Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0944.039 2014-2016M DANIEL K. PALEKA, JR., CHAIR Council Member District 5 — Puna Mauka MARGARET WILLS, CO-CHAIR Council Member District 9 — Kohala County If Environmental Mgmt. County Dept. of Research & Develop. Hawaii Food Industry Association Hawaii Paper Products Hawaii Restaurant Association Hawaii Wildlife Fund KYD, Inc. dba K. Yamada Distributors Recycle Hawaii State Dept. of Business Economic Develop. & Tourism State Dept. of Health Suisan Co. Ltd Surfrider Foundation Sustainable Island Products Triple F Distributing Kona HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL Hawaii Island Packaging Sustainability Initiative Stakeholders (HIPSIS) Task Force 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 1402 1 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 1 Phone: (808) 961-8263 1 Fax: (808) 961-8912 1 Email: hipsis808@gmail.com MEMORANDUM = , DATE: September 7, 2016 1 - TO: Dru Kanuha, Council Chair And All Members of the Hawaii County Council YV tom, 77 FROM:- Daniel K. Paleka, Jr., Council Member f HIPSIS Task Force Chair SUBJECT: Preliminary Report of the HIPSIS Task Force Attached is the preliminary report from the Hawaii Island Packaging Sustainability Initiative Stakeholders (HIPSIS) Task Force. Pursuant to Resolution 565-16, Draft 3, I respectfully request that this report be placed on the September 21, 2016, Council agenda. (Note: The attached report is not made a part of the duplicate copies of this document due to its size, but is available for viewing in the Office of the County Clerk and online in the Legislative Branch's webpages found at https://www.hawaiicounty.gov.) Comm. No. q q' 39 Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island Ref.To:r— �— Pupukahi i holomua! I In unity we move forward! Ref. Date. 1 �0 HIPSIS Task Force: Preliminary Report September 1, 2016 Page 1 of 2 L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Hawaii Island Packaging Sustainability Initiative Stakeholders Task Force, which hereinafter shall be referred to as HIPSIS TF, recommends prioritizing what can be done within the timeframe established for the HIPSIS TF. Thus, stakeholders agreed to focus on prioritizing 1-2 tasks for each matter indicated in Appendix B: Kuleana Matrix, which input criteria is as follows: Share WHAT the solution is? WHY is this method being identified? HOW will solution be implemented? WHO will execute? If applicable share COSTS figures and WHERE will this be located (i.e. facilities, educational workshops, etc.). IL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF PAST ACTIVITIES The purpose of the HIPSIS TF was established via Resolution 565-16, Draft 3, adopted unanimously by the Hawaii County Council on August 17, 2016, during a Council meeting held in the Kona Council Chambers at the West Hawai `i Civic Center (WHCC). The HIPSIS TF held their first session on August 24, 2016, from 10:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. in the Hilo Council Chambers located on 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo; via videoconference in the Kona Conference Room at the WHCC located on 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona; and via phone conference. At this session, the following stakeholders' attendance are indicated below: ENTITY PERSON(s) POSITION(s) ATTENDANCE Hawaii County Council Daniel K. Paleka, Jr. D5 Council Member; HIPSIS TF Chair HILO Hawaii County Council Margaret Wille D9 Council Member; HIPSIS TF Co -Chair HILO COH Dept. of Environmental Mgmt. (DEM) BJ Leithead-Todd Director absent COH Dept. of Research & Develop. (DRD) John DeFries Director KONA Hawaii Food Industry Association (HFIA) Lauren Zirbel Tom Knox Executive Director Consultant HILO PHONE Hawaii Paper Products Brian Kelson Manager absent Hawaii Restaurant Association (HRA) Jason Higa HRA Representative; FCH Enterprises, Inc - Zippy's Restaurants CEO PHONE Hawaii Wildlife Fund Megan Lamson Vice President PHONE KYD, Inc. dba K. Yamada Distributors Dexter Yamada Joy Gold President Joy Gold Unlimited HILO HILO Recycle Hawaii Paul Buklarewicz Executive Director HILO State Dept. of Business Economic Develop. & Tourism Wayne Thom Manager of Community Based Economic Development Program absent State Dept. of Health Wendy Okazaki Solid Waste - Recycle Coordinator PHONE Suisan Co. Ltd Steve Ueda Vice President of Sales HILO Surfrider Foundation Demian Barrios Hilo Chapter Chairman absent Sustainable Island Products John Elkjer Elizabeth Elkjer Owner Marketing Director HILO HILO Triple F Distributing Kona N/A deferred to DRD N/A deferred to DRD absent HIPSIS Task Force: Preliminary Report September 1, 2016 Page 2 of 2 With minor technical difficulties using the phone conference during the first session of the HIPSIS TF, stakeholders held an approximate three-hour long discussion. The first session was broken into two parts: a morning and an afternoon session, as indicated in the agenda below: MORNING SESSION 10:30 — 10:40 AM Welcome Announcements & Brief Introductions (10 minutes) 10:40 —11:10 AM HIPSIS Orientation (30 minutes) 11:10 —11:20 AM BREAK (10 minutes) 11:20 —12:30 PM HIPSIS Task Force Mission & Vision (70 minutes) 12:30 —1:30 PM LUNCH AFTERNOON SESSION 1:30 — 1:45 PM Brief Morning Session Recap (15 minutes) 1:45 — 3:00 PM Review Shared Material I Establish Kuleana/Roles (75 minutes) 3:00 — 3:30 PM Assignments for Next Mtg (30 minutes) During the Morning Session, HIPSIS TF established Chair duties, roundtable discussions, voting, and handling of correspondences. Chair duties will be shared between Council Members Paleka and Wille, by alternating roles at each session. Since Council Member Paleka chaired the first session, it was decided that Council Member Wille would chair the second session and the following and possibly final session will be chaired by Council Member Paleka. Roundtable discussion will allow for three rounds providing each individual with 3 -minutes to speak during each round. Voting will be by voice vote of stakeholders present, this is to emphasize importance of presence at meetings. The handling of correspondences will be maintained and assisted through Google Mail, Drive, Docs, Forms, Sheets, etc. During the Afternoon Session, stakeholders recapped the morning session, shared factual material, and discussed the kuleana matrix, which all may be referenced in the APPENDIX of this report. An audio recording was taken and minutes will be approved at the next session. IV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Hawaii County Council Members Daniel K. Paleka, Jr., and Margaret Wille and respective staff John DeFries, County Dept. of Research & Development Director Lauren Zirbel, Hawaii Food Industry Association Executive Director [Tom Knox, Consultant] Jason Higa, FCH Enterprises, Inc. — Zippy's Restaurants CEO, Hawaii Restaurant Association Megan Lamson, Hawaii Wildlife Fund Vice President Dexter Yamada, KYD, Inc. dba K. Yamada Distributors President [Joy Gold, Joy Gold Unitd.] Paul Buklarewicz, Recycle Hawaii Executive Director Wayne Thom, State Dept. of Business Economic Develop. & Tourism Wendy Okazaki, State Dept. of Health Solid Waste Div. Recycling Coordinator Steve Ueda, Suisan Co. Ltd Vice President of Sales John Elkjer, Sustainable Island Products (SIP) Owner [Elizabeth Elkjer, SIP Marketing Director] APPENDIX A. RESOLUTION 565-16, DRAFT 3 B. KULEANA MATRIX, AS SHOWN IN GOOGLE C. HIPSIS TF VISIONS D. HIPSIS TF RECAP E. SHARED MATERIAL REVIEWED DURING HIPSIS TF FIRST SESSION 8/24/16 1) Polystyrene Ban Research: Implications for Local Business and Consumers by Dept. of Research and Development — Business Resource Center 2) FoodService Packaging Institue (FPI) State of the Industry Report: 2016 Executive Summary 3) FPI Trends Report: 2015 Executive Summary 4) FPI Benefits Guide 5) FPI Service Operators 6) Ecoflex Brochure 7) Ecovio® F2223: Biodegradable Polyester for Compostable Film 8) Zero Waste Europe Case Study #1 (Aug 2013): The Story of Capannori 9) Zero Waste Europe Case Study #4 (Jan 2015): The Story of Contarina 10) WNYC News article dated Dec. 1, 2014: Rotten Luck: NYC's Pilot Compost Program in Trouble, with Shutdown of Delaware Processor 11) Honolulu Magazine_Trash_July 2015 12) PowerPoint Presentation by Plastics Europe on Recycling and Waste Recovery F. SHARED MATERIAL FOR REVIEW AT HIPSIS TF SECOND SESSION 9/12/16 1) Zero Waste USA _ Inspiring Communities to Embrace and Achieve Zero Waste 2) Dated 8/23/16, from Planning Dept. regarding a Draft Environmental Assessment to Construct and Operate an Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (Waste to Energy Facility) 3) Dated 8/25/16, West Hawaii Today article, "Waste -to energy plan intrigues: Company's future facility could lighten county's garbage load" 4) Dated 8/30/16, email correspondence submitted by KYD, Inc. APPENDIX A JMSY^Os N�!6 40 .