DRAINAGE OWithout mitigation the proposed project could impact the hydrological characteristics of the area. The pavement area created from this project would marginally increase the proportion of low -permeability surface, and thereby potentially increase speed of delivery of surface floodwater, increase the. volume of total runoff, the size of peak flood, the size of the channel (due to scouring), the frequency of flooding, decrease the lag time to discharge peak, and decrease baseflow (groundwater infiltration). L01 Hilo Bay and Wailoa Estuary, the eventual sink of runoff from the project area, are known to be impacted by microbiological pollution though cesspool flushing. The speed of delivery of the runoff water into the receiving waters can affect the concentration of microbial. pollution. Wherever possible increases to the speed of delivery of floodwater to Hilo Bay and Wailoa Estuary should be avoided since percolation of the water though the substrate has a mitigating effect on water pollution. Overflow through grassy vegetation has been shown to be effective in removing pollutants that result from highway runoff, specifically particulate matter, which is known to carry a high percentage of contaminates of highway runoff. Vegetative landscaping is also known to control erosion. 1 The utilization of drywells and percolation ponds would also be o effective mitigation measures. Where drainage channels and culverts are used, a periodic inspection system should be employed to insure the drainage system is not blocked by debris which could cause surface flooding and thereby potentially increase pollution loading. Also of note is the findings that streets in poor to fair pavement condition had loadings about 2.5 times greater than street that were considered to be in good to excellent condition (Sarter, 1972). Therefore, a maintenance program to upkeep the roadway in good to excellent condition can be viewed as a mitigating action. With mitigation hydrological impacts to water quality are expected to be negligible. SOIL EROSION The nearshore recreational waters of Hilo Bay and Wailoa Estuary are important resources used for in -water and shoreline recreational activities, such as surfing, boating, sailing, canoe racing, as well as fishing. Also important is the visual aesthetic resource to both local residents and visitors alike. Soil erosion would increase aesthetic deterioration of the receiving waters. Soil erosion in the receiving waters can also 0 be detrimental to the aquatic environment, and sediments from soil erosion runoff can accumulate pollutants such as metals and hydrocarbons, which can move up the foodchain and experience bioaccumulation and biomagnification. The proposed soil erosion and sediment control standard management practices outlined in Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Hawaii (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1981) can minimize impact to water quality due to soil erosion. These management practices include timing construction activities to periods of low rainfall, limiting grated surface area to no more than 15 acres at a time, temporarily diverting runoff away from area susceptible to erosion, using mulch, geotextiles, etc. in areas where soil erosion potential is high until permanent provisions can be developed, planting grass and lawn as soon as possible after grading to minimize time soil is exposed, using sedimentation basins and siltation fencing of geotextiles to minimize amount of sediment leaving construction area, and diverting baseflow to stable areas while working on stream channels where possible. All state and county drainage improvement regulations should be complied with. A maintenance program to keep the roadway pavement and roadside vegetation in good to excellent condition should be implemented. 1 K, O O O WETLANDS Wetlands are being studied under a separate biological report and will not be discussed in this report. Disruption to any wetland found within the project area could occur from an increase in surface runoff due in an increase in the proportion of low -permeability surface, from soil erosion, and from highway pollutants such as oil, grease, and heavy metals. Any wetland community found directly within the chosen alignment would be eliminated. Appropriate mitigation measures in compliance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland regulations should be developed and implemented prior to construction. CHEMICAL POLLUTION Several chemical pollutants result from highways, including grease, oil, heavy metals, and herbicides. Petroleum hydrocarbons can include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), which are known to bioaccumulate, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The chemicals in actual runoff may exhibit antagonistic or synergistic effects. When there is a toxic effect sensitive Obiota can be replaced with tolerant biota. When runoff stimulates growth some species may grow prolifically at the expense of other organisms and the taxa of the ecosystem can change. Nutrients can change the taxonomic makeup of an aquatic system, and lead to a decrease in available oxygen and can cause accelerated eutrophication which can be devastating to an aquatic community. Besides'changing the biota of an ecosystem, pollutants, such as metals, can reduce and inhibit growth and reproduction of organisms. Where oil has been found on the water surface an increased release of iron, manganese, and ammonium has been documented from the sediment to the overlying water due to the absence of oxygen in the water column (DeLaune, 1979). While grease, oil, and heavy metals that result from automobiles are unavoidable impacts from a highway system, herbicides used in roadside maintenance are avoidable. Environmental impacts from herbicides are possible and could contribute to non -point source pollution. The effects that chemicals and nutrients have on receiving waters Oare not caused by highways alone, although highway pollutants 3 probably contribute to non -point source pollution, which can o impact receiving waters. Mitigative factors which affect the magnitude of pollutants emanating from the highway system include maintenance policies, littering laws, emission regulations, and right-of-way vegetation type. Highway construction design, and drainage control can also help to mitigate impact from highway contaminants. A grassy right-of-way would be the best choice for reducing the impact of highway pollution on runoff. Chemical impacts of this project, without regard to non -point source pollution should not impact water quality. CONCLUSION While all potential impacts may be mitigated to negligible levels, these small levels of pollutants can contribute to non - point source pollution, which in combined strength could negatively impact the terrestrial, aquatic, and marine communities through both acute loading, and long term accumulation both within the receiving water and associated with the sediments. Therefore, wherever possible, mitigating actions, as outlined above, should be employed to reduce and eliminate the possibility of pollution and soil erosion.. This project will be following NPDES permit procedures, which o include regulations for vegetative stabilization, and structural practices, such as velocity dissipation and sediment capture, as well as inspections and maintenance. The Erosion and Sediment Control Guide (USSCS, 1981) offers mitigating actions to minimize impact to water quality due to soil erosion. The use of roadside vegetation, such as a grassy right-of-way, is the most effective and most enduring mitigating action for preventing pollutants from entering the water system. To the greatest extent possible, existing natural vegetation should be preserved. Velocity dissipation and sediment capture measures are also effective in protecting water quality. A highway nrinter.ance program can also be viewed as a mitigating action. 0 0 1. INTRODUCTION 0 This report was prepared by Sherri A. Miller for Y. K. Hahn and Associates to be considered as part of the federal Environmental Impact Statement for the Puainako Street Extension and widening project which has been proposed for Hilo, located on the east side of the Island of Hawaii. This report discusses the possible impacts the project could have on water quality as well as possible mitigation actions. Resources used to compile this report include: •Final Environmental Impact Statement Puainako Street Extension Widening, Island of Hawaii, August 1993; •Route 101 Improvement Alternatives -- Prunedale Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Report, January 1993; •Constituents of Highway Runoff Vol. I. State -of -the -Art Report, February 1981, Final Report; •Constituents of Highway Runoff Vol. II. Procedural Manual for Monitoring of Highway Runoff, February 1981, Final Report; •Effects of Highway Runoff on Receiving Waters, Vol. III. OResource Document for Environmental Assessments, March 1985. •NPDES Construction Storm Water Permit Compliance, Dodson and Associates, Inc., 1993; O •NPDES Best .Management Practices Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, October 1993. Additional field studies for this report were not conducted. 5 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA O Puainako Street and the proposed extension are located within Hilo, on the eastern slopes of Mauna Loa, on the Island of Hawaii Rainfall in the project area is very high. It is estimated that the mean annual rainfall at the lower end of the project is 130 inches per year and nearly 200 inches per year at the upper terminus of the project on Kaumana Drive (UH -Manna Dept. of Geography, 1983). Rainfall from the project area eventually reaches Hilo Bay and Wailoa Estuary through surface flow and groundwater. Any pollutants caused by this project would probably enter these nearshore recreational waters. Hilo Bay and Wailoa Estuary are used for fishing and water sports, including boating and swimming. According to the State of Hawaii Department of Health the area is not part of a Principle or Sole -Source Aquifer as described in section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. There are no State Wellhead Protection Plans in the project area. Possible impacts to water quality include disruption of floodplain drainage, microbiological (sewage) pollution, soil erosion, chemical pollution, and impacts to.wetlands should any wetlands be identified within the project area. Disruption of water drainage could lead to more effective delivery of water to nearshore waters. Sewage pollution has been found to be a frequent component of water entering Hilo's nearshore waters (Dudley, et. al., 1989, 1991). The more directly and quickly the water enters the nearshore waters the more likely the water will carry viable sewage pollution. Increases to surface runoff and groundwater runoff through lava tubes could increase the amount of sewage pollution reaching Hilo's nearshore recreational waters. Sewage pollution is known to be dangerous to public health (Yeager, 1983). A more effective water delivery system could also contribute more soil and chemical pollutants to the estuary and bay. K 1J E 0 0 2. ROADWAYS AND POLLUTANTS: BACKGROUND 2.1 ROADWAY CONTAMINANTS Highway operation and maintenance are known to produce a variety of pollutants. All of the components of highway runoff have not been identified, however. Furthermore, the origin of these pollutants, their quantities, and their movement within the highway system have not been clearly established, and the extent to which these pollutants affect the quality of the receiving waters is not well defined. Despite the lack of complete information, many of the major components are well documented, such as solids, nutrients, heavy metals, oil, grease, pesticides, and bacteria. Materials are known to accumulate on highway surfaces, median areas, and adjoining right-of-ways. The accumulation is a result of highway use, maintenance, natural contributors, and air pollution fallout. The magnitude of the contaminants generally found on the roadway and its appurtenances are the result of many factors (Table 1), such as traffic conditions, climatic conditions, and maintenance policies. Many pollutant sources are known (Table 2). Sources of solids deposition include tire and pavement wear, brake shoe and drum wear, rust, car exhaust, mud and dirt accumulation of vehicle bodies, atmospheric fallout, erosion from highway right-of-way, opavement maintenance, extraneous litter, and spilled loads. The source of many heavy metals is well documented. Most lead is from leaded fuels, and some is from tire wear from tires with lead oxide fillers. Zinc is used as a filler for tires as well, and is also contributed by motor oil stabilizing additives. Rusting vehicular bodies and other steel, such as guard rails (and sometimes stabilized slag used in highway construction), contribute iron. The wear of metals in engine and mechanical parts contribute copper, nickel, and chromium. Some copper comes through brake lining wear where copper is added. PCB's and specific pesticides come mostly from weed killers used in right-of-way maintenance. Some PCB's may be from breakdown of additives used in vehicle operation. The primary source of asbestos is reported to be from clutch and brake linings. Tire wear contributes rubber found in roadways. Anti -knock fluid added to leaded fuel contributes lead alkalis, organic scavengers, ethylene dichloride, and dibromide (which combines with lead salts, chiefly bromochloride). These organic lead salts are retained in the exhaust at low speeds, and odischarged in increasing concentrations and speed increases. 0 0 , TABLE 1: o VARIABLES AFFECTING MAGNITUDE OF ROADWAY CONTAMINANTS The following variables affect the magnitude of contaminants generally found on the roadway and it's appurtenances. 1. Traffic Conditions (speed, volume, braking etc.) 2. Climatic Conditions (intensity and form of precipitation, wind and temperature) 3. Maintenance Policies (sweeping, mowing, repair etc.) 4. Surrounding Land Use (resident, commerce, industrial, rural) 1 5. Percent of Pervious and Impervious Area 6. Car Age and Maintenance 7. Littering Laws and Emissions Regulations 8. Use of Special Additives in Vehicle operation 9. Vegetation Type on the Right -of -Way 10. Accidental Spills Source: Constituents of Highway Runoff, Vol. I., February 1981 0 8 TABLE 2: COMMON CONTAMINANTS ON ROADWAYS Classification Examples Primary Sources Particulates Heavy Metals PCB, Pesticides Inorganic Salts Organic Matter Nutrients Dust, dirt, stones, gravel, grain, sand, glass, plastics, metals, fine residue. Lead, zinc, iron, copper, nickel, chromium, mercury. Chlorinated hydro- carbons, organo- phosphorus. CaC121 NaCl, SO4, Br Vegetation, dust and dirt, humus, roadway accumulations, oils, fuels. Nitrogen, phosphorus Pathogenic Bacteria Coliforms. (indicators) Pavement, vehicle, atmosphere, litter, maintenance. Vehicle, atmospheric washout. Spraying of highway right-of-way vegetation. Deicing salts, atmospheric washout, vehicle. Roadside vegetation, vehicle, litter, aerosols. Fertilizer. Soil, litter, bird - droppings, excreta. Other Asbestos, rubber, Vehicle, specific special compounds. additives. OSources constituents of Highway Runoff, Vol. I., February 1981 9 Oil, grease, and petroleum compounds come mostly from spills and o leaks of lubricants, antifreeze, and hydraulic fluids. Some may be leached from the roadbed of asphalt paved highways. Also associated with highway runoff is bacteria. Bacterial testing is considered part of a highway pollution monitoring Program (Constituents of Highway Pollution Vol. II, 1981). Monitoring programs test for indicator bacteria such as enteric coliforms, although runoff may contain human pathogenic bacteria. Additionally, viruses have been documented in urban stormwater runoff (Field, 1976). 2.2 POLLUTANT TRANSPORT Physical movement of pollutants from highway surfaces results from two important mechanisms: 1. Washoff from rainfall (and snowmelt). The primary factors affecting washoff include rainfall intensity, street surface characteristics, and particle size. Blow -off (wind, vehicle turbulence). Street debris, the very fine silt -like fraction (<43 microns), o constitutes only 5.9% by weight of street solids, yet contributes a sizable potential of pollution, including approximately one- fourth of the total oxygen demand, one-half to one-third of the algal nutrients, more than half of the heavy metals and approximately three-fourths of the total pesticides. It is important to note that street sweeping in ineffective for this fraction of street debris which is high in concentration of pollutants. Distribution of street surface contaminants is not uniformly distributed, with 85 to 90% of the contaminants accumulating within 30 cm (12 inches) of the curb. Larger non-suspendable dirt and dust are ground into smaller particles by the vehicle wheels in a process called vehicle induced reentrainment. This process enables particles to become airborne, breaking the cohesive bonds on the dust, and imparting kinetic energy to the particles. N 10 0 0 O2.3 RECEIVING WATERS Highway pollution impacts receiving waters via two important mechanisms, first, shock or acute loading, and second, long term accumulation both within the water body and associated with the sediments. Both mechanisms may result in impairment of water quality which may be outside general water quality criteria limits for water supply, aquatic life, and recreational uses of receiving water. Water quality impacts are, however, often very site specific, depending heavily on conditions such as rainfall quantities, point sources of pollution and their treatment, land use, and the sensitivity of the receiving waters. There is very little documentation of the impacts on receiving waters from highway runoff. Documentation of urban runoff may be applicable. Broad classes of problems categorized for urban runoff in terms of associated impacts on receiving waters are listed in Table 3. Highway runoff may cause impacts on receiving waters similar to those listed in Table 3. In addition to impacts listed in Table 3, suspended solids and nutrients are detrimental to coral communities. Increased runoff could also increase soil erosion reaching the bay and estuary. Soil erosion can block sunlight from reaching coral communities and can inhibit their growth. The sediment from soil erosion can choke and eventually kill the coral and other sedimentary organisms. Nutrients and fertilizers o associated with soil erosion can cause algae blooms, further eroding the nearshore environment. —J The Hawaiian Green Sea Turtle, Chelonia mvdas, (Honu) a listed threatened species, is found in the area and feeds on seaweeds near shore. The Pacific Hawksbill Sea Turtle, Eretmochelvs imbricata, (`Ea), which is listed as endangered, may also be found in the area. Another endangered animal which has been reported in the area is the Hawaiian Monk Seal, Monachus schauinslandi. Of the three animals, the green sea turtle would probably be most directly affected by the effects of pollution since it feeds entirely on seaweed. Since the overall impact to Hilo's nearshore waters is expected to,be very small, however, the impact to these threatened and endangered animals should be negligible. Increases in the soil runoff also negatively impacts the natural beauty of the area by aesthetic deterioration. Chemical pollution could include oil, grease, heavy metals, herbicides and pesticides, all of which can negatively impact the environment and public health. Chemicals can be toxic, serve as oxygen -consuming materials, or stimulate growth of certain organisms, which can alter the taxa of an ecosystem. 11 Essex TABLE 3: O URBAN RUNOFF IMPACTS ON RECEIVING WATERS 010 as Highway runoff may cause similar impacts on receiving waters depending upon local conditions and receiving water characteristics. *AESTHETIC DETERIORATION -- Either general appearance (dirty, turbid, cloudy) or actual presence of specific, objectionable conditions (odors, floating debris, oil films, scum, or slime etc.) may make receiving water unattractive or repugnant. *DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEPLETION -- Organic materials stimulate the growth of bacteria which may consume oxygen faster than natural processes can replenish. This condition may or may not be visually apparent. In the extreme, discoloration, gas formation, and odors may be apparent -- however, well before this extreme is reached, conditions suitable for a balanced aquatic population of fish and lower species in the food chain may be destroyed. The presence of unoxidized nitrogen compounds (e.g. ammonia) is in some cases a significant element in water quality problems related to low dissolved oxygen levels. *PATHOGEN CONCENTRATIONS -- The presence of excessive O concentrations of objectionable microorganisms can prevent the receiving water from being used for certain water supply and recreational purposes. *SUSPENDED SOLIDS -- Particulate matter may contribute to a variety of problems, such as objectionable aesthetic consideration, formation of sediment deposits which smother bottom dwelling aquatic organisms, impeded navigation or restricted river flow contributing to flooding potential. *NUTRIENTS -- The discharge of materials which fertilize or stimulate excessive or undesirable forms of aquatic growth can create significant problems in some receiving water systems. Overstimulation of aquatic weeds or algae (eutrophication) can be aesthetically objectionable, cause dissolved oxygen problems, and in extreme case: can interfere with recreational uses, creati.n, odors, and heavy mats of floating materials at shorelines. *TOXICITY -- Toxicity problems can fall into either of two categories: Metals or pesticides/persistent organics. Toxicants may exhibit a subtle, long term effect on the environment in areas well removed from the area under consideration, by the discharge of small quantities which gradually accumulate in sensitive areas. Source: Constituents of Highway Runoff Vol. I., February 1981 12 0 0 O Within the project area impacts could include local flooding and destruction of wetland communities, should a wetland be identified within the project area. EN M One of the conclusions of urban runoff studies is that the two factors which most affect the runoff load are land use and the degree of imperviousness (Constituents of Highway Runoff, Vol. I, 1981). In light of this finding, the alternative with the least area of increased imperviousness would be a better alternative. However, since the overall addition of paved area in relation to the overall size of the watershed area of greater Hilo Bay is quite small, and the relative difference between the two alternatives will be rather small, the area of imperviousness should not be a major consideration. While all potential impacts may be mitigated to negligible levels, these small levels of pollutants would contribute to non - point source pollution, which in combined strength could negatively impact the environment through both acute loading, and/or long term accumulation both within the receiving water and associated with the sediments. 13 WATER QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION o Impacts to the quality of water from a highway project, including construction, use, and maintenance, contribute to non -point source pollution, which can have a detrimental effect on the environment far from the source of the pollution. These impacts can include flooding, soil erosion, pathogenic bacteria and viruses, oxygen demanding materials, toxic substances, nutrients, inorganic salts, and particulates. In th'e case of this project, the potential areas impacted, in addition to the area within the highway project and its appurtenances, are Wailoa estuary, greater Hilo Bay, and the subsurface aquifer. 3.1 FLOODPLAIN AND DRAINAGE IMPACTS The proposed project could impact the hydrological characteristics of the area without mitigation. The pavement area created from this project would marginally increase the proportion of low -permeability surface, and thereby potentially increase speed of delivery of surface floodwater. An increase in water basin imperviousness can increase the volume of total runoff, the size of peak flood, the size of the channel (due to scouring), the frequency of flooding, decrease the lag time to discharge peak, and decrease baseflow (groundwater infiltration). o 3.1.1 Probable Impacts To Floodplain and Drainage Hilo Bay and Wailoa Estuary, the eventual sink of runoff from the project area, are known to be impacted by microbiological pollution, mainly from the large number of cesspools in the area draining thorough the porous basalt substrate and on the surface. Sewage pollution has been documented to carry human pathogenic bacteria (Yeager, 1983) and urban stormwater runoff has been documented to carry viruses (Field, 1976). Animal wastes can also impact the microbial pollution in water, and human pathogens can be associated with animal feces since animals are carriers for some human diseases. Filtration by percolation of water through the substrate can have a mitigating effect on microbiological impacts to nearshore recreational waters by filtering out pdrticulates. A mors effi:A ent delivery of water to the nearshore recreational waters of Hilo Bay and Wailoa Estuary could increase the levels of viable microbiological pollution. Both surface flow and subsurface flow though lava tubes can increase levels of sewage pollution, animals wastes, and soil erosion in these receiving waters. N 14 0 0 0 3.1.2 Mitigation for Floodplain and Drainage Mitigation measures can be imposed to eliminate or reduce the net impact to the overall flow of the natural drainage system. Wherever possible increases to the speed of delivery of floodwater to Hilo Bay and Wailoa Estuary should be avoided since percolation of the water though the substrate has a mitigating effect on water pollution. Overflow through grassy vegetation has been shown to be effective in removing pollutants that result from highway runoff, specifically particulate matter, which is known to carry a high percentage of contaminates of highway runoff. Vegetative landscaping is also known to control erosion. The utilization of drywells and percolation ponds would also be effective mitigation measures. Where drainage channels and culverts are used, a periodic inspection system should be employed to insure the drainage system is not blocked by debris which could cause surface flooding and thereby potentially increase pollution loading. A discussion of highway designs to mitigate the effects of highway runoff can be found in the manual Constituents of Highway Runoff Vol. I. State -of -the -Art Report, Section III, entitled "Highway Design and Drainage Characteristics and their Relationship to Runoff Quantity". The goal of highway design in this context is to minimize the disruption to natural drainage o along a roadway. A proper maintenance program to keep the roadway in good condition can be seen as a mitigating factor in protecting water quality by reducing runoff loadings. one of the overall findings of Constituents of Highway Runoff, Vol I. is that the maintenance of adequate drainage is one of the most important aspects of highway design. 111 Also of note.is the findings that streets in poor to fair pavement condition had loadings about 2.5 times greater than street that were considered to be in good to excellent condition (Sarter, 1972). Therefore, a maintenance program to upkeep the roadway in good to excellent condition can be viewed as a mitigating action. With mitigation hydrological impacts to water quality are expected ;.o be negligible. 15 3.2 SOIL EROSION O Soil erosion would contribute to aesthetic deterioration of the receiving waters, detracting from the natural beauty of the area. Soil erosion in the receiving waters can also be detrimental to the aquatic environment, and sediments from soil erosion runoff can accumulate pollutants such as metals and hydrocarbons, which can move up the foodchain and experience bioaccumulation and biomagnification. 3.2.1 Probable Impacts from Soil Erosion The nearshore recreational waters of Hilo Bay and Wailoa Estuary are important resources. These waters are used for in -water and shoreline recreational activities, such as surfing, boating, sailing, canoe racing, as well as fishing. Also important is the visual aesthetic resource to both local residents and visitors alike. Soil erosion from construction activities, highway operation and maintenance could negatively impact the water quality of the nearshore recreational waters of Hilo Bay and Wailoa Estuary. The increased turbidity due to soil erosion decreases the level of sunlight in the water column, inhibiting coral growth. The settling of soil sediments also negatively impacts the underwater ecosystem by choking sedimentary organisms. This can affect the O quantity and the taxa of the reef and estuary communities. Sediments in Wailoa estuary settle out but can be washed into Hilo Bay during large wave activity, particularly tsunamis. Sediments also accumulate inside Hilo Bay's sea wall. Pollutants such as heavy metals, petrochemicals, herbicides and pesticides can be retained in soil sediments. These pollutants can be moved up the food chain, are often accumulated in the biota, and can experience biomagnification, as is the case with mercury, which cannot be metabolized. O 16 0 O 3.2.2 Mitigation for Soil Erosion The proposed soil erosion and sediment control standard management practices outlined in Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Hawaii (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1981) can minimize impact to water quality due to soil erosion. These management practices include: Timing construction activity, such as grading or the installation of culverts, during periods of low rainfall. Limiting grated surface area to no more than 15 acres at any given time. 3. Temporarily diverting runoff away from areas susceptible to soil erosion. 4. Using soil erosion protective materials such as mulch or geotexiles in areas where soil erosion potential is high until permanent provisions can be developed. Planting grass and lawn as soon as possible after grading to minimize time soil is exposed. 5. Building sedimentation basins to collect sediment which enters runoff waters. Utilizing geotextiles such as C siltation fencing could minimize the amount of sediment leaving construction area to collect in drainage structures and streams. C 6. Diverting baseflow to stable flow areas while working on stream channels where possible. All state and county drainage improvement regulations should be complied with. A maintenance program to keep the roadway pavement and roadside vegetation in good to excellent condition should be implemented. 17 3.3 WETLANDS O Wetlands are being studied under a separate biological report and will not be discussed in this report. 3.3.1 Possible Impacts to Wetlands Any wetlands found adjacent to the project area could be impacted by the project. Disruption could occur from an increase in surface runoff due in an increase in the proportion of low - permeability surface, from soil erosion, and from highway pollutants such as oil, grease, and heavy metals. Any wetland community found directly within the chosen alignment would be eliminated. 3.3.2 Mitigation for Wetlands Appropriate mitigation measures in compliance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland regulations should be developed and implemented prior to construction. 101 18 3.4 CHEMICAL POLLUTION 3.4.1 Probable Impacts from Chemical Pollution Several chemical pollutants result from highways, including grease, oil, heavy metals, and herbicides. Petroleum hydrocarbons can include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), which are known to bioaccumulate, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). These chemicals in actual runoff may exhibit antagonistic or synergistic effects. When there is a toxic effect sensitive biota can be replaced with tolerant biota. When runoff stimulates growth some species may grow prolifically at the expense of other organisms and the taxa of the ecosystem can change. Nutrients tend to stimulate growth and metals tend to inhibit. According to a California assay where nutrients and metals where found in runoff the metal load dictated the final bioassay results (Winters, 1980). Where oil has been found on the water surface an increased release of iron, manganese, and ammonium has been documented from the sediment to the overlying water due to the absence of oxygen in the water column (DeLaune, 1979). Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can be associated with stormwater runoff, particularly in areas where fertilizers are O used. Nutrients can change the taxonomic makeup of an aquatic system, and lead to a decrease in available oxygen and can cause accelerated eutrophication which can be devastating to an aquatic community. Besides changing the biota of an ecosystem, pollutants, such as metals, can reduce and inhibit growth and reproduction of organisms. If the concentration is great enough, the pollutants can be fatal. In addition to their action within the water column, such chemicals can also accumulate in sediments. While grease, oil, and heavy metals that result from automobiles are unavoidable impacts from a highway system, herbicides, used in roadside maintenance, are avoidable. Roundup and Rodeo are currently being used in Hawaii County'as herbicides for keeping roadways clear of vegetation. The manufacturers of these products list environmental impacts as "not available", although some detrimental health affects are listed. Environmental impacts are, however, possible and could contribute to non -point source pollution. Because of the potential health and environmental impacts, alternatives to herbicide use are being sought. Senate Bill 1320, a Bill for an Act Related to Roadside Herbicide Use, has passed both the state house and senate, although it was not signed by Governor Cayetano. The purpose of this bill is to reduce the use of herbicides by prohibiting their Ouse in public roadside maintenance and to require the use of 19 nonchemical methods. It was the legislature's desire that herbicide usage be reduced by twenty-five percent by 1996, and by O' fifty percent by 1997. The bill also stated conditions when herbicides may be used, such as when nonchemical methods and integrated vegetation management programs are not possible, and where precautions have been taken to reduce herbicide run-off from entering directly into an open body of water or into any source of drinking water. The bill required the State and counties to report biennially to the legislature on their integrated vegetation programs. Although the bill did not pass this legislative session, similar bills are to be expected in the future. Excessive use of herbicides can bare soil which can lead to soil erosion. Herbicide chemicals and/or their by-products and inert ingredients could possibly enter the water system and contribute to non -point source pollution. Dead vegetation due to herbicide use along the roadway is also aesthetically displeasing to motorists and communities (Roadside Spraying in Pohoiki, Appendix A). The effects that chemicals and nutrients have on receiving waters are not caused by highways alone, although highway pollutants probably contribute to non -point source pollution, which can impact receiving waters. 3.4.2 Mitigation for Chemical Pollution O Mitigative factors which affect the magnitude of pollutants emanating from the highway system include maintenance policies, littering laws, emission regulations, and right-of-way vegetation type. Highway construction design, and drainage control can also help to mitigate impact from highway contaminants. Dry wells, sedimentation basins, and percolation ponds are effective at preventing sediment from entering streams and drainage channels. Roadside vegetation such as a grassy right-of-way, is effective in removing pollutants from highway runoff, particularly small particulate matter (<43 microns), which is known to contribute a sizable pollution potential. A grassy right-of-way would be the best choice for reducing the impact of highway pollution on runoff. The Puna Outdoor Circle is active in finding alternatives to spraying to keep roadways clear of vegetation. Mowing vegetation is an alternative that could be implemented immediately. The results of mowing are also aesthetically appealing. Not all areas are conducive to mowing however. According to the office of Hawaii County Council Chairwoman Keiko Bonk -Abramson, Hawaii County is working to start a roadside vegetation control system known as the Waipuna system. This system, which was developed in New Zealand, employs the use of hot water to kill weeds. This system seems to be a viable O 20 O procedure to eliminate the hazards of herbicide use while keeping the roadway clear of vegetation. As long as adequate drainage systems are in place and soil is not laid open to soil erosion, the Waipuna system should pose no impact to the quality of water. Chemical impacts of this project, without regard to non -point source pollution, should not impact water quality. 21 o 4. CONCLUSION O While all potential impacts may be mitigated to negligible levels, these small levels of pollutants can contribute to non - point source pollution, which in combined strength could negatively impact the terrestrial, aquatic, and marine communities through both acute loading, and long term accumulation both within the receiving water and associated with the sediments. Therefore, wherever possible, mitigating actions, as outlined above, should be employed to reduce and eliminate the possibility of pollution and soil erosion. 101 22 C5. LITERATURE CITED DeLaune, R.O., Patric, W.H., Jr., and Buresch, R.J., "Effects of Crude Oil and Louisiana Spartina alterniflora Salt Marsh," Envir. Poll., Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 21-31, 1979. Dodson and Associates, Inc., 1993, "NPDES Construction Storm Water Permit Compliance, Houston. Dudley and Hallacher, et al, "Progress Report --Year One: Distribution and Dispersion of Sewage Pollution in Hilo Bay and Contiguous Waters," University of Hawaii -Hilo, 1989. Dudley and Hallacher, et al, "Final Report: Distribution and Dispersion of Sewage Pollution in Hilo Bay and Contiguous Waters," University of Hawaii -Hilo, 1991. Field, R., Oliver, V.P., Davis, E.M., Smith, J.E., and Tifft, E.C.; "Proceedings at the Workshop on Microorganisms in Urban Stormwater"; Environmental Protection Technology Series No. EPA -600/2-76-244, 1976. 0 Sarter, J.D., Boyd, G.B., "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants", U.S EPA Report No. EPA -R2-72-081; November, 1972; and paper'in JWPCF Vol. 46, pp 999-1000, May 1974. EN University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Geography. 1983. Atlas of Hawaii. 2nd ed. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, October 1993, "NPDES Best Management Practices Manual," EPA 883-B-93- 004, Washington, D.C.. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey of Hawaii. State of Hawaii. Washington: U.S. GPO. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Hawaii. Honolulu: USSCS. 23 o Winters, G.R. and Gidley, J.L., "Effects of Roadway Runoff on o Algae," Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-80/24, 230 pp. 1980. Yeager, J.G., and O'Brien, R.T., "Irradiation as a Means to Minimize Public Health Risks from Sludge -borne Pathogens," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 55(7) : 977-983. EO 101 O6. AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED Eighteenth State Legislature Regular Session of 1995 State of Hawaii State Office Tower 235 S. Beretania St. Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Hawaii County Council Office of Keiko Bonk -Abramson, Council Chair (808) 961-8225 National Marine Fisheries Service Hawaiian Monk Seal Program Tim Reagan 2570 Dole Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2396 O(808) 943-1280 National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center Honolulu Laboratory George H. Balazs 2570 Dole Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2396 (808) 943-1276 Puna Outdoor Circle Rene Siracusa (808) 965-6626 E- 25 C C Le C APPENDIX I PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN AND COSTS SUMMARY u PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PUAINAKO EXTENSION FROM KOMOHANA TO KILAUEA AVENUE Alignment "A" O/A Job No. 92014 Sheet 1 of 2 Date: 8119/98 ITEM QUAN- UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COS DESCRIPTION TITY 1a. 4"A.C. 64,000 sy 24.00 1,536,00000 1 b. 6" Base Course 12,215 cy 45.00 549,675.00 1c. 4" Untreated Permeable Base 8,362 cy 40.00 334,480 00 Course 2. Concrete curb & gutter (both 7,750 If 36.00 279,000.00 sides) 3. Concrete Curb (both sides, island 7,750 If 30.00 232,500.00 median) 4. 6" Topsoil & grassing 35,000 sy 10.00 350,000.00 5. 10' Wide Concrete Sidewalk, 4" 17,300 sy 45.00 778,500.00 Concrete with 4" Base Course 6. Excavation 122,000.00 cy 10.50 1,281,000.00 7. Embankment 25,000.00 cy 5.00 125,000.00 8. Reconstruct a portion of the Exist- 1 Budget 350,000.00 350,000.00 ing Waterline and Lateral in- cluding Fire Hydrants 9. Relocate Poles where necessary 1 Budget 250,000.00 250,000.00 10a. Retaining Walls (Decorative 1 Budget 465,000.00 465,000.00 Walls) 10b. Sound Barrier Walls 1 Budget 684,800.00 684,800.00 11a. Drainage Structures, Intake Struc- 1 Budget 2,300,000.00 2,300,000.00 tures & Drywells with Culverts 11b. Erosion Control (NPDES) 1 Budget 500,000.00 500,000 00 12. Misc. Items: fencing, barricades, 1 Budget 125,000.00 125,000.00 etc. PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION O/A Job No. 91003 & 92014PRELIMDS RPT O 13 Traffic Control 1 Budget 200,000.00 200,000 00 14. Intersection Signal Subtotal 1 Budget 7,100,000.00 7,100,000 00 a Kilauea Ave. ... 1,250,000.00 b. Kinoole St..... 850,000 00 c. Iwalanl / Kawili Intersections .... 1,500,000.00 d. Waiakea Elem. Ingress & Egress .. 2,000,000.00 (Nohea, Naniakea) e. Komohana St .. 1,500,000 00 15 Minor Street Improvements Subtotal 1 Budget 330,000.00 330,000 00 a Maikai St. . . ..... 20,000.00 b. Lokahi St. .... .... 20,000.00 c. Pamala St ......... 50,000.00 d. Kehaulanl St... .... 20,000.00 e. Anela St. .......... 20,000.00 f. Kanoelani St. ..... 100,000.00 g. Kapualani St ...... 100,000.00 16. Widening of Existing Komohana St. 1 Is 800,000.00 800,000.00 Bridge & Road 17. Construct Multiple Culverts over 1 19,140 2,296,800.00 2,296,800.00 Waiakea Flood Channel sf 18. Guard Rail 2500 If 45.00 112,500.00 SUBTOTAL ....................... ......... ....................... 20,980,255.00 777- 15% CONTINGENCY .................................................. 3,147,038.25 GRAND TOTAL ...................................................... 24,127,293.25 SAY............................................................... $24,127,300.00 PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION O/A Job No 91003 & 92014PRELIMDS.RPT N N EN o O O Lel N PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PUAINAKO EXTENSION FROM KOMOHANA TO KILAUEA AVENUE Alignment "B" O/A Job No. 92014 Sheet 1 of 2 Date: 8/19/98 ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTI- TY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1a. 4" A.C. 64,000 Sy 24.00 1,536,000.00 1 b. 6" Base Course 12,215 cy 45.00 549,675.00 1c. 4" Untreated Permeable Base Course 8,362 cy 40.00 334,480.00 2. Concrete Curb & Gutter (both sides) 7,750 If 36.00 279,000.00 3. Concrete Curb (both sides, island median) 7,750 If 30.00 232,500.00 4. 6" Topsoil & Grassing 35,000 Sy 10.00 350,000.00 5. 10' Wide Concrete Sidewalk, 4" Concrete w/4" Base Course 17,300 Sy 45.00 778,500.00 6. Excavation 122,000 1 cy 10.50 1,281,000.00 7. Embankment 25,000 cy 5.00 125,000.00 8. Reconstruct a portion of the Existing Waterline and Lateral including Fire Hydrants 1 Budget 350,000.00 350,000.00 9. Relocate Poles where necessary 1 Budget 250,000.00 250,000.00 10a. Retaining Walls (Decorative Walls) 1 Budget 465,000.00 465,000.00 10b. Sound Barrier Walls 1 Budget 1,093,000.00 1,093,000.00 II'!17.Dra:.n-':o8r.lruc!urR:, IIY7:'.n:>'3:.':!G- tures & Drywells with Culverts , S Huck"el _ ;in nn. (106 00. 11b. Erosion Control (NPDES) 1 Budget 500,000.00 500,000.00 12. Misc. Items: Fencing, Barricades, etc. 1 Budget 125,000.00 125,000.00 13. Traffic Control 1 Budget 200,000.00 200,000.00 PLIAINAKO STREET EXTENSION O/A Job No. 91003 & 92014PRELIMDS RPT 14. Intersection Signal Subtotal 1 Budget 7,100,000 00 7,100,000 00 a. Kilauea Ave. .. . 1,250,000.00 b. Kinoale St....... . 850,000 00 c. Iwalanl / Kawlli Intersections .. 1,500,000.00 d. Walakea Elem Ingress & Egress .. 2,000,000 00 (Nohea, Naniakea) e. Komohana Street 1,500,000.00 15. Minor Street Improvements Subtotal 1 Budget 330,000.00 330,000.00 a. Maikai St........... 20,000.00 b. Lokahi St. ...... 20,000.00 c. Pamala St... ...... 50,800.00 d. Kehaulani St........ 20,000.00 e. Anela St. ..... .... 20,000.00 f. Kanoelani St....... 100,000.00 g. Kapualanl St .. 100,000.00 16. Widening of Existing Komohana St. 1 Is 800,000.00 800,000.00 Bridge & Road 17 Guard Rail 2500 If 45.00 112,500 00 SUBTOTAL ................................. ................. 19,091,655.00 15% CONTINGENCY ........................ .... ................. 2,863,748.25 GRAND TOTAL ................................................... 21,955,403.25 SAY............................................................ $21,955,500.00 PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION O/A Job No. 91003 & 92014PRELIMDS RPT U N N X N PROBABLE COST ESTIMATE Project: Puainako Street (Komohana St. to Kaumana Dr.) Alignment No. 1 (4.6 ml ) Engineer: Colin Hashiro Date Prepared: August 19, 1998 Item No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension 0001 Clearing and Grubbing 4500 ac 4,500.00 202,500 00 0002 Excavation (2 Lane) 167,000.00 cy 10.50 1,753,500.00 0003 Embankment 118,000.00 cy 5.00 590,000 00 0004 Untreated Permeable Base Course (4") 8,690.00 cy 40.00 347,600.00 0005 Base Course (6") 23,460 00 cy 45.00 1,055,700 00 0006 A.C. Pavement (4" Travel Way) 75,150.00 sy 24.00 1,803,600.00 0007 A.C. Pavement (2" Shoulder) 62,550.00 sy 12.00 750,600.00 0008 a. Drainage Structures 1.00 Is 4,968,300.00 4,968,300.00 0009 b. Erosion Control (NPDES) 1.00 Is 500,000.00 500,000.00 0010 Construct Multiple Culverts over Waiakea Flood Channel 19,140.00 sf 120.00 2,296,800.00 0011 Signs & Delineators 1.00 Is 16,000.00 16,000.00 0012 Striping 61,500.00 If 0.80 49,200 00 0013 Guard Rall 7,500.00 If 45.00 337,500 00 0014 6" Topsoil & Grassing 99,800.00 sy 10.00 998,000.00 0015 Traffic Control 1.00 Is 100,000.00 100,000.00 0016 Mobilization I Demobilization 1.00 Is 250,000.00 250,000.00 17 Relocate Existing Utilities 1.00 Is 200,000.00 200,000.00 0018a Retaining Walls 1.00 Is 350,000.00 350,000.00 0018b Sound Barrier Walls 1.00 Is 5,098,500.00 5,098,500.00 0019 Intersection Widening @ Wilder, Edita, Saddle Road 1.00 Is 400,000.00 400,000.00 0020 I Miscellnneous Fencing, veli- neators 1 00 Is 150,nno.no 150,000.00 0021 Concrete Curb 1 2,500.00 If 1 15.00 37,500.00 TOTAL........................................................... 22,255,300.00 CONTINGENCY (@15%) ............................................. 3,338,295.00 GRAND TOTAL....................................................25,593,595.00 SAY.............................................................. 25,593,600.00 PIJAINAKO STREET EXTENSION O/A Job No. 91003 & 92014PRELIMDS.RPT PROBABLE COST ESTIMATE Project: Puainako Street (Komohana St. to Kaumana Dr.) Alignment No. 2 (5.1 ml.) o Engineer. Colin Hashiro nAtp Prpnnrpri Aiimict 1Q 1QQR Item No, Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension 0001 Clearing and Grubbing 47 ac 4,50000 211,500.00 0002 Excavation & Embankment (2 Lane) 326,500 00 cy 10.50 3,428,250.00 0003 Embankment 167,500.00 cy 5.00 837,500.00 0004 Untreated Permeable Base Course (4") 9,570 cy 4000 382,800.00 0005 Base Course (6") 25,840 cy 45.00 1,162,800.00 0006 A.C. Pavement (4" Travel Way) 88,900 Sy 24.00 2,133,600.00 0007. A.C. Pavement (2" Shoulder) 68,900 Sy 12.00 826,800.00 0008 a. Drainage Structures 1 Is 7,463,600.00 7,463,600.00 0009 b.Erosion Control (NPDES) 1 Is 500,000.00 500,000.00 0010 Signs & Delineators 1 Is 18,000.00 18,000.00 0011 Striping 68,000 If .80 54,400.00 0012 Guard Rail 12,000 If 45.00 540,000.00 0013 6" Topsoil & Grassing 99,040 sy 10.00 990,400.00 0014 Traffic Control 1 Is 100,000.00 100,000.00 0015 Mobilization / Demobilization 1 Is 250,000.00 250,000.00 0016 Relocate Existing Utilities 1 Is 200,000.00 200,000.00 0017a Retaining Walls 1 Is 350,000.00 350,000.00 0017b Sound Barrier Walls 1 Is 1,915,300.00 1,915,300.00 18 Intersection Widening @ Wilder, Edita, Saddle Road 1 Is 400,000.00 400,000.00 0019 0020 Miscellaneous Fencing, Delin- t?0 IS Concrete Curb 1 2500 Is If 150,000.00 15.00 150,000.00 37,500.00 0021 Construct Multiple Culverts Over Waiake Flood Channel -W140sf 120.00 2,296,800.00 TOTAL........................................................... 24,249,250.00 CONTINGENCY (@15%) ............................................. 3,637,387.50 GRAND TOTAL .................................................... 27,886,637.50 11 SAY.............................................................. 27,886,700.00 PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION O/A Job No. 91003 & 92014PRELIMDS.RPT K N 0 o COST COMPARISON SUMMARY LOWER PUAINAKO: 1. Alignment "A": $20,980,255* 2. Alignment "B": $19,091,655* UPPER PUAINAKO: A. Connect to Lower Puainako Alternate "A" 1. Alternative 1 : $19,958,500* 2. Alternative 2 : $21,952,450* B. Connect to Lower Puainako Alternate "B" 1. Alternative 1 : $22,255,300* 2. Alternative 2 : $24,249,250* LOWER PUAINAKO + UPPER PUAINAKO: 1. Alignment "A" + Alternative 1: $20,980,255 + $19,958,500 = $40,938,755* 2. Alignment "A" + Alternative 2: $20,980,255 + $21,952,450 = $42,932,705* 0 3. Alignment "B" + Alternative 1: $19,091,655 + $22,255,300 = $41,346,955* 4. Alignment "B" +Alternative 2: $19,091,655 + $24,249,250 = $43,340,905* *Does not include 15% contingency 7 C APPENDIX J FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING DOCUMENTATION C C 6 O O PUAINAKO WIDENING AND EXTENSION PROJECT FORM AD -1006 SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA RATIONALE Nct-: Site assessment criteria from 7 CFR 553 5(b). Per 7 CFR 558.5(c),-ecause t._s proj=Ct area is of corridor type, criteria 5 and 6 net considered, and c__t_ria and 1_ are aach scored 0-25 pts. Alternatives A and E on Form AD -1705 c__resccnd to Alternat' e Alignments 1 and 2 below. (1) Area in Non -Urban Use. "How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 miles from where the project is intended?" Scoring: >90%: 15 pts.; 90-20%: 14-1 pts.; <20%: 0 pts. According to Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Maps that are part of the General Plan, Hawaii County (1989), the breakdown of uses within a one -mile radius of the Alternatives is approximately as follows: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Urban* 706 60% Non -Urban** 30% 40% Rating *** 2 4 Notes:* Based on LUPAG only, not zoning or actual use. Includes Medium O Density Urban Development, Low Density Urban Development, Urban Expansion (General), University Use. ** Includes Intensive Agricultural, Orchards, Conservation. *** On a scale of 14 to 1 points, with 14 representing 90 percent non -urban and 1 representing less than 20 percent (7 CFR 658.5(b)(1). Converted tc practical equation below: Rating = Percent non -urban - 20 X 15 points 70 (2) Perimeter in Non -Urban Use. "How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in non- urban use?" According to Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Maps that are part of the General Plan, Hawaii County (1989), the breakdown of uses along the perimeter of the Alternatives is approximately as follows: Al,t.ern., t;. e,.. P,1tcrnatJ-ve 2 Urban* >80 '75% Non -Urban** <201 25% Rating *** 0 1 Notes: * Includes Medium Density Urban Development, Low Density Urban Development, Urban Expansion (General), University Use. ** Includes Intensive Agricultural, Orchards, Conservation. *** On a scale of 10 to 1 points, with 10 representing 90 percent non -urban Oand 1 representing less than 20 percent (7 CFA 658.5(6)(2). Converted to 1 (3) (4) (7) practical =cuat_on be'_cw: O Rating = Percent ncn-urban - 20 Y 10 poin`s 7G Percent of Site Being Farmed "How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last 10 years?" Scoring: >90%: 20 pts; 90-20%: 19-1 pts.; <20%:0 pts. According to site reconnaissance and discussion with State and County officials, farming activities occupy the following percentages of the Alternatives: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Farmed < 2 percent 0 percent Rating 0 0 Protection Provided by State and Local Government "Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmlands?" O Scoring: Site protected: 20 pts.; Site not protected: 0 pts. No part of either Alternative Alignment is subject to such protections. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Rating: 0 0 Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average "Is the farm unit containing the site (before the project) as large as the average -size farming unit in the county?,, Scoring: As large or larger: 10 pts; Below average: deduct 1 ptfor each 591; below the average, down to 0 ptg. .if. 501 or According to statistics from 1992 Census of Agriculture, the average farm size in Hawaii County is 462 acres. The farm affected by Alignment 1 is less than 5 acres. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Rating: 0 0 2 L91 1*1 C IN (8) Creation of Nonfarmable Farmland "If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns?" Scoring: Acreage equal to more than 25% of acres directly converted by project: 25 pts; Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project: 24-1 pts.; Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the land directly converted by the project: 0 pts. Only one farm will be affected by the project. No aspect of the project would intrinsically prevent the farming of most of the remainder of the land, although the farmer may prefer more secluded location. Because percentage is indeterminate, the rating given was intermediate. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Rating: 12 0 (9) Availability of Farm Support Services "Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets; i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmers, markets?,, Scoring: All required services are available: 5 pts.; Some required services are available: 4 pts; No required services are available: o pts. Alternative 1 Rating: 5 (10) On -Farm Investments Alternative 2 5 "Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barn, other storage buildings, fruit trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures?" Scor:i.o,• lii ): attl+'Jl.0 i I- of iri -tanfi 'inv , 2:0 . , !'!i amount: 10-1 pts.; No on-farm investments: 0 points. The one farm investments. Rating present has a low -moderate level of on-farm Alternative 1 5 3 Alternative 2 0 0 0 , (11) Effects of Conversion on Farm Support Services O "Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?" Scoring: Substantial reduction in demand for suppo2:_ services if the site is converted 25 pts.; Some reduction: 9-1 pts; No reduction: 0 pts. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Rating: 0 0 (12) Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use "Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to non-agricultural use?" Scoring: Proposed project is incompatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland: 10 pts.; Is tolerable: 9-1 pts.; Fully compatible: 0 pts. There is very little farmland near the project. Some of this O land, however, may increase slightly in value because of the proposed project, exerting some pressure to convert farmland to non-agricultural use. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Rating: 3 3 IM C! P n:.os.:d Land Use 1.o,rty Ann State Hi ohvav I Sf atc nF P,,.:aii inletr: PART I I (robe completed by SCSI Oate Request Received By SCS 8/1/95 LI.S Dep,irti i—it nl ,'.iincuiturc acres Irr,gat,:dj I- 12,899 358 O Farmable Land In Govt Jurisdiction Acres: 727, 700 %28 Amount Of Farml,tnn . Aaes 569,000 Name Of Land Evaluation System Used State of Hawaii, LESA Name Of Local Srte Assessment System None FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART To be c >n,:: l:; �� r i, 01 Lane E:,iwl,l„n A Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland rlar P;"ect., Puainako Widening and lei al Agr,ncv Invol nol Extension Dep[. o[ P n:.os.:d Land Use 1.o,rty Ann State Hi ohvav I Sf atc nF P,,.:aii inletr: PART I I (robe completed by SCSI Oate Request Received By SCS 8/1/95 Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No llf no, the FPPA does nor apply — do not complete additional parts of this form). $] ❑ acres Irr,gat,:dj I- 12,899 358 Malo, Crop(s) Sugarcane, Macnuts, Coffee, Beef Farmable Land In Govt Jurisdiction Acres: 727, 700 %28 Amount Of Farml,tnn . Aaes 569,000 Name Of Land Evaluation System Used State of Hawaii, LESA Name Of Local Srte Assessment System None Date Land Ev�luatinn 8/8/95 'ART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) • •rilali_.. site A 511e B Se . A, Total Acres To Be Converted Directly I 7A -q RS -9 B Total Acres To Be Converter) Indirectly — _ 1-0- 0- C Total Acres In Site 1 76.9 85.2 PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information 7 .7 j .001 8.5 .00.1 A Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland B Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Convw L,id D Percentage Of Ferrnland In Govt Ju ,sd,ct,on With Same Or Higher R<iative due 19.3- L5.8 PORT V (To be comp/eyed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion 81 82 �j Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (ScaleofO to 100F,, - 'sj I RT V1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) S. t, Arsssment C, r,gna (These rntena are exolamed in 7 CFR 658 516) °n Area In Nonurban Use 15 2 4 2 Perimeter In Nonurban Us,, 10 — 3 Percent Or Site 9eing Farmed _ + — 20 � 0 T— ` 0 4 Protect on Provided By State And Local Government _ _ - 20 - _ _-_ 0 i_ 0 5 -Distance From Urban Bulltup Area 0 _N/_-. N/A o Distance To Urban Support Services 0 N /A _ N/A 7 Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 _. 3 Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland i 25 12 i _ _ 9 Availability Of Farm Support Services 5 _ - 5 _ 5- 10 On Farm Investments 20 ' 5 0 _stm__ _ _ t. 11 Effects Of Conversion On Farm Su - -- pportServices- _ --- 25 _ _ r ;------- 0-_ --- —!__ 12 Compatibility With Existing Agncultural Use 10 3 f -A TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 1f'. 27 13 PARI VII tTo he completed by iseoeral Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 10, 81 82 Total Site Assessment /From Part VI above o. a local ,�, 27 13 S i t e .ssessmen t) `OT.AL POINTS iTl,al ofahove 1l,nes/ ?u' 108 I vv” Selected Dat, Of Selection i 0 NO X C C C APPENDIX K ACOUSTIC STUDY m E6 ACOUSTIC STUDY FOR THE PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION PROJECT KANOELEHUA AVE. TO SADDLE RD. H I LO, HAWAII Prepared for: Y.K. HAHN & ASSOCIATES Prepared by: Y. EBISU & ASSOCIATES 1126 12th Avenue, Room 305 Honolulu, Hawaii 96816 OCTOBER 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO. LIST OF FIGURES .................................. LIST OF TABLES ................................... iv I. SUMMARY .......................................... I-1 II. GENERAL STUDY METHODOLOGY Noise Measurements ............................. II -1 Traffic Noise Predictions ...................... II -1 Impact Assessments and Mitigation .............. II -13 III. EXISTING ACOUSTICAL ENVIRONMENT Along Puainako Street .......................... III -1 At Locations Removed from Puainako Street ...... III -5 IV. COMPARISONS OF FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS UNDER THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES ................. IV -1 V. POSSIBLE NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES ............... V-1 VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES ...................... VI -1 VII. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS ....................... VII -1 APPENDIX: A. REFERENCES ....................................... A-1 B. EXCERPTS FROM EPA'S ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY GUIDE ... B-1 - i - \0J C • LJ OLIST OF FIGURES NUMBER FIGURE TITLE PAGE NO. 1 LOCATIONS OF NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES ............. II -2 2 HISTOGRAM OF MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT LOCATION "E" (0930 - 1000 HOURS) ............... II -6 3 HISTOGRAM OF MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT LOCATION "F" (1515 - 1545 HOURS) ............... II -7 4 HISTOGRAM OF MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT LOCATION "G" (1100 - 1130 HOURS) ............... II -8 5 HISTOGRAM OF MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT LOCATION "H" (1155 - 1225 HOURS) ............... II -9 6 HISTOGRAM OF MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT LOCATION "I" (1000 - 1030 HOURS) ............... II -10 7 HISTOGRAM OF MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT LOCATION "J" (1145 - 1215 HOURS) ............... II -11 8 LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION O PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND ALIGNMENTS IV -2 9A PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF WIDENED LOWER PUAINAKO STREET SECTION ................................. IV -14 9B PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF LOWER PUAINAKO STREET BYPASS ALTERNATIVE "B" ......................... IV -15 9C PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF BYPASS ALTERNATIVE "B" AND START OF EXTENSION TOWARD SADDLE ROAD ...... IV -16 9D PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF UPPER PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION AT SUNRISE ESTATES ................... IV -17 9E PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1 EAST OF EDITA ROAD CROSSING ....... IV -18 9F PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1 AT PACIFIC PLANTATION ............. IV -19 9G PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1 EAST OF WILDER ROAD CROSSING ...... IV -20 9H PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1 WEST OF WILDER ROAD CROSSING ...... IV -21 O 9I PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1 AT KAUMANA DRIVE END .............. IV -22 0 0 QA .... LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) O' NUMBER FIGURE TITLE PAGE NO. 10 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS VS. DISTANCE ........... VII -2 C O IN LJ LIST OF TABLES NUMBER TABLE TITLE PAGE NO. 1 TRAFFIC NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS ................ II -4 2 BACKGROUND AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS ..... II -5 3 FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA .................... II -14 4A EXISTING CONDITIONS; YEAR 1994; AM PEAK HR. SETBACK DISTANCES .............................. III -2 4B EXISTING CONDITIONS; YEAR 1994; PM PEAK HR. SETBACK DISTANCES .............................. III -3 4C IDENTIFICATION OF PUAINAKO STREET, BYPASS, AND EXTENSION ROADWAY SEGMENTS ................. III -4 5A LIST OF NOISE IMPACTED (67 Leq) EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAND AREAS DURING THE BASE YEAR; (CY 1994, AM PEAK) .................. III -6 5B LIST OF NOISE IMPACTED (67 Leq) EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAND AREAS DURING THE BASE YEAR; (CY 1994, PM PEAK) .................. III -7 6A COMPARISONS OF EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IN PROJECT ENVIRONS (AM PEAK HOUR) ...... IV -3 6B _COMPARISONS OF EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IN PROJECT ENVIRONS (PM PEAK HOUR) ...... IV -4 7A EXISTING AND FUTURE DISTANCES TO 57, 67, AND 72 LEQ CONTOURS (AM PEAK HOUR) ................. IV -5 7B EXISTING AND FUTURE DISTANCES TO 57, 67, AND 72 LEQ CONTOURS (PM PEAK HOUR) ................. IV -6 8A NO -BUILD; BASE CONDITIONS; YEAR 2020; AM PEAK HR. SETBACK DISTANCES .......................... IV -7 8B NO -BUILD; BASE CONDITIONS; YEAR 2020; PM PEAK HR. SETBACK DISTANCES .......................... IV -S 8C BUILD ALTERNATIVES; YEAR 2020; AM PEAK HR. SETBACK DISTANCES .............................. IV -9 8D BUILD ALTERNATIVES; YEAR 2020; PM PEAK HR. SETBACK DISTANCES .............................. IV -10 -iv- LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) O NUMBER TABLE TITLE PAGE NO. 9A LIST OF NOISE IMPACTED EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAND AREAS WITHOUT PROJECT; YEAR 2020 (AM PEAK) ...................................... IV -23 9B LIST OF NOISE IMPACTED EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAND AREAS WITHOUT PROJECT; YEAR 2020 (PM PEAK) ...................................... IV -24 9C LIST OF NOISE IMPACTED EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAND AREAS WITH PROJECT ALONG PUAINAKO STREET IMPROVEMENTS; YEAR 2020 (AM OR PM PEAK) ........ IV -25 9D LIST OF NOISE IMPACTED EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAND AREAS WITH PROJECT ALONG EXTENSION ALIGNMENTS #1 AND #2; YEAR 2020 (AM OR PM PEAK). IV -26 10 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AT NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS #1 THRU #16 (PUAINAKO STREET) .................. IV -27 11A SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE o LEVELS AT NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS #17 THRU #34 (EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1) .......... IV -30 11B SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AT NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS #35 THRU #52 (EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1) .......... IV -31 12 AVAILABLE WORK HOURS UNDER DOH PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR CONSTRUCTION NOISE ......................... VII -4 - v - 0 a O O CHAPTER I. SUMMARY The existing and future traffic noise along the corridor of the proposed Puainako Street Extension from Kanoelehua Avenue to Saddle Road (Kaumana Drive) in Hilo on the island of Hawaii were studied to evaluate potential noise impacts associated with the No Build and various Build Alternatives of the highway improvement project. Noise measurements were obtained, traffic noise predic- tions developed, and noise abatement alternatives evaluated. The Build Alternatives evaluated were: A. Widening of the existing lower section of Puainako Street from two to four thru lanes from Kilauea Avenue to Waiakea High School (Phase I); B. Bypassing the existing lower section of Puainako Street Cbetween Waiakea High School and west of Komohana Street with a new, four lane highway along Alternate Alignments "A" or "B" (Phase I); and C. Completing the extension of the upper section of Puainako Street to Saddle Road with a new, four lane highway along Alternate Alignments #1 or #2 (Phase II). Existing traffic noise levels along Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue to Komohana Street exceed the 67 Leq FHWA noise abatement criteria at approximately 9 to 11 dwelling units. Exis- ting noise levels at 3 churches, Waiakea Elementary School, and Waiakea Intermediate School do not exceed the 67 Leq FHWA noise abatement criteria. At areas removed from Puainako Street, such as the vacant lands west of Komohana Street, and the backyards of residences along Kuamana Drive (Saddle Road) and feeder roads, existing traffic noise levels are very low, typically less than 57 CLeq(h), and possibly as low as 35 Leq(h). In these less populated Page I-1 areas, local or distant highway traffic, birds, dogs, or wind and O foliage tend to be the dominant noise sources. Existing noise levels at these inland areas are typically less than both FHWA exterior noise abatement criteria of 67 and 57 Leq(h). The following general conclusions can be made in respect to the potential traffic noise impacts and recommended noise mitiga- tion measures associated with the Build Alternatives: A. Widening of the existing lower section of Puainako Street should not result in traffic noise increases which exceed FHWA or Hawaii State DOT noise standards or noise abatement criteria. Therefore, traffic noise mitigation measures should not be re- quired for this portion of the proposed project. B. The construction of the proposed Bypass Alternative "B" will increase background ambient noise le5els by more than the State DOT 1115 dB" criteria in the back yards of 24 homes. The O construction of sound attenuation walls at these affected homes is the recommended noise mitigation measure. It should be noted that the construction of the proposed Bypass Alignment will reduce existing traffic noise levels below the 67 Leq FHWA standard at the front yards of 10 existing homes along the section of Puainako Street which will be bypassed. C. The construction of the Puainako Street Extension Align- ment #1 is expected to result in increased traffic noise at exis- ting and future residences of the new Pacific Plantation Subdivi- sion, existing residences northeast of the Edita Road crossing, existing residences at the Uhaloa Road cul-de-sac, existing residences south of the Wilder Road crossing, and future residen- ces of the planned Sunrise Estates Subdivision. Although future traffic noise levels are not expected to exceed the 67 Leq FHWA standard, increases in background ambient noise levels due to the new roadway are predicted to exceed the State DOT 1115 dB" cri- O Page I-2 Cteria in these areas. Traffic noise mitigation measures in the form of noise barrier construction are warranted and should be examined according to the criteria of reasonable and feasible along the planned extension alignment where the affected dwelling units are located. In some instances, the required height of the sound attenuation walls substantially exceed eight feet, and complete mitigation of the increased noise levels due to the new roadway may not be practical with sound attenuation walls. Unavoidable increases in background ambient noise levels at the quiet upper areas along the selected extension alignment are expected to occur if the bypass is built. In essence, if the Puainako Street Extension to Saddle Road is constructed as planned, a redistribution of future traffic noise will occur from the existing lower sections of Saddle Road to locations along the selected extension alignment. This redistribution, however, will minimize future traffic noise impacts along the lower Saddle Road Ccorridor. I LJ Page I-3 O O e CHAPTER II. GENERAL STUDY METHODOLOGY O Noise Measurements. Existing traffic and background ambient noise levels at ten locations along the project corridor were measured in May 1995. The traffic noise measurements were used to calibrate the traffic noise model which was used to calculate the Base Year and future year traffic noise levels under the various improvement alternatives. The background ambient noise measure- ments were used to define existing noise levels at noise sensitive receptors which may be affected by the project, and to determine if future traffic noise levels are predicted to "substantially exceed" existing background ambient noise levels at these noise sensitive receptors and therefore exceed FHWA (U.S. Federal High- way Administration) and State DOT (Department of Transportation, Highways Division) standards. The noise measurement locations are shown in FIGURE 1. The results of the traffic noise measurements are summarized in TABLE 1. The results of the background ambient noise measurements are summarized in TABLE 2 and FIGURES 2 thru 7. In the tables and histograms, Leq represents the average (or equivalent), A -weight- ed, sound level; L10 and L50 represent the sound levels exceeded 10 and 50 percent of the time, respectively; and Lmax and Lmin represent the maximum and minimum sound levels. A list and de- scription of the acoustical terminology used is contained in APPENDIX B. Traffic Noise Predictions. The Federal Highway Administra- tion (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model (Reference 1) was used as the primary method of calculating Base Year and future traffic noise levels, with model parameters adjusted to reflect terrain, ground cover, and local shielding conditions. At the four traffic noise measurement locations along Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive, (Sites A thru D), the measured noise levels were compared with model predictions to insure that measured and calculated O Page II -1 O O Location IF/ /— 3 o/ / } � •: ti 4�—! il� . Location A , _ •'- \ <oo LOCatlon 6 f• 9ehw1� T^'7 k Location E 7 < - ■ "° fir123 t U 0 L. water T. 0 o I HAIHAI 96 '•II. _ water 'r/2 5 3 p n - t i m L) - HJo Golf . Course—_ g 11 I .1 TRIE \ ■ 1 �\ •BM 9B _ �� I ., � •SII,• 11l ���\\ � LOCATIONS OF NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES Page II -2 FIGURE 1000 0 1000 2000 Seh N SCALE IN FEET s� 0 240 480 720 900 SCALE IN METERS I r •, 1\ lu mit a 1 / -RyI.�.■II -� ■ ( I Cllim 1�i 5I1 t. �•,� S Y . \T2 IL— •"tvI—T Location IF/ /— 3 o/ / } � •: ti 4�—! il� . Location A , _ •'- \ <oo LOCatlon 6 f• 9ehw1� T^'7 k Location E 7 < - ■ "° fir123 t U 0 L. water T. 0 o I HAIHAI 96 '•II. _ water 'r/2 5 3 p n - t i m L) - HJo Golf . Course—_ g 11 I .1 TRIE \ ■ 1 �\ •BM 9B _ �� I ., � •SII,• 11l ���\\ � LOCATIONS OF NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES Page II -2 FIGURE O O ,Doo 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET O c . I 0 240 480 720 960 SCALE IN METERS Spn ng ,1. Yid* as / Kaumana�; ' yrOP orNE ,yumana ,N -ien 112 Cave p� Location D --�- - —""y KA'J ;i_'i POVAqjC AI co _ �:•> E Location G Location I tt I I .. lo"I / P tti%C n p6R•t o° I ''I�' V •ountry Club Location H s�o jLocation J / 74 I i A abs oP�i-�; w n LOCATIONS OF NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES FIGURE 1 (CONT) Page II -3 0 0 O 0 0 0 mm _ U n N n Co (D tD CD O (D (0 LO � O CL —� mm O CO N O D tod to CD (o CD (0 LO J IY IU m = N CA Co n N Q T -� O = W VY Cin n m N O O Cr) CC T T LLI 24 iLLI 7 = O NN � I � pO M O LV � I? C Co n CO O er LU i m W CL m a LO LO CO CO CO)OCO Cl) Cl) LO � V' O m Z > Q U LL Q Q oQ �O� (�n0N �Ot NON �Ov Co00«� roi0coO E _ (g F- n CO F 01 ~ ~ r o~ o 0 0 0 0~ 0 0~ o o~ H m g m m m m m m� m Co 4) 4) U) U p U £ Y U 0 0 U U D U Y C O -All 1C Co. e le -, le E U0(L LO oa'(o 0a(n 0a'(a oa(n Da'io ccl oy(n t rn rn rn rn J= rn rn w rn LL 0 LL m; LL "a; LL "6 0 LL ma LLL m0 LL m0 N C v N C v t C v LO C .5�. N C .�.. � C v (OD G U) Ln Q Q m m m U Ci Page II -4 0 0 mm �a N CM m LO a m E N N N N J • LJ C J m m � 7 a o Of T Lp T a LU cr CD d a a a Cl) Cl) m J H Z W W 2 � a m ma Q W H x a' o �o a �n N N i m E LO (0 LO n LO W W J J y m � Q Z H z Z 7+ W_ � p m w t O� N LO �N� oT = oo T TLO T To r N � NE To TLO T TOo TLOOC TLO pQ Z O/� 'LV v Y U m C13 'o ` ro m E YN o O O O Z i° ° v L L m O'x E 0 L a v_ N S n O toO � rn �°i C7 E m°�' 'a C 2 LO 0 LO as J«\ m M N O Y O O m 0 m� 03� Q� O o� ¢� W LL d _ Page II -5 • LJ C 0 101 u 0 0 FIGURE 2 HISTOGRAM OF MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT LOCATION 'E' DATE: MAY 4, 1995 TIME: 0930-1000 HOURS METER RESPONSE: FAST 3 2 1 0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 MEASURED SOUND LEVELS (dBA) Page II -6 Lmax: 58.9 dBA L10: 50.1 dBA L50: 45.6 dBA Leq: 47.0 dBA Lmin: 38.0 dBA I I -- • �I I�I ' I'lll 3 2 1 0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 MEASURED SOUND LEVELS (dBA) Page II -6 Lmax: 58.9 dBA L10: 50.1 dBA L50: 45.6 dBA Leq: 47.0 dBA Lmin: 38.0 dBA z z w U W a z_ m z O ¢ w m m O u- 0 O ¢ m D D 2 FIGURE 3 HISTOGRAM OF MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT LOCATION 'F' DATE: MAY 3, 1995 TIME: 1515-1545 HOURS METER RESPONSE: FAST / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 25 / 35 40 45 50 55 .1, MEASURED SOUND LEVELS (dBA) Page II -7 Lmax: 63.0 dBA L10: 50.1 dBA L50: 47.6 dBA Leq: 47.9 dBA Lmin: 35.7 dBA W C 8 0 o FIGURE 4 HISTOGRAM OF MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT LOCATION 'G' 15 14 13 F 12 m DATE: MAY 3, 1995 METER RESPONSE: FAST TIME: 1100-1130 HOURS 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 MEASURED SOUND LEVELS (dBA) Page II -8 Lmax: z L10: 43.6 dBA w 37.1 dBA Leq: � 11 28.5 dBA w (L 10 z _ co 9 z O a 8 O w 7 U) m O 6 u- 0 O 5 2 W m 4 z 3 2 1 0 m DATE: MAY 3, 1995 METER RESPONSE: FAST TIME: 1100-1130 HOURS 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 MEASURED SOUND LEVELS (dBA) Page II -8 Lmax: 60.6 dBA L10: 43.6 dBA L50: 37.1 dBA Leq: 41.1 dBA Lmin: 28.5 dBA z w U m w a - z z m z O a w m m O u- 0 O cr w m D D z 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 0 FIGURE 5 a HISTOGRAM OF MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT LOCATION 'H' DATE: MAY 3, 1995 METER RESPONSE: FAST TIME: 1155-1225 HOURS 25 30 35 40 45 50 MEASURED SOUND LEVELS (dBA) Page II -9 55 60 Lmax: 58.4 dBA L70: 38.1 dBA L50: 33.6 dBA Leq: 38.6 dBA Lmin: 26.8 dBA O • LJ 0 n Page II -10 FIGURE 6 HISTOGRAM OF MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT LOCATION 01' DATE: MAY 3, 1995 METER RESPONSE: FAST TIME: 1000-1030 HOURS 15 14 13 12 z Lu 11 Q w 10 z cn 9 z 0 ` !;i 8 U m 0 6 LL 0 5 Q w m 4 Z) z 3 2 ills 1 0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 MEASURED SOUND LEVELS (dBA) Lmax: 58.5 dBA L70: 43.1 dBA L50: 34.1 dBA Leq: 39.1 dBA Lmin: 26.9 dBA Page II -10 O O 5 Page II -11 FIGURE 7 HISTOGRAM OF MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT LOCATION 'J' DATE: MAY 2, 1995 METER RESPONSE: FAST TIME: 1145-1215 HOURS 15 14 13 12 z w 11 � w a. 10 z_ m 9 z o 6 a w 7 CD m 0 6 LL 0 5 Q w m 4 D z 3 2 1 0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 MEASURED SOUND LEVELS (dBA) Lmax: 57.2 dBA L10: 38.6 dBA L50: 31.6 dBA Leq: 35.4 dBA O Lmin: 24.1 dBA Page II -11 O noise levels for the existing conditions were consistent and in general agreement. As indicated in TABLE 1, spot counts of traf- fic volumes were obtained during the measurement periods and were used to generate the Equivalent Sound Level (Leg) predictions shown in the table. The agreement between measured and predicted traffic noise.levels was considered good, and sufficiently accu- rate to formulate the Base Year and future year traffic noise levels. Base Year traffic noise contours were then developed along Puainako Street using Base Year (1994) traffic volume data for the AM and PM peak hours from Reference 2. Traffic mix by vehicle types and average vehicle speeds for the various sections of the existing and future roadway alignments were derived from observa- tions during the noise monitoring periods and from Reference 3. The determination of the period of highest hourly traffic volumes along Puainako Street was made after a review of the Base Year AM Oand PM traffic volumes from Reference 2. The Equivalent (or Aver- age) Hourly Sound Level [Leq(h)] noise descriptor was used to cal- culate the Base Year and all future year traffic noise levels as required by Reference 4. Topographic maps and project plans (where available) of the area were used to determine terrain, ground cover, and local shielding effects from building struc- tures, which were entered into the noise prediction model. Future year (2020) traffic noise levels were then developed for the No Build and Build Alternatives (roadway widening, bypass, and extension) using the future traffic assignments of Reference 2, the topographic and existing development features described previously, and the highway alignments and profiles of the widen- ing Alternative, Bypass Alternative "B", and Extension Alignment #1. Detailed roadway cross-sections were not available for this study. The CY 2020 traffic assignments for the No Build Alternative reflected the forecasted demand traffic volumes along the existing Osections of Puainako Street during the AM and PM,peak hours. Fu - Page II -12 O Q 6 ture traffic conditions under the No Build Alternative may worsen O if the capacity of the'existing roadway system cannot accommodate the forecasted demand. Traffic assignments for the No Build Al- ternative under these constrained conditions were not available, but it was assumed that the excess volumes would tend to overflow into the hours adjacent to the historical peak hours. The resul- ting traffic noise levels during the AM and PM peak hours under the No Build Alternative were calculated for unconstrained condi- tions (i.e., average vehicle speeds similar to existing condi- tions), with the knowledge that these conditions may occur at hours other than the historical peak hours, and that they would tend to reflect a "worst case" rather than "average" prediction of noise levels along Puainako Street under the No Build Alterna- tive. Impact Assessments and Mitigation. Following the calculation of the future traffic noise levels for the various alternatives, O comparisons of the future traffic noise levels and impacts among the alternatives were made. Comparisons of predicted future traf- fic noise levels with FHWA noise abatement criteria (see TABLE 3) were made to determine specific locations where noise abatement measures would be necessary. In addition, the State DOT's crite- ria of "greater than 15 dB increase above existing background noise levels" was also used as a noise abatement threshold for this project (from Reference 5). At the planned development areas which are currently vacant, the locations of the 57, 60, 65, 67, and 72 Leq(h) traffic noise contours, without the benefit of shielding from natural terrain or man-made sound barriers, were provided for siting future noise sensitive land uses along the existing and new sections of Puainako Street, and for defining the adequate buffer space between the roadway sections and these land uses. The FHWA 67 Leq(h) shown in TABLE 3 and the State DOT "greater than 15 dB increase" criteria were applied to all dwell- ings, churches, schools, and public parks along the existing and O Page II -13 0 TABLE 3 0 FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA [Hourly A—Weighted Sound Level --Decibels (dBA)] ACTIVITY CATEGORY LEQ (H) DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY A 57 (Exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extra— ordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the areas are to continue to serve their intended purpose. B 67 (Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, activity sports aFeas, parks, residences, motels, ohotels, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 (Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above. N D ------ Undeveloped lands. E 52 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Page II -14 0 o a proposed sections of Puainako Street. Where noise mitigation mea- O sures were indicated, the use of noise barriers was tested to de- termine if the barriers would reduce noise levels by 5 dBA. Footnote: In October 1996, subsequent to the performance of this study, HDOT drafted its "Noise Analysis and Abatement Poli- cy," which for the first time clearly defines the terms "substan- tially exceed" as 15 dBA and "approach" as at least 1 dBA less than the Noise Abatement Criteria for a particular land use as defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Terminology and, to some degree, evaluation have been revised in this report in an attempt to be as consistent with the new policy as possible. M Page II -15 N & O O CHAPTER III. EXISTING ACOUSTICAL ENVIRONMENT Along Puainako Street. For the purposes of this study, 1994 was used as the Base Year for computing changes in traffic noise levels among the various Build Alternatives. Differences between existing traffic noise levels measured in May 1995 and computed Base Year (1994) traffic noise levels along Puainako Street were not considered to be significant. The Base Year noise environment along Puainako Street was described by computing the Hourly Equiv- alent Sound Levels [Leq(h)] along the existing roadway for the 1994 time period. These sound levels, expressed in decibels, represent the average level of traffic noise for a given hour of the day. Due to variations in existing traffic conditions along Puainako Street, evaluations of both the AM and PM peak hours were necessary to determine the hour with the highest traffic noise levels along individual sections of Puainako Street. OTABLES 4A and 4B present the traffic volume, speed, and mix assumptions used to calculate the Base Year noise levels along the various segments of the existing roadway. TABLE 4C identifies the roadway segment numbers and labels used throughout this report. Shown in TABLES 4A and 4B are the calculated AM and PM Peak Hour Leq(h)'s at a reference distance of 100 FT from the centerline of the various roadway segments, and the calculated distances to the various noise contour lines (from 57 to 72 Leg) under unobstruc- ted, line -of -sight conditions. The actual distances to the con- tour lines will generally be less than indicated in TABLES 4A and 4B when intervening structures or walls exist between the highway and a receptor. This reduction (or shrinkage) of the traffic noise contour distances from the highway centerline are the result of noise shielding (or attenuation) affects caused by the inter- vening structures or walls. By using the traffic assumptions of TABLES 4A and 4B, and drawings of the existing improvements on both sides of Puainako OStreet, the relationship of the existing free -field traffic noise Page III -1 Q a W J m Q Q Z W p --- �n- corn- ¢ tWn Page III -2 O c 0 U d d c N t0 O_ T . CO N m o y Y c LL l6 p a � NCA c� c — my �inU 3 co mUT to 0 Op L Y m co Y 7 E m `« y cm Co CL 0 a c Q o 3 coY o 0 O 3JZSm—o$ .0 OY i« stn OUNU �O ttl m01 (DcYo.E10 0 = IM E0§400 Y J Z Q Y 3 Y Y Y u m M O LT W N Zn J CC LU J� 0)N NOfA NNMO^ Z N(7 OcoNMMN LU WIN W U U Q 2 � rnaaToonallorn rn LL cnaaamaacn rn c O � U Y U J i in O T T oT0 Q rnaocooM o� tc a m Z c W H c y cc x « n T T T M Y Q W a c aD �D n T 10 T t0 N 0I O Q /� 02 cC O Of O> 0 C Oi f� f� yy N N10NNtp 10NNN � Q W J Qa LUH J TOO OJT OfOaNO co") 0 r a O> TOa w tDN T T Z O=�p K O O O O O O O o 0 0 F O O O O O O O O N N Z ox ooc00000aiwz U W > U' Z � fA p xxxxxxxxxx WI aan.aaaaaaa K W 2222222222 W N to oo co N7 Me mo c)0)oo Q) c003- c,) Q Z W p --- �n- corn- ¢ tWn Page III -2 O c 0 U d d c N t0 O_ T . CO N m o y Y c LL l6 p a � NCA c� c — my �inU 3 co mUT to 0 Op L Y m co Y 7 E m `« y cm Co CL 0 a c Q o 3 coY o 0 O 3JZSm—o$ .0 OY i« stn OUNU �O ttl m01 (DcYo.E10 0 = IM E0§400 Y J Z Q Y 3 Y Y Y u m M C C 0 m It W J M H U) W U Z Q H U) Q Y U Q m Q QY W CL a M r Q Q W R 0 o Ir m *wMwO NN V 1n01 0 6666666 r`Naa 000000000 C J Q= tOu°'i899tn°ISrnma O O>I m T m m co t, r F- =�p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p* N N`i N iiN \\ W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000001nln W rnamirnrn pI xxxxxxxxxx W n.o_o_o.aaaaaa n' 00000 m m m 00 Vi W m W W lhMMl7N7 � H $w Q N Page III -3 0 C O U m m c N 16 CL Co. rn a O r W 7 C_ LL � O CLLZ' into m -aa _r_ Q N to N '3 L m U Q T O r a m Q Y 7 E a b $ Z S a O• U O y Y s " > y.tO(Do l6� Q to y m • c •- c c 1a m l9LY(n Q 3�L 0 0 O m c m c Y a E 7 Y Y 3 Z Q Y Y Y Y ---------- Page ----Oo TABLE 4C IDENTIFICATION OF PUAINAKO STREET, BYPASS, AND EXTENSION ROADWAY SEGMENTS SEGMENT BOUNDING INTERSECTIONS Lower Puainako Street Anela St. to Iwalani St. (1) Klauea Ave. to Knoole St. (2) Knoole St. to Lokahi St. (3) Lokahi St. to Naniakea St. (4) Naniakea St. to Anela St. (5) Anela St to Kanoelani St. (6) Kanoelanl St. to W. Kawili St. (7) W. Kawili St. to Kapualani St. (8) Kapualani St. to Komohana St. (9) Komohana St to West End of Puainako St. Bypass Alignment 'A' (A1) East End of Bypass at Puainako St. to Anela St. (A2) Anela St to Iwalani Sr. (A3) Iwalani St. to Kapualani St. Extension. (A4) Kapualani St. Extension to Komohana St. (A5) Komohana St to Start of Upper Puainako St. Extension. Bypass Alignment 'B' (131) East End of Bypass at Puainako St. to Anela St. (62) Anela St. to Iwalani St. (133) Iwalani St. to Kapualani St Extension. (B4) Kapualani St Extension to Komohana St. (B5) Komohana St to Start of Upper Puainako St. Extension. Upper Puainako Street Extension Alignment '1' (1 a) Bypass Segment #5 to Connector Road at Edita Rd. (1 b) Connector Road at Edita Rd. to Wilder Connector Rd. (1 c) Wilder Connector Rd. to End of Upper Puainako St. at Kaumana Dr. Upper Puainako Street Extension Alignment '2' (2a) Bypass Segment #5 to Connector Road at Edits, Rd. (2b) Connector Road at Edita Rd. to Wilder Connector Rd. (2c) Wilder Connector Rd. to End of Upper Puainako St. at Kaumana Dr. Page III -4 0 6 6 0 0 NJ contours to noise sensitive properties along the existing roadway were obtained. The lists of noise sensitive properties where the exterior FHWA noise abatement criteria of 67 Leq was exceeded along Puainako Street during the Base Year are provided in TABLES 5A and 5B for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Between 9 to 11 dwelling units currently experience traffic noise levels greater than 67 Leq during the AM or PM peak hour. Three of these dwell- ing units are located within or on the proposed Right -of -Way for Puainako Street. The public use structures (three churches and classrooms of the Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate Schools) are located outside the Base Year 67 Leq contour. Traffic noise lev- els within the classrooms of the two schools are currently below the 52 Leq FHWA interior standard due to the large setback distan- ces (190 FT or more) between Puainako Street and the classroom buildings. Two of the churches are approximately 85 FT from the ocenterline of Puainako Street, with interior noise levels close to the 52 Leq FHWA interior standard. Interior noise levels in the third church should be less than the 52 Leq FHWA interior standard due to its greater (150 FT) setback distance. At Locations Removed from Puainako Street. At areas removed from Puainako Street, such as the vacant lands west of Komohana Street, and the backyards of residences along Kuamana Drive (Saddle Road) and feeder roads, Base Year noise levels are very low. As the noise measurement results of TABLE 2 and FIGURES 2 thru 7 indicate, Base Year noise levels in areas removed from Puainako Street are typically less than 57 Leq(h), and possibly as low as 35 Leq(h). In these less populated areas, local or distant roadway traffic, birds, dogs, or wind and foliage tend to be the dominant noise sources. Existing noise levels at these inland areas are typically less than both FHWA exterior noise abatement criteria of 67 and 57 Leq(h), and, therefore, require at least 10 odB of noise attenuation measures below the 67 Leq(h) criteria of Page III -5 0 o d TABLE 5A O LIST OF NOISE IMPACTED (67 Leq) EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAND AREAS DURING THE BASE YEAR; (CY 1994, AM PEAK) LOWER ** NUMBER OF IMPACTED UNITS ( BASE YEAR Leq) ** PUAINAKO ST. PRIVATE PUBLIC USE PARK SEGMENT STRUCTURES STRUCTURES LANDS (1) None None None (2 ) 2 Homes None None (3) 5 Homes None None (4) None None None (5) None None None (6) None None None O (7) 4 Homes None None (a) None None None (9) None None None Total: 11 0 0 Note: 1. See TABLE 4C for Roadway Segments. Page III -6 N d O O O TABLE 5B LIST OF NOISE IMPACTED (67 Leq) EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAND AREAS DURING THE BASE YEAR; (CY 1994, PM PEAK) LOWER ** NUMBER OF IMPACTED UNITS ( BASE YEAR Leq) PUAINAKO ST. PRIVATE PUBLIC USE PARK SEGMENT STRUCTURES STRUCTURES LANDS (1) None None None (2) 1 Home None None (3) 5Homes None None (4) None None None (5) None None None (6) None None None C(7) 3Homes None None (8) None None None (9) None None None Note: C Total: 9 0 0 1. See TABLE 4C for Roadway Segments. Page III -7 O O d TABLE 3 to minimize potential noise impacts which could result O from a substantial increase in background ambient noise levels caused by the proposed alignments of the bypass and extension sections of the Puainako Street. In these situations, the State DoT's interim policy (to provide noise mitigation measures where Project traffic noise is expected to exceed existing background ambient noise levels by more than 15 dB) was applied to minimize potential noise impacts at noise sensitive receptor locations. M N Page III -8 a CHAPTER IV. COMPARISONS OF FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS UNDER THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES The future traffic noise levels along the lower section of Puainako Street as well as along the proposed bypass and roadway extension alignments during CY 2020 were evaluated for the various study alternatives. These alternatives were: No Build or Base Condition Alternative; Puainako Street Widening and Construction of the Bypass Alignment A; Puainako Street Widening and Construc- tion of the Bypass Alignment B; and the extension of Puainako Street beyond the north Bypass Alignment A or B along Extension Alignments #1 or #2. The locations of the various extension and bypass alignments in relation to the existing roadway are shown in FIGURE S. The same methodology that was used to calculate the Base Year noise levels was also used to construct the Year 2020 noise levels for the alternatives listed above. TABLES 6A and 6B present comparisons of the predicted changes in traffic noise levels at the east (Kilauea Avenue) and west (Saddle Road) ends and at key roadway transition points along the Puainako Street project corridor with the implementation of the various alternatives. Also shown in the table are the predicted traffic noise levels at the ends of the various bypass and exten- sion alignments. TABLES 7A and 7B present comparisons of the cor- responding changes in the setback distances to the 57 thru 72 Leq(h) noise contours at the east and west ends of the roadway segments under the various alternatives. TABLES 6A thru 7B are useful for presenting an overview of the changes in future traffic noise levels that can be expected at the east and west ends of Puainako Street Project segments along the project corridor. The future (CY 2020) traffic volume, speed, and mix assump- tions used for the No Build and various Build alternatives are shown in TABLES 8A thru 8D. The Puainako Street segment designa- tions of TABLES 8A thru 8D are identical to those listed in TABLE 4C. Also shown in TABLES 8A thru 8D are the future traffic noise Page IV -1 z ci \• ___.I•et, y '♦ ,� - _% .�� '� - - �� ��.� 71, r 1.fiB '� n .�j IC ?rte nr'� ' i i ii _yc. A' I'\`\ \\\ �- ,�: ��\ I• vl� a - \.°� ,.d,o \ o o �:'iT, ii ID �t\ sn�/l♦u "�� �� '. .a C'J Ja 1%r � � �•� l'q�c.\' �� ' i.co �'il i➢ .�� 0 _\_ a � \ % � .. l 7_-/ - O0/1Si \\ -�\� i`/\� .'y. ..00 - !1 j ti`��!. //• i''' Ar`l ri./o tee, `Jil 00e, AL AL .� "- I �. � \m \� G:;j.i:•: y I g ,ri rel/-l�' .. ^�.� l.° �'/ \;- ( \ r, �- �.� D !•'`'iii.`" II : e T 7�0 O 00 m --4-4 03 w n m 70 0 Z 0 <M m0 UM ) M zv O c' r D Z ZO51, Nm m m z cn 0 Z _-v\ ti �• ^� Ji m I °'� �•�• AE I,FI 1' 1..q n6 is 4 \����, 'g�'I `�a a� � I, � �y 1�if •• r•i ONrN yl \_e�r.,a`�\ ._h^"'=<.-=.-41-IIII\_:_� �������II `�-1�.,/ C M W C hl{ m _-v\ ti �• ^� Ji m I °'� �•�• AE I,FI 1' 1..q n6 is 4 \����, 'g�'I `�a a� � I, � �y 1�if •• r•i ONrN yl \_e�r.,a`�\ ._h^"'=<.-=.-41-IIII\_:_� �������II `�-1�.,/ . g O C TABLE 6A COMPARISONS OF EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT ENVIRONS (AM PEAK HOUR) SPEED ** HOURLY Leq IN dB @ 100' ** DB LOCATION MPH VPH AUTO MT HT ALL VEH INCREASE YEAR 1994 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (Existing Condition): Puainako St., Segment #1 (Kilauea Ave.) 35 901 54.9 49.7 55.6 58.8 - Puainako St., Segment #4 (Anela St.) 35 969 55.2 50.0 55.9 59.1 - YEAR 2020 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (Base Condition, No Build Alternative): Puainako St., Segment #1 (Kilauea Ave.) 35 1,354 56.7 51.5 57.3 60.6 1.8 Puainako St., Segment #4 (Anela St.) 35 1,808 57.9 52.8 58.6 61.9 2.7 YEAR 2020 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (Bypass Alternatives A & B): Puainako St., Segment #1 (Kilauea Ave.) 38 1,531 58.6 53.2 58.7 62.3 3.4 Puainako St., Segment #4 (Anela St.) 38 1,692 59.0. 53.7 59.2 62.7 3.5 Bypass Alignment A & B (Segment At & B1) 38 2,151 60.1 54.7 60.2 63.7 - OBypass Alignment A & B (Segment A5 & B5) 50 758 60.0 55.2 58.6 63.2 - YEAR 2020 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (Extension Alternative 1): Extension Alignment #1 (Segment 1a) 50 758 60.0 55.2 58.6 63.2 - Extension Alignment #1 (Segment 1c) 50 484 58.1 53.3 56.7 61.2 - YEAR 2020 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (Extension Alternative 2): Extension Alignment #2 (Segment 2a) 50 758 60.0 55.2 58.6 63.2 - Extension Alignment #2 (Segment 2c) 50 484 58.1 53.3 56.7 61.2 - Notes: W 1. Segment 1 used for east end of Puainako Street. 2. Segment 4 used for west end of Puainako Street. 3. Segments At & Bt used for east ends of Bypass Alignments. 4. Segments A5 & B5 used for west ends of Bypass Alignments. 5. Segments 1 a & 2a used for east ends of Extension Alignments. 6. Segments 1c & 2c used for west ends of Extension Alignments. Page IV -3 TABLE 6B COMPARISONS OF EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT ENVIRONS (PM PEAK HOUR) a 0 SPEED " HOURLY Leq IN dB @ 100'' DB LOCATION (MPH) VPH AUTO MT HT ALL VEH INCREASE YEAR 1994 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (Existing Condition): Puainako St., Segment #1 (Kilauea Ave.) 35 1,016 55.4 50.3 56.1 59.4 - Puainako St., Segment #4 (Anela St.) 35 896 54.9 49.7 55.5 58.8 - YEAR 2020 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (Base Condition, No Build Alternative): Puainako St., Segment #1 (Kilauea Ave.) 35 1,794 57.9 52.7 58.5 61.8 3.0 Puainako St., Segment #4 (Anela St.) 35 1,504 57.1 52.0 57.8 61.1 1.9 YEAR 2020 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (Bypass Alternatives A & B): Puainako St., Segment #1 (Kilauea Ave.) 38 2,046 59.8 54.5 60.0 63.5 4.7 Puainako St., Segment #4 (Anela St.) 38 1,666 58.9 53.6 59.1 62.6 3.5 Bypass Alignment & B (Segment At & 131) 38 1,837 59.4 54.0 59.5 63.0 - Bypass Alignment A & B (Segment A5 & 85) 50 797 60.3 55.4 58.8 63.4 - YEAR 2020 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (Extension Alternative 1): O Extension Alignment #1 (Segment 1a) 50 797 60.3 55.4 58.8 63.4 - Extension Alignment #1 (Segment lc) So 728 59.9 55.0 58.4 63.0 - YEAR 2020 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (Extension Alternative 2): Extension Alignment #2 (Segment 2a) 5o 797 60.3 55.4 58.8 63.4 - Extension Alignment #2 (Segment 2c) 50 728 59.9 55.0 58.4 63.0 - Notes: 1. Segment 1 used for east end of Puainako Street. 2. Segment 4 used for west end of Puainako Street. 3. Segments Al & B1 used for east ends of Bypass Alignments. 4. Segments A5 & B5 used for west ends of Bypass Alignments. 5. Segments 1 a & 2a used for east ends of Extension Alignments. 6. Segments 1 c & 2c used for west ends of Extension Alignments. Page IV -4 C 6 m m a n J m H CC 2 QY W a i v N O F z O U Q J N n 0 z n to LO 0 LU U z H y B LU CC r LL. O Q 0 z N W �o v N O Y N U> QU m H W N Ci C ? J ~ y n WI N W z O Q U O r- , N 7 O (D (D 0) (D O) z z N N N N N N N c') as ¢¢ z z z z z z ¢¢ n N co N O N N N r z z O It It N (O (O N V (O It N M N m N m Z Z z z z z Page IV -5 ui c O m 12 c m m C C w E E c c c c.O1_ c� rnmQQ m I O 0 O y d m C C y I aTa;m C 0 N Tm x O m W U m m O y O O m.m. C C m y y O` ` j mJ C C C C (L m m V5 —oC0cami 3v3 J 00,22 0 0 m`oy�t vv D m'�mmmm�m U y 0 0 M M m U C m f m m N N bf C -�O O 00 0 V m J J m U ffiDEEEEEE m 0) O) 0 co co co m m m �N c00 L6 (6 nm ¢¢ > n r N 0) CO N N O) (O 0) z z r N N N N N N N r E -0 m cd r N m a a a > Q Q > a a CO co co rr Oc) z m rr y > O 07 rrzz 'W z z c E E O O_ C 0) 01 c O O m a U O U 0 0 c ") y yD_ r N 0.1 m T ^ m m +YcS arcs _ m cd ca W_ W_ U Q^ U Q— U>-QQ U U o v N LL 41 V7 to LL of V) j m . 0{ CO .-. 