• 1 COUNTY OF HAWAII -_ STATE OF HAWAII T� Of N� RESOLUTION NO.�� (DRAFT 3) A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A HAWAII ISLAND PACKAGING SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE (HIPSI) STAKEHOLDERS TASK FORCE. WHEREAS, Bill 140, Draft 3, an ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), by adding a new article relating to reduction of polystyrene foam "Styrofoam" food containers and food service ware, failed during the June 3`d 2016, Council Meeting by a vote of 4 ayes, 4 noes, 1 absent; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Hawaii County Council Rule No. 15-6 that any bill or resolution that has failed cannot be reintroduced in substantially the'same form during a Council term; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 356-07, Draft 2, a resolution to embrace and adopt the principles of zero waste as a long-term goal for Hawaii County and to incorporate the zero waste philosophy into the County of Hawaii Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan (IRSWMP), was adopted by the County Council, December 19, 2007; and WHEREAS, Section 3.2.2 of the County of Hawaii IRSWMP states, in part, "...one of the fundamental principles of zero waste is redesigning products and packaging, by taking into account the entire life -cycle of a product. In contrast to the current emphasis on disposability, products and packaging within the zero waste framework are designed with an emphasis on minimal use of materials, use of recycled and benign resources, longer product lives, and maximum potential for every product to be repaired, reused, or recycled...."; and WHEREAS, in 1994, the European Union's Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive guided member states' efforts to integrate national measures on the management of packaging waste to ensure that member states' restrictions on packaging do not create barriers to trade within the EU; intended to reduce the overall impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment; and covers a variety of packaging (paper, cardboard, glass, plastic and metal) and calls for measures to prevent the production of packaging waste and reuse, recycle and recover packaging; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to the County of Hawaii to form a stakeholders task force that would extend public outreach to address public complaint issues, with the intent to gather members from federal, state, local, and private agencies to work together to explore legislative actions to prevent the production of packaging waste and promote reuse, recycle, and recovery of packaging products aligning with the County of Hawaii IRSWMP for approval by the Hawaii County Council and Mayor to become law; and A-2 WHEREAS, this stakeholder task force shall identify solutions addressing the production and distribution of environmental friendly products and packaging to improve and reduce product and packaging waste from entering our ocean as its been proven to be detrimental to marine life; and WHEREAS, this stakeholder task force shall identify solutions addressing recyclability and environmental sustainability concerns; and WHEREAS, this stakeholder task force shall identify safety performance measures of retailers' and producers' products and packaging; and WHEREAS, this stakeholder task force shall identify strategies to increase economic opportunity and business development; and WHEREAS, this stakeholder task force shall identify superior production and labeling methods and techniques with the goal of reducing depletion of viable resources; and WHEREAS, this stakeholder task force shall address concerns and identify solutions to waste recovery and liter management; and WHEREAS, Section 92-2.5, subsection (a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes provides that two council members may discuss between themselves matters relating to official board business to enable them to perform their duties faithfully, as long as no commitment to vote is made or sought and the two members do not constitute a quorum of their board; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII that it hereby establishes a Hawaii Island Packaging Sustainability Initiative (HIPSI) Stakeholders Task Force, in accordance with the County of Hawaii IRSWMP, as an effort to take incremental steps toward achieving zero waste. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this task force will be comprised of Council Members Daniel K. Paleka, Jr. and Margaret Wille, Environmental Management Director Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Department of Research and Development Director John De Fries, respective representation from Hawaii State Department of Health, Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism, Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Surfrider Foundation, KYD, Inc. dba K. Yamada Distributors, Sustainable Island Products, Hawaii Food Industry Association, Hawaii Restaurant Association, Hawaii Paper Products, Suisan Co. Ltd., and two members from the general public who shall be selected as provided herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Environmental Management Director Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd and Department of Research and Development Director John De Fries shall each select one member of the general public to serve on the task force. Pj MR, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this task force meet at a minimum of once every three weeks and shall submit reports in three parts: September preliminary report, October mid- range report, and November final report to the Council that provide all findings and recommendations of the task force, including all alternatives for specific measures to address the appropriate recommendations in the County of Hawaii IRSWMP. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this task force will be dissolved on December 2, 2016, unless prior to that date the Council approves by way of resolution a one-year extension. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the County Clerk shall forward copies of this resolution to the Honorable William P. Kenoi, Mayor, County of Hawaii; Bobby Jean Leithead- Todd, Director of Environmental Management; John DeFries, Director of Research and Development; Dr. Virginia "Ginny" Pressler, MD, MBA, FACS, Director of Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH); Keith Kawaoka, Hawaii State DOH Deputy Director for Environmental Health Administration; Luis Salaveria, Director of Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT); Wayne Thom, DBEDT Manager of Community Based Economic Development Program; Megan Lamson, Vice President of Hawaii Wildlife Fund; Demian Barrios, Surfrider Foundation Hilo Chapter Chairman; Dexter Yamada, President of KYD, Inc. dba K. Yamada Distributors; John Elkjer, Sustainable Island Products; the Executive Officers of the Hawaii Food Industry Association; Gregg Fraser, Executive Director of the Hawaii Restaurant Association; Sales Representatives of Hawaii Paper Products; and Steve Ueda, Sales Vice President of Suisan Co. Ltd. Dated at Kona , Hawai`i, this 17th day of August , 2016. COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawaii Hilo, Hawaii I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the vote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the ('ounty of 11awai'i on August 17, 2016 A f FL:S'I': COUNTY CLERK INTRODUCED BY: COUNCI BER, COUNTY OF HAWAII CHAIRPERSON & PRESIDING OFFICER ROLL CALL VOTE AYES NOES ABS EX CHUNG X DAVID X EOFF X ILAGAN X KANUHA X ONISHI X PALEKA X POINDEXTER i WILLE X 9 0 0 __4____i Reference: RESOLUTION NO C-944.33/.'Waved EMC 565 i6 (DRAFT 3) @ C � CL � ■ u CL ■ � W w W 2 k m O U C* - O 2 � k O 2 C* 2 � � « 2 � O 2 k O � � O UL W 2 � � W 2 2 « � m � � � � IL 2 � � « 0 H ■ 2 - © § ■ § 70 ■ � � 2 * * _ ■ � '§ � u .§ Z 2 � � ■ � � '— 2 7 * * . � O * * ■ © � ■ � �'— � � 2 � � 2 � ■ U * * � � .§ § © 2 ■ � � § � � '— ■ ■ _ _ o .— ■ * * � - _� =w�� © eke;;!§a■a��e =c P9 Q555ik`ai�J3 APPENDIX C To HIPSIS TASK FORCE Fr. Margaret Wille Re: Task Force Mission and Goals Date: August 23, 2016 Based on the overarching principles of Zero Waste, I suggest we focus on packaging and ways to reduce the overall harmful impact of the current types of packaging on the environment. The goal should not only be on replacing harmful types of packaging but also on source reduction, promoting recycling and reuse where feasible, including better sorting and recycling at transfer stations, as well as on consumer, merchant, and distributor education programs and expanding extended producer responsibility. The education programs should include the importance of protecting our "commons", that is, our shared natural environment. I suggest we look at success stories in other municipalities (or states or nations) and recommend adopting meaningful policies and programs that above all will conserve our unique island ecosystems, especially are coastal waters and reef (which tends to be our ultimate garbage dump). In particular we should include policies and programs that tie into our solid waste compost program set to start up July 1, 2018. The spirit and inspiration of malama `aina should be our guide. C-2 TO: FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE HIPSIS TASK FORCE FROM: Jason Higa, Representative for the Hawaii Restaurant Association (HRA) Re: Resolution 565-16; MissionNision of the HIPSIS TASK FORCE Dear Task Force Members and Council Members: My name is Jason Higa, CEO of Zippy's Restaurants. Zippy's is a member of the HRA and I am representing the HRA as a member of the HIPSIS Task Force. Our vision for the HIPSIS Task Force is simple. We hope that the members of the task force will engage in thoughtful dialogue on the many issues with much complexity relating to waste management and long-term sustainability issues for the County of Hawaii. The HRA and Zippy's take great interest in sustainability and environmental protection. The HRA includes many long-time local businesses, which take pride in being an important part of the local community and ensuring that our practices are responsible and neighborly. For example, HRA members and other Hawaii businesses have recently adopted the Malama808 Campaign as a means of promoting best practices for litter prevention by Hawaii restaurants and businesses to keep our islands and waters clean. http://www.malama808.org/ As an additional example, in 2010, pursuant to customer feedback, Zippy's Restaurants studied the possibility of eliminating all EPS food service containers. Although it increased our costs, we converted as much of our EPS food service containers to plastics with the recycling symbol 5 (polypropylene or PP) (hereinafter referred to as "Type 5 Plastic.") Type 5 Plastic food service containers are re -usable, microwaveable, dishwasher safe, and recyclable. The conversion of our EPS food service containers to Type 5 Plastic food service containers was very well-received by our customers. Many of our customers, in fact, wash, re -use and re -purpose our Type 5 Plastic food service containers. We were unable to convert all our food service containers to Type 5 Plastic. The reason is that EPS food service containers are simply superior for handling "hot temperature" foods such as hot saimin (served between 190-200 degrees F) and hot soups (served between 165-170 degrees F). Therefore, we continue to use EPS food service containers for our hot saimin and hot soup menu items. In 2011 and 2014, pursuant to customer feedback, Zippy's studied the possibility of using "compostable" food service containers. In both 2011 and 2014, we found that "compostable" food service containers are simply unstable (and hence unsafe) for our "hot" menu items, which are required to be served at 140 degrees F or higher. C-3 During our review of container materials, we assumed that we would find one material that we could use for all applications, and that switching to this material would create an environmental "win." During our years of study of different container materials, we discovered that choice of foodservice materials is a much more complicated issue than it appears, and there are no easy one -size -fits -all solution. Our key findings include: 1. There is no one material that works for everything. Some materials work well for hot food, some for cold, while other materials are great for entrees but not for beverages. We ended up switching containers for many of our items, and we now have a much more diverse set of containers. 2. Every type of meal requires a container suited to it. Every item is unique, and maintaining the original flavor and attractiveness depends on using the right container. Some meals may have two components with different serving temperatures that need separate containers. For example, our take-out saimin is served with the noodles separated from the hot dashi. 3. All foodservice materials have relative environmental benefits and impacts. Every material, from the latest compostable materials to EPS containers, take different amounts of energy and resources to make. No material can really be considered "good" or "bad." It all depends on what works best for each use, and whether it is disposed of properly. 4. "Compostable" and "recyclable" depend on local infrastructure. It is easy to label containers as being eco -friendly, but the truth is much more complicated. "Compostable" containers are going to the landfill unless there is a system in place that collects, processes and composts food waste and containers. Here in our state, there is no such system at this time. After a lot of study and experimentation, we found that best solution for our customers and employees is to use the container that works best for each meal, and then ensure that the container makes it into the garbage. This was a complicated process that ended up producing a pretty simple answer, but what we learned along the way has led to improvements in our management and customer service. Most importantly, it has reinforced Zippy's long-standing priority on maintaining very clean restaurants and surrounding areas, and discouraging our materials from becoming trash. I look forward to participating and contributing as a member of the HIPSIS Task Force. Aloha, 0?, 2t. yo\— Jason Higa, CEO, Zippy's Restaurants C-4 As for our mission as it pertains to the HIPSIS task force: Hawai'i Wildlife Fund's mission is to protect native wildlife and we have been working for 20 years with community members, businesses, agencies and non-profit partners in Hawai'i to conserve, research, educate residents and visitors, and restore coastal habitat (wildhawaii.M). We envision that this task force would prioritize actionable strategies that would help realistically achieve the main objective: To Reduce Packaging Waste on Hawaii Island (a.k.a. Striving towards Zero Waste!). Throughout the US, packaging waste is always in the top ten items recorded by the Ocean Conservancy volunteers during their annual coastal cleanup event. Here in Hawai'i, we are especially vulnerable to threats to native wildlife and ecosystems by marine debris and improperly managing our solid waste problems (what comes in and how we dispose it). As such, we hope that this task force will be able to: 1) Support intelligent legislation, like Bill 140, that would easily reduce foam packaging waste; 2) Promote / encourage / mandate all county, state, federal and businesses operating on Hawai'i Island to follow the Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan of 2009; and 3) Incentivize local businesses in making green choices. Please let me know if you have any questions! Me ka mahalo, megan Megan R. McWhite Lamson, M.S. & HAWAI'I WILDLIFE FUND httj2:Z1www.wildhawaii.org/ Hawaii Island Program Director @wildhawaii - *wildhawaii meg.HWF(&gmail.com debris hotline 808/769-7629 c -a P._ 11 C-5 Dexter Yamada, President, KYD, Inc dba: K Yamada Distributors Reply to Council Member Danny Paleka's Queries Preparation for August 24, 2016 HIPSIS Task Force Meeting 0 "What are your desired outcomes participating as a stakeholder in the HIPSIS Task Force?" (this can be done anonymous by writing on an index card and Chair reads card as pulled or if all comfortable can share openly around the table giving 3 minutes each person) My desired outcome is that discussion and any proposed solution for reducing, recycling or reuse to reduce landfill use are based on facts and generalized statements will not be accepted at face value. Task Force discussion will include WTE, green waste composting, and post- consumer use food waste recycling in realistic timeframes and applicability to Hawaii Island. Inclusion of all cost factors shall be taken into account, with understanding of volume and volume sensitivity to cost factors. What works in Europe or mainland cities must be assessed by Hawaii variables. Hawaii Island is challenged by isolation in the Pacific Ocean, with high freight cost to and from Hawaii. San Francisco and Seattle have larger populations than Hawaii Island, and larger funding sources, of which millions of dollars have been invested to make these projects work. One of the concrete measurements of success is agreement and solutions for better control of litter management to reduce litter in the marine waters. C-6 Prior to the start of the first meeting, Task Force Chair Council Member Danny Paleka, is asking in 1,000 words or less what you think is the mission/vision of the task force. This would help us to figure out that where each other stands. Please email this