0 5 m m LL LL N m m m m m m ~¢ ~ YQ ~Q W ~ O)O) ~ O)0) Q 2 Q 0 0) Q 0l Q Q 0) m D a r V r a 0) =) CO V) D CO V) O m to r N N m m EE m m E E m m c{ elf E E¢a c c :k ! c c m (L m m (L m m (L a 45 (L E E a. E E 0) CO 0 ch i U co EE 2 c c 2 c c 2.2 co fO O co co O w �� O O as O O N O 0 N O O a a N C C N C C .19 N Ir C C QQN (Y C C 2 C C c cr c c O 0 a: c c O O yy 6 7 7 W 7 7 7 7>1 a Ili W 0 > (L(L > (L(L > (Lamm > t > z Page IV -5 ui c O m 12 c m m C C w E E c c c c.O1_ c� rnmQQ m I O 0 O y d m C C y I aTa;m C 0 N Tm x O m W U m m O y O O m.m. C C m y y O` ` j mJ C C C C (L m m V5 —oC0cami 3v3 J 00,22 0 0 m`oy�t vv D m'�mmmm�m U y 0 0 M M m U C m f m m N N bf C -�O O 00 0 V m J J m U ffiDEEEEEE m 0) O) 0 co co co m m m �N c00 L6 (6 nm ) LU _ 2 (L \ 0 0 0 / N z « § § 0 § \ LU j 2 k m � R /CY \� L2 E[ § § k S rl LO /ƒ ®- Nm,04 ,mN Lf) as n n =<« I « _ It ,z» zz z zzLO 0r- *_ 0) Lr) U) m §a na na -©<1 «« «« 001° „zz z z m m CD 72§ CYCY,a {\zz coLo ) .. ) ®7/ )zz ?! Z7/ §}§77 _- 0 | (D k ) ■ f § - / k - m }} \ U. g< gJJ<< gam= oma_ -�� U. $ CO CO -- / § / § / / k.k k k im I I -- �_- :-_®0 §aa §/\ o## o „ os,- - co co o-- o - m §kk §k!«« §2c SEE §tc IL 2f/©E 2|| 2|| aMa2 2fJ aa� ��. a ::|a CL&& �#o oc o§§�# ok■ oaa 22$ Jkk 0kk 2X«a §$) §00 �■� §��¢¢ §�` §)\ ■ _ 2 5-£z >-CL2 »zzmm >- X23 m m C 6 O O , �j W J O r CO r OD LO O Z N N N N �n LUp�I W Z JI n M N N c0 N O N O U W M a a M a a M Z n U Q � O Q J N N N N a a o ��oo�cc�a p Lt_ Ln U ri Q N O (O M M �- N 10 (n m W -� ���rT� °> � W U U Q H � lq y aco.-�_nrn ao� Y « uni Q LU W O Z M0ON(D-N. Cy CD Q N N N N R Q = C Q U2 m a' O O Cl) a W N 0 F al 9) R J m N W y• mN Rte._ N- c m m 3 Q CC 0? O>Of nODO n01 N a 0 E d O Q f00 (000(0 0m N W C R R C y 0.0 LU d P� Z Y 0 3 Y0 J J R O O Z r0 R- 0 O _. >' Y CO S y Z vl y R Z J a M n cD O CO N D N Q - R R 2� Y .'c - c c V5 R .3 m O ul�oom�va 0 R R R o H d ro r o m o d 00Y a0 O>I F- w -01 Z' Z O x� U �=�p O00000000 WW p N N NN N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N U) Q U NNNNNNNN NO O O O O O O O N m �001001��T�00f W Q 01 > aQ 0 J == 2 2 2 5 2= 2 >H QZ m W W aaaaaaada 3:wFNM —.-,_..-..-.---_. W fii�i���� vu1(enwrn O CL to N 0 N (0 U1 fD ao ao N M M M M M M M M N Oa W Z Q to F Y Q W ancool C0 LU a¢N Page IV -7 m ro W J m Q H Page IV -8 a C Q 1 IN 0 0 M � W J N m m O m N N m 0 z n Q LLJJ H d W Z J nmmomc�amo U W ac�r�ar�a vco Z U U O m Q J� Q � m IA In N N N O N Lo O U ri Q ) y N (7 r m N m 0 [� WL) �r �NNr F W U D r r U) Z Q Y « � Q W W a a o Z7 N m ch N m N m O Q N N r N N N N 6 C CL S U y L ._ Z d O O i4 0 Oo b .-.- c c c to _ - m m 36 co aonrnmr�n n !WA aN mN� C -,-aLo N CL �m i�c�m(DQM W 0 ._ d m c m d RY Q r- o.p� W Q Z Y'c¢"o3mY 0 } J — 0 J m o a Z Q Y 0 O o 1 d" ° o� . min n Z J allo anmc�rN O m d�Y� m 5L O QS rn mOrn mvm CO 0 j o m m m O H d na co N c70 0m'c ry 0'0 OE O> r r r r r r r r O C le m 2 m Y Y J Z Q Y Y Y Z O x �- UiS�p 000000000 W p� W F, N N N N N N N N N OO 000000 b Vi J � NN\NNNNNN Q U � o0000000�n m S 666666606 W Q o m m o m m o m m D J} O S 2 S 2 S S S S= F QZ m W 0- CL _ W miimmmmii �� �NchsrmoNwm O CL0 fA 0 0 0 0 0 0 m MOa _ ----.. —_,— Mlh c7MMc7 ch fqN w Z Q y } F Y Q W Zp� rNcna�mm�mrn O LU aacU) Page IV -8 a C Q 1 IN C U W J co 0 Q H W U Z Q H U) Y U Q m w U) Q 2 Y Q W a Q O N O N M Q W CO W Q Z Q W J Q J_ [0 N V d. < 0 tD N 00 (D N N N N N N (h N N N N N N e{ N to N (D O O O (0 n r.N v 0 0 0 Nclm N (7 N N N N N (n 7 O (D m ai Cl) of (?n r. r. N N N N (D (0 0 (D t\ m 0 (n (D N (O In N t r` N V N N O N O ^0O r� (D O C\j 0 cli N , (0 (aD N n N N 0 (! 0 N N (7 N N N N QQQQQ QQQ QQ¢ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z N (n (D (0 N ri ai a of 6 (D (D (D (D (D N N N N ri (o Q J Q xl N N N 0 a 0 m 0 a 0 M 000 (0(0(0 ^ (n(0N, (n WLON N m n a N c0 n v Oa.' Nh m H G d E � � X = 0000 00000 000 000 0 N N N N N N N N N N NN~O >. J O OON Lo O 3 U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 'a OOOO OOOON to 0 an N (f1 (n � (0 (D (D (D (D (D (D (0 (n N N N u1 (n (n W Q 0017 0 00 O0O 000 000 0 p 0 0 O xxxx xxxxx xxx xxx a adder addd D_ dd 0- a. D.d J W X-mmm 22722 222 mmm m 0.0 co co 0 0O N N O 000 000 Q fA .• c7 co (7 0 m It a a N (n N 0 In N N H d d �N QZ (n My (n 3 ___ mmmmm a 06 etf (X{ ad '0 R� U R N U Qct __---- R— � ��� y O W ; aaaaa CC U o m w z Page SV -9 Page IV -10 O O .w LLQ J n 7 '7 C N tp (D N n n (D n tD Z N N N N N N M M N N N N N J^ OW � Z J O N v n O00 n n It n W (D LO Ln N N N n O M N N In U) U W i U O Z -� 00m T <(D m M M O N M M c'7 nrrornn LL mn(D n n n n O LL p _ y M (T D) O n N 0 00 o OD OO c0 LUJ - -- ��NN(� Y U U Z Q m F- CI) N N n n M N N O (D (D O O O D J n V M co 1A (D N .- (D (D 0 (D 1A N N N N N N co co N N N N N ♦ (IJ cc W Y Z N n O D ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ = vvoiai ZZZZZ ZZZ ZZZ LQ p a U OD i W a o J O m _ O (n co (D (D N N N OMN(n a M M (D 4 M a o Cl) a O O (D O O O M M Cl) O O O O O O (0 (D CD N Q d � J Q W } J Q S ,(0 , (0 (D n It N O n n co n OD It N (D co co n (D o (T (A N O1 N I ° 00. c^�n n n n n cn O> air W F- > d F- E Z �S 0000. 00000 000 000 (� Q p� CV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N >. W J F O O O O O O 0 0 (DUD (D N Ncu N (D 3 J V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N _ 0000 0000 to LO L (O N (D LO N N (D co Q S (6 (6 (O (O (000(0 N N NN N (DN W Q O O) W O T O fA T tT tT O 01 O 01 O1 Q p > O J U p SSSS SSSS= SSS SSS a [0 W an.aa aaaaa as a. as n. LU LU U) CD OD 00 co In 0 My a CD 0n 00 .. com Cl) v U) LO V) LO (00 to Ln F¢ - d y d a F (n Z 0 a co v ul Lu 0_ mmmmm p �rNMa yasafafas -a 0'm v -a - — o 2 CL m W Z Page IV -10 olevels at a reference distance of 100 FT from the roadways' cen- terlines, the changes in traffic noise levels from the Base Year (CY 1994) values along each roadway segment, and the future set- back distances to the 57 thru 72 Leq(h') noise contours for unob- structed, line -of -sight conditions. The following general conclusions can be made in respect to the effects of the various alternatives on the existing traffic noise levels along Puainako Street: A. Under the No Build Alternative, traffic noise levels are predicted to increase no more than 1.4 to 3.3 dB or Leq(h). In order for these increases to occur, no significant changes in traffic conditions (average vehicle speed and vehicle mix) must occur by CY 2020 along Puainako Street. Because actual traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours are expected to worsen under the No Build Alternative, with reduced speeds and increased Odelays expected during the peak hours, the predicted increases in traffic noise levels are anticipated to be less than the range of 1.4 to 3.3 dB. However, increases in traffic noise levels during the historical off-peak hours may be of this magnitude. B. Under the lower Puainako Street Widening Plus Bypass Alignment "A" or "B" Alternative, traffic noise increases are expected to be greater than under the No Build Alternative along the improved (or widened) sections of Puainako Street, at approx- imately 3.0 to 4.2 dB or Leq(h). Traffic noise levels are pre- dicted to decrease significantly along the unimproved sections of Puainako Street which are to be spanned by Bypass Alignments "A" or "B". Traffic noise impacts would be localized to the proposed bypass alignment corridor and at the rear yards of existing dwell- ing units south of Bypass Alignments "A" or "B". Significant traffic noise impacts along the widened sections of Puainako Street are not expected to occur. Page IV -11 M C. Under the Puainako Street Extension Alignment #1 Alterna- tive, increases in existing background ambient noise levels are expected to be large (greater than 15 dB) at'existing and future residences within visual line -of -sight to the new highway. The use of sound attenuation barriers and/or berms will be indicated where the highway alignment is adjacent to existing residential subdivisions. In some situations, adverse noise impacts will be very difficult or impractical to mitigate with sound attenuation barriers. Examples of these situations are: at the new Pacific Plantation Subdivision where new two-story homes have been con- structed; at the proposed Sunrise Estates Subdivision; and at the proposed Pacific Plantation Subdivision section west of Sunrise Estates. D. Under the Puainako Street Extension Alignment #2 Alterna- tive, increases in existing background ambient noise levels are O expected to be large (greater than 15 dB) at existing residences at the south end of Wilder Road, at the proposed Sunrise Estates Subdivision, and possibly at the proposed Pacific Plantation Subdivision section west of Sunrise Estates. Adverse noise im- pacts and required noise mitigation measures along Extension Alignment #2 are less than those along Extension Alignment #1 due to the larger setbacks of Alignment #2 from existing and planned residential areas. The future traffic noise levels at noise sensitive properties were also calculated along the section of Puainako Street proposed to be widened, along the proposed Bypass Alignment "B", and along the proposed Extension Alignment #1 using preliminary highway plans and profiles and the project's 1"=200' scale topographic maps. The noise shielding effects from proposed elevated and depressed roadway sections were included in these calculations. The general locations of existing structures along the lower sec- O Page IV -12 f b O O Oresidences along Extension Alignment #1 are shown in FIGURES 9A thru 9I. At the numbered locations shown in the figures, exceed- ances of the FHWA 67 Leg, FHA/HUD 65 Ldn, and the State DOT ">15 dB increase" criteria were examined. The more detailed topogra- phic maps, as well as the results of the noise contour setback distance calculations of TABLES SA thru SD were used to isolate structures and lands which may be impacted under the various roadway improvement alternatives examined. The lists of noise sensitive structures and lands which may be impacted by the No Build and Build Alternatives are shown in TABLES 9A thru 9D. The following general conclusions can be made in respect to the relative differences in the number of impacted structures and lands which would result from the Build Alternatives. These con- clusions are valid as long as the future vehicle mixes and average speeds do not differ from the assumed values. O A. Future traffic noise levels along the lower section of Puainako Street (which is proposed to be widened), from Kilauea Avenue to Waiakea Intermediate School, are not expected to exceed FHWA or State DOT noise standards beyond the proposed 120 foot wide Right -of -Way. Approximately 5 existing homes which are loca- ted within the proposed Right -of -Way were assumed to be relocated (see TABLE 9C). From TABLE 10, expected future noise levels at the public use structures (churches and school buildings), identi- fied as Locations 1 thru 5 in FIGURES 9A and 9B, are not expected to exceed the FHWA 67 Leq or the State DOT ">15 dB increase" noise criteria. B. Future noise levels at approximately 5 homes along the widened section of Puainako Street are expected to exceed the FHA/HUD 65 Ldn standard. Minimum setback distances from the cen- terline of the widened Puainako Street to the 65 Ldn contours are expected to be 80 FT between Kilauea Avenue to Kinoole Street, and 70 FT between Kinoole Street to Waikea Intermediate School. Page IV -13 n \la Iro��v� D 57771 Wad 00 C Ya�R° PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF WIDENED LOWER PUAINAKO STREET SECTION Page IV -14 FIG9UURE C� M m C w U PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF LOWER PUAINAKO STREET BYPASS ALTERNATIVE 'B' Page IV -15 FIGURE 9B PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF BYPASS ALTERNATIVE `B' AND START OF EXTENSION TOWARD SADDLE ROAD Page IV -16 FIGURE I 9C re C w PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF UPPER PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION AT SUNRISE ESTATES Page IV -17 FIGURE 9D PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1 EAST OF EDITA STREET CROSSING Page IV -18 FIG9ERE C� `—J m 0 0 PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1 AT PACIFIC PLANTATION Page .IV -19 FIGURE N c C ri I _ J_ Ln Ln —2 1 N N S rrr � ••.}I,IS j� Ln Ln GM lfflll] -.oLi Ijj ^- - oNowdd ,. hl, o, c C ri I _ J_ Ln Ln —2 1 N N S PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1 EAST OF WILDER ROAD CROSSING Page IV -20 F19GRE C� C u u PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1 WEST OF WILDER ROAD CROSSING Page IV -21 FIGURE 9H PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1 AT KAUMANA DRIVE END91 Page IV -22 FIGURE 1 0 0 C TABLE 9A LIST OF NOISE IMPACTED EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAND AREAS WITHOUT PROJECT; YEAR 2020 (AM PEAK) C IN LOWER PUAINAKO ST. SEGMENT (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Note: Total: ****•*;•'*; NUMBER OF IMPACTED UNITS PRIVATE PUBLIC USE PARK STRUCTURES STRUCTURES LANDS 1 Home None None 3 Homes None None 7 Homes None None 1 Home None None None None None 1 Home None None 7 Homes None None 2 Homes None None None None None 22 0 0 1. See TABLE 4C for Roadway Segments. Page IV -23 TABLE 9B LIST OF NOISE IMPACTED EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAND AREAS WITHOUT PROJECT; YEAR 2020 (PM PEAK) LOWER PUAINAKO ST. SEGMENT (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Note: Total: *********** NUMBER OF IMPACTED UNITS PRIVATE PUBLIC USE PARK STRUCTURES STRUCTURES LANDS 2 Homes None None 3 Homes None None 6 Homes None None None None None None None None None None None 5 Homes None None 2 Homes None None None None None 18 1. See TABLE 4C for Roadway Segments. Page IV -24 N N 0 0 O TABLE 9C LIST OF NOISE IMPACTED EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAND AREAS WITH PROJECT ALONG PUAINAKO STREET IMPROVEMENTS; YEAR 2020 (AM OR PM PEAK) LOWER *********** NUMBER OF IMPACTED UNITS ********** PUAINAKO ST. PRIVATE PUBLIC USE PARK SEGMENT STRUCTURES STRUCTURES LANDS (1) 1 Home* None None (2) 3 Homes* None None (3) 1 Home* None None (4) None None None Bypass(B1) None None None CBypass (132) None None None Bypass (B3) 16 Homes None None Bypass (B4) S Homes None None Bypass(A1) None None None Bypass(A2) None None None Bypass (A3) 10 Homes None None Bypass (A4) None None None Total: 29* with Bypass B 0 0 15* with Bypass A Note: 0 1. See TABLE 4C for Roadway Segments. 2. * Five of these homes were inside the Project's Right—of—Way and will require condemnation. Page IV -25 TABLE 9D LIST OF NOISE IMPACTED EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAND AREAS WITH PROJECT ALONG EXTENSION ALIGNMENTS #1 AND #2; YEAR 2020 (AM OR PM PEAK) EXTENSION NUMBER OF IMPACTED UNITS •��*••"`� ALIGNMENT PRIVATE PUBLIC USE PARK SEGMENT STRUCTURES STRUCTURES LANDS ALIGNMENT #1 (1a) 4 Homes None None 26 Lots (tb) 35 Homes None None 9 Lots (1c) 1 Home None None Total: 40 Homes & 35 Lots 0 0 ALIGNMENT #2 ( 2a) 23 Lots None None ( 2b ) 8 Homes None None ( 2c) 3 Homes None None Total: -------- 11 Homes & 23 Lots ------- 0 ------ 0 Note: 1. See TABLE 4C for Roadway Segments. Page IV -26 C C C 0 Lol m 0 W J CD FQ•- W W ZW m H F - Q � O W Q >Z LU J � � LU a. O� Z Y Q LLLU =a. LLQ rr0a. W F 0 F- L) U Q 0 LIJ Z 2 CL 00 Q W O Q Z 2 F F- O LL y a 1O W W v IU o 2 O W Q Q I.IJ rn N a— zI N�J XV W m z OQ It o m N co rn m 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 a a0 N U 0 N a a a a v v v v v rz rL L L 0 0 0 0 0 O (D O m 0 0 0 N 0 O (a7 N 0 O n n 0 N m N N m N m It. N Cl) m QQZF L L^^ ¢ = CC C C C C C C C V O O O p❑ d d d d d d d r t 0 0 v Q L= 2 d 0❑ p p p p❑ 0L)U)U)rn NL)2Z N m It (O Q m n CO 01' r q)'t U.)(0 N a m 2 Page IV -27 N > v Q N 7 � va pL N d co 7 V 2 m L U co II N N y N N (n Wo (o v 7¢7 p -O d R (7 R LL II II 3 .0 .R..R. y y C R R o m II m 3 L II J > d y(AN dL. y r O N 0 N H p R V COT ?iL UjQ " L 4 m F L Y 0 ai 30�L� II Qva) R co V X y X d C C y N 'a •a 0- O R R O C O O L d C) J J Cr 0 * t° LL - N Cl) It N J N m N WIt O N 7 m(D (DN^ p a N N 7- N m 1 3 I N (D v ¢ Zz n N 00 (O a m m� (D N n r m m M O M (D I I I I °D -j W Q 0 rn a al . a, 6 n m � � o c 2 - 4 6 d —._ —C? o (n r. o rn a in o .- o '� LL of n o ai o a O v of n O N 0(0- 04 0 N U_ W k k Q ^ k k i kJ J J W m (D m c0 N a ((7 r a r ¢ C7 0 o Cl) �3z 1rjv � — — — — — — — s��� (D 0 n N a 0 n v N a L L N c6 O m O m N m O N (D O n I N U I m (D (D (D N 0 m m (D m m m 0 (D 0 < I I k k k I k M ♦ • k k _ 2 W n n LI m n m m m ¢ Z a v o a v `. T Z co [� I ¢ � (n � zz- n 0 eD zz- o rn a (n (n c� (o (q n (o (n < (q a— zI N�J XV W m z OQ It o m N co rn m 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 a a0 N U 0 N a a a a v v v v v rz rL L L 0 0 0 0 0 O (D O m 0 0 0 N 0 O (a7 N 0 O n n 0 N m N N m N m It. N Cl) m QQZF L L^^ ¢ = CC C C C C C C C V O O O p❑ d d d d d d d r t 0 0 v Q L= 2 d 0❑ p p p p❑ 0L)U)U)rn NL)2Z N m It (O Q m n CO 01' r q)'t U.)(0 N a m 2 Page IV -27 N > v Q N 7 � va pL N d co 7 V 2 m L U co II N N y N N (n Wo (o v 7¢7 p -O d R (7 R LL II II 3 .0 .R..R. y y C R R o m II m 3 L II J > d y(AN dL. y r O N 0 N H p R V COT ?iL UjQ " L 4 m F L Y 0 ai 30�L� II Qva) R co V X y X d C C y N 'a •a 0- O R R O C O O L d C) J J Cr 0 * t° LL - N Cl) It N O O . U C. Without the proposed widening improvements to Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue and Waiakea Intermediate School, future traffic noise levels are expected to exceed the FHWA 67 Leq standard at approximately 13 homes (see TABLES 9A and 9B). Approximately 7 of these 13 homes, which are located south of Puainako Street between Lokahi Street and Waiakea Intermediate School, will experience reduced noise levels below the FHWA 67 Leg standard if the proposed project is implemented (see FIGURES 9A and 9B). D. Without the proposed bypass of lower Puainako Street between Waiakea Intermediate School and Komohana Street, future traffic noise levels are expected to exceed the FHWA 67 Leq standard at approximately 10 homes (see TABLES 9A and 9B). With the proposed Bypass Alignment "B", approximately 24 homes, which are located north of the existing Puainako Street between Waiakea O Intermediate School and Komohana Street, will experience increased noise levels in their back yards which are greater than the State DOT 1115 dB" criteria (see TABLES 9C and 10). Under the proposed Bypass Alignment "B", noise levels in the front yards of 10 homes along the existing sections of Puainako Sreet west of the school will be reduced to levels below the 67 FHWA noise standard, but noise levels in the back yards of 24 homes will increase by more than 15 dB above existing levels, and noise mitigation measures will be considered. Under Bypass Alignment "A", the back yards of only 10 homes will be affected by the State DOT 1115 dB" criteria (see TABLE 9C). The FHA/HUD 65 Ldn noise standard is expected to be exceeded at approximately 3 and 8 of the existing homes along Bypass Alignments "A" and "B", respectively. E. The locations of existing and planned residences along Extension Alignment #1 are shown in FIGURES 9D thru 9I. Along Extension Alignment #1, no existing homes are expected to ex- O Page IV -28 Cperience future traffic noise levels greater than the 67 FHWA noise standard. Traffic noise increases at approximately 40 existing homes are expected to exceed the State DoT 1115 dB" criteria for significant increase. These existing residential areas include: the new Pacific Plantation; residences northeast of the Edita Road crossing; residences at the Uhaloa Place cul-de- sac; and residences south of the Wilder Road crossing. Planned residences at the east section of Pacific Plantation and at the future Sunrise Estates are also expected to experience high traffic noise levels. The total number of existing and planned residences which may experience adverse noise impacts are shown in TABLE 9D. Due to the relatively low existing background noise levels (35 to 42 dB) along the proposed Extension Alignment #1, relatively large increases in noise levels are predicted to occur along Extension Alignment #1 (see TABLES 11A and 11B). O F. Along Extension Alignment #2, anticipated traffic noise impacts are expected to be significantly less than those associated with Extension Alignment #1 (see TABLE 9D). The reason for this is the large setbacks allowed between the highway align- ment and existing and future residences south of Kaumana Drive and at Pacific Plantation (see FIGURE 8). Future traffic noise im- pacts and indicated mitigation measures under Extension Alignment #2 are anticipated to be localized to the south end of Wilder Road, and at proposed subdivision units at Pacific Plantation and Sunrise Estates. N Page IV -29 a_ LLJ J m Q r W r (.0 Z O W z rz Q2 J Q LLJ Z W0 J Z 2 cWnw0 O w = Z Y U It W LL C') a LL <�a Q WOO U_ H Q 0 W (L 0 a. zZ U Q O W F_¢ Z U r H• O LL N J Lo W Q O LL r OW } U QW Q � w N N Z w to 0 J W J W 0 t` O O N n n In N O N M ^ p N O N t\ N m N N N O O O N M O N ff` O N n n N N O N c7 Z t\p O N M f` N O V M M 7 N n N N N 7 to N a M to 0 N (o to 0 0 N m 0 to 0 In 0 N 0 In 0 k + + k + + k + O N O N N NN O O O O O M N O N l0 ? IA M I� Ci N N N (q c7 O t� a O 0 N N N N n N a M + + k + x + k + aD OR N (O N N N� � N O (O M (O iz, n (O � N N OTD er N r T a^ n O a O O N r aD (O N (D N N N .. N O W M (D n n (O 0) N O) M W n O a (O O O) M M N (O OD N 7 M Y k • + • Y Y + + k + x k k k k k k + Wq O q m or o n c w 0 ('c F' of o a (y ('n (n v' n rn (7 O O O O (O (G (O (7 ri M, (7 (7 _N (D 0 M M N M M — N N .- N N N m Z � � z \ O Q (D W O I` (O n N O 7 N to (o It LO 01 = ui ui o m 0 a oo co m 0 0 m m 0 0 a m is N Of J o 0 o O o o O o o O O o O O o o O o N to N N N N N N N N N N CV N N CV N N X} WV r N m0 O O N O O T N O O O OM O ^ O O OM 00 m O r r r r r r N W N 000 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm0 r C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c C c wG g 3 3 3 3 U OU O 0 - p O O- 0- 0 0 p p 0 QJ n m O O N M a N O f` O W O N M 7 Page IV -30 N v O ri M N CO 0 n 0 101 m r w J C13 F- r w F 0 z O w Z i H Z J :i ¢ wz Z UJ LU 0 � LLI Z .� Y U N W LL a LL FOa�. Q U coo U_ F Q w cc a4k0 N CLw Z Z U ¢ w x ZUf- H 0 LL S2 J in WQ O LL� oa LU >, U LU Lu � F- N N Z LU Cl) 0 J W J W Jia r _ N n V O N U 0 x x c'v n ci o' v o ao . co rn o n' o� M o v v v v <O M (D M M M M M N N In N m N m m � N m m m m N a Ian tOn (D N f� M fD m OD N m m m O N N ((1 O a N In N a 7 a a M N M N M M n O m O f,� (7 r, m m M m 0 m N m N M m m m m N m m m m m in 0 m m It N N In In • k k V OD Cn aD O a m — m � N — (O N a O n a oQQ O m N N r N O N r Za y O) J O o m (D m (D (D (D CD (D (O N m m m m m m m m m m CV mad aD m } a a M M M M M M M M M M M M M v a a WV N O tL tL L �tL ¢ 0 o m 0 o m 0 m o 0 0 0 o m 0 0 0 0 (n n Cl)r N rl m m m N N m m m N m m LL N a N v M M m a N N W y Ozrn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn LU a O 0 0 0 0 Q Q 0 Q Q 0 ¢ mm m mM g a v( a (� v a vOi in U) Page IV -31 N d O LL 0 m a) co m w `p cr U_ A M u C C Lo c � � p3 0] -co U) � m o 0 = ,0Z o - LL R O O 3 m u c b W d d, m m v 0caci mO � Q M Y N M M M k k ^♦ Y 4 ^ k M k k LIJQw o ao o' u� co a m (D .' o o N o a U N a Q Z N N m ap f0 m N +- (D Cn O n n C7 N n r t0 Cl) , ZZ,¢ N = 3 U O O N m m m m N m m N m m It O m m N Za y O) J O o m (D m (D (D (D CD (D (O N m m m m m m m m m m CV mad aD m } a a M M M M M M M M M M M M M v a a WV N O tL tL L �tL ¢ 0 o m 0 o m 0 m o 0 0 0 o m 0 0 0 0 (n n Cl)r N rl m m m N N m m m N m m LL N a N v M M m a N N W y Ozrn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn LU a O 0 0 0 0 Q Q 0 Q Q 0 ¢ mm m mM g a v( a (� v a vOi in U) Page IV -31 N d O LL 0 m a) co m w `p cr U_ A M u C C Lo c � � p3 0] -co U) � m o 0 = ,0Z o - LL R O O 3 m u c b W d d, m m v 0caci mO � Q M Y N M CHAPTER V. POSSIBLE NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES o Possible noise mitigation measures considered included the following: A. Restricting the Growth In the Number of Noisy Buses Heavy Trucks. Motorcycles and Automobiles with Defective Muf- flers. The percentage contribution to the total traffic noise by heavy trucks, buses, and noisy vehicles is currently in the order of 50 percent, and elimination of these noise sources would reduce total traffic noise levels by approximately 3 dB. Restricting the growth rate of these vehicles (to growth rates below passenger automobile growth rates) could produce noise reductions in the order of 1 or 2 dB, which are not considered significant for the level of regulatory efforts required. B. Alteration of the Horizontal Or Vertical Alignment of the o Highway. This mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Bypass and Extension Alternatives, and the proposed alignments represent the optimum alignments for the Lower and Upper sections of Puainako Street. Although Extension Alignment #2 would result in lower noise impacts and approximately $1.5M of lower noise mi- tigation costs for sound attenuation walls than Extension Align- ment #1, the total construction cost of Extension Alignment #2 is estimated to be approximately $ 3.21m greater than for Extension Alignment #1 due to its additional length. C. Acquisition of Property Rights for Construction of Noise Barriers, and/or Construction of Noise Barriers Along the Right - of -Way. For the majority of structures along the existing and proposed sections of Puainako Street, construction of noise bar- riers will probably be the preferred noise mitigation measure. The 5 to 10 dB of noise attenuation achievable with a 6 FT high wall will be sufficient for all single story structures in most O Page V-1 Oinstances. The top edges of roadway cuts proposed along the new alignments will also function as noise barriers. Although site specific plans and section details were not available for the Bypass or Extension Alternatives, the use of noise barriers along the Right -of -Way would probably be the primary noise mitigation measure employed to meet FHWA, FHA/HUD,'and State DOT noise abatement criteria. D. Acquisition of Real Property Interests To Serve As A Noise Buffer Zone. Where multistory structures are expected to impacted by future traffic noise, the use of sound attenuating barriers (see para. C above) will not be practical due to the excessive heights required to shield the upper floors from traffic noise. In these situations, the only other noise mitigation possibilities are sound insulation of the affected upper floor units or acquisi- tion of the property interests. The noise buffer zone extending Ohundreds of feet from the highway centerline and at substantial cost would be required to meet the State DOT ">15 dB" criteria along the new roadway sections where existing background ambient noise levels are less than 40 dBA. In general, the acquisition of property for the creation of noise buffer zones or noise mitiga- tion has seldom been applied in Hawaii. Where existing multistory homes or apartment complexes are within the high noise zones, the application of sound insulation treatment should be evaluated prior to consideration of property acquisition for noise mitiga- tion. E. Noise Insulation of Public Use or Nonprofit Institutional Structures. Based upon currently available information and traf- fic forecasts, this mitigation measure should not be required for this project to meet FHWA or State DOT noise abatement criteria. Existing State Department of Health (DOH) regulations (Refer- ence 6) which currently apply only on the island of Oahu, but Owhich may be applied on other islands in the future, require noise Page V-2 mitigation measures if traffic noise can be expected to exceed 50 0 dB for 10 percent of the time within the interior of any public use structure already in existence. These public use structures include school classrooms, libraries, churches, hospitals, and rest homes. For fully enclosed and air conditioned structures, this value of 50 dB (1,10) of interior noise level can be achieved at exterior noise levels of 68 Leq(h) without special construction features. For naturally ventilated structures, this value of 50 dB (1,10) of interior noise level corresponds to approximately 57 Leq(h) exterior noise level. Therefore, general rules of thumb for determining the need for sound insulation of public use struc- tures according to State Department of Health requirements are as follows: A. If the facility is fully enclosed and air conditioned, then Department of Health regulations can be met if the facility is outside the 68 Leq(h) noise contour. If the o FHWA 67 Leg exterior criteria are met, then DOH limits will also be met for air conditioned structures, and additional mitigation measures are not required. B. For naturally ventilated structures, exterior noise lev- els must be less than 57 Leq(h) to meet State DOH limits. Therefore, if the naturally ventilated structures are outside the 57 Leq(h) noise contours, both FHWA and State DOH interior and exterior criteria will be met. M1 Page V-3 N CHAPTER VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AND NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES Future traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur at existing homes located south of the proposed Bypass Alternative "B" between Pohakulani Street and Komohana Street. The construc- tion of sound attenuation walls where shown in FIGURES 9B and 9C are recommended to mitigate these traffic noise impacts. These sound attenuation walls should be solid without see-through open- ings or cracks, and should be constructed using durable materials such as CMU, rock, or earth. The base heights of the sound walls shown in FIGURES 9B and 9C were assumed to be equal to the exis- ting terrain elevations. Minimization of noise impacts at existing and future noise sensitive receptors along the Puainako Street Extension Alignment #1 can be accomplished through the inclusion of sound attenuation Obarriers along the new roadway sections, including the elevated roadway sections, if required. Exceptions to this are expected to occur at future residences at Sunrise Estates (receptor locations #17 thru #19, FIGURE 9D) and those at the future eastern section of Pacific Plantation (receptor location #20 thru #21, FIGURE 9E). At these locations, it will not be possible to achieve the State DOT 1115 dB" criteria with walls of practical height of 8 feet or less (see TABLE 11A). Similar situations are expected to occur in the immediate vicinity of receptor locations #47 and #49 (FIGURE 9H), where wall heights of 6 feet are recommended due to the ina- bility of meeting the State DOT 1115 dB" criteria with wall heights of 8 feet (see TABLE 11B). The base heights of the sound walls (solid lines) shown along the Rights -of -Way were assumed to be equal to the existing terrain elevations. Where excessive wall heights were required along the certain portions of the Right -of - Way, the locations of the walls shown in the figures (dashed lines) were shifted to the roadway shoulder. The base heights of Othese sound walls (dashed lines) shown along the shoulders were Page VI -1 U Page VI -2 O assumed to be equal to the future roadway elevations. In some instances, the required height of the sound attenuation walls sub- stantially exceed eight feet in height, and complete mitigation of the increased noise levels due to the new roadway will not be practical with sound attenuation walls. For these situations, additional sound insulation of affected dwellings may also be required to meet the State DOT "15 dB" noise abatement criteria. Alongside the currently undeveloped sections of the proposed bypass and extension alignments, it is anticipated that potential noise impacts at future noise sensitive receptors along the selec- ted roadway alignments may be mitigated through the inclusion of sound walls or other noise mitigation measures within the indivi- dual project development plans. In addition, the future noise sensitive land uses which are planned along the selected bypass and extension alignments represent areas of potential adverse noise impacts if adequate noise mitigation measures are not in- corporated into the planning of these projects. It is anticipated O that the portions of the Puainako Street bypass and extension segments may be completed prior to the development of the lands adjacent to the new roadway sections, and that noise abatement measures such as adequate setbacks, sound attenuating walls or berms, or closure and air conditioning will be incorporated into these new developments along the new Puainako Street sections as required. The predictions of highway noise levels vs. distance from the centerline of the new Puainako Street segments (TABLES 8C and 8D) may be used to assist the developers in providing the necessary setbacks to the new street segments. U Page VI -2 OCHAPTER VII. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS Short-term noise impacts associated with new construction activities along the existing and bypass highways may occur. These impacts can occur as a result of the short distances (less than 100 FT) between existing noise sensitive receptors and the anticipated construction sites, particularly along the bypass highway sections and connector roads which cross through residen- tial areas. The total duration of the construction period for the proposed project is not known, but noise exposure from construc- tion activities at any one receptor location is not expected to be continuous during the total construction period. Noise levels of diesel powered construction equipment typi- cally range from 80 to 90 dB at 50 FT distance. Typical levels of noise from construction activity (excluding pile driving activity) are shown in FIGURE 10. The impulsive noise levels of impact pile Odrivers are approximately 15 dB higher than the levels shown in FIGURE 10, while the intermittent noise levels of vibratory pile drivers are at the upper end of the noise level ranges depicted in the figure. Adverse impacts from construction noise are not ex- pected to be in the "public health and welfare" category due to the temporary nature of the work and due to the administrative controls available for its regulation. Instead, these impacts will probably be limited to the temporary degradation of the qua- lity of the acoustic environment in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Construction noise levels at existing structures can inter- mittently exceed 90 dB when work is being performed at close dis- tances in front of these structures. Along the major portion of the bypass alignment, distances between the construction sites and receptors are expected to be greater than 100 FT, and construction noise levels should generally be below 80 dB or inaudible. The State Department of Health currently regulates noise from con- Ostruction activities under a permit system (Reference 6). Under Page VII -1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS VS. DISTANCE Page VII -2 FIGOURE O O 0 C) O r n4 Z o O �. UW Qi LL cc o Q E Zo o025 N W U LL O� p0) T zW �o E o�Ln LV J Q w � _y it -M � UZ Z N Q b tb 0 m b� b rn Lb co b co 0 b i. 0 cD b cD 0 �n �n T gp ui lanai punoS paly6iaM-V CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS VS. DISTANCE Page VII -2 FIGOURE O O Ocurrent permit procedures (see TABLE 12), noisy construction activities which exceed 95 dB at the project boundary lines are restricted to hours between 9:00 AM and 5:30 PM, from Monday through Friday, and exclude certain holidays. These restrictions minimize construction noise impacts on noise sensitive receptors along the existing and bypass highways and its connector roads, and have generally been successfully applied. Consideration should be given to employing the curfew system of the State Department of Health regulations relating to excessive construc- tion noise. In this way, construction noise impacts on noise sen- sitive receptors can be minimized. In addition, the use of quieted portable engine generators and diesel equipment should be specified for use within 500 FT of noise sensitive properties. Heavy truck and equipment staging areas should also be located at areas which are at least 500 FT from noise sensitive properties whenever possible. Truck routes which avoid residential communities should be identified wherever possible. Other possible measures include restriction of equip- ment type, maintenance requirements, and portable noise barriers. Page VII -3 TABLE 12 AVAILABLE WORK HOURS UNDER DOH o PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR CONSTRUCTION NOISE a. DOH PERMIT FOR NOISE EMISSIONS <'qs HPA Midnight 2 4 6 6 10 Noon 2 4 6 Time of Day b. DOH PERMIT FOR NOISE EMISSIONS '>a.c; rtaA 9 10 Midnight o Wkdys Sat/Sun Weekly 7Normal ermit 55.0 11/0 66.0 hrs Wkdys Sat/Sun Weekly Normal Permit 42.5 0/0 42.5 hrs Ll I Normal Permit Normal Permit 77 Midnight 2 4 6 6 10 Noon 2 4 6 Time of Day b. DOH PERMIT FOR NOISE EMISSIONS '>a.c; rtaA 9 10 Midnight o Midnight 2 4 6 6 10 Noon 2 4 6 Time of Day Page VII -4 6 10 Midnight o Wkdys Sat/Sun Weekly Normal Permit 42.5 0/0 42.5 hrs Ll Normal Permit Midnight 2 4 6 6 10 Noon 2 4 6 Time of Day Page VII -4 6 10 Midnight o i O O OAPPENDIX A. REFERENCES • U C (1) Barry, T. and J. Reagan, "FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Pre- diction Model;" FHWA-RD-77-108, Federal Highway Administration; Washington, D.C.; December 1978. (2) CY 1994 and CY 2020 traffic assignments and forecasts for Puainako Street Extension Project; Transmittals from The Traffic Management Consultant dated April 23, 1995. (3) Hawaii State Department of Transportation Traffic Counts and Classifications for Station Series 18 and C-19; Transmittals from The Traffic Management Consultant dated May 1, 1995. (4) Federal Highway Administration; "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise;" 23 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter J, Part 772; July 8, 1982. (5) February 1, 1995 Letter from Ron Tsuzuki, State DOT to AMFAC/JMB Hawaii, Inc.; HWY-PA 2.4400. (6) "Title 11, Administrative Rules, Chapter Noise Control for Oahu;" Hawaii State Department November 6, 1981. Page A-1 43, Community of Health; APPENDIX B o EXCERPTS FROM EPA'S ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY GUIDE Descriptor Symbol Usage The recommended symbols for the commonly used acoustic descriptors based on A -weighting are contained in Table I. As most acoustic criteria and standards used by EPA are derived from the A -weighted sound level, almost all descriptor symbol usage guidance is contained in Table I. Since acoustic nomenclature includes weighting networks other than "A" and measurements other than pressure, an expansion of Table I was developed (Table 11). The group adopted the ANSI descriptor-symboL scheme which is structured into three stages. The first stage indicates that the descriptor is a Level (i.e., based upon the logarithm of a ratio), the second stage indicates the type of quantity (power, pressure, or sound exposure), and the third stage indicates the weighting network (A, B, C, D, E..... ). If no weighting network is specified, "A" weighting is understood. Exceptions are the A -weighted sound level and the A -weighted peak sound level which require that the "A" be specified. For convenience in those situations in which an A -weighted descriptor is being compared to that of another weighting, the alternative column in Table 11 permits the inclusion of the "A". For example, a report on blast noise might wish to contrast the LCdn with the LAdn. Although not included in the tables, it is also recommended that "Lpn" and "LepN" be used as symbols for perceived noise levels and effective perceived noise levels, respectively. It is recommended that in their initial use within a report, such terms be written in full, rather than abbreviated. An example of preferred usage is as follows: The A -weighted sound level (LA) was measured before and after the installation of acoustical treatment. The measured LA values were 85 and 75 dB respectively. Descriptor Nomenclature With regard to energy averaging over time, the term "average" should be discouraged in favor of the term O "equivalent". Hence, Leq, is designated the "equivalent sound level". For Ld, Ln, and Ldn, "equivalent" need not be stated since the concept of day, night, or day -night averaging is by definition understood. Therefore, the designations are "day sound Level", "night sound level", and "day -night sound level", respectively. The peak sound level is the logarithmic ratio of peak sound pressure to a reference pressure and not the maximum root mean square pressure. While the latter is the maximum sound pressure level, it is often incorrectly Labelled peak. In that sound level meters have "peak" settings, this distinction is most important. "Background ambient" should be used in lieu of "background", "ambient", "residual", or °indigenous" to describe the level characteristics of the general background noise due to the contribution of many unidentifiable noise sources neer and far. With regard to units, it is recommended that the unit decibel (abbreviated dB) be used without modification. Hence, DBA, PNdB, and EPNdB are not to be used. Examples of this preferred usage are: the Perceived Noise Level (Lpn was found to be 75 d8. Lpn = 75 d8). This decision wes based upon the recommendation of the National Bureau of Standards, and the policies of ANSI and the Acoustical Society of America, all of which disallow any modification of bel except for prefixes indicating its multiples or submaltiples (e.g., deri). Noise Impact In discussing noise impact, it is recommended that "Level Weighted Population"'(LWP) replace "Equivalent Noise Impact" (ENI). The term "Relative Change of Impact" (RCI) shall be used for comparing the relative differences in LWP between two alternatives. Further, when appropriate, "Noise Impact Index" (NII) and "Population Weighed Loss of Hearing" (PHL) shall be used consistent with CHABA Working Group 69 Report Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements (1977). N Page B-1 r I O O APPENDIX B (CONTINUED) O TABLE I A -WEIGHTED RECOMMENDED DESCRIPTOR LIST C (1) Unless otherwise specified, time is in hours (e.g. the hourly equivalent level is Leq(t)). Time may be specified In rion- quantitative terms (e.g., could be specified a Leq(WASH) to mean the washing cycle noise for a washing machine). SOURCE: EPA ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY GUIDE, BNA 8-14-78, NOISE REGULATION REPORTER. Page B-2 TERMYS MBOL 1. A -Weighted Sound Level LA 2. A -Weighted Sound Power Level LWA 3. Maximum A -Weighted Sound Level Lmax 4. Peak A -Weighted Sound Level LApk 5. Level Exceeded x% of the Time Lx 6. Equivalent Sound Level Leq O7. Equivalent Sound Level over Time (T) (1) Leq(T) 8. Day Sound Level L 9. Night Sound Level Ln 10. Day -Night Sound Level Ldn 11. Yearly Day -Night Sound Level Ldn(Y) 12. Sound Exposure Level LSE C (1) Unless otherwise specified, time is in hours (e.g. the hourly equivalent level is Leq(t)). Time may be specified In rion- quantitative terms (e.g., could be specified a Leq(WASH) to mean the washing cycle noise for a washing machine). SOURCE: EPA ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY GUIDE, BNA 8-14-78, NOISE REGULATION REPORTER. Page B-2 APPENDIX B (CONTINUED) TABLE II RECOMMENDED DESCRIPTOR LIST C (1) "Alternative" symbols may be used to assure clarity or consistency. (2) Only B -weighting shown. Applies also to C,D,E...... weighting. (3) The term "pressure" is used only for the unweighted level. (4) Unless otherwise specified, time Is in hours (e.g., the hourly equivalent level is Leq(1). Time may be specified In non -quantitative terms (e.g., could be o sped ied as Leq(WySH) to mean the washing cycle noise for a washing machine. Page B-3 ALTERNATIVE(') OTHER (2) TERM A -WEIGHTING A -WEIGHTING WEIGHTING UNWEIGHTED 1 Level (Pressure) (3) LA LpA Lg L PB L P 2. Sound Power Level LWA LWg LW 3. Max. Sound Level Lmax LAmax LBmax Lpmax 4 P kSound (Pressure) LApk L L Level g Pk Pk 5. Level Exceeded x% of Lx LAx Lgx Lpx the time 6. Equivalent Sound Level Leq LAeq LBeq Lpeq 7. Equivalent Sound Level (4) Over Time(T) L eq(T) L Aeq(T) ` LBe q( T ) L peq(T) 8. 9. Day Sound Level Night Sound Ld LAd LBd Lpd o Level Ln LAn LBn Lpn 10. Day -Night Sound Level Ldn LAdn LBdn Lp do 11. Yearly Day -Night Sound Level L dn(Y) L Adn(Y) L Bdn(Y) L pdn(Y) 12. Sound Exposure Level LS LSA LSB LSp 13. Energy Average value over (non -time domain) L eq(e) L Aeq(e) L Beq(e) L peq(e) set of observations 14. Level exceeded x% ofL the total set of (e) xpx(e) L Ax(e) LBx(e) L (non -time domain) observations 15. Average Lx value Lx LAx Lgx Lpx (1) "Alternative" symbols may be used to assure clarity or consistency. (2) Only B -weighting shown. Applies also to C,D,E...... weighting. (3) The term "pressure" is used only for the unweighted level. (4) Unless otherwise specified, time Is in hours (e.g., the hourly equivalent level is Leq(1). Time may be specified In non -quantitative terms (e.g., could be o sped ied as Leq(WySH) to mean the washing cycle noise for a washing machine. Page B-3 N 1 EN ACOUSTIC STUDY FOR THE PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION PROJECT KANOELEHUA AVE. TO SADDLE RD. H I LO, HAWAII (SUPPLEMENT #1) Prepared for: OKAHARA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prepared by: Y. EBISU & ASSOCIATES 1126 12th Avenue, Room 305 Honolulu, Hawaii 96816 MARCH 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER CHAPTER TITLE Listof Figures.............................................................................. Listof Tables............................................................................... I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY ...................................................... II. GENERAL STUDY METHODOLOGY ........................................ III. EXISTING ACOUSTICAL ENVIRONMENT .................................. IV. FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS ............................................. V. FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES ......... APPENDIX: A. REFERENCES.............................................................................. Page PAGE NO. 11 26 29 161 r1 L m 0 0 LIST OF FIGURES NUMBER FIGURE TITLE PAGE NO. 1A LOCATIONS OF NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES .................... 4 91 LOCATIONS OF FUTURE 66 LEO (H) CONTOURS ALONG KOMOHANA STREET UNDER THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE (CY 2020) ..................................................... 17 9K LOCATIONS OF FUTURE 66 LEO (H) CONTOURS ALONG IWALANI AND WEST KAWILI STREETS UNDER THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE (CY 2020) ........................................ 18 9L LOCATIONS OF FUTURE 66 LEO (H) CONTOURS ALONG KILAUEA AVENUE AND KINOOLE STREET UNDER THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE (CY 2020) ............................... 19 9M LOCATIONS OF FUTURE 66 LEO (H) CONTOURS ALONG PUAINAKO STREET FROM KILUAEA AVENUE TO LOKAHI STREET UNDER THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE o(CY 2020).............................................................................. 25 9N RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS OF SOUND ATTENUATING WALLS.................................................................................... 27 1 Page ii LIST OF TABLES NUMBER TABLE TITLE PAGE NO. 1A TRAFFIC NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS .......................... 5 4D EXISTING CONDITIONS; YEAR 1994; AM PEAK HR. SETBACK DISTANCES .............................. 9 4E EXISTING CONDITIONS; YEAR 1994; PM PEAK HR. SETBACK DISTANCES ................................ 10 8E NO BUILD; BASE CONDITIONS; YEAR 2020; AM PEAK HR. SETBACK DISTANCES .............................. 12 8F NO BUILD; BASE CONDITIONS; YEAR 2020; PM PEAK HR. SETBACK DISTANCES .............................. 13 8G BUILD ALTERNATIVE; YEAR 2020; AM PEAK HR. SETBACK DISTANCES .............................. 14 8H BUILD ALTERNATIVE; YEAR 2020; PM PEAK HR. SETBACK DISTANCES .............................. 15 9E LIST OF POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTED STRUCTURES UNDER THE NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE (CY 2020) ......... 16 9F SETBACK DISTANCES TO 66 LEO CONTOUR UNDER THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE (CY 2020) ALONG PROJECT CROSS—STREETS............................................. 20 9G LIST OF POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTED STRUCTURES AFTER CROSS—STREET IMPROVEMENTS (AM OR PM PEAK)............................................................. 21 9H SETBACK DISTANCES TO 66 LEO CONTOUR UNDER THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE (CY 2020) ALONG LOWER PUAINAKO STREET .............................................. 23 91 LIST OF POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTED STRUCTURES AFTER PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING (CY 2020) ........ 24 Page iii t S EN N N I Q O O O LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) u NUMBER TABLE TITLE PAGE NO. 10A SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AT NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS WHERE 66 LEQ NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA EXCEEDED (5 FT RECEPTOR, AM OR PM PEAK HOUR) .................................................. 28 Page iv t CHAPTER I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY O Purpose. The first report prepared for the Puainako Street Extension Project from Kaneolehua Avenue to Saddle Road was completed in October 1995 (Refer— ence 1), but only included evaluations of potential noise impacts along Puainako Street. This supplemental acoustical study was performed to evaluate the existing and future traffic noise along four intersecting streets which are also to be improved as part of the proposed Puainako Street Extension Project. These cross—street sections which are to be improved are located north and south of Puainako Street and include: Kilauea Avenue; Kinoole Street; West Kawili Street; Iwalani Street; and KomohanaAvenue. Along these cross—streets, potential noise_ impacts associated with the No Build and Build (or widening) Alternatives were evaluated. Noise measurements were obtained, traffic noise predictions developed, and noise abatement alternatives evaluated. Because of the recent adoption of a more stringent noise abatement criteria by the Hawaii State Department of Transportation (HDOT), this acoustical study applied the new HDOT criteria along the intersecting streets. The new 66 Leq(h) noise abatement criteria adopted by the HDOT replaced the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 67 Leq(h) standard which was used in the October 1995 study. A reevaluation of potential noise impacts along the proposed alignment of Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue O and Anela Street using the new HDOT 66 Leq(h) criteria was also performed. Summary. Existing (Base Year) traffic noise levels along the cross—streets which intersect Puainako Street and which are to be improved do not exceed the 66 Leq(h) HDOT noise abatement criteria at any dwelling unit, public use structure, or park. Ex— isting traffic noise levels along Pauinako Street were described in the original noise study report. Under the No Build Alternative, future (CY 2020) traffic noise levels will exceed the 66 Leq(h) noise abatement criteria at two dwellings along Kilauea Avenue (north of Puainako Street) and at one public use structure on Kinoole Street (north of Puainako Street). Future traffic noise levels along Puainako Street under the No Build Alternative were described in the original noise study. Future (CY 2020) traffic noise levels at noise sensitive structures along Kilauea Avenue (north of Puainako Street), along Kinoole Street (north of Puainako Street), and along Puainako Street (between Kilauea Avenue and Lokahi Street) are predicted to ex— ceed the HDOT 66 Leq(h) noise abatement criteria under the Build Alternative. These noise sensitive structures include three church buildings fronting Puainako Street, O Page 1 r & O O O three private dwellings fronting Kilauea Avenue, six dwellings on Puainako Street, and two buildings of the Salvation Army. Five of the six affected dwellings fronting Puainako Street are expected to be condemned because of their location within the new Right—of—Way. Noise mitigation measures using 6 FT high sound walls are recommended for use along the Rights—of—Way fronting four dwelling units and three church buildings. The two Salvation Army buildings should not require additional noise mitigation measures. IN M Page 2 O N b CHAPTER II. GENERAL STUDY METHODOLOGY O Noise Measurements. Existing traffic noise levels at nine locations along the cross—streets of interestwere measured in May 1996 and February 1997. Thetraffic noise measurements were used to calibrate the traffic noise model which was used to calculate the Base Year (CY 1994) and future year (CY 2020) traffic noise levels under the No Build and Build Alternatives. The noise measurement locations are shown in FIGURE 1A. The results of the traffic noise measurements are summarized in TABLE 1A. In the table, Leq(h) repre— sents the average (or equivalent), A—Weighted, sound level. A list and descrip— tion of the acoustical terminology used is contained in APPENDIX B of the original noise study report (Reference 1). Traffic Noise Predictions. The methodology used in the original noise study was also used to compute future traffic noise levels under the No Build and Build Alter— natives. The measured traffic noise data were also compared to the traffic noise model predictions for model validation purposes. For the Build Alternative, the July 1995 plans for the highway improvements O between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street were also used to predict the future traffic noise levels. This current study supplement includes the most recent plans for the expected highway improvements under the Build Alternative between Kilauea Avenue and Anela Street, and for the cross—streets between Kiluaea Avenue and Komohana Street. An updated noise analysis for the bypass and extension sections of Puainako Street from Anela Street to Saddle Road was not performed since the ultimate highway alignments have not been finalized. Impact Assessments and Mitigation. Following the calculation of the future traffic noise levels under the No Build and Build Alternatives, comparisons of the future traffic noise levels and potential impacts were made. Comparisons of predicted future traffic noise levels with the new HDOT 66 Leq(h) noise abatement criteria were rnade to determine specific locations where noise abatement measures may be necessary. The HDOT's criteria of "greater than 15 dB increase above existing background noise levels" was also used in this study. As was expected, this second criteria was not predicted to be exceeded for this portion of the study due to the relatively high levels of existing traffic noise along the cross—streets and along Puainako Street. The HDOT 66 Leq(h) noise abatement criteria was applied to all dwellings, churches, and schools along the cross—streets which are to be improved and along the sections of Puainako O Street between Kilauea Avenue and Anela Street. Where the 66 Leq(h) noise Page 3 C J m U LOCATIONS OF NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES Page 4 FIGURE 1A Page 5 0 O �Ij b + L) c0 O O O N O d' (D Ln L Q LO y ` a. O .D ` CO !� m C'7 to O ro d d o (D � J IY IU CU D cr) to m (n O O -iO = > W > V Y U m ro 5 c) O (o N w Q W = 7 OQ = � O (o O (n O co Cl)C\j V' LU Q I Q - LLI v v m co � o Z > U Q L ro � Q m ~ F' fn _ (n In O (n O� OD V coO O V O N O N (l- (NO (O E r O~ O~ O O O m i= U U Y N C U _N C U U C N C Z U � U L U L Q U Q Q) U U) U u) _ Q Y E O E O Y (O E� O Y N -C E� O Y f� EFa O 3 I� L O p ° Y 0 J �� O in 0)I 1- LL O (p I- lL �m O N w �� F- O c0 L� ,m O co - �(n �� co .Cv � O.0 O` to O O\ CN (D U)CN (A co 00 Cv 7 CN �_� N= O oC uj F-: zi > Page 5 t a O O N Cf] j in ch co d J � CD N N C7 CO ro (D � m J IY IU d r 0 v in E H J 6 2 U) Y LU U_ = N V r 0 Zp 7 LU O 0 O = 0 U Q I QI r r LU T LU w ax J (nfn n. co D O m 2 D IQ— Z > Q U L LL 0 F- U 0 in v � cr)LO 0 O LO � � r 0 r— 0 = c`� crp o E C FD C U)C co U co Z O Cn U 65 U CO O L N •' O N _ N O Y L O O O c° E C E EE E O O 0 CDO O rL O� O rL O m L O a C _ N O C r N C r r Lr) LO v OJ X } IV Page 6 abatement criteria was exceeded, the use of noise barriers was tested to determine if the barriers would be effective in mitigating adverse noise impacts. Page 7 I. O M Q a O O O CHAPTER Ill. EXISTING ACOUSTICAL ENVIRONMENT In order to be consistent with the original noise study, 1994 was used as the Base Year for computing changes in traffic noise levels between the No Build and Build Alternatives. Differences among the existing traffic noise levels measured in May 1996, February 1997, and the computed Base Year (1994) traffic noise levels along Puainako Street and its cross—streets were not considered to be significant. The Base Year noise environment along the cross—streets of interest were described by computing the Hourly Equivalent Sound Levels [Leq(h)] for the 1994 time period. These sound levels, ex— pressed in decibels, represent the average level of traffic noise for a given hour of the day. Due to variations in existing traffic conditions along the cross—streets, evaluations of both the AM and PM peak hours were necessary to determine the hour with the highest traffic noise levels. Additional information regarding Base Year traffic noise levels along lower Puainako Street are contained in the original noise study. TABLES 4D and 4E present the traffic volume, speed, and mix assumptions used to calculate the Base Year noise levels along the various cross—streets included in this study. Shown in TABLES 4D and 4E are the calculated AM and PM Peak Hour Leq(h)'s at a reference distance of 100 FT from the centerlines of the various roadway O segments. By using the traffic assumptions of TABLES 4D and 4E, and aerial photos of the existing improvements on both sides of the cross—streets, the relationships of the Base Year traffic noise levels to noise sensitive properties along the existing roadway were obtained. The Base Year traffic noise levels did not exceed the 66 Leq(h) noise abatement criteria at any noise sensitive property along the cross— streets of interest. N U) w U Z Y U Q 0] F - w U) Q Y Q w IL Q C) I I Q Q w Z 0 0 Z O U 0 Z 1— X W «�Q�IO IOO -JI .N- N N O O N O N W^ Z J uj W ZJ N V N V N NN N W n U (O Qcc: J (`7 N C7 In N N N a WJI N N co 00 O V M -t U rn It n N (D �D r- a Z H J� t N ^ cli O o O O m N N 10 ui IA <Nb N (b In N tb O Q' J J F d N M 0 o N 0 v o n ro N O> r X F- �� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J O O O O O O O O V O O O OO O O O O O o. co co o. W W Q Ol O> O O m m >� W a a (L a a a a a W M� i 2 i M M i a co fA ami a Cl) q)i Cl) cr)i 00 c) t ¢ Z 0 o a a t L r o v in oo o o r ¢ U [a= 0 z mo z(o O W o o � 3a o o a` )i w ¢ fA E E m Y o O m m Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Page 9 6 u C a D O . W Z �W.. J m LO <O N N 0 Z N It N M N N N It W U `O L W J Z LL coN LO M 7 N co V< Q U Y U m c n o o QD 0 0 Z Q <O LO H I— fn W ❑� OD cli O L Y Q o W 0 W n OD m to n LO 0 0 a LU J co C J O C) r Q J MTN M M 0) Tm OI ro 0 nm ' r Z X� O = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ W Z O U ao o` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U W¢ rn rn rn 0) a) a) 0) 0) >� C7 Z W a a o a a n. a n. W M � 2 2 2 2 i 2 W CL U) v m a r0i CO con o0i coo L F- 7 j W fn Z d 5 v .-. L m cc C d N O O O O O C7— Z cn z O Wo p c 3 ns a O d O d 0N E Y 7 O 0 0 N 3 C C Y Y Y Y Page 10 0 O6 CHAPTER IV. FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND o POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS Along Cross—Streets. The future traffic noise levels along the cross—streets of interest under the No Build and Build Alternatives are shown in TABLES 8E thru 8H. Under the No Build Alternative, future traffic volumes and resulting noise levels were forecasted to be very similar to those under the Build Alternative. The major difference between the No Build and Build Alternatives was the increased number of traffic lanes and median widths under the Build Alternative, which tend to disperse future traffic noise levels over a wider area along the Rights—of—Way. The setback distances to the 66 Leq(h) Leq(h) contours were recalculated for the Build Alternative and adjusted for the planned lanes and medians depicted in the July 1995 highway plans. TABLE 9E lists the number of noise sensitive structures within the cross—street improvement areas which are predicted to be exposed to CY 2020 traffic noise levels greater than 66 Leq(h) under the No Build Alternative. Two dwelling units near the existing Barber Shop along Kilauea Avenue (north of Puainako Street) and the Residential Building on the Salvation Army lot on Kinoole Street (north of Puainako Street) would be exposed to traffic noise levels greater than 66 Leq(h). FIGURES 9J thru 9L depict the approximate location of the 66 Leq(h) noise con— o tours along the cross—streets of interest under the Build Alternative. The aerial photos are relatively old (approximately 20 years old), and do not include some of the more recently constructed structures, such as the two new buildings on the Salvation Army lot on Kinoole Street. The calculated setback distances to the 66 Leq(h) contours from the existing cross—street centerlines are shown in TABLE 9F. TABLE 9G lists the number of noise sensitive structures within the cross—street improvement areas which are predicted to be exposed to CY 2020 traffic noise levels greater than 66 Leq(h) under the Build Alternative. One additional dwelling unit on Kilauea Avenue north of the existing Barber Shop, an Office/Conference Room on the Salvation Army lot, and the west classroom wing of the Kinoole Baptist Church are the additional noise sensitive structures which may be impacted under the Build Alternative by future traffic noise levels. The affected dwelling units along Kilauea Avenue are located near Stations #3, #5, and #7 where shown in FIGURE 9L. The two Salvation Army buildings (not shown in FIGURE 9L) are located on the west side of Kinoole Street in the general vicinity of Station #5 of FIGURE 9L. The affected rooms of the two buildings include a presently air conditioned Conference Room and a naturally ventilated Weight (Exercise) Room. o Page 11 Page 12 0 o W J O n N CO (D 1� Z N m N T N J N O Q W F v Z J (D Cl) (LO m N MLli i � U � W Z Q� Q U- J a LL N00 cno M M a cn0 � J OD (D (D m m m 0 m U W ° o (D m m o (o U y N N r m 0 (D O - N m (D m Cl) N r - N M In W QY Z W o ro rn 0 0 CL Q N N N N 2 U Q W 00 o 0 0 W N •- J 0] Nm (O v N m o a �U) LO O~ W } z Z ¢= fp N OD U) N N N m O F a. O> D) N N 0) r� D) O m D) r Oo o o o o o 0 0 O F- U U) U 2 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co ;0 Q m 0 0 m m 0 rn rn a° D J p S S 2 Z 2 = S = Co WI M 2 2 2 i 2 i 2 O CL 0 a(0) v am) a CO Cl) V)) am) Z L W N Z d 7 r L L C (n O O O O Q C7 C L L = w Z u) z O W o O 3 m N o N o m m Q U Y 9 O Y m m G Y m 3 3 Y Y Y Y Page 12 0 LL CD W J 07 Fa - Page 13 0 • U C 0 w N W Z N J n W F- y M M W"J m CI) LO C/) U U F- m J LL N N n N V M N co M (p M M M (O Q � � Y La) r 0 n rn m o OD co Z cp co H (n 0 (O N of^N�Nr��N N M � M LLi w QY W 0 CL Z Q N N N N NN c L O IL o � N Nm w ,- COa LO n (n o W J } z J H dl O M (D Ln0 coM (O n o7 0 O> � o N rn o (n r x O O x �� 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 W J F O O o o O O O o U) Q U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]W Q m 00 OD 00 m 00 OD 00 > ao m dl i 2 i i 2 � 2 i O (n r1Oi a c )i v CICOi co m a°i Z r rO O N Q Z Z (n Z m v r L r C C C U) O O O O Q C7 cn = 0) Z to Z O w o o c 3d co O d m m Q CO E E m O O Y O Y 3 3 C Y C Y Y Y Page 13 0 • U C e Page 14 W JI O M r r � Z N N N J � I W O z aa Z M N LO eh W U)M M N U C NO 2 Q c (f)J ro v W ti U) Q (Y)ami a ((00 U � Z Q N O co in W J � co NN U N Z coo Y FQ- N J O N(n-t M NQ [n NC`7 (D N N ui M In U) W fr 0 Z O Ch O N O _ N N Q O O O O O O O O Q U C7 a CO o W i O -J¢ m C� n o Q (T�� (D ((O (D (MO N U) (OD C( D O v J N a: J Q V N pp N O N n Cn co } I T m O j c T W ~ i x F Z= O O O O O O O O w J F O oZZ O O O o O O O O O O O O O QJ o Qrn mrn rn rn rn rnO Q > o J m a LLJdas. a a d a d a U CL M -t M t co M M co t t }Z r d 0 W0 rn o Z a r r L 0 c c r' in o o o o QC7 L Co _ U) Z co Z ¢ W C ro 3 Y d oo d oo co m N w N E o Y Y C C Page 14 2 co LLI J m i¢ - U) LL U Z N U) Y U ¢ cD QY W a 2 L1 O N O N Q� W W Z LL J J_ co Page 15 0 d ( C O 0 w � LL J Z N ch cp N LO It N N N J N cc LL H N LZ J 00') (NO Cl) ON co M co N U n 0 O LL (fin cni c0i � (0 LI J 0) 0 m O O N O J N r N CO N « LLI U Z O N _ O O O O Q O O O O O O O O = I I U 0 0 r m N M N N (O cY N O � N N Q' J Q2 H ° rn o o M n N 0 4 a N d (D pNj V O > H N r x� ;�= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J O O O O O O o 0 EE U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LLJ> rn m rn Obi 0N) 0 OD cn 00) 0 N m a co M v v0) `o Cl)0 r0) <Z r 0LU ¢ Z 0 CO Z v a r L C ow in 00 0 00 0 ¢ C7 — o Z o Z O LL o a E 3 m 0 v 0 m 0 0 3 Y c m m Y Y Y Y Page 15 0 d ( C O Note: C 1. Public Use structure is Residential Building on Salvation Army Property. Page 16 o 0 TABLE 9E . O LIST OF POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTED STRUCTURES UNDER THE NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE (CY 2020) **** NUMBER OF IMPACTED UNITS ( BASE YEAR LEQ) *** ROADWAY PRIVATE PUBLIC USE PARK SEGMENT STRUCTURES STRUCTURES 'LANDS Komohana South 0 0 None Komohana North 0 0 None Iwalani Street 0 0 None W. Kawili Street 0 0 None Kinoole South 0 0 None Kinoole North 0 1 None Kilauea South 0 0 None 0 Kilauea North 2 Homes -------- 0 -------- None ----- Total: 2 1 0 Note: C 1. Public Use structure is Residential Building on Salvation Army Property. Page 16 fir,. t . i, ,�.