to hipsis808@gmail.com by Tuesday, August 23 d by 12 noon. As stated earlier, KYD is opposed to any ban on polystyrene foam food -service containers and food wares because it is a product that has proved to be safe, functional, economical with a small carbon footprint, and useful end of life, in particular with WTE facilities. Functionality of polystyrene foam containers compared to compostable containers can be tested at a Task Force meeting to demonstrate performance with hot, soup or gravy -based meals and hygiene issues. This illustrates the point that consumers need different types of product to meet their needs and one type should not be mandated and the other banned. The Task Force is a place where fact -based discussion can occur about Hawaii Island's solid waste stream and methods to increase landfill diversion, to include but not be limited to WTE and green waste composting. Programs such as Expanded Producer Responsibility (EPR), and Germany's Green Dot program must be evaluated on its applicability to Hawaii Island, and viewed as a system from resource materials, manufacturing, collection, recycling or re -use, WTE or composting, to marketability and return on investment of recycled or re -used products. Realistic attention is needed about the actual market and return on investment for resale of recycled or composted products. If there are no sustainable markets in Hawaii, export to the mainland or elsewhere will add to the cost, carbon foot print and make the product noncompetitive with similar products. Whatever program is put in place, it will cost more than it is now. Ultimately, the shortfall in funding will come from taxpayers in one form or another. Businesses will raise their prices to compensate for added costs imposed by programs like EPR. It makes better sense to look at landfill diversion to two alternative energy projects, both privately funded, than to raise the cost of living unnecessarily. C-7 Briefly, the mission of the task force is to remove road blocks to Bill 140 in order to reduce use of foam containers for food service in favor of compostible dining ware. To do this we need to explore existing "extended producer responsibility" partnerships between local governments and suppliers of goods and services in having producers of unwanted waste take responsibility for the life of not only their products but also the materials used in packaging through the ultimate recycling/reuse and/or disposal of the materials used in the packaging of their products and services provided. Paul (Recycle Hawaii) C-8 DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR LUIS P. SALAVERIA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, DIRECTOR MARY ALICE EVANS P ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT &TOURISM DEPUTY DIRECTOR No. 1 Capitol District Building, 250 South Hotel Street, 5th Floor, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 587-2757 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2359, Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 Fax: (808) 586-2589 G� Web site: www.hawaii.gov/dbedt Hawaii Island Packaging Sustainability Initiative (HIPSI) Stakeholders Task Force Mission Research and recommend the most economically and environmentally viable solutions for waste management, taking into consideration factors unique to Hawaii County, its residents, businesses and environment. Research and recommend legislative measures on the management of packaging waste with the intent to reduce the overall impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment. Develop recommendations for legislation to better control waste and waste products may include, but are not limited to, paper, cardboard, glass, plastic metal and Styrofoam. Extend public outreach to address Hawaii Island residents and business concerns, with the intent to form consensus and form partnerships between federal, state, county, private businesses, and Hawaii Island residents in the prevention and future production of packaging waste, promotion of reuse, and recycling where and when feasible. C-9 Below is what I think the Mission/Vision of the Hawaii Island Packaging Sustainability Initiative Stakeholders Task Force is: This task force shall support the County of Hawaii's Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan by meeting with stakeholders to discuss methods to reduce product and packaging waste. This task force plays an important role in demonstrating the County of Hawaii's commitment towards the goal of zero waste. Wendy Okazaki, Recycling Coordinator Hawaii Department of Health Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch Office of Solid Waste Management 919 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 212 Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 Ph: (808) 586-4226 Fax: (808) 586-7509 wendy.okazaki@doh.hawaii.gov C-10 To: Danny Paleka, Task Force Chair, Council Member From: Steve Ueda, VP Sales and Marketing, Suisan Company, Ltd. Date: August 23, 2016 Subject: Thoughts on the mission/vision of the task force The task force has been given 6 tasks. To accomplish these tasks by the given deadline, each task will need to be clearly stated and defined. There needs to be agreement on the goal for each task so that we have a basis to evaluate all of the ideas that are generated by the group.: 1. Identify solutions addressing the production and distribution of environmental friendly products and packaging to improve and reduce product and packaging waste from entering our ocean as its been proven to be detrimental to marine life. 2. Identify solutions addressing recyclability and environmental sustainability concerns. 3. Identify safety performance measures of retailers' and producers' products and packaging. 4. Identify strategies to increase economic opportunity and business development. 5. Identify superior production and labeling methods and techniques with the goal of reducing depletion of viable resources. 6. Address concerns and identify solutions to waste recovery and liter management. Keep an Lye urs the eig i'viission The big mission I'm referring to is the Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan Update released in 2009. The Plan explains reduce, reuse, recycle and its application to Hawaii County. A lot of thought went into the Plan, and many recommendations were given. The task force should be aware of these recommendations, and should not spend time recreating the recommendations already provided by the Plan. If the Plan recommendations are no longer relevant, then the Plan should be updated. This plan is due for an update anyway. The Plan update should include a discussion whether zero waste goal remains a practical and realistic goal for Hawaii Island. The Plan update should also consider the economic impact on both the government and the community. Set Realistic and Meaningful Goals Bill 140 is clearly a driving force for creating this task force since it is mentioned in the first "whereas" of the resolution. However, the task force should not be focused on banning food packaging made from a specific material. The banning idea has been debated extensively, so it would be unproductive for the task force to extend the debate further. Instead, the goal should be to come up with new recommendations to reduce, reuse, or recycle packaging used in foodservice. For example: • Encourage reduced usage of napkins, and utensils by utilizing appropriate dispensing systems. • Encourage use of reusable dinner ware for eat -in customers. • Encourage proper placement of trash receptacles to collect the maximum amount of litter. C-11 The term sustainability was coined in the 1980s by the United Nations. They had researched the population of the earth and its ability to sustain a growing population. The UN established the three pillars of sustainability. They are, Social, Economic and Environmental. These three pillars or legs are like the legs of a stool. Should one leg be missing the stool will collapse. In recent years there has been a new pillar established. The political pillar. This political pillar brings the mechanism for change because humans are reluctant to initiate the change needed as well as coordinate all elements of society. The Island of Hawaii has a unique opportunity to become partially sustainable. This is due to our land and water resources to produce food, our social structure as a free society as well as our remote geographical position which can financially drive us to find a better way to live. We do have a strong tourist base that can allow us to leverage that work force as well as find funding resources to create industries we have not thought of. These jobs and corporations can feed an economy well into our future. What I am suggestion may sound like utopia. That is not what I am after here. What I am after is to create attainable goals that are financially sound with timelines that "we" the people of the Island of Hawaii can live with. That is good for all of us. This task force is a small step in a sustainable Hawaii direction. In order for this group of individuals to perform. We must all be understanding of the others position and be willing to make long term decisions that are well founded in fact. These decisions may or may not benefit the company you own or represent. In fact, it could destroy it. I have said many times that the goal of Sustainable Island Products is to not be in business as you see us today. We hope we will not be selling packaging at all in our future. We want our community to Reuse packaging and wean ourselves from single use products. This is about "us". The people of the Island of Hawaii. Not from Oahu, not from a politicly motivated paid lobbyist, not from the mainland. This is a small step for "US" no one else but the people of Hawaii. We are responsible for ourselves and we must not allow others to force their will on long term needs that directly affect our island. I would ask that those who are on this task force be asked. One very pointed question. If you are here to promote a single agenda and you or your company will not be swayed in any way due to the discussions in the Task force meetings. Please resign. I say these because we must move forward and to move forward we must be open to change. In closing, there are many opportunities to take steps to reduce our waste and create a more sustainable Hawaii. This task force can start this process by defining the goals. Bringing the knowledgeable people together to attain those goals with resources in place to achieve these goals. Respectfully submitted, John Elkjer APPENDIX D HIPSIS TF MORNING RECAP (HWLF) unbalanced TF; worried heavy on industry; get somewhere w/ packaging waste given TF now (DOH) opportunity to learn different stakeholders, where came from, get all persons in room and know what disagree/agree and can/no can (KYD) good things; not need for answers at the moment but how and what is to be done, think cost mitigate ex pennies... no action/function (HFIA) appears most unable to attend today; next schedule may be very different; concerned about quorum/voting procedures... see a dead end sign. Don't feel have enough info for new processing centers. Concerns/questions; vote via email? Phone? Add'l into to place fees, economic impact, no time/expertise in short time frame. Look at what agree & simple steps especially time & government change of roles. Phone connect concerns expressed. (RECYCLE HI) Been on a10 yrs path to zero waste & IRSWMP. Waste to energy not an option for HI Island. If looking at certain community needs, process, reduce, shipping, not practical to recycle Styrofoam; facility to be opened in July; if no value as resource, should be applied as waste management issue and time in landfill. (SIP) Initial thoughts is that it's about us not about Oahu or another industry not directly affected here. We have SWMP and road map. Need to encourage the government, people and design process to get there. Get this done. Let's move on. Be here for this meeting and may not be at next one. All busy; on right path and all thinking maybe in same direction. Don't think timeframe and personnel are balanced. (CM WILLE) Think expect is no success and very against. Be optimistic and think what can do and educate public. Bill with no Styrofoam; votes dependent on number of members present. Hear from DOH, who can encourage on state level; tourist/resorts on mind. Big Island is very behind in comparison to Honolulu initiatives. Don't know if we have an epiphany for July 2018 DEM plans: what are the components? Restaurants? Alternatives? Choices? Opposed Bill 140 — didn't know about. A lot of restaurants and business, but will move forward and focus on: 1) educating the public, 2) creating county policy via legislation. Hear from industry and ready to move forward together. Next time we come in with action plans leading towards eco -friendly (CM PALEKA) Looking at examples from German companies and how it relates to the kuleana chart. Share info with viable solutions or used and produced products here. We can agree to move packaging into this direction. Our future is most important as it is the young folks that will move this initiative. Set up County enforcement on non EFP framework = serious + movement. (SUISAN) get something done. Understand process same page on what to do. What can agree on? Collect/reduce litter. When BAN gets push back, believe there us some common grammar and a lot of other packaging waste and industry activity. Able to share bulk packaging side and opportunities. D-2 HIPSIS TF MORNING RECAP ROUND 2 (HWLF) It seems fair to go around. Agree and move forward. Not purposed to chalk up litter waste but to emphasize EPR into this TF. (MA) Encourage to invest in Malama808.org. Zippy's can speak on this behalf. Now business regulate themselves. ROT TNT) 3 Stakeholders did not find it necessary to conduct a third round of discussions as they were ready to implement action. APPENDIX E1 Polystyrene Ban Research IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER E1-2 Impact on Local Business Research Task Draft Bill 140 is under consideration that will prohibit use of polystyrene food service ware, beginning on January 1, 2018. On March 9, 2016, Council Chair Kanuha requested the department's assistance in researching: 1. Examples, if any, of municipal incentives to vendors that offset the costs of purchasing compostable products. 2. Alternative products and pricing. Economic Development Specialists Ellen Cunningham and Lee -Ann Heely conducted this research. Business Resource Center staff researched municipalities across the United States and found no examples of incentives for businesses to switch from polystyrene to compostable food service ware. In the course of this research, staff compiled examples of existing ordinances. These examples are included as an appendix to this report. Food Safety and Service Impacts Business Resource Center staff interviewed the principals from several small businesses in Hawai'i County including local food truck and brick and mortar establishments about their food service containers. Among these vendors there is concern that compostable alternatives to plastic foam food service containers, specifically one-piece lidded vessels, will neither retain the temperature of the food being served nor contain the food adequately to avoid spillage and leaks. These vendors have found that the alternative plastic lined paper products and the cardboard products do not hold up as well as the foam products. At a minimum the alternative products require an additional layer of lining such as foil which adds an additional cost to the vendor. Representatives from larger companies such as KTA Super Stores and Zippy's Restaurants indicated that they have worked for years to find a suitable replacement for plastic foam without success. Traditional Hawaiian plate lunches and products such as saimin and chili require temperatures up to 170 degrees, creating food safety issues for both the vendor and the customer when using food service ware that is not stable or insulated sufficiently to contain the product safely. The requirement to eliminate plastic foam food service ware increases the cost of food delivery by three - to four times the fixed costs of service containers. The sole manufacturer of food service ware in Hawaii, KYD, Inc. dba K. Yamada Distributors, produces plastic foam products. All other food service ware is manufactured in the U.S. mainland or Asia and shipped to Hawai'i County. Food service ware distributors such as Triple F and Suisan report that the pricing of all products are adjusted to offset the cost of shipping. The distributers also reported that they have yet to find a manufacturer of foam product alternatives that are comparable to the cost of plastic foam containers, and that the compostable and paper alternatives to foam require additional layering of products to sufficiently service the food. 1 E1-3 Suisan purchases alternative products from World Centric, in Petaluma, California (www.worldcentric.org) and offers the compostable products to their clients including forks, knives, spoons, straws, lids, cups, napkins, clamshell containers, plates, and bowls. The distributor Triple F also offers a choice of plastic and foam products and compostable products. The cost for the compostable products is higher than the cost of polystyrene or plastic products. Many of Suisan's accounts are resistant to purchasing the alternative products due to the high cost of the product, Suisan shared the following cost comparisons: Product Plastic/Foam Product Cost Compostable Product Cost Clam Shell $0.10 $0.40 