•I�_.w :;1... N y a O O C TABLE 9F SETBACK DISTANCES TO 66 LEQ CONTOUR UNDER THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE (CY 2020) ALONG PROJECT CROSS—STREETS * DISTANCE (FT) FROM EXISTING CENTERLINE ROADWAY LOCATION WEST OF EAST OF SEGMENT IDENTIFIER ROADWAY ROADWAY Kilauea Ave. South #1 44 58 Kilauea Ave. South #2 43 61 Kilauea Ave. North #3 59 84 Kilauea Ave. South #4 48 48 Kilauea Ave. North #5 64 79 Kilauea Ave. North #6 69 69 Kilauea Ave. North #7 58 84 Kinoole St. South #1 50 33 Kinoole St. North #2 43 37 Kinoole St. South #3 39 39 O Kinoole St. North #4 37 37 Kinoole St. North #5 44 35 Iwalani St. #1 47 43 West Kawili St. #2 77 68 Iwalani St. #3 44 44 Komohana St. South #1 53 53 Komohana St. South #2 52 66 Komohana St. South #3 55 67 Note: See FIGURES 9J to 9L for Location Identifier stations. Page 20 O 0 a TABLE 9G LIST OF POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTED STRUCTURES AFTER CROSS—STREET IMPROVEMENTS (AM OR PM PEAK) Total: 3 3 0 Note: Three public use structures are: west classroom wing of Kinoole Baptist Church; Salvation Army (Weight Room/Residential) Building; and Salvation Army (Conference/Office) Building. C Page 21 ••* NUMBER OF IMPACTED UNITS ( YEAR 2020 Leq) *'* ROADWAY PRIVATE PUBLIC USE PARK SEGMENT STRUCTURES STRUCTURES LANDS Komohana South 0 0 None Komohana North 0 0 None Iwalani Street 0 0 None W. Kawili Street 0 0 None Kinoole South 0 0 None Kinoole North 0 3 None Kilauea South 0 0 None Kilauea North 3 — — — — — — — 0 --------------- None O ----------- Total: 3 3 0 Note: Three public use structures are: west classroom wing of Kinoole Baptist Church; Salvation Army (Weight Room/Residential) Building; and Salvation Army (Conference/Office) Building. C Page 21 P O O O The west classroom wing of the Kinoole Baptist Church (near Station #2 in FIGURE 9L) is naturally ventilated and is predicted to be exposed to future traffic noise levels greater than 66 Leq(h). Along Puainako Street. TABLE 9H presents the calculated setback distances from the existing centerline of Puainako Street to the 66 Leq(h) contours under the Build Alternative. The number of existing dwelling units and public use structures located within the 66 Leq(h) contours are tabulated in TABLE 91. Six dwelling units, located between Kilauea Avenue and Lokahi Street and shown in FIGURE 9M, were identified as potentially impacted structures. Five of these six units may be condemned due to their location within or near the future Right—of—Way. In the original study, five dwelling units were identified as potentially impacted structures using the FHWA 67 Leq(h) noise abatement standard (see TABLE 9C of Reference 1). , Three additional public use structures identified in TABLE 91 are now included as potentially impacted structures along Puainako Street following use of the 66 Leq(h) noise abatement criteria. These are the Sanctuary and Assembly Buildings of the Kinoole Baptist Church and the Meeting/Classroom Building of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. These public use structures are located O near Stations 315 and 313, respectively, in FIGURE 9M. O Page 22 TABLE 9H SETBACK DISTANCES TO 66 LEO CONTOUR UNDER THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE (CY 2020) ALONG LOWER PUAINAKO STREET PUAINAKO ST. SEGMENT Kilauea to Kinoole Kilauea to Kinoole Kinoole to Maikai Kinoole to Maikai Maikai to Lokahi Lokahi to Pamala * DISTANCE (FT) FROM EXISTING CENTERLINE * LOCATION NORTH OF SOUTH OF IDENTIFIER ROADWAY ROADWAY Sta 318 73 73 Sta 315 75 84 Sta 313 67 78 Sta 310 95 59 Sta 307 117 37 Sta 305 117 37 Pamela to Kehaulani Sta 302 116 Pamela to Kehaulani Sta 299 116 Nohea to Naniakea Sta 293 117 Nohea to Naniakea Sta 290 112 Bypass "B" at Anela Sta 287 117 Note: See FIGURE 9M for Stations 318 thru 307. Page 23 36 36 37 36 37 4 1 C C 1 g 0 O O TABLE 91 L01 N LIST OF POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTED STRUCTURES AFTER PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING (CY 2020) ROADWAY SEGMENT Kilaueato Kinoole Kinoole to Maikai Maikai to Lokahi Lokahi to Pamala Pamela to Kehaulan Nohea to Naniakea Nanaikea to Anela Total: *** NUMBER OF IMPACTED UNITS ( BASE YEAR LEQ) *** PRIVATE PUBLIC USE PARK STRUCTURES STRUCTURES LANDS 2 Homes* 2 None 3 Homes* 1 None 1 Home* 0 None 0 0 None 0 0 None 0 0 None 0--- --- 0 --- None 6 3 0 Notes: 1. Five of these homes will require condemnation due to Right—of—Way conflicts.. 2. Public Use structures are Sanctuary and Assembly Buildings of Kinoole Baptist Church, and Meeting/Classroom Building of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Page 24 s 'qf 4a�li2 Ir 1 r: �r r I i r� r 1� ♦ `'��q� 1 o 0 o CHAPTER V. FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES Along Kilauea Avenue. Three dwelling units along Kilauea Avenue qualify for noise mitigation measures (see FIGURE 9N). One of the dwelling units is a two— story building, and one is elevated approximately 4 FT above ground level with posts. It will be difficult to shield the elevated living areas from the traffic noise using six foot high sound barriers along the Right—of—Way. TABLE 10A presents the predicted performance of sound attenuation walls located along the Right—of—Way as shown in FIGURE 9N. An 8 FT high wall will be required to shield the elevated dwelling unit behind the Barber Shop. The second floor spaces of the two—story dwelling south— east of the Barber Shop will not benefit from a 6 to 8 FT high wall, but -the lower floors will. The use of 6 FT high sound attenuating walls is recommended along the Right—of—Way where shown in FIGURE 9N. Along Kinoole Street. Noise mitigation measures may not be required for the two Salvation Army buildings due to the current use of air conditioning within the Conference Room and due to the non—noise sensitive activities which occur within the Weight Room of the Residential Building. The noise sensitive living quarters are located west of the Weight Room in the Residential Building, and are located beyond o (or outside) the 66 Leq(h) contour. The west classroom wing of the Kinoole Baptist Church is located within the 66 Leq(h) contour under the Build Alternative. Mitigation of future traffic noise levels may be possible at this classroom wing through closure of the widows on the west wall and the addition of sound attenuation walls along the Right—of—Way to the north and south of the classroom wing (see FIGURE 9N). The results of TABLE 10A indicate that 6 FT high sound attenuating walls should provide a minimum noise reduction of 5 dB. Along Puainako Street. Three church buildings and one dwelling unit along lower Puainako Street will remain and will qualify for sound attenuation measures. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' r eetingj4lsssroom.builddng located southwest of the Kinoole Street intersection will benefit from a 6 FT high wall shown in FIGURE 9N. The Sanctuary and Assembly Buildings of the Kinoole Baptist Church and the dwelling unit east of the church can be shielded by a 6 FT high sound attenuating wall shown in FIGURE 9N. However, the open driveways shown in the figure will partially negate the effectiveness of the sound attenuating wall within those areas which have direct line—of—sight to Puainako Street traffic. Page 26 14 1 � - I 0, 9 r-_ 7' Cl j RirvoOLE STREE-r- Page 27 LU Z a) LL z D z LU z D 0 cn U- 0 U) z 0 0 LU 0 z LU 0 uj rr C O Page 28 o _ o a a) (D OW Z z cr v v o _ o. cr Q F Q =m ¢ Qcr 2 o W W i U 0 Z Z Z N Z Z W X co W I Q I Z 3 ♦- w I J J W v m v mv d Q Q (� �3z 7 v 7 7 0) 7 v 7 J U J = v - y 2 a W0 N W Q F— LL tL O n V Z Z Z O -a 0 O Z Z J W z N4 N o WWO V in UCC O co ZQ `L �JW F 7 r7 co O) N W Z O I O N I� N N U W � 3 I V tL In r Q 2 o 0 (D vo m QOM j to o m (' � o c[Za H O I ¢ Q _jO w LLJ U W m w co o Q c0 p Q I ¢z m¢ v Un v Cl) N v Ww a) C)a a• i aw0 i 3� � o � (D ( o S f- w Q U) W O z C7 O z m H O r d O) N n N z ;: X (D (0 cao F- U W W0v I' LL. CL O O O Y w rL ri i ri } Q. Q O tii O CC W m ¢ Q' W N N N W cl- QU wW �' > ~ N N Q W D w Z Lu Z O U)> 2 Z Z y U U O Z O EL 7 7 Y LL N Ian N U U) W Q p = U U O = 2 2 O L U z w U U W O C7 Z n c� in c) c� C7u) Z c� n Z N in Q J Z« rt (n R (n « In W R w N fn In WO N (/\) Page 28 0 0 APPENDIX A. REFERENCES 0 (1) "Acoustic Study for the Puainako Street Extension Project — Kanoelehua Avenue to Saddle Road, Hilo, Hawaii;" Y. Ebisu & Associates; October 1995. m M Page 29 I It O O O IMPACTED PROPERTY TABLE IDENTIFICATIONS 1 -A-) (BYPASS ALTERNATIVE FUTURE TYPE 2 RECOMMENDED SOUND LEVEL TMK LEQ IMPACT MITIGATION REDUCTION Location 7 64.7 +17.7 Leq 6 Foot Wall -8.1 Leq Dormitory 65.7 +18.7 Leq 6 Foot Wall -9.7 Leq Location 8 64.6 +17.6 Leq 6 Foot Wall -8.9 Leq 2-4-01:123 61.7 None N/A N/A 2-4-01:124 61.2 None N/A N/A 2-4-01:125 63.8 +16.8 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall None (1) 2-4-01:126 63.0 +16.0 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -2.9 Leq (2) 2-4-01:127 64.0 +17.0 Leq 7.0 Foot Wall -5.1 Leq 2-4-01:128 62.6 +15.6 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -5.1 Leq 2-4-01:129 63.5 +16.5 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -5.3 Leq 2-4-01:130 63.2 +16.2 Leq 6.0 Foot Wall -6.4 Leq 2-4-01:131 64.0 +17.0 Leq 7.5 Foot Wall -6.8 Leq 2-4-01:132 64.0 +17.0 Leq 6.0 Foot Wall -6.8 Leq 2-4-01:133 63.6 +16.6 Leq 7.0 Foot Wall -5.2 Leq 2-4-01:134 62.4 +15.4 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -5.9 Leq O 2-4-01:135 62.2 +15.2 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -5.4 Leq 2-4-01:136 62.3 +15.3 Leq 6.0 Foot Wall -5.4 Leq 2-4-01:137 59.5 None N/A N/A Notes: 1. 11 foot high wall required for 5.6 Leq of noise reduction. 2. 9.5 foot high wall required for 5.5 Leq of noise reduction. 3. Heights of walls are above wall base elevations along lot boundaries. 4. Roadway Alignment "B" profile assumed for Alignment "A". 5. Future Leq Greater than 66 Leq = Type 1 Impact. 6. Future Increase in Ambient Noise Greater than +15 Leq = Type 2 Impact. 7. Ambient Noise Assumed to be 47 Leq at all lots. O �In r JI '�� CE STA �164a00 0 Iv o T I 14 o I, 1 I I �s N MATCHLIIJE II N = SEE SPT NO C -d = FOR CONT `-0 f T L � o a i C Ch r I � v N G s�l?�_r—' s [ vy J I ! yR L n J u ! fG n N SS P ry C NJ SII A 160 �In r JI '�� CE STA �164a00 0 m O Iv o T I 14 o I, 1 I I �s N MATCHLIIJE II N = SEE SPT NO C -d = FOR CONT `-0 W J L � m O I 161 m m PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF LOWER PUAINAKO STREET BYPASS ALTERNATIVE 'B' Page IV -15 FIGURED 96 N O CTABLE 2 IMPACTED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATIONS (BYPASS ALTERNATIVE 'B') FUTURE TYPE 2 RECOMMENDED SOUND LEVEL TMK LEQ IMPACT MITIGATION REDUCTION 2-4-01:123 62.3 +15.3 Leq 5.0 Foot Wall -7.3 Leq 2-4-01:124 65.1 +18.1 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -0.8 Leq (1) 2-4-01:125 66.1 +19.1 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -1.9 Leq (2) 2-4-01:126 66.5 +19.5 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -4.5 Leq (3) 2-4-01:127 66.2 +19.2 Leq 7.0 Foot Wall -5.5 Leq 2-4-01:128 66.3 +19.3 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -5.9 Leq 2-4-01:129 66.3 +19.3 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -5.6 Leq 2-4-01:130 66.5 +19.5 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -6.2 Leq 2-4-01:131 66.5 +19.5 Leq 7.5 Foot Wall -5.2 Leq 2-4-01:132 66.6 +19.6 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -6.8 Leq 2-4-01:133 67.6 +20.6 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -6.1 Leq 2-4-01:134 67.2 +20.2 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -7.3 Leq 2-4-01:135 66.9 +19.9 Leq 6.0 Foot Wall -6.7 Leq 2-4-01:136 66.5 +19.5 Leq 6.0 Foot Wall -6.1 Leq 2-4-01:137 66.4 +19.4 Leq 6.0 Foot Wall -7.7 Leq 2-4-01:138 66.4 +19.4 Leq 7.0 Foot Wall -6.2 Leq 2-4-01:139 66.7 +19.7 Leq 7.5 Foot Wall -5.7 Leq O 2-4-01:140 2-4-01:141 66.6 66.5 +19.6 Leq +19.5 Leq 7.5 Foot Wall Foot -6.5 Leq 7.5 Wall -7.0 Leq 2-4-01:142 66.1 +19.1 Leq 5.5 Foot Wall -7.9 Leq 2-4-01:143 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2-4-01:144 67.6 +20.6 Leq 4.0 Foot Wall -7.8 Leq 2-4-01:145 68.2 +21.2 Leq 4.0 Foot Wall -7.0 Leq 2-4-01:146 68.2 +21.2 Leq 4.0 Foot Wall -7.9 Leq 2-4-01:147 68.3 +21.3 Leq 4.0 Foot Wall -7.4 Leq 2-4-01:148 67.9 +20.9 Leq 4.0 Foot Wall -6.6 Leq 2-4-01:149 67.0 +20.0 Leq 4.0 Foot Wall -6.8 Leq 2-4-01:150 66.3 +19.3 Leq 5.5 Foot Wall -6.4 Leq 2-4-01:151 66.5 +19.5 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -6.0 Leq 2-4-01:152 66.5 +19.5 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -6.3 Leq 2-4-01:153 66.5 +19.5 Leq 7.0 Foot Wall -5.5 Leq 2--4-01:154 66.2 +19.2 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -5.9 L.eq 2-4-01:155 66.0 +19.0 Leq 6.5 Foot Wall -5.7 Leq 2-4-01:43 66.1 +19.1 Leq 6.0 Foot Wall -5.4 Leq 2-4-01:156 66.0 +19.0 Leq 6.0 Foot Wall -5.7 Leq Notes: 1. 9.5 foot high wall required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 2. 9.5 foot high wall required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. C 3. 8.5 foot high wall required for 5.2 Leq of noise reduction. 4. Heights of walls are above wall base elevations along lot boundaries. 5. Future Leq Greater than 66 Leq = Type 1 Impact. 6. Future Increase in Ambient Noise Greater than +15 Leq = Type 2 Impact. 7. Ambient Noise Assumed to be 47 Leq at all lots. KOWDHANA J o 5 \ �� f'1 1 pO r�, 1^•„ \ IF 3 � p v Sypy �N I I P N ' CD � u � N O i r Y I v F'm .k ➢ ri'� � J �� pN 1 Ua J GSC _ s W �N ao ' ao J o 5 \ �� pO \ IF J I ' r r m A WE W 0 0 O y � o I i II' Z x���, • W c �L } ry i s IJ � vU m I V V I t� MATCHLINE s � � � - _ - SEE ENT NO C-) FOR COU' ` S �^ — � a STA 252+00 ro� a I > t II os� N� w i Aa y � o I i ' � c IV1 m I I t� MATCHLINE s � � � - _ - SEE ENT NO C-) FOR COU' ` S �^ — � a STA 252+00 ro� y � o I i ' � c IV1 m I I t� MATCHLINE s � � � - _ - SEE ENT NO C-) FOR COU' ` V V v — � a I i ' i;i MATCHLINE s � � � - _ - SEE ENT NO C-) FOR COU' ` V V v NII I o f,Y 12 t6' I6' 11, 1 o I PUPI?NI !N« - r / �.�I II ''�, - u �� ''� m r•(. � J �i \,tr � � :eE �I 1 �@' -rl a:L4-- 0' 0 I n 0 12' 12 II lopI, VIII o' , o - SAF_ �N ~ � I �• , y� I I' I t � rA M`i� I• N t M I-• r r sm n P£ 4N I ' O, l / 0 r C 0 O O e ten+ N ; ul` O—N / .160 N C 1 ' I � II IL Ini C. dY .�Y • m 11 _ � I F a :? IT - 1- J. ry Yi Y (e N N N MA1CHLINE N - SEE SNT NO. C-8 FOR CONT. JI pN.V -4 r v�� vl o, N .,M ma" o� L J Nv J � :nm P xo �r it --- — m ,_ • \ N H � m nGl ` P STA !2V+00 ten+ N ; ul` O—N / .160 N C 1 ' I � II IL Ini C. dY .�Y • m 11 _ � I F a :? IT - 1- J. ry Yi Y (e N N N MA1CHLINE N - SEE SNT NO. C-8 FOR CONT. a C m I p O O TABLE 3 O IMPACTED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATIONS (EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1) AMBIENT FUTURE TYPE 2 RECOMMENDED SOUND LEVEL TMK (LEQ) LEQ IMPACT MITIGATION REDUCTION 2-4-75-31 35 54.3 19.3 8 FT Wali 49.2(-5.1) 2-4-75-35 35 59.4 24.4 8 FT Wall 51.9(-7.5) 2-4-75-25 35 52.8 17.8 8 FT Wall 47.2(-5.6) 2-4-75-24 35 52.8 22.7 8 FT Wall 47.0(-5.8) 2-4-75-22 35 52.1 17.1 8 FT Wall 46.6(-5.5) 2-4-75-20 35 52.4 17.4 8 FT Wall 46.5(-5.9) 2-4-75-19 35 52.6 17.6 8 FT Wall 47.3(-5.3) 2-4-75-43 35 60.2 25.2 8 FT Wall 53.3(-6.9) 2-4-75-44 35 58.0 23.0 8 FT Wall 53.8(-4.2) (2) 2-4-75-49 35 50.4 15.4 8 FT Wall 45.3(-5.1) 2-4-75-48 35 51.0 16.0 8 FT Wall 47.1(-3.9) (3) 2-4-75-47 35 53.2 18.2 8 FT Wall 49.5(-3.7) (3) 2-5-27-67 42 59.7 17.7 8 FT Wall 56.4(-3.3) (4) 2-5-27-66 42 58.7 16.7 8 FT Wall 55.4(-3.3) (5) O 2-5-27-65 42 58.9 16.9 8 FT Wall 55.6(-3.3) (6) 2-5-61-33 42 62.8 20.8 8 FT Wall 59.2(-3.6) (3) 2-5-61-31 42 53.6 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-30 42 50.7 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-29 42 49.3 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-01 42 59.8 17.8 8 FT Wall 58.9(-0.9) (6). 2-5-61-02 42 54.4 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-10 42 50.6 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-11 42 52.7 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-12 42 55.6 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-13 42 56.9 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-19 42 64.1 22.1 8 FT Wall 60.5(-3.6) (2) 2--5-01 -- 17 42 53.7 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-20 42 67.7 25.7 8 FT Wail 63.0(-4.7) (2) 2-5-61-22 42 53.6 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-41 42 54.0 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-43 42 59.4 17.4 8 FT Wall 53.9(-5.5) 2-5-61-44 42 56.7 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-45 42 56.5 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-48 42 58.7 16.7 8 FT Wall 56.5(-2.2) (4) O 9. Future increase in ambient noise greater than +15 Leq = Type 2 Impact. 0 0 0 0 TABLE 3 (CONTINUED) IMPACTED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATIONS (EXTENSION ALIGNMENT #1) 0 AMBIENT FUTURE TYPE 2 RECOMMENDED SOUND LEVEL TMK (LEQ) LEQ IMPACT MITIGATION REDUCTION 2-5-61-49 42 57.7 15.7 8 FT Wall 54.7(-3.0) (5) 2-5-61-50 42 55.6 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-51 42 57.3 15.3 8 FT Wall 52.7(-4.6) (2) 2-5-61-52 42 56.0 None N/A N/A 2-5-61-53 42 58.9 +16.9 8 FT Wall 55.1(-3.8) (3) 2-5-61-54 42 62.6 +20.6 8 FT Wall 55.4(-7.2) 2-5-61-56 42 58.6 +16.6 8 FT Wall 53.5(-5.1) 2-5-61-55 42 63.6 +21.6 8 FT Wall 57.5(-6.1) 2-5-05-113 39 53.2 None N/A N/A 2-5-05-112 39 53.5 None N/A N/A 2-5-05-111 39 53.3 None N/A N/A 2-5-05-110 39 53.0 None N/A N/A 2-5-51-40 39 61.5 +22.5 8 FT Wall 57.3(-4.2) (3) 2-5-51-41 39 56.6 +17.6 8 FT Wall 53.7(-2.9) (5) 2-5-51-42 39 55.7 +16.7 8 FT Wall 52.4(-3.3) (4) 2-5-51-43 39 54.4 +15.4 8 FT Wall 51.2(-3.2) (4) 2-5-51-38 39 57.7 +18.7 8 FT Wall 53.1(-4.6) (3) 0 2-5-51-36 39 56.0 +17.0 8 FT Wall 51.5(-4.5) (4) 2-5-51-34 39 56.0 +17.0 8 FT Wall 52.3(-3.7) (4) 2-5-51-33 39 55.2 +16.2 8 FT Wall 52.3(-2.9) (4) 2-5-51-32 39 54.5 - +15.5 8 FT Wall 51.5(-3.0) (3) 2-5-51-15 39 53.9 None N/A N/A 2-5-51-14 39 54.2 +15.2 8 FT Wall 50.9(-3.3) (3) 2-5-51-13 39 53.9 None N/A N/A 2-5-51-52 39 53.4 None N/A N/A 2-5-51-51 39 53.8 None N/A N/A 2-5-46-06 39 61.4 +22.4 8 FT Wall 57.8(-3.6) (4) 2-5-45-14 39 64.3 +25.7 8 FT Wall 59.7(-4.6) (1) Notes: 1. 9 foot high wall required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 2. 10 foot high wall required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 3. 11 foot high wall required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 4. 12 foot high wall required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 5. 13 foot high wall required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 6. 14 foot high wall required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 7. Heights of walls are above wall base elevations along Rights -of -Way. 8. Future Leq greater than 66 Leq = Type 1 Impact. 9. Future increase in ambient noise greater than +15 Leq = Type 2 Impact. 0 v 0 C> O TABLE 4A O IMPACTED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATIONS (ALIGNMENT #2, OPTION 'A'; TABLE 4B IMPACTED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATIONS (ALIGNMENT #2, OPTION 'B'; FUTURE TYPE 2 RECOMMENDED SOUND LEVEL TMK LEQ IMPACT MITIGATION REDUCTION 2-5-49-33 55.4 +16.8 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -2.9 Leq (1) 2-5-49-34 54.0 +15.4 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -3.2 Leq (1) 2-5-49-32 55.6 +17.0 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -3.2 Leq (1) 2-5-49-31 54.1 +15.5 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -3.4 Leq (1) 2-5-49-04 55.9 +17.3 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -3.4 Leq (1) 2-5-49-05 53.9 +15.3 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -2.9 Leq (1) 2-5-49-01 56.5 +17.9 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -3.0 Leq (1) 2-5-49-02 54.9 +16.3 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -3.6 Leq (1) TABLE 4B IMPACTED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATIONS (ALIGNMENT #2, OPTION 'B'; Notes: 1. Option A wall heights in excess of 17 feet required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 2. Wall heights of 10 to 11 feet required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 3. Wall heights of 20-F feet required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 4. Heights of Option A walls are above ROW elevations. 5. Heights of Option B walls are above estimated lot elevations. 6. Future Leq greater than 66 Leq = Type 1 Impact. 7. Future Increase in Ambient Noise Greater than +15 Leq = Type 2 Impact. 8. Ambient noise assumed to be 38.6 Leq at all lots. C FUTURE TYPE 2 RECOMMENDED SOUND LEVEL TMK LEQ IMPACT MITIGATION REDUCTION 2-5-49-33 55.4 +16.8 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -7.8 Leq 2-5-49-34 54.0 +15.4 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -5.2 Leq 2-5-49-32 55.6 +17.0 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -9.7 Leq 2-5-49-31 54.1 +15.5 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -4.3 Leq (2) 2-5-49-04 55.9 +17.3 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -6.6 Leq 2-5-49-05 53.9 +15.3 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -4.4 Leq (2) 2-5-49-01 56.5 +17.9 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -6.8 Leq 2-5-49-02 54.9 +16.3 Leq 8.0 Foot Wall -2.9 Leq (3) Notes: 1. Option A wall heights in excess of 17 feet required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 2. Wall heights of 10 to 11 feet required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 3. Wall heights of 20-F feet required for 5.0 Leq of noise reduction. 4. Heights of Option A walls are above ROW elevations. 5. Heights of Option B walls are above estimated lot elevations. 6. Future Leq greater than 66 Leq = Type 1 Impact. 7. Future Increase in Ambient Noise Greater than +15 Leq = Type 2 Impact. 8. Ambient noise assumed to be 38.6 Leq at all lots. C APPENDIX L AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT C O AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING AND EXTENSION PROJECT Hilo, Hawaii Prepared for: Okahara & Associates, Inc. July 1998 isB. D. NEAL & ASSOCIATES Applied Meteorology • Air Quality • Computer Science P O BOX 6239, OCEAN VIEW, HAWAII 96737-6239 TELEPHONE (808) 939-9317 • FAX (808) 9397390 O d O O CONTENTS O Section Paae 1.0 Summary 1 2.0 Introduction and Project Description 7 3.0 Ambient Air Quality Standards 10 4.0 Regional and Local Climatology 12 5.0 Present Air Quality 15 6.0 Short -Term Impacts of Project 16 7.0 Long -Term Impacts of Project 19 7.1 Mesoscale Analysis 19 7.2 Microscale Analysis 28 O8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 38 References 42 Ficrure 1 Location Map FIGURES TABLES Table 1 Summary of State of Hawaii and National Ambient Air Quality Standards O TABLES (cont.) Table 2 Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Vehicle Miles Traveled Within Project Corridor 3 Calculated Travel Speeds on Puainako Street During Morning and Afternoon Peak Periods 4 Measured Travel Speeds Within Project Corridor During Midday 5 Average Travel Speeds Within Project Corridor 6 Emission Factors for Puainako Street Widening and Extension Project 7 HC, CO and NOX Emissions for Puainako Street Widening and Extension Project 8 Estimated Worst Case 1 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Intersections Included Within Puainako Street Widening and Extension Project 9 Estimated Worst Case 8 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Intersections Included Within Puainako Street Widening and Extension Project T K o a O O O1.0 SUMMARY The State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways Division, and the County of Hawaii Departments of Public Works and Planning, in cooperation with the Federal Highways Administration, are proposing highway improvements on the island of Hawaii. These improvements are planned for Hawaii State Routes 2000 and 200 in the Hilo area. The proposed improvements are needed to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected increase in traffic volumes on these roadways to the year 2020. Hawaii State Route 2000 follows Puainako Street from Kanoelehua Avenue to Komohana Street and Komohana Street from Puainako Street to Kaumana Drive. Hawaii State Route 200 follows Kaumana Drive Obecoming the Saddle Road west of Hilo. Presently, these are predominantly two-lane, two-way roadways. The proposed project would result in the widening of Puainako Street to four lanes from Kilauea Avenue to Komohana Street and the extension of Puainako Street as a two-lane roadway from Komohana Street to Kaumana Drive. C Since it is expected the proposed project will involve the commitment of both state and federal fui,ds, an environirtental impact statement meeting both state and federal rules is being prepared. In accordance with regulatory requirements, both with and without project alternatives are being considered to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project. 1 6 0 This study is meant to provide input to the air quality sections of o the environmental impact statement. It examines the potential short- and long-term air quality impacts that could occur as a result of construction and use of the proposed highway facilities. Mitigative measures are suggested where possible and appropriate to lessen any impacts from the project. At the present time, air quality standards have been established by both federal and state governments which limit ambient concentra- tions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone and lead. In addition, a state standard has been established for hydrogen sulfide. Hawaii state air quality standards are more stringent than the comparable national limits except for the standards for sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and o lead, which are set at the same levels. Regional and local climate together with the amount and type of human activity generally dictate the air quality of a given location. The climate of the Hilo area is very much affected by its windward and coastal situation. Daytime winds are predominant - 11 trade winds from easterly to northerly directicus, while nighttime winds are mostly mountain drainage winds from the southwest. Wind speeds typically are relatively light varying between about 5 and 10 miles per hour. Temperatures in the Hilo area are very moderate with average daily minimum and maximum N 2 0 9 M 0 temperatures ranging from 66°F to 82°F with an average of 129 inches per year. 0 Rainfall is substantial Except for occasional impacts from nearby volcanic emissions and Possibly occasional localized impacts from traffic congestion, the present air quality of the project area is believed to be relative- ly good. The little air quality data that are available for the area from the Hawaii Department of Health indicate that concentra- tions are well within state and federal air quality standards. If the proposed project is given the necessary approvals to proceed, it is probably inevitable that some short-term impacts on air quality will occur either directly or indirectly during project construction. Short-term impacts from fugitive dust will likely occur, and increased emissions from traffic disruption may also affect air quality during the period of construction. State air Pollution control regulations prohibit visible emissions of fugitive dust. Hence, an effective dust control plan should be implemented to ensure compliance with state regulations. Fugitive dust emissions can be controlled to a large extent by watering of active work areas, using wind screens, keeping adjacent paved roads clean, and by covering of open -bodied trucks. Other dust control measures could include limiting the area that can be disturbed at any given time and/or mulching or chemically stabilizing inactive areas that have been worked. Paving and landscaping of project areas early in the construction schedule will also reduce dust emissions. 3 c The high rainfall in the project area should serve to naturally control construction dust to a large extent, but it is recommended that during prolonged dry periods that active work areas be watered at least twic_ daily. A minimum dust control plan should also include provisions for keeping adjacent paved roadways free of tracked dirt. Increased emissions from traffic disruption can be mitigated by moving construction equipment and workers to and from the project site during off-peak traffic hours and by minimizing road closures during peak -traffic periods. To assess the potential long-term impact of emissions from vehicles operating on roadways within the project corridor after the project is complete, both mesoscale and microscale air quality analyses were O Performed. The mesoscale analysis was designed to provide estimates of air pollution emissions from traffic for the entire highway corridor, while the microscale analyses assessed ambient air quality impacts near selected intersections within the project study area. Both mesoscale and microscale analyses considered an existing (1994) case and two future alternatives: the year 2020 without the project and the year 2020 with the project. The mesoscale analysis indicated that in 1994 the emission burden for the highway sections included within the study area was 510 tons of carbon monoxide, 64 tons of hydrocarbons and 41 tons of nitrogen oxides. without the project in the year 2020, the emission burden O 4 0 a O O would increase to 2,347 tons of carbon monoxide, 266 tons of Ohydrocarbons and 74 tons of nitrogen oxides. With the project in the year 2020, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions would be less than half of the without project emissions, while nitrogen oxides emissions would be about 5 percent higher. With or without the project, emissions will be significantly higher in the year 2020 due to the forecast increase in traffic demand, and a corresponding long-term degradation of air quality along the project roadways is probable. With the project, the long-term degradation should be substantially less due to the improved traffic flow and the reduced emissions. Areas along Kaumana Drive and locations adjacent to intersecting and parallel roadways will likely derive substantial air quality benefits from the project. O EN The microscale analyses performed for this project involved the use of computerized emission and atmospheric dispersion models to estimate current worst-case ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide during peak travel hours at several intersections along Puainako Street in 1994 and to predict future levels in the year 2020 with and without the project. Worst-case carbon monoxide concentrations for 1994 in the project vicinity were estimated to be within national ambient air quality standards but were found to exceed the more stringent state standards at nnP of rho .;_ locations studied. However, because the state standards are set at such stringent levels, it is likely that they are currently exceeded ``. at many locations in the state that have even moderate traffic volumes. o In the year 2020 without the project, despite the expected large increase in traffic volumes, worst-case concentrations were predicted to decrease or remain about the same in comparison to present levels except near the intersection of Puainako Street and Kcmohana Street where a substantial increase was predicted. No exceedances of the national standards were predicted for this scenario, but the state standards would potentially be exceeded at two of the four locations studied. Estimated worst-case concentrations in the year 2020 for the with - project alternative were higher than the existing levels at most o locations studied but remained within the national standards. Compared to the without project case, the results were mixed. At some locations, the improved traffic flow afforded by the project helped to reduce concentrations, while at other locations the widened roadways served to concentrate traffic and increase concentrations somewhat. Similar to the without project alternative, potential exceedances of the state standards were predicted at i,.wc) locations. It should he noted that due to the prediction methodologies involved, all concentration estimates should be considered conservatively high. O R 9 4 O O Neither the mesoscale analysis nor the microscale analysis could Odifferentiate between alternative roadway alignments. Nonetheless, the alignment which provides the greatest buffer distance between the proposed roadway and existing homes and businesses would be the most preferable from an air quality perspective. In view of the very stringent state air quality standards pertain- ing to carbon monoxide, it is recommended that roadway intersec- tions be designed to provide for a high level -of -service so as to minimize emissions from traffic queuing. If practical, it is also recommended that buffer zones be added between walkways and roadways. Staggering school and business hours in the project area could also help to reduce peak -hour traffic volumes and hence reduce traffic -related air quality impacts. O 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways Division (DOT), and the County of Hawaii Departments of Public Works and Planning, in cooperation with the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), are proposing to construct highway improvements on the island of Hawaii. These improvements are planned for Hawaii State Routes 2000 and 200 in the Hilo area. As indicated in Figure 1, Hawaii State Route 2000 follows Puainako Street from Kanoelehua Avenue (Highway 11) to Komohana Street and Komohana Street from Puainako Street to Kaumana Drive/Waianuenue Avenue, which is Hawaii State Route 200. Beyond Hilo, Hawaii.State Route 200 is the Saddle O 7 Road which provides a route between Hilo and the Mamalahoa Highway (Hawaii State Route 190) on the west side of the island. o The "Island of Hawaii Long Range Highway Plan", which was prepared in May 1991, identified and prioritized major highway corridors that would require roadway improvements to accommodate traffic demands projected for the year 2010. The widening and realignment of Puainako Street in Hilo, between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street, and the extension of Puainako Street, from Komohana Street to Kaumana Drive, were two of the priority projects listed in the Plan and are the subject of this assessment. The primary purpose of the proposed project is to improve arterial traffic flow along Puainako Street and to alleviate traffic congestion on Kaumana Drive by providing a direct link between Puainako Street and the Saddle Road. o Currently, Puainako Street is a two-lane, two-way collector street between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street providing a route for eastbound and westbound traffic. Traffic signals are installed at the intersections of Kilauea Avenue, Kinoole Street and Iwalani/ Kawili Street. The Komohana Street intersection with Puainako Street is stl,p-controlled. After the proposed project is completed, Puainako Street would become a four -lane, two-way roadway from Kilauea Avenue to Komohana Street and a two-lane, two-way roadway from Komohana Street to O 8 0 0 4O O Kaumana Drive. Two alternative alignments are being considered for Cboth the lower and the extended portions of the roadway. In addition to widening and extending Puainako Street, several intersections within the project corridor would be improved to provide for separate left- and right -turn movements and adequate level -of -service conditions. The proposed highway improvements will likely involve the commit- ment of both state and federal funds. Consequently, the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 343 of Hawaii Revised Statutes, Title 11, Chapter 200, of the Hawaii Administrative Rules, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These laws and regulations require that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared which assesses potential environmental impacts of Cthe project and identifies mitigative measures available to reduce or eliminate these impacts. M The purpose of this study was to provide input for the EIS by evaluating the potential air quality impacts of the proposed project and by recommending mitigative measures, if possible and appropriate, to reduce or eliminate any project -related degradation of air quality in the area. Before examining the potential air quality impacts of the project, a discussion of ambient air quality standards is presented and background information concerning the regional and local climatology and the present air quality of the project area is provided. 