Cutlery $0.01 $0.05 The cost difference is also of concern to the Hawai'i County Coordinated Services for the Elderly. They have found that the cost of alternative food service ware will significantly impact their budget for Congregate Dining as well as Meals on Wheel. Geographic and Demographic Distinctions Local distributors revealed that there already has been some movement away from plastic foam to alternative service ware, however this movement is divided based on which side of the island the food vendor is located. Triple F reported that in West Hawai'i sales are 80 percent compostable or other paper products to 20 percent plastic foam. Conversely, in East Hawai'i, Triple F's sales are 80 percent plastic foam service ware and 20 percent compostable or other paper product. Demographic differences and the predominance of the visitor industry in West Hawai'i may influence this divergence of consumer demand. Regardless the reason, a ban on plastic foam products will impact East Hawai'i businesses' cash flow more significantly than those in West Hawai'i. Hawai'i County Coordinated Services for the Elderly has experimented with several types of alternative food service containers and found that within an hour the containers had "melted" and that the containers absorbed sauces and gravies leaving the meals dry. Meals on Wheels serves over 200 individuals in East Hawai'i and over 50 individuals in West Hawai'i. Delivery times can be in excess of an hour and a half depending on location, which affects the quality of the food delivered in other than plastic foam containers. Recycling A discussion of recycling practices is outside the scope of this research and the expertise of Research and Development. It should be noted however that in conversations with distributors and vendors the subject of recycling arose. In particular there was discussion about the lack of protocol for recycling expanded polystyrene food service ware in Hawai'i. The new compost facility slated for operations in 2018, is intended evidently to compost yard trimmings, agricultural waste, food processing waste and commercial restaurant waste, but not food service ware. All food service ware, including compostable varieties, will continue to go into the municipal garbage stream where they will not bio -degrade due to the landfill environment which requires blocking water and air — two elements required for composting. Vendors suggested that a recycling system for the polystyrene ware should be implemented before instituting a ban. 2 E1-4 Local Successes Derek Kurisu, Executive Vice President of KTA expressed his company's commitment to the environment. He reported that KTA is constantly experimenting with recyclable food packaging. KTA has not been able to identify an alternative to foam boxes for food service, one that retains the temperature and quality of the food and does not leak. They have been successful in identifying a coffee cup which is strong enough to hold product while retaining heat and KTA no longer uses foam cups. They have also found and use a poke container which is recyclable despite the fact that Hawai'i does not presently have the ability to recycle them. KTA collects the used containers and ships them to the U.S. mainland at their expense to support recycling. 31 Page E1-5 Summary of Maui County Ban Maui County Council Considers Bill to Ban Polystyrene On July 28, 2014, a bill was introduced by Maui County Council to consider a ban on Polystyrene. The Infrastructure and Environment Management Committee considered a bill to ban the use and sale of polystyrene disposable food service ware containers across Maui County. The bill would prohibit Maui County vendors from selling or using polystyrene food containers. Food containers such as the Styrofoam plate lunch containers or take out containers were a few examples listed. The bill would also prohibit food establishments from using or selling polystyrene food service containers. The concern was that polystyrene can end up as litter which then negatively impacts and hinders marine life. Marine debris could be ingested by marine animals and birds. Polystyrene would not biodegrade well and could exist in landfills for thousands of years. The bill would allow for exemptions such as the use of foam coolers and ice chests specifically designed for multiple use. Exemptions also included prepared foods that were packaged outside of Maui County. Memo dated November 17, 2104 To: Elle Cochran, Chair and Members of the Infrastructure and Environmental Management Committee From: Michael P. Victorino, Maui Council Member Maui Task force on Polystyrene disposable food service containers Subject: Polystyrene Disposable Food Service Containers (PAF 14-218) A Maui task force was created to address the polystyrene disposable food service container on a proposed bill, "A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW CHAPTER 20.26, MAUI COUNTY CODE, PERTAINING TO POLYSTYRENE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE CONTAINERS". The original bill was introduced in the 2009-2010 Council term. Through Communication 13-29, the bill was reintroduced to Council in July of 2014. The purpose of the bill was to regulate the use of polystyrene disposable food service containers by food providers and also to regulate the sale of polystyrene food service containers in Maui County. The task force's scope of work involved: • Clarify the bill's purpose • Identify the materials, containers, foods, and food providers subject to the bill • Identify the bill's potential impacts on food providers and County programs • Evaluate the bill's proposed exemptions • Review the reporting requirements on the administering agency The following stakeholders of community members made up the task force: • Business advocates- Maui Chamber of Commerce, business consultant • County officials— Department of Environment Management, Office of the Mayor, Kaunoa Senior Services • Environmental advocates — Surfrider Foundation, Pacific Whale Foundation, and Styrophobia 4 E1-6 • Food Providers- Pukalani Superette, Zippy's Restaurants, Times Supermarket, Wailuku Coffee Company, Whole foods • Manufacturers of disposable food service containers — KYD, Inc. • Wholesalers of disposable food service containers- — Maui Chemical and Paper Products, VIP Foodservice Findings of Task Force The task force found potential solutions as: 1. Create more awareness through educational platforms 2. Improve litter control These solutions were being explored to address the bill's intention to mitigate plastic litter in Maui County by: 1. Prohibiting the dispensing of food in polystyrene containers 2. Prohibiting the use of Maui County's use of polystyrene disposable containers 3. Prohibiting the sale of polystyrene disposable containers Litter Control In reviewing the bill's efficacy, the task force lacked consensus on whether or not the bill would be an effective strategy to mitigate plastic litter in Maui County. Parties were both in support of and opposed to the bill. Those who opposed the bill felt that the bill failed to consider and address the other sources and types of plastic litter in Maui County. These other types and sources of litter could have been perceived as being more problematic to the environment. A second reason for opposing the bill addressed the concern that a product ban would not reduce overall litter in Maui County. Instead, the ban will introduce a new type of material, subsequently resulting in littering the environment under a different form. For example, if polystyrene materials were banned, the litter would not be reduced, it would be in fact, replaced with non -polystyrene materials. Those who supported the bill proposed that one manageable step in addressing marine debris could be met by reducing the use of single use plastic products. In addition, the task force researched other municipalities and government agencies who implemented similar prohibitions and in the end failed to explore the adverse effects. Finally, enacting the bill would have confirmed Maui County's commitment to addressing the problem of plastic debris in the ocean. I nnrlfill \A/acts The task force also found no significant reduction to the amount of waste that was sent to Maui County landfills because polystyrene comprised of less than 1 percent of the waste stream entering the landfills, and landfills are designed to prevent the decomposition of materials. Alternative materials such as compostable or biodegradable materials weren't' going to decompose at a faster rate than actual polystyrene materials when discarded into a landfill. In addition, the diversion of compostable or biodegradable materials weren't' going to happen until a facility was built with the capabilities to handle these materials. As of November 17, 2014, there weren't' any known plans to construct such a facility in Maui County. The impact of both polystyrene and non -polystyrene containers would have been minimal if the proposed integrated Waste and Energy Conversion project were completed. 