9 O O a 3.0 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS O Ambient concentrations of air pollution are regulated by both national and state ambient air quality standards (AAQS). National AAQS are specified in Section 40, Part 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), while State of Hawaii AAQS are defined in Chapter 11-59 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules. Tahla 1 summarizes both the national and the state AAQS that are specified in the cited documents. As indicated in the table, national and state AAQS have been established for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone and lead. The state has also set a standard for hydrogen sulfide. National AAQS are stated in terms of both primary and secondary standards for most of the regulated air pollutants. National primary standards are designed to protect the public health with an "adequate margin O of safety". National secondary standards, on the other hand, define levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from "any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant". Secondary public welfare impacts may include such effects as decreased visibility, diminished comfort levels, or other potential injury to the natural or man-made environment, e.g., soiling of materials, damage to vegetation or other economic damage. In contrast to the national AAQS, Hawaii State AAQS are given in terms of a single standard that is designed "to protect public health and welfare and to prevent the significant deterioration of air quality". U 10 Each of the regulated air pollutants has the potential to create or Oexacerbate some form of adverse health effect or to produce environmental degradation when present in sufficiently high concentration for prolonged periods of time. The AAQS specify a maximum allowable concentration for a given air pollutant for one or more averaging times to prevent harmful effects. Averaging times vary from one hour to one year depending on the pollutant and type of exposure necessary to cause adverse effects. In the case of the short-term (i.e., 1- to 24-hour) AAQS, both national and state standards allow a specified number of exceedances each year. M State of Hawaii AAQS are in some cases considerably more stringent than comparable national AAQS. In particular, the State of Hawaii 1 -hour AAQS for carbon monoxide is four times more stringent than the comparable national limit, and the state 1 -hour limit for ozone is more than two times as stringent as the national 1 -hour standard. The national 1 -hour ozone standard will be phased out during the next few years in favor of the new (and more stringent) 8 -hour standard. Hawaii AAQS for sulfur dioxide were relaxed in 1986 to make the state standards essentially the same as the national limits. In 1993, the state also revised its particulate standards to follow those set by the federal government. During 1997, the federal government again revised its standards for particulate. To date, the Hawaii Department of Health has not updated the state particulate standards. 11 0 0 s 0 4.0 REGIONAL AND LOCAL CLIMATOLOGY Regional and local climatology significantly affect the air quality of a given location. Climatological parameters that influence air quality include: wind, temperature, atmospheric turbulence, mixing height and rainfall. Although the climate of Hawaii is relatively moderate throughout most of the state, significant differences in these parameters may occur from one location to another. Most differences in regional and local climates within the state are caused by the mountainous topography. The entire state of Hawaii lies well within the belt of northeast- erly trade winds generated by the semi-permanent Pacific high o pressure cell to the north and east of the islands. Areas along the eastern coasts of the islands are particularly affected by the trade winds and are usually well -ventilated nearly year round. Although Hilo is situated along the eastern coast of Hawaii Island, the high mountains of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea significantly modify the trade wind influence. The nearest long-term wind data available for the project area are collected at the Hilo Airport located a}.Jut 3 ioiles ti: ;:he northeast. These [iota arF least semi -representative of the project corridor. Mean annual wind speed at the airport is about 8 mph, which is lower than many windward locations in the state, and wind directions are bimodal showing either a northeast or southwest preference [Ref. 1]. Northeast trade winds typically occur during the daytime, while O 12 winds from the southwest typically occur during the nighttime due Oto cold air drainage from the mountains. Winds from the south or southwest also occur occasionally in association with winter storms. Air pollution emissions from motor vehicles, the formation of photochemical smog and smoke plume rise all depend in part on air temperature. Colder temperatures tend to result in higher emissions of contaminants from automobiles but lower concentrations of photochemical smog and ground -level concentrations of air pollution from stack sources. In Hawaii, the annual and daily variation of temperature depends to a large degree on elevation above sea level, distance inland and exposure to the trade winds. Average temperatures at locations near sea level generally are Owarmer than those at higher elevations. Areas exposed to the trade winds tend to have the least temperature variation, while inland and leeward areas often have the most. At nearby Hilo Airport, average annual daily minimum and maximum temperatures are 66°F and 82°F, respectively. The extreme minimum temperature on record is 53°F, and the extreme maximum is 94°F [Ref. 2]. Temperatures along the lower portions of project corridor are probably very similar, while those along the higher elevations are probably somewhat cooler. • U Small scale, random motions in the atmosphere (turbulence) cause air pollutants to be dispersed as a function of distance or time 13 from the point of emission. Turbulence is caused by both mechan- ical and thermal forces in the atmosphere. It is often measured and described in terms of Pasquill-Gifford stability class. Stability class 1 is the most turbulent and class 6 the least. Thus, air pollution dissipates the best during stability class 1 conditions and the worst when stability class 6 prevails. In the Hilo area, stability classes 5 or 6 occasionally occur, developing during clear, calm nighttime or early morning hours when tempera- ture inversions form due to radiational cooling or to drainage flow from the mountainous interior of the island. Stability classes 1 through 4 occur during the daytime, depending mainly on the amount of cloud cover and incoming solar radiation and the onset and extent of the sea breeze. Mixing O height is defined as the height above the surface through which relatively vigorous vertical mixing occurs. Low mixing heights c.a result in high ground -level air pollution concentra- tions because contaminants emitted from or near the surface can become trapped within the mixing layer. In Hawaii, minimum mixing heights tend to be high because of mechanical mixing caused by the trade winds and because of the temperature moderating effect of the surrounding ocean. Low mixing heights may sometimes occur, however, at inland locations and even at times along coastal areas early in the morning following a clear, cool, windless night. Coastal areas also may experience low mixing levels during sea breeze conditions when cooler ocean air rushes in over warmer land. Mixing heights in Hawaii typically are above 3000 feet (1000 meters). O 14 0 1 O O Rainfall can have a beneficial affect on the air quality of an area in that it helps to suppress fugitive dust emissions, and it also may "washout" gaseous contaminants that are water soluble. Rainfall in Hawaii is highly variable depending on elevation and on location with respect to the trade wind. The Hilo area has a wet climate. Normal annual rainfall for Hilo Airport is about 129 inches [Ref. 21. This is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year, although the summer months are slightly drier. 5.0 PRESENT AIR QUALITY Air quality in the vicinity of the proposed project is currently Omostly affected by emissions from motor vehicles, industry and natural sources. Perhaps the dominant factor for the past several years has been the volcanic emissions from Kilauea Volcano, although the prevailing winds carry emissions away from the Hilo area much of the time. Most of these emissions occur as sulfur dioxide and then convert into particulate sulfate which causes a volcanic haze (vog) to blanket the area during Kona wind condi- tions. The major industrial sources in the area are oil -burning power plants which primarily emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons (an ozone precursor) and smaller amounts of other pollutants. 15 The State Department of Health (DOH) operates a network of air quality monitoring stations at various locations around the state. O Each station, however, typically does not monitor the full complement of air quality parameters. very little data are available for the Hilo area. During 1985, DOH collected samples of 24-hour average particulate matter and sulfur dioxide concentra- tions at the University of Hawaii -Hilo campus [Ref. 31. These data indicated that concentrations were well within standards, and monitoring was discontinued. Other data have been collected and reported since 1985 in connection with electrical power development in Hilo and Puna, but these data have not been published to date by DOH. Although there are no air quality data to substantiate this, it is probable that the more stringent state standards pertaining to O carbon monoxide are exceeded on occasion near high-volume intersec- tions in the project area during periods of coincident traffic congestion and poor dispersion conditions. 6.0 SHORT-TERM IMPACTS OF PROJECT Short-term direct and indirect impacts on air quaiity could Potentially occur during project construction. For a project of this nature, there are two potential types of air pollution emissions that could directly result in short-term air quality impacts during construction: (1) fugitive dust from vehicle movement and soil excavation; and (2) exhaust emissions from on- O 16 O O site construction equipment. Indirectly, there also could be Oshort-term impacts from slow-moving construction equipment traveling to and from the project site and from the disruption of normal traffic flow caused by roadway closures. Fugitive dust emissions may arise from the grading and dirt -moving activities associated with land clearing and preparation work. The emission rate for fugitive dust emissions from construction activities is difficult to estimate accurately because of its elusive nature of emission and because the potential for its generation varies greatly depending upon the type of soil at the construction site, the amount and type of dirt -disturbing activity taking place, the moisture content of exposed soil in work areas, and the wind speed. The EPA [Ref. 4] has provided a rough estimate Ofor uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions from construction activity of 1.2 tons per acre per month under conditions of "medium" activity, moderate soil silt content (301), and precipita- tion/evaporation (P/E) index of 50. Uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions in the project area would likely be somewhere near this level or lower due to the high rainfall that occurs. In any case, State of Hawaii Air Pollution Control Regulations [Ref. 5] prohibit visible emissions of fugitive dust. Thus, an effective dust cortrol plan for the project construction phase is essential. Adequate fugitive dust control of active construction areas can usually be accomplished by the establishment of a frequent watering program. In sensitive or dust -prone areas, limiting the area that O 17 0 0 0 can be disturbed at any given time and/or using wind screens may also be required. Wind erosion of inactive areas can be controlled o by mulching or by the use of chemical soil stabilizers. Haul trucks tracking dirt onto paved streets from unpaved areas is oftentimes a significant source of dust in construction areas. Some means to alleviate this problem, such as tire washing or road cleaning, may be appropriate. Control regulations further stipulate that open -bodied trucks be covered at all times when in motion if they are transporting wind -erodible materials. Estab- lishment of landscaping as early in the construction schedule as possible can also lower the potential for fugitive dust emissions. On-site mobile and stationary construction equipment also will emit air pollutants from engine exhausts. The largest of this equipment is usually diesel -powered. Nitrogen oxides emissions from diesel o engines can be relatively high compared to gasoline -powered equipment, but the standard for nitrogen dioxide is set on an annual basis and is not likely to be violated by short-term construction equipment emissions. Carbon monoxide emissions from diesel engines, on the other hand, are 'low and should be relatively insignificant compared to vehicular emissions on nearby roadways. Project construction activities will also likely obstruct the normal flow of traffic to such an extent that overall vehicular emissions in the project area are increased. The only means to alleviate this problem will be to attempt to keep roadways open during peak traffic hours and to move heavy construction equipment O 18 to and from construction areas during periods of low traffic Ovolume. 7.0 LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF PROJECT After construction is completed, the proposed widening and extension of Puainako Street should result in a more efficient flow of motor vehicle traffic on roadways in the project vicinity and, in general, bring about favorable long-term impacts on ambient air quality at most locations in the immediate area. To evaluate the potential long-term, ambient air quality impacts of the proposed project, both mesoscale and microscale analyses were performed for each of three scenarios.. The three scenarios studied included: year 1994 with present conditions, year 2020 without the project (the no -build Oalternative), and year 2020 with the project. Although alternative roadway alignments are being considered for the with project case, these are not expected to affect the air quality impact analyses significantly. The following two subsections of this report describe in detail the study methodologies and the results of the mesoscale and microscale analyses. 7,I Mesascale Analysis To evaluate the potential long-term impacts of emissions from motor vehicles using the roadway after it is improved, an "emission burden" analysis was prepared. An emission burden analysis is a mesoscale analysis that provides an overall assessment of the O 19 potential impact of a roadway project. In this case, the emission O burden analysis was designed to quantify both existing and future emissions occurring from motor vehicles using Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street, the extended Puainako Street between Komohana Street and Kaumana Drive (in the with project case), Komohana Street between Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive, and Kaumana Drive between Komohana Street and Country Club Road. The existing case was based on 1994 conditions, while the future with and without project cases were based on the conditions that were projected for the year 2020. As mentioned ahmrP nnl,, one with project scenario was considered since it is unlikely there will be any significant difference in emissions due to the alternative roadway alignments being considered. Emission estimates for each scenario were made for the three primary air Pollutants emitted by motor vehicles: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. Based on a comparison of the emission O estimates for the three scenarios studied, an assessment can be made concerning the probable overall, mesoscale impact of the project. The emission burden analysis began by dividing the project corridor into the following four segments: (1) Puainako Street between Kiiauea Avenue and Kcmuhana Street, (2) Puainako Street between Komohana Street and Kaumana Drive (in the with project case), (3) Komohana Street between Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive, and (4) Kaumana Drive between Komohana Street and Country Club Road. For each segment, the roadway length was determined, and the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for each scenario were estimated from O 20 O t O O daily traffic figures provided by the project traffic consultant O[Ref. 61. These data are shown in Table 2 along with the resulting vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day for each segment. The segment VMT is simply the product of the segment length and segment ADT. In 1994, the VMT per day were estimated to total approximately 54,000 within the corridor study area. In 2020, it was estimated that the VMT would increase to about 180,000 without the project and about 205,000 with the project. Of particular note is that the total projected VMT for the 2020 with project case is about 15 percent higher than the corresponding value for the 2020 without project case, even though the with project alternative will reduce the travel distance from one end of the project to the other by about 2 miles and will substantially reduce the ADT along Kaumana Drive. The projected increase in total VMT with the project is the result of the forecasted increase in ADT on Puainako and Komohana CStreets. Thus, although the project will not generate traffic, it is expected to attract traffic to these roadways from other streets. l- The next step in the emission burden analysis was to determine average travel speed (ATS) for each roadway segment. The ATS for each segment is defined as the result of the segment length divided by the average segment travel time. Thus, the segment ATS is reduced by roadway congestion and/or intersection delays. For the existing case, the ATS for each segment can be measured by driving the roadway segments in question and recording the average travel times. For future scenarios, it is necessary to estimate or 21 calculate the ATS for each segment based on the projected traffic volumes, posted speed limits and estimated intersection delays. O Estimates of travel speeds during the morning and afternoon peak traffic hours for Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street for the existing case and for the future with and without project cases were provided by the project traffic consultant. A summary of these values is provided in Table 3. As indicated in the table, peak -hour travel speeds are expected to decrease substantially by the year 2020 if the project is not built. With the project, peak -hour travel speeds in 2020 would be comparable to 1994 values. Peak -hour morning and afternoon traffic volumes currently account O for only about 15 percent of the total ADT [Ref. 7]. Hence, the majority of the ADT presently occurs during the off-peak hours when driving conditions are less congested. This is projected to remain so either with or without the project. Midday travel speeds for each of the existing roadway segments in the project corridor were i,teasur_>.d by d::iaing the roadway segmezits and recording the travel time and distance traveled. Table 4 shows a summary of the resulting measured travel speeds. Lower Puainakc Street was found to have a midday travel speed of 15 mph eastbound and 22.5 mph westbound. The slower eastbound travel speed is reflective of delays caused by left -turning traffic bound for O 22 n A downtown Hilo. Note that the midday westbound travel speed was Ccomparable to the peak -hour calculated speeds provided by the traffic consultant, but that the measured midday eastbound value was actually somewhat lower the calculated peak -hour values. Komohana Street was found to have a midday travel speed of 34.0 mph in both directions, while Kaumana Drive had a measured midday travel speed of 32.7 mph eastbound and 29.4 mph westbound. The estimated ATS's for the day as a whole for each roadway segment and for each scenario studied are given in Table 5. The values for Puainako Street were estimated based on the peak -hour travel speeds calculated by the traffic consultant and the measured existing midday travel speeds. As indicated in the table, the ATS on the Puainako Street segment between Kilauea Avenue and Komohana Street Owas estimated to be 20 mph for the 1994 scenario. Without the project in the year 2020, the ATS on this segment was estimated to decline to 5 mph. With the project in the year 2020, peak -hour travel speeds along lower Puainako Street are forecast to be comparable to existing conditions. Hence, it was assumed that the ATS for this scenario would be the same as the 1994 value. The ATS for the Komohana Street segment for the existing case was estimated to be 31 mph. This is 10 percent lower than the measured midday value. Since there were no peak -hour travel speed estimates available for the Komohana Street segment, the 10 percent reduction was applied to account for the probable slower speeds during the peak hours. With or without the project, the project traffic study C 23 indicates that Komohana Street will be improved by the year 2020 and that traffic volumes will increase substantially. Although o there are no intersection level -of -service projections or peak -hour travel speed estimates available for the future scenarios, it was assumed that the roadway improvements would accommodate the projected traffic volumes and that the ATS would remain near the existing value with or without the project. Based on the midday travel speed estimates and allowing for an estimated 10 percent reduction for slower peak -hour speeds, the ATS for the existing case for Kaumana Drive was estimated to be approximately 28 mph. Without the project, the traffic volumes on Kaumana Drive are predicted to increase by a factor of about 6 by the year 2020. Although the project traffic study did not assess level -of -service conditions along this roadway segment, it is o likely that long delays would occur at several intersections along the segment. Since there would be few, if any, alternate routes available for drivers to select, it is likely that the ATS would decrease significantly compared to the present value. Based on the large projected increase in traffic volume and the lack of alternative routes, an ATS of 5 mph was assigned to this segment for the 2020 without project scenario. With the project in the ye,r 2020, traffic volumes along the Kaumana Drive segment are forecast to reach about twice the existing levels. Thus, assuming no roadway improvements are provided, it is likely that the ATS will decrease compared to the existing value but not to the extent of the without project case. For this scenario, an ATS of 15 mph was assigned to the Kaumana Drive segment. O 24 4 & O O N The Puainako Street extension segment will only exist in the with project case. The ATS for this study segment was assumed to be near the posted speed limit of 35 mph. The next step in the emission burden analysis was to use the ATS's to obtain the corresponding emission factors from the computer model MOBILESA [Ref. 8]. MOBILESA is the most recently released version of the U.S. EPA mobile emission model. Aside from vehicle speed, several other key inputs are required by the model. One of these is vehicle mix. Based on vehicle registration figures, the present and projected vehicle mix in the project area is estimated to be 91.91 light-duty gasoline -powered vehicles, 51 light-duty Cgasoline -powered trucks and vans, 0.51 heavy-duty gasoline -powered vehicles, 0.61 light-duty diesel -powered vehicles, 11 heavy-duty diesel -powered trucks and"buses, and 11 motorcycles. Other key inputs to the MOBILESA emission model are the cold- and hot -start fractions. Motor vehicles operating in a cold- or hot - start mode emit excess air pollution. Typically, motor vehicles reach stabilized operating temperatures after about 4 miles of driving. For traffic operating within the project area, it was assumed that about 21 percent of all vehicles would be operating in the cold -start mode and that about 27 percent would be operating in the hot -start mode. These are typical default (national average) values. Average annual ambient temperature, also a MOBILESA input, O 25 was assumed to be 74°F. This is based on several years of temperature data for Hilo Airport [Ref. 1] MOBILESA also requires the input of information concerning motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. Currently, the State of Hawaii has no inspection and maintenance program, and it was assumed that none would exist in the future scenarios studied. The resulting emission factors generated by MOBILE5A and used in the emission burden analysis are presented in Table 6. These are given in terms of grams of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides emitted per vehicle mile. As suggested by the information presented in the table, hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emission factors are inversely proportional to vehicle speed, O whereas nitrogen oxides emission factors tend to increase slightly with speed. For a given vehicle speed, emission factors are generally lower for future years due to the effects of older, more - polluting vehicles being retired. Based on the calculated emission factors and the current and projected vui:icle miles traveled on the roadway segments witnin the project corridor, annual emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides were estimated for each of the three scenarios studied. The final results of this analysis are given in Table 7. 26 During 1994, it was estimated that hydrocarbon emissions from Ctraffic traveling within the project corridor amounted to 64 tons. Carbon monoxide emissions were estimated to have amounted to 510 tons while nitrogen oxides emissions were calculated at 41 tons. Most of these emissions occurred along the Puainako Street and Komohana Street segments. In the year 2020 without the project, emissions were estimated to increase substantially due to the expected increase in traffic volumes and decrease in average travel speeds. Estimated hydrocar- bon emissions increased by a factor of 4.2 to 266 tons. Carbon monoxide emissions were estimated to increase by a factor of 4.6 to 2,347 tons, and nitrogen oxides emissions were predicted to increase by 80 percent to 74 tons. Much of the hydrocarbon and Ccarbon monoxide emissions were predicted to occur along the Kaumana Drive segment due to the very slow ATS. In the year 2020 with the project, total emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in the project corridor were estimated to amount to 120 tons and 1,097 tons, respectively. This is about 53 percent lower than the without project case, but approximately two times higher than the 1994 levels. Nitrogen oxides emissions would amount to 78 tons, which is about 5 percent higher than the without project case and approximately two times the 1994 emission level. Compared to the without project case, emissions along the Kaumana Drive segment would be substantially reduced due to the lower traffic volume and higher average travel speed. Because of the O 27 improved traffic flow, emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon O monoxide along the lower Puainako Street segment would also be reduced even though traffic volumes would be higher. Emissions along Komohana Street would be about 6 to 9 percent higher. 7.2 Microscale Analyses In most traffic -related air quality assessments, roadway intersec- tions are one of the primary concerns because of traffic congestion and because of the increase in vehicular emissions associated with traffic queuing. To investigate potential air quality impacts near roadway intersections within the project area, microscale analyses were performed for selected locations using computerized emission and atmospheric dispersion models to estimate worst-case ambient carbon monoxide concentrations. Carbon monoxide was selected for o the microscale analyses because it is both the most stable and the most abundant of the pollutants generated by motor vehicles. Furthermore, carbon monoxide air pollution is generally considered to be a microscale problem that can be addressed locally to some extent, whereas other air pollutants most often are regional issues that cannot be addressed by a single highway improvement project. The selected locations for microscale analyses included six representative intersections along Puainako Street. These included: Kilauea Avenue, Kinoole Street, Iwalani/Kawili Streets, Komohana Street and two driveways at Waiakea Schools. • U 28 ft IO O CThe main objective of the microscale analyses was to estimate worst- case 1 -hour average carbon monoxide concentrations for each of the three scenarios studied. Tn Pval„arP rho ----- -� estimated concentrations, a comparison of the predicted values for each scenario can be made. A comparison of the estimated values to the national and state AAQS will provide another measure of signifi- cance. Traffic estimates for the project indicate that traffic volumes generally are or will be somewhat higher during the afternoon peak hour than during the morning peak period at most locations in the project area. However, worst-case emission and meteorological dispersion conditions typically occur during the morning hours at Cmost locations. Thus, both morning and afternoon peak -traffic hours were examined to ensure that worst-case concentrations were identified. As for the mesoscale emission burden analysis, the EPA computer model MOBILE5A was used to calculate vehicular emissions for each year/scenario studied in the microscale analyses. Vehicle mix and cold/hot-start fractions, inputs to MOBILE5A, were assumed to be the same as those used for the emission burden estimates. For the microscale modeling analyses, ambient temperatures of 59 and 68°F were used for morning and afternoon peak -hour emission computations, respectively. These are conservative assumptions since morning/afternoon ambient temperatures will generally be warmer than O 29 this and emission estimates given by MOBILE5A are inversely proportional to the ambient temperature. After computing vehicular carbon monoxide emissions through the use Of MOBILE5A, these data were then input to an atmospheric disper- sion model. EPA air quality modeling guidelines [Ref. 91 currently recommend that the computer model CAL3QHC [Ref. 101 be used to assess carbon monoxide concentrations at roadway intersections, or in areas where its use has previously been established, CALINE4 [Ref. 111 may be used. Until recently, CALINE4 was used extensively in Hawaii to assess air quality impacts at roadway intersections. However, in December 1997, the California Department of Transportation recommended that the intersection mode of CALINE4 no longer be used because it was thought the model has become outdated. Studies have shown that CALINE4 may tend to over- O predict maximum concentrations in some situations. Because of the recent recommendation by the California Department of Transportation that the intersection mode of CALINE4 no longer be used, CAL3QHC was used for the subject analysis. CAL3QHC was developed for the U.S. EPA to simulate vehicular movement, vehicle queuing and atmospheric dispersion of vehicular emissions near roadway intersections. It is desianari to 1 -hour average pollutant concentrations near roadway intersections based on input traffic and emission data, roadway/receptor geometry and meteorological conditions. • LJ 30 Al O O OInput peak -hour traffic data were obtained from the traffic study cited previously. This included vehicle approach volumes, saturation capacity estimates, intersection laneage and signal timings. For the existing and future signalized intersection scenarios, all emission factors that were input to CAL3QHC for free- flow traffic were obtained from MOBILE5A based on an assumed free- flow vehicle speed of 30 mph near the intersections. Currently, there is no specific methodology for applying CAL3QHC to unsignalized intersections, but it was assumed that free-flow speeds for each approach would be related to the reserve volume/capacity ratio. A base free-flow speed of 15 mph was assumed for the stop - controlled approaches, and this was adjusted downward based on the reserve volume/capacity ratio of the approach to a minimum of 2.5 mph. A free-flow speed of 30 mph was assumed for the non-stop Oapproaches, and this was adjusted downward based on the left -turn reserve volume/capacity ratio, also to a minimum of 2.5 mph. • U Model roadways were set up to reflect roadway geometry, physical dimensions and operating characteristics. Concentrations predicted by air quality models generally are not considered valid within the roadway mixing zone. The roadway mixing zone is usually taken to include 3 meters on either side of the traveled portion of the roadway and the turbulent area within 10 meters of a cross street. For this study, model receptor sites were located at the edges of the mixing zones where the maximum concentrations would likely occur, whether or not sidewalks currently exist. All receptor 31 heights were placed at 1.8 meters above ground to simulate levels within the normal human breathing zone. O Input meteorological conditions for this study were defined to provide "worst-case" results. One of the key meteorological inputs is atmospheric stability category. For these analyses, atmospheric stability category 5 was assumed for morning scenarios and stability category 4 was assumed for afternoon cases. These are the most conservative stability categories that are generally used for estimating worst-case pollutant dispersion at suburban locations. A surface roughness length of 100 cm and a mixing height of 300 meters were used in all cases. Worst-case wind conditions were defined as a wind speed of 1 meter per second with a wind direction resulting in the highest predicted concentration. Concentration estimates were calculated at wind directions of every O 5 degrees. Existing background concentrations of carbon monoxide in the project vicinity are believed to be at relatively low levels. Hence, background contributions of carbon monoxide from sources or distant roadways not directly considered in the analysis were accounted for by adding a small background concentration of 0.5 ppm to all predicted concentrations for 1994. At least moderate development and increased traffic are expected to occur in the project area within the next several years which may result in an increase in background concentrations, although some of this will be offset by the retirement of older, more -polluting motor vehicles O 32 D 14 as discussed earlier. For the future (2020) scenarios studied, a obackground carbon monoxide concentration of 1 ppm was assumed. Table 8 summarizes the final results of the microscale modeling study in the form of the estimated worst-case 1 -hour morning and afternoon ambient carbon monoxide concentrations for 1994 and for each of the two 2020 alternatives. The locations of these estimated worst-case 1 -hour concentrations all occurred at or very near the indicated intersections. As indicated in the table, the highest estimated 1 -hour concentra- otion within the project vicinity for the present (1994) case was 13.1 mg/m'. This was projected to occur during the morning peak traffic hour near the intersection of Puainako Street and Kilauea Avenue. The majority of this concentration is attributable to the queuing of southbound traffic on Kilauea Avenue. The next highest value, 9.8 mg/m', was estimated to occur during the afternoon peak traffic hour, and this also occurred near the intersection of Puainako Street and Kilauea Avenue. Similar to the morning peak hour, much of this concentration is due to emissions from southbound traffic queuing on Kilauea Avenue. Concentrations at other locations and times studied, including representative locations near Waiakea Schools, ranged between about 4 and 9 mg/m'. All predicted worst-case 1 -hour concentrations for the 1994 scenario were within the national AAQS of 40 mg/m', but the estimated worst-case morning O 33 concentration near the intersection of Puainako Street and Kilauea Avenue exceeded the more stringent state standard of 10 mg/m'. o In the year 2020 without the proposed project, a worst-case 1 -hour concentration of 13.2 mg/m' was predicted to occur during the afternoon peak -traffic hour near the intersection of Puainako Street and Komchana Street. Queuing of westbound traffic on Puainako Street was the major contributor. This concentration is more than double that for the 1994 scenario at this time and location. The substantial increase is accounted for primarily by the projected increase in traffic and the lack of roadway capacity. Peak -hour morning and afternoon worst-case values at the other locations studied for the 2020 without project scenario ranged between about 7 and 12 mg/m'. No analysis was performed at the Waiakea Schools driveways for this scenario because the traffic study did not o address these locations. Despite the projected increase in traffic between 1994 and 2020, the estimated worst-case concentrations at some locations in the project area remained about the same or even decreased. This was due to the expected retirement over time of higher pollution -emitting vehicles as described earlier in this report. Predicted worst-case 1 -hour concentrations for this scenario exceeded the state AAQS at two of the four locations studied (Puainako ^treet at Kilauea Avenue and at Komorana Street), but remained within the national standard at all locations. Predicted worst-case 1 -hour concentrations for the 2020 with project scenario ranged from 7.6 m ' g/m during the morning at the Waiakea o 34 a Intermediate School Driveway/Nohea Street intersection with Puainako oStreet to 11.0 mg/m' during the morning at the intersection of Puainako Street with Iwalani/Kawili Streets. Compared to both the 2020 without project case and the 1994 scenario, the highest predicted worst-case concentration in the project area with the project was lower. Concentrations at some locations were predicted to increase with the project compared to without it because of the added traffic lanes the project will provide (which may concentrate more traffic near the intersections). All of the locations studied were predicted to meet the national AAQS, but the more stringent state standard was predicted to be exceeded near the intersections of Puainako Street at Kilauea Avenue and at Iwalani/Kawili Streets. Predicted Wo at- aaa 8-H-iar Concentra-tion O Worst-case 8 -hour carbon monoxide concentrations were estimated by multiplying the worst-case 1 -hour values by a persistence factor of 0.5. This accounts for two factors: (1) traffic volumes averaged over eight hours are lower than peak 1 -hour values, and (2) meteorological dispersion conditions are more variable (and hence more favorable) over an 8 -hour period than they are for a single hour. Based on monitor;na data, 1 -hour to 8 -hour persistence factors for most locations generally vary from 0.4 to 0.8 with 0.6 being the most typical. One recent study based on modeling [Ref. 121 concluded that 1 -hour to 8 -hour persistence factors could typically be expected to range from 0.4 to 0.5. EPA guidelines [Ref. 131 recommend using a value of 0.6 to 0.7 unless a locally derived persistence factor is available. Monitoring data for O 35 Honolulu reported by the Department of Health suggest that this o factor may range between about 0.35 and 0.55 depending on location and traffic variability. Considering the location of the project and the traffic pattern for the area, a 1 -hour to 8 -hour persistence factor of 0.5 will likely yield reasonable estimates of worst-case 8 -hour concentrations. The resulting estimated worst-case 8 -hour concentrations are indicated in Table 9. For the 1994 scenario, the estimated worst- case 8 -hour carbon monoxide concentrations for the six locations studied ranged from 2.2 to 6.6 mg/m'. One of these estimated values (Puainako Street at Kilauea Avenue) exceeded the state standard of 5 mg/m', but all were within the national limit of 10 mg/m'. C For the year 2020 without project scenario, the estimated worst-case 8 -hour concentrations for the four locations studied ranged from 3.8 to 6.6 mg/m'. The highest concentration in the project area was comparable to the existing case, but it occurred at a different location. Two of the four locations studied produced higher estimated values compared to 1994 while the predicted concentrations decreased somewhat at the other two locations. All of the estimates were within the nai-.;.onal 8 -Hour limit for the 2020 without project scenario, but the value projected for the area near the intersection of Puainako Street and Komohana Street exceeded the state 8 -hour standard. III 36 S For the 2020 with project scenario, the estimated worst-case 8 -hour Oconcentrations were evaluated at six locations, including the proposed two new intersections to serve Waiakea Schools. Estimated concentrations ranged from 3.8 to 5.5 mg/m'. Compared to the 2020 without project scenario, concentrations were forecast to decrease at Kilauea Avenue and at Komohana Street and increase at Kinoole Street and at Iwalani/Kawili Streets. All predicted 8 -hour concentrations were within the national AAQS, but concentrations equaled or exceeded the more stringent state AAQS near the two intersections (Puainako Street at Kilauea Avenue and at Iwalani/Kawili Streets). OThe results of this study reflect several assumptions that were made concerning both traffic movement and worst-case meteorological conditions. One such assumption concerning worst-case meteorolog- ical conditions is that a wind speed of 1 meter per second with a steady direction for 1 hour will occur. A steady wind of 1 meter per second blowing from a single direction for an hour is extremely unlikely and may occur only once a year or less. With wind speeds of 2 meters per second, for example, computed carbon monoxide conc(_,utraLions would be only about hall the values given above. The 8 -hour estimates are also conservative in that it is unlikely that anyone would occupy the assumed receptor sites (within 3 m of the roadways) for a period of 8 hours. EM 37 O O j 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS O Based on the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that: 1. Although very little ambient air quality data are available to characterize existing conditions, it is likely that state and federal ambient air quality standards are currently being met in the project area, except perhaps for occasional exceedances of the state carbon monoxide standards within small areas near traffic -congested locations. 2. The major potential short-term air quality impact of the project will occur from the emission of fugitive dust during construction, although the high rainfall in the area will serve to naturally control emissions. O 3. The disruption of traffic during project construction' may cause increased emissions from motor vehicle traffic, which could also result in temporary impacts on air quality. 4. Without the project by the year 2020, hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions from motor vehicles using Hawaii State Routes 2000 and 200 between Puainako and Kaumana would be about: 4 to 5 times higher compared to 1994 emissions due to the increase in traffic volumes and traffic congestion, even with the elimination of older, more -polluting vehicles from the roadways by this time. Emissions of nitrogen oxides would be almost two times higher. NO I 38 5. With the project, emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon Omonoxide in the year 2020 would be less than half of the without project emission levels while nitrogen oxides emis- sions would be about 5 percent higher. 6. Although emissions with the project are predicted to increase substantially less compared to without it, emission levels with the project are expected to be about two times higher than existing levels. Thus, some long-term degradation of air quality is probable, particularly near some intersections where traffic volumes will be high. 7. From a mesoscale viewpoint, areas along Kaumana Drive would benefit most from the project. O8• In terms of emissions, there is probably no significant difference between the two alternative alignments proposed for the upper and lower portions of the project. However, based on air quality considerations, the alignments offering the greater buffer distance between the roadway and existing homes would be preferable. 9• The results of the mesoscale analysis are based on the analysis of arterial traffic flow only. It is likely that areas adjacent to intersecting and parallel roadways will derive substantial air quality benefits from the project. 10. The microscale analysis of ambient air quality impacts indicates that project -related carbon monoxide levels would O 39 increase at some locations in the project area. Even though o the proposed widening of roadway intersections in the project area will serve to improve traffic flow and in some cases reduce emissions and improve the overall air quality, it will concentrate more traffic at these intersections, causing predicted worst-case concentrations to increase at some locations compared to the without project case. 11. The projected microscale impacts of the proposed project are not significant in terms of compliance with the national AAQS nor in comparison to the estimated existing or future without project overall maximum concentrations in the project area. 12. Existing carbon monoxide concentrations in the project area may exceed the more stringent state ambient air quality standards at times, and this may continue to occur in the o future either with or without the project. With the project, however, the highest concentrations in the project area will likely be lower compared to either the existing case or the future without project scenario. 13. Because the Hawaii ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide are set at such stringent levels, the predicted potential exceedance of the state standards is not unusual. Based on the conclusions given above, the following recommendations are made: • U Ell 1. At a minimum, fugitive dust emissions from construction Cactivities should be controlled by watering active work areas and any temporary unpaved work roads at least twice daily on days without rainfall. Some means to prevent or control fugitive dust resulting from trucks tracking dirt onto paved roadways in the project area should also be provided. 2. Increased vehicular emissions due to the disruption of traffic by construction activities should be mitigated by moving equipment and personnel to the site during off-peak traffic hours and by minimizing road closures during peak -traffic periods. 3. Roadway intersection designs should provide for a high level - of -service so as to minimize long-term impacts from traffic Odelays and the resulting excess emissions. • U 4. If practical, another potential measure to mitigate long-term impacts from traffic emissions might be to provide added buffer zones between walkways and roadways and to exclude the public from these areas by planting vegetative barriers. 5. Long-term impacts from traffic emissions could also potentially be mitigated by attempting to organize a program to reduce traffic volumes in the project area during peak - travel periods. This could be accomplished by encouraging government, businesses and schools to begin and end daily operations during off-peak times. 41 REFERENCES O 1• atlas of Hawaii, Second Edition, Department of Geography, University of Hawaii, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1983. 2. "Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary With Comparative Data, Hilo, Hawaii, 1993", U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service, National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC. 3. Hawaii Air Quality Da a fnr the rin of Jan1jaly 1985 to December 1987, State of Hawaii Department of Health. 4. QQMpilation Of Air Pgllntant EmjSQiQn a o v oli e ?_ Stationary Point and Araa SQurces, Fifth Fl r,n , AP -42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1995. 5. State of Hawaii. Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-60, Air Pollution Control. o 6. Personal communication, from Randall S. Okaneku, The Traffic Management Consultant, to Barry D. Neal, B.D. Neal & Associ- ates, August 1, 1995. 7. The TrafficManagement Consultant, Traffic TmDaCt Analysis $eport for h Proposd PuaiLakn ear Extpnsjon, February 14, 1997, including letter addendum dated April 9, 1997. e'1oae1), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Mobile Soirces; EmissionCgnt.rol Techhblogy Division, Test and Evaluation Branjch, `Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 1994. 9. Quideline On Air Quality Moder (R rigPd) Tn lud,nn �upnlements A and B, EPA -450/2-78-027R, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1986. LJ 42 O10. Ila= Is Guideo CaL30HC VeLainn n n MQdelincr Merhodolocryf N N 11 YreCIctina polIuant CQE'C;QULratjonS N ar Roadway Tnterspctions, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1992. wnceQLraLionQ Near Roadway, FHWA/CA/TL-84/15, California State Department of Transportation, November 1984 with June 1989 Revisions. 12. "Persistence Factors for Mobile Source (Roadway) Carbon Monoxide Modeling", C. David Cooper, Journal of theAir & Waste Management Association, Volume 39, Number 5, May 1989, 13. Guideline for Modeling Carlin„ Monox;re f -om Roadwa InLersectinim, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA -454/R- 92-005, November 1992. 43 O 0 7 — ti Hilo Bari Figure 1 - PROJECT LOCATION lainawl Island: EHU Liao `' IC na rk Cocoanut Island AMAUULU R d4 uulu Ca p Ha ails \aok .Ciohoo[e Gu! Mokupane Point _ .� '- Hilo y 'L @ 11'a1luAv Rn ar 19 Ulm alanl Gard 1s dedds I land ' la a ANVA o ark 3 K lohoele ulch y 200 M n o e onal 11 u MEHAni ark .Alan Stream UAWI Ralnbox Fa11s� \9� PJ" �J J `N a H au Pond gun Hilo Medical Ccnfor�� .�'' y r-- a 1338 a Padoa ver Park � om 9Z9 9Z9 Hp31P N �f'atakea on P ,;?uu Hono H A b 0-411/ K61 -EA L P v r D V `v ;\� \a V ON J Z y 0 m a,P Kaumana Dr. Thu Jul 30 17.40 1998 i v to LINA ° o < > SL 20 J� Ty NOF 0 L L I UL r 9 G Feet ,+EA �03 Z z HAIHAI r09 Komohana St. p L / �b ' P G,FG EKAUI JO _ D � � o 2 v ANIKq UtA �0 2 O HPKU w a Highway 2000 a i it �H� �/ t iaW�i-Hilo o 11 1 O N� SMA 14 )<� LENA MAN P P e ONI i6aa�e°Rase Highway 2000 Puainako St Z L H11 G�9 _ Warpahoehoe Streq/n\ T. 0 UAINAKO Qa T o E P q PaF Puamak air D NE E S ? D v Oh NORTH NORTH F OMOM LA OK ; NO IA m — D v s UN WA LVH S EK NA N 11 j .9 GENA z I 0(� •ALA AN1 D IHA (t I_ 0-411/ K61 -EA L P v r D V `v ;\� Mag 14.00 f' ° x c Thu Jul 30 17.40 1998 i v to LINA ° o Scale 1:31,250 (at center) n c 4 ° 2000 r Feet ,+EA �03 Z z HAIHAI I D KAIK 1000 Meters / O Lir ➢ m � ; 1 Le N N 0 Table 1 0 SUMMARY OF STATE OF HAWAII AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS nt 7PParticulate Units Averaging g 4 Time Maximum Allowable Concentration National National State Primary Secondary of Hawaii tter µg/m3 Annual 24 Hours 50a 150° 50a50 150° 150` Particulate Matter (<2.5 microns) µg/m3 Annual 24 Hours 15a 65° 153 65° - Sulfur Dioxide 99/m3 Annual 80 - 80 24 Hours 365` - 365` 3 Hours - 1300` 1300` Nitrogen Dioxide µg/m3 Annual 100 100 70 Carbon Monoxide mg/m3 8 Hours lo` _ 5` 1 Hour 40` - lo` Ozone µg/m3 8 Hours 1570 157e - 1 Hour 235f 235` 100` Lead µg/m3 Calendar 1.5 1.5 1.5 Quarter Hydrogen Sulfide µg/m3 a Three-year average of annual arithmetic mean. b 99th percentiln value averaged over three years. c Not to be exceeded more than once per year. d98th percentile value averaged over three years. f eThree-year average of fourth -highest daily 8 -hour maximum. Standard is attained when the expected number of exceedances is less than or equal to 1. Table 2 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED WITHIN PROJECT CORRIDOR Roadway Segment 2020 Without 2020 With Segment Length 1994 Project Project ADT VMT ADT VMT ADT VMT (miles) Puainako St: Kilauea Ave to 1.5 13,420 20,130 19,550 29,325 23,220 34,830 Komohana St Puainako St: Komohana St 4.6 0 0 0 to Kaumana Dr 0 9,200 42,320 Komohana St: Puainako st 1.7 15,260 25,942 24,000 40,800 25,500 43,350 to Kaumana Dr Kaumana Dr: Komohana St to 4.9 1,630 7,987 9,400 46,060 3,100 15,190 Country Club Rd Total VMT 54,059 116,185 135,690 i,` Notes: ADT = average daily two-way traffic volume VMT = vehicle miles traveled �J N N a u N Table 3 CALCULATED TRAVEL SPEEDS ON PUAINAKO STREET DURING MORNING AND AFTERNOON PEAK PERIODS (miles per hour) Puainako Street 1994 2020 Without Project 2020 With Project AM PM AM PM AM PM Eastbound 19.1 19.7 1.5 11.8 20.1 18.2 Westbound 24.3 20.4 3.3 1.6 20.7 18.9 Source: Personal communication, from Randall S. Okaneku, The Traffic Management. Consultant, to Barry D. Neal, B.D. Neal & Associates, August 2, 1995. Table 4 MEASURED TRAVEL SPEEDS WITHIN PROJECT CORRIDOR DURING MIDDAY 0 r�61 K Average Travel Speed oadway Segment (mph) bound: F[Komohana Kaumana Dr 32.7 St 34.0 Puainako St 15.0 Westbound: Puainako St 22.5 Komohana St 34.0 Kaumana Dr 29.4 0 r�61 K a M M O Table 5 AVERAGE TRAVEL SPEEDS WITHIN PROJECT CORRIDOR Average Travel Speed (mph) Roadway Segment 2020 Without 2020 With 1994 Project Project Puainako St: Kilauea Ave to 20 5 20 Komohana St Puainako St: Komohana St to - - 35 r : tKaumana St to 31 31 31 r Kaumana Dr: Komohana St to 28 5 15 Country Club Rd Table 6 EMISSION FACTORS FOR PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING AND EXTENSION PROJECT (GRAMS PER VEHICLE MILE) 0 m m 1994 2020 Speed (mph) Hydro- carbons Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides Hydro- carbons Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides 5 _ _ - 7.75 68.74 1.69 - - - 3.21 32.65 - i15 ,1.41 20 3.45 28.53 1.88 2.66 27.62 1.38 28 2.72 21.70 1.93 _ 31 2.54 20.02 1.95 1.91 15.98 1.43 35 - - - 1.75 13.56 1.45 0 m m O O Table 7 HC, CO AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING AND EXTENSION PROJECT (TONS PER YEAR) XMI 2020 2020 [Puainako 1994 Without Project With Project HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX St: Kilauea Ave to 28 231 15 91 811 20 37 387 19 Komohana St Puainako St: Komohana St to - - Kaumana Dr - - - - 30 231 25 Komohana St: Puainako St to 27 209 20 31 262 23 33 279 25 Kaumana Dr Kaumana Dr: Komohana St to 9 70 6 144 1,274 31 20 200 9 Country Club Rd Total 64 510 41 266 2,347 74 120 ],097 78 XMI O O . Table 8 ESTIMATED WORST-CASE 1 -HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS O NEAR SELECTED INTERSECTIONS INCLUDED WITHIN PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING AND EXTENSION PROJECT (milligrams per cubic meter) Hawaii State AAQS: 10 National AAQS: 40 Lel N Year/Scenario Roadway Intersection 1994/Present 2020/Without Project 2020/With Project AM PM AM PM - AM PM Puainako Street at Kilauea Avenue 13.1 9.8 10.6 8.7 10.1 9.6 Puainako Street at Kinoole Street 6.2 5.8 7.5 7.2 9.2 7.8 Puainako Street at Iwalani/Kawili Streets 8.9 6.1 8.0 6.8 11.0 8.9 Puainako Street at Komohana Street 7.8 6.1 11.6 13.2 9.8 8_2 Puainako Street at Walakea Schools 4.4 North Entrance - Puainako Street at Waiakea Schools 7.9 South Exit - - Puainako Street at Waiakea latermedi- ate School Driveway - - - - 7.6 - Puainako Street at waiakea Elementary School Driveway _ 9.7 Hawaii State AAQS: 10 National AAQS: 40 Lel N o � O CTable 9 C ESTIMATED WORST-CASE 8 -HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS NEAR SELECTED INTERSECTIONS INCLUDED WITHIN PUAINAKO STREET WIDENING AND EXTENSION PROJECT (milligrams per cubic meter) Roadway Year/Scenario Intersection 1994/Present 2020/Without Project 2020/With Project Puainako Street at Kilauea Avenue 6.6 5.3 5.0 Puainako Street at Kinoole Street 3.1 3.8 4.6 Puainako Street at Iwalani/Kawili Streets 4.4 4.0 5.5 Puainako Street at Komohana Street 3.9 6.6 4.9 Puainako Street at Waiakea Schools 2.2 North Entrance _ - Puainako Street at Waiakea Schools South Exit 4.0 _ - Puainako Street at Waiakea intermedi- ate School Driveway 3 P nako Street at Elementary4.8 ol Driveway Hawaii State AAQS: 5 National AAQS: 10 N 9 C C C APPENDIX M TAX MAP KEY AND LIST OF OWNERS FOR AFFECTED PROPERTIES 501 O OPUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION (LOWER PORTION) FROM KILAUEA STREET TO KOMORXXA STREET PROPERTY OWNERS PARTIAL LISTING DATE: 08-14-96 LOT 2-2-39-31 --63 LOT LOT 2-2-39-57 LOT 2-4-1-7 LOT 2-2-40-12 2-4-9-113 LOT 2-2-40-26 LOT LOT 2-2-40-25 0 LOT 2-4-9-68 LOT 2-2-40-56 LOT 2-2-40-42 LOT 2-4-9-95 LOT 2-4-9-18 LOT 2-2-39-58 LOT 2-2-39-11 LOT 2-2-39-1 LOT 2-4-52-21 LOT 2-4-52-16 LOT 2-4-52-1 OLOT 2-4-9-17 LOT 2-4-9-16 LOT 2-4-9-40 LOT 2-4-9-33 LOT 2-4-9-41 LOT 2-4-9-91 LOT 2-4-9-53 LOT 2-4-9-51 LOT 2-4-9-50 LOT 2-4-9-83 LOT 2-4-1-5 LOT 2-4--1 --63 LOT 2-4-1-162 LOT 2-4-1-7 LOT 2-4-9-113 LOT 2-4-9-70 LOT 2-4-9-69 0 LOT 2-4-9-68 H. SHIROMA, INC. H. SHIROMA, INC. TSURUKO KAMIYAMA H.A.K. ASSOCIATES NOBORU OKUDA ALLAN K. OKUDA R.C.J.C.L.D.S.(CHURCH) WALTER U. C. LOW JAMES N. NAKAHARA TSUKASA INOUE HAWAII BAPTIST CONVENTION HATADA BAKERY INC. STATE OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII (HOUSING AUTHORITY LESSEE) HILDA M. MANALILI DOUGLAS W. AGASA YATAKA KUMUJI STATE OF HAWAII ELSIE M. SUZUKI TSURUE AKAMINE HANAKO ARAKAKI HIROSHI AKAMINE BALDWIN S. AKAMINE JOHN C. TAIRA STATE OF HAWAII EDUCATION) (DEPARTMENT OF STATE OF HMIAII (UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII) STATE OF HAWAII (UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII) STATE OF HAWAII DOROTHY P. WINGATE AKIRA FUKUCHI EUGENE S. OKIMOTO KIYOSHI YONEMORI 1 1 \PUBLIC\J00S\91003PUl UPR\REV EU E15\EIS Pv \LM K -LMP 0 0 LOT 2-4-9-67 TADASHI YAMADA LOT 2-4-9-79 LOVEL K. THOMAS 0 LOT 2-4-14-1 MORIYASU AKATSUKA LOT 2-4-14-134 THOMAS KURITANI LOT 2-4-14-61 IGAWA JOINT TRUST LOT 2-4-14-112 HILO DAIJINGO LOT 2-4-14-42 DAVID M. BLACKMER LOT 2-4-14-41 FUMIE SAKODA LOT 2-4-14-86 AGATON B. BARROGA LOT 2-4-14-87 JACK I. MIYASHIRO LOT 2-4-14-88 KAZUYOSHI IDE LOT 2-4-14-89 SHIZUO KANEKO LOT 2-4-14-16 M.S. MEDEIROS LOT 2-4-14-15 JAMES F. WELLER JR. LOT 2-4-14-63 HENRY K. APAO LOT 2-4-14-58 DARRYL H. ARRUDA LOT 2-4-14-13 EMILY RODRIGUEZ LOT 2-4-1-10 STATE OF HAWAII LOT 2-4-22-16 SAIGO NAGAO LOT 2-4-13-203 KOJI IWASAKI LOT 2-4-13-204 KOJI IWASAKI LOT 2-4-01-122 (12) STATE OF HAWAII LOT 2-4-13-97 IWAO HASHIMOTO 0 LOT 2-4-13-87 PAUL K. FUJIOKA LOT 2-4-13-29 PAUL K. FUJIOKA LOT 2-4-13-30 YOSHIAKI KIMURA LOT 2-4-1-156 TERUMI KOYA LOT 2-4-1-43 STATE OF HAWAII LOT 2-4-1-155 VICTOR R. ASUNCION LOT 2-4-1-154 DEREK S. MORISHITA LOT 2-4-1-153 REX R. DALERE LOT 2-4-1-152 STEVEN J. SANTIAGO LOT 2-4-1-151 CARL P. CONOL LOT 2-4-1-150 ISIDRO BALANGATAN LOT 2-4-1-149 WADE I. KTTAMURA LOT 2-4-1-148 MASAMI DAIMARU LOT 2-4-1-147 QUIRINO ANTONIO JR. LOT 2-4-1-146 MICHAEL M.H. TENGAN LOT 2-4-1-145 JITSUO NISHIDA LOT 2-4-1-144 ADAM CARVAIHO LOT 2-4-1-143 STATE OF HAWAII (DEPT. WATER SUPPLY) LOT 2-4-1-157 STATE OF HAWAII (DEPT. OF WATER 0 2 1 \PVELIC\JOBS\5104]PVI UPR\0.EV IS EU QIS\E15 FNR1 Y -LHR O m KOMOHANA INTERSECTION LOT 2-4-22-16 LOT 2-4-22-185 SAIGO NAGAO/WIFE TETSUO AND CATHY RAMADA 3 1 \PMLICWOB \91003PVI VPR\R IEEO E15\E[ PN\l K LW SUPPLY) LOT 2-4-1-142 MARVIN L. ENOS SR. LOT 2-4-1-141 MELVIN F. URBANOZO LOT 2-4-1-140 GARFIELD H. ARAKAKI LOT 2-4-1-139 BLAYNE S. HANAGAMI LOT 2-4-1-138 MARRY Y. MORI LOT 2-4-1-137 EDWIN S. TAIRA LOT 2-4-1-136 CLYDE SARAGOSA LOT 2-4-1-135 WAYNE K.WAGATSUMA LOT 2-4-1-134 ROBERT G. OSBORN LOT 2-4-1-133 THELMA S. CLARK LOT 2-4-1-132 BENJAMIN HIMALAYA LOT 2-4-1-131 GLEN K. TAKEHARA LOT 2-4-1-130 WESLEY I. OGATA LOT 2-4-1-129 NELSON S. FURUHARA LOT 2-4-1-128 MILTON K. KALUA LOT 2-4-1-127 MAXIMO A. CARLOS LOT 2-4-1-126 WILLIAM R. HALM LOT 2-4-1-125 SHIGEYOSHI SHINODE LOT 2-4-1-124 DENNIS T. YOKOMIZO LOT 2-4-1-123 ALBERT Y. FUJIWARA LOT 2-4-1-41 STATE OF HAWAII (UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII) LOT 2-4-13-31 HAROLD T. HATANAKA LOT 2-4-13-32 HARRY M.S.B. KIM LOT 2-4-13-85 HAROLD T. SAITO LOT 2-4-13-84 ROBERT F. BEAN LOT 2-4-13-48 KENITCHI YOTSUJI LOT 2-4-13-45 DAN K.MATSUMOTO LOT 2-4-13-96 ALLEN AHN LOT 2-4-13-151 YUN HOW C. CHING ETAL LOT 2-4-13-152 ABRAHAM A. KUBO LOT 2-4-13-153 ALFREDO ALIPIO LOT 2-4-13-108 ROY 0. SATO LOT 2-4--1.3-19R SANDRA De MATTOS LOT 2-4-13-199 CHESTER TOMONO LOT 2-4-13-200 DENNIS M. SAGAWA LOT 2-4-13-155 DONNA N. HARA KOMOHANA INTERSECTION LOT 2-4-22-16 LOT 2-4-22-185 SAIGO NAGAO/WIFE TETSUO AND CATHY RAMADA 3 1 \PMLICWOB \91003PVI VPR\R IEEO E15\E[ PN\l K LW LOT 2-4-22-15 TETSUO AND CATHY HAMADA LOT 2-4-22-14 CHARLES AND YASUE OKINO LOT 2-4-22-178 2-2-40-11 RICHARD AND MARY KAMAKEA LOT 2-4-22-13 AND CECILIA CORTEZ ROYDEN AND IRENE YAMASATO LOT 2-4-22-11 RICHARD RENUEI MATSUMURA LOT 2-4-22-12 THE MISSIONARY CHURCH INC. LOT 2-4-22-10 LINNEA O. FOSS LOT 2-4-22-36 DONALD AND KIKUE NISHIMURA LOT 2-4-01-156 TERUMI AND HISAKO KOYA LOT 2-4-13-203 KOJI IWASAKI LOT 2-4-13-202 KOJI IWASAKI LOT 2-4-13-16 TAKASHI AND DOROTHY MATSUI LOT 2-4-13- MEHANA PLACE (COUNTY?) LOT 2-4-13-15 CHARLES AND AMY TAHARA LOT 2-4-13-51 SUSUMU AND ETHEL YONEMITSU LOT 2-4-13-103 CHRISTINE PACHECO LOT 2-4-13-201 WILLIAM GNEO LOT 2-4-13-98 WILLIAM GNEE LOT 2-4-13-12 VARIOUS OWNER KILAUEA INTERSECTION/MAKAI TOWARDS HILO 2-2-39-55 2-2-39-32 2-2-39-56 2-2-39-83 2-'2-39-84 2-2-39-34 2-2-39-110 2-2-39-36 2-2-39-87 2-2-39-36 2-2-39-111 71 IT AUEA TOWARDS PUNA TAKAYOSHI AND TUSGINO KOUCHI RICHARD AND ELIZABETH SAKAI H SHIROMA INC KENICHI AND EMIKO FUJIE FRANK LUCAS EARL E. ROHNER KATHERINE KOEHNEN ROADWAY EASEMENT CARL AND HELIE ROHNER KATHY KOEHNEN/HELIE ROHNER RONALD AND FRANCIS BEREMAN 2-2-40-108 BERNABE AND CECILIA CORTEZ 2-2-40-109 CESARIA GUIEB 2-2-40-11 BERNABE AND CECILIA CORTEZ 2-2-40-10 RICHARD M. IHORI 2-2-40-80 BERTHA AND ANSELM YAZAKI 4 1 \PVBLIC\SOBS\91NIPV1 VPP \F BV 1560 BI6\615PN\MK-LFR m m m C C -J 2-2-40-9 REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTTER DAY SAINTS 2-2-40-7 K. TANGUCHI LIMITED KINOOLE/MAUKA TOWARDS PUNA 2-2-40-42 2-2-40-74 2-2-40-41 2-2-40-40 2-2-40-39 KINOOLE/MAUKA TOWARDS HILO 2-2-39-2 2-2-39-100 2-2-39-99 2-2-39-3 2-2-39-9 2-2-39-4 2-2-39-5 2-2-39-6 2-2-39-45 REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTTER DAY SAINTS MASATOSHI AND HARU KOHARA KAKUZO AND WARU KOHAR-A SHIZUE N. LUCERO TAKEYOSHI TOGUCHI JOY AND HELEN KAUHI SIDNEY K AND TERRY KOIDE MARCUS AND EUNICE KUNS SALAVATION ARMY ROSELIND L. KAILI WILLIAM C. HITCHCOCK ET AL COUNTY OF HAWAII FUJINO AKETA AND TOSHIMI WONG MARTHA E. ARRUDA/VIVIAN OLIVEIRA 5 I \PVB L IC\J O85\9100 )PUI UPR\REVIS EU EI$\EIEiN\lH!-1X 0 PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION (UPPER PORTION - ALTERNATIVE #1) DATE: 04-08-96 2-5-03-20 2-5-03-21 2-5-45-01 2-5-46-07 2-5-46-01 2-5-46-09 2-5-05-111 2-5-05-112 2-5-05-113 2-5-61-79 2-5-61-56 2-5-61-55 2-5-61-54 2-5-61-53 2-5-61-52 2-5-61-80 2-5-61-20 2-5-61-19 2-5-61-12 2-5-61-11 2-5-61-01 2-5-61-33 2-5-06-141 2-5-06-02 2-5-06-149 2-4-08-14 2-4-75-44 2-4-75-43 2--4-75-4', 2-4-75-41 2-4-75-40 2-4-75-39 2-4-75-38 2-4-75-37 2-4-75-36 2-4-75-35 2-4-75-34 STATE OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII (ISLAND ORCHIDS - LESSEE) ORLANDO LYMAN (MAUNA KEA INC. -LESSEE) HAWAIIANA INVESTMENT CO., TAKAGI BIRU COMPANY, LTD, DAVID H. MURAKAMI ROBERT F. SATOMBA MAUREEN E. SATURNINO WESLEY J. CORREIRA BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. DENNIS R. EHRHARDT JOHN K. WATANABE RANDALL R. KISHIMOTO BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. ELAINE L.H. LUDLOFF RUSSELL J. KNEELAND FRANCIS P. AKAMINE RANDALL S.K. CHING IAN S. EBESUGAWA KENNETH K. PIA STATE OF HAWAII BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. WILLIAM V. BRILHANTE H.S.C., INC. JERRY T. WATANABE BRADFORD C. EAVES rL7RROLL L. Mc CARTY NEKOBA FAMILY TRUST BRADFORD W. EAVES IVAN S. MOCHIDA WARREN H.W. LEE ALPHONSIS H.S.LCH SHIRLEY D. SPENCER WILLIAM G. CARNETT GLENN K. HARA 9 SUGAR CO., INC. I:\PUBLIC\J03S\92014PUI LWR\MISC\TMKALTI.WPD C 1*1 101 C2-4-75-33 NAOMI K. MENOR 2-4-01-12 STATE OF HAWAII 2-4-01-122 STATE OF HAWAII 2-4-01-10 STATE OF HAWAII C 7 1:\PUBLIC\SOBS\92014PUI.LWA\MISC\TMKALTI.WPD I \PUBLIC\JOBS\92014PUI.LWR\MISC\TMKALT2.WPD M C O O PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION (UPPER PORTION - ALTERNATIVE #2) DATE: 04-10-96 O 2-5-03-20 STATE OF HAWAII 2-5-44-01 ORLANDO H. LYMAN 2-5-44-02 MAUNA KEA SUGAR CO., INC. 2-5-45-10 MID, INC. 2-5-45-08 CECILIA ARAUJO 2-5-45-07 CECILIA ARAUJO 2-5-45-06 MAUNA KEA SUGAR CO., INC. 2-5-46-01 TAKAGI BIRU CO., LTD. 2-5-61-79 BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. 2-5-61-78 BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. 2-5-61-76 BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. 2-5-61-75 BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. 2-5-61-74 BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. 2-5-61-34 BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. 2-5-61-35 BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. 2-5-61-36 BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. 2-5-61-37 BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. 2-5-06-02 BRILHANTE HAWAII, INC. 2-5-06-149 WILLIAM V. BRILHANTE O 2-4-08-14 H.S.C., INC. 2-4-75-44 - RY T. WATANAHE 2-4-75-43 BRADFORD C. EAVES 2-4-75-42 HARROLL L. Mc CARTY 2-4-75-41 NEKOBA FAMILY TRUST 2-4-75-40 BRADFORD C. EAVES 2-4-75-39 IVAN S. MOCHIDA 2-4-75-38 WARREN H.W. LEE 2-4-75-37 ALPHONSUS H.S. LOH 2-4-75-36 SHIRLEY D. SPENCER 2-4-75-35 WILLIAM G. CARNETT 2-4 75-34 GLLNN K. HARP 2-4-75-33 NAOMI K. MENOR 2-4-01-12 STATE OF HAWAII 2-4-01-122 STATE OF HAWAII 2-4-01-10 STATE OF HAWAII I \PUBLIC\JOBS\92014PUI.LWR\MISC\TMKALT2.WPD M C