51 Page E1-7 Public Health Risks There was also no consensus among the task force on the public health risks of using polystyrene disposable containers. Those who opposed the bill believed so because the FDA approved the use of polystyrene containers, the synthetic styrene (materials used in manufacturing polystyrene) and naturally occurring styrene (found in food and drinks, such as cinnamon, beer, and beef) were identical chemically, and the amount of styrene that could have leaked into prepared food which was served in a polystyrene container was significantly below the safety limits established by the F.D.A. and the amount of styrene was the very close to the amount of styrene found in commonly consumed foods. Those who supported the bill felt the bill would mitigate public health risks because styrene could leach out from food containers that contacted prepared food and that styrene was suspected to be a neurotoxin. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences also identified styrene as a possible human carcinogen. Types of Polystyrene materials Foams that would have been subjected to the bill included foam and non -foam polystyrene plastics. No other types of foam was identified in the bill. Expanded polystyrene is the most inexpensive and most common form of polystyrene used to make disposable containers. Actual Styrofoam is not the material used for making disposable containers nor was it subjected to the Maui County proposed bill. Styrofoam is a building material and is actually a trademarked brand of extruded polystyrene foam. Food service ware is made from expanded polystyrene foam. Most people refer to food service ware made from expanded polystyrene as Styrofoam, which is incorrect. Analysis of the bill's prohibitions The bill would have prohibited food providers (restaurants, supermarkets, and other stores and shops in Maui County) from giving or selling disposable containers made of polystyrene. The option was provided for food providers to apply for an exemption from that restriction. County facilities, programs, and County -approved activity would also be prohibited from using polystyrene. This included Maui County parks, community centers, recreation areas, offices, County operations and any other activity requiring a permit would have fallen under the restriction. For example, Meals on Wheels was one program that would've been subjected to the restriction. Those task force members who opposed the bill felt that the passing of the bill would be too detrimental to the food providers and County facilities within Maui County. While alternative food service ware was explored, the down side was that alternative disposable containers have lower performance which might impact the food providers' operations. Alternatives also cost more per product, and may not hold the heat required to keep foods at a reasonable temperature range prior to serving. Those in favor of the bill asserted the restricting and prohibitions were not burdensome and in fact, were compliant with industry trends. For example, municipalities who adopted similar bans have not reported any job losses or business closures. A few food providers within Maui County already used non -polystyrene and didn't experience any adverse performance or cost difference. According to the wholesalers that serviced Maui County, there was reported an increased use of non -polystyrene containers. 61 Page E1-8 Exemptions to the bill The bill would have exempted foods packaged or prepared outside of Maui County. Food providers would have been put at a disadvantage having to outsource their packaging operations resulting in Maui County losing business. Additional exemptions were foam coolers and ice chests because these items were designed for multiple use. Any food provider was allowed one year exemption if: a) Unable to find "any reasonable alternative" to polystyrene disposable containers b) Experienced "financial hardship" as a result of the high costs of alternative products Definitions of the terms above needed further defining if the bill went through. Reporting The bill would have made the Director of Environmental Management submit an annual report to the Council which showed the number of food providers actually using compostable or recyclable containers. It was concluded that the reporting would not be useful since very little data would be made available. Recommendations The task force concluded that an education and public outreach program was critical for Maui County residents in reducing plastic litter. It was also recommended that Maui County dedicated resources and facilities to partner with community organizations and businesses. The partnership would have allowed for the development of educational programs which raised awareness. There was a need for improved prevention of litter and litter control. The Maui County Task Force was divided on whether Council should have passed the bill. 71 Page E1-9 Sample Ordinances Plastic Foam Bans Across the US (http://www.surfrider.org/pages/polystyrene-ordinances) CALIFORNIA — Examples of the 65 Ordinances in California covering restaurants • Alameda (2008) Expanded polystyrene ban, requirement that all takeout food packaging be compostable or recyclable. The city of Alameda committed to a "Zero Waste" practice and embarked on planning and identifying policies and program that will be necessary to reach zero waste. Possibilities include expanding commercial organics service, extending producer responsibility, mandatory recycling, and rate structure incentives. California has been advocating for State packaging legislation, updating environmentally preferable purchasing policy and advocating for a single use bag ban. California has also worked to modify collection rates to increase recycling, increase recycling technical assistance, add textiles and more plastics to the blue cart, increase bulky item reuse and recycling, add compostable plastics to the green cart, implement a large scale media campaign, implement mandatory recycling, organics, and code enforcement. The city is allowing food vendors to conduct a cost analysis where the vendor documents and lists suppliers contacted and an explanation how it has been determined that no acceptable alternative was available at a commercially reasonable price. Exemptions may be granted for up to one year and if food ware is not available at a reasonable price, the ability to recover the additional costs through existing expenses and resources, the availability of tax credits and deductions, and/or outside funding will be considered. • Calabasas (2008) Expanded polystyrene ban, requirement that all takeout food packaging be returnable, recyclable, biodegradable or degradable. A press release issued in Calabasas on March 21, 2007, addressing Ordinance No. 2007-233 stated, "Calabasas retail food establishments need to certify their awareness of the City's ordinance banning the use of expanded polystyrene for Food Packaging. N E1-10 By March 31, 2007, the owners of each retail food establishment within the City of Calabasas should report to the City their awareness and compliance of this newly adopted ban on the use of expanded polystyrene for food packaging. On February 21, 2007, Calabasas City Council members adopted Ordinance 2007-233 banning retail food establishments, nonprofit food providers and City facilities from using food packaging materials made of expanded polystyrene, known popularly by the trademark name Styrofoam. The ordinance requires food service establishments in Calabasas to start using environmentally acceptable packaging (i.e. returnable, recyclable, biodegradable, degradable) by March 31, 2008, and report on-going compliance with this ordinance on the first business day of each calendar year." (See attached ordinance) • Dana Point (adopted February 21, 2012) Ban on expanded polystyrene food containers. Effective six months after adoption date. As stated in Ordinance No. 12-03, "Upon receipt of a written application, the City Manager, or his or her designee, may exempt a Retail Food Vendor or Restaurant from the requirements of this Chapter for a period of up to one additional year after the operative date of this Ordinance, upon sufficient showing by the applicant that the provisions of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. (See attached ordinance) (1) The phrase undue hardship includes: (A) Situations where there are no reasonably feasible available alternatives to EPS food service ware for reasons which are unique to the Retail Food Vendor or Restaurant; or (B) Situations where compliance with the requirements of this Chapter would deprive a person of a legally protected right. (2) The written application shall include all information necessary for the making of a decision on the application, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The applicant may be required to provide additional information to permit the determination of facts regarding the exemption application. (3) An exemption application may be approved in whole or in part, with or without conditions. (4) A Retail Food Vendor or Restaurant granted an exemption must reapply in writing prior to the end of the one-year exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship if it wishes to have the exemption extended. (d) The City Manager and/or his designee may also determine to exempt from the requirements of this Chapter the procurement of supplies or services in the event of a proclaimed emergency or when otherwise deemed necessary by the City Manager for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare." gi EI Cerrito (2014) - On September 17, 2013, the EI Cerrito City Council finalized a polystyrene foam food ware ordinance for restaurants. Effective January 1, 2014. Ordinance No. 2013-04 of the City of EI Cerrito prohibited the use of expanded polystyrene disposable food ware and encouraged the use of compostable, recyclable and reusable food ware. Ordinance known as "EI Cerrito Food Ware Ordinance". (See attached ordinance) 91 Page E1-11 • Hermosa Beach (2012) Polystyrene container ban. Effective March 2013. (See attached ordinance) • San Jose (2010/2013) Government facility expanded polystyrene ban for special events established in 2010. Citywide EPS foam ban for restaurants/food vendors passed in 2013. Initial Study: Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance Project Description: A proposed Polystyrene Foam Food Service Ware Ordinance as a model ordinance to aimed at regulating the use of polystyrene foam food service ware by restaurants and food service establishments within neighboring jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. The proposed project model ordinance would work in phases to reduce and ban the use of polystyrene foam food service ware. Operating in phases would allow restaurants using expanded or extruded polystyrene (EPS) foam food service ware. An additional two options for additional regulation of EPS food ware products may also be adopted by any or all of the participating cities or towns and unincorporated Santa Clara County. These two options include: 1) A restriction of sales of EPS foam food service ware in retail stores and sales outlets 2) A restriction of sales of EPS coolers or ice chests which are not wholly encapsulated or encased within a more durable material. The City of San Jose, CA conducted an environmental review on the project to examine the nature and extent of any adverse effects on the environment that could occur if the project is approved and implemented. Upon the conclusion of the review, it was determined that the City draft a Negative Declaration (ND) for this project. An ND is a statement made by the City that if the project is in fact approved and implemented, it will not have a significant effect on the environment. Study can be found at this link: http://sanmoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20307 FLORIDA • Bal Harbour (2014) Ordinance prohibiting polystyrene at all stores, restaurants and beaches. • Bay Harbor Islands (2015) Ordinance prohibiting polystyrene in restaurants. • Coral Gables (2016) Ordinance prohibiting use of polystyrene by chain stores, chain food stores, city vendors and at special events. • Key Biscayne (2014) Ordinance prohibiting polystyrene on beaches and in local parks. Also prohibits city contractors and city facilities from utilizing polystyrene. • Miami Beach (2014) Ordinance prohibiting the sale/use of polystyrene food service articles at all city parks, buildings, events and sidewalk cafes. MAINE • Statewide (adopted 1993) bans use of expanded polystyrene for serving individual portions of food or a beverage at a facility or function of the State or of a political subdivision unless containers are recycled (which is near -to impossible). 10 1 "age E1-12 • Town of Freeport (1990) Town ordinance prohibits restaurants, retail food vendors, and town vendors from selling or serving prepared food in EPS products, and food packagers from packaging meat, eggs, bakery products or other food in EPS containers. • City of Portland (adopted April 2015) - Ordinance bans sale and use of expanded polystyrene food and beverage containers. MASSACHUSETTS • Town of Amherst (2012) Town bylaw banning expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam food ware at restaurants in town. Effective January 1, 2014. • Town of Brookline (2013) City ordinance banning all types of polystyrene food ware at restaurants passed November 2012 and effective by December 2013. • Town of Great Barrington (1990) Town ordinance banning polystyrene food or beverage containers at retailers. • City and County of Nantucket - more info needed. • City of Somerville (2014) City ordinance bans the use of EPS foam containers and cups at takeout food establishments effective May 2014. • Town of Williamstown (2015) ordinance prohibits retailers from sale, use and distribution of foam and rigid polystyrene in packaging material and food service ware, including straws, but adds exceptions for biodegradable, marine -degradable, compostable, reusable, and recyclable products. NEW JERSEY • Rahway (1997) City ordinance bans retail food vendors located within the City of Rahway from selling, giving or providing eating utensils or food containers to any consumer within the City of Rahway if said eating utensil or food container is composed of polystyrene or polyvinyl chloride. NEW YORK • Albany County (2014) County legislators passed an expanded polystyrene ban for chain restaurants with 15 or more locations nationwide. Passed in November 2013 and effective May 2014. • City of Glen Cove (1988) City ordinance banning all types of polystyrene food ware at restaurants. • New York City (2015) City ordinance banning all types of polystyrene food ware and foam packaging peanuts. OREGON • Portland (2008) City ordinance prohibits restaurants and retail food vendors from serving prepared food in Styrofoam products (both on premises and take-out), exempts non -profits. Part of the city policy of the City of Portland to reduce the amount of solid waste, both generated and disposed of, by promoting aggressive waste prevention and recycling activities. TEXAS • San Marcos (2012) City ordinance prohibits any person to use, carry, dispose, or possess Styrofoam products in any city park or in or upon the waters of the San Marcos River. Styrofoam products include but are not limited to coolers, ice chests, cups, plates, toys, floats, kickboards, rings or swim gear. (Styrofoam linings used as floatation devices or dock supports are exempt 111 Page E1-13 from this section if fully encapsulated by water-based acrylic or latex coating, or fully enclosed within the structural framework of a boat.) WASHINGTON • Issaquah (2009) City ordinance banning all types of polystyrene food ware at 'food service businesses' such as restaurants, food trucks, etc. • San Juan County (2010) County ordinance banning expanded polystyrene foam food ware at 'food service businesses." • Seattle (2009) City ordinance banning all types of polystyrene food ware at restaurants in phases. WASHINGTON DC • The Washington DC City Council (2014) passed the Sustainable DC Omnibus Act of 2013, including a ban on EPS foam. INTERNATIONAL • Guyana (2014) In August 2013, the Government announced plans to ban expanded polystyrene food ware effective in May 2014. • Haiti (2012) Haiti's government ordered a plastic bag and foam food ware ban effective October 2012 but early reports claim a lack of enforcement as alternatives are sourced. ATTACHMENTS Calabasas Ordinance No. 2007-233 EI Cerrito Ordinance No. 2013-040 Dana Point Ordinance No. 12-03 Hermosa Beach Ordinance No. 12-1332 12 1 "age El -14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT 'I OF CALABASAS ADDING CHAPTER 8.18 TO TH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ENVIRONMENTALL ACCEPTABLE FOOD PACKAGING. WHEREAS, the City of Calabasas desires to protect the natural environment, the economy, and the health of its citizens; and WHEREAS, discarded packaging from foods, beverages and other products constitutes a significant and growing portion of Calabasas's waste stream. Regulation of such packaging, therefore, is a necessary part of any effort to encourage a recyclable waste stream and to protect the environment; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of all who live., work and do business in the City that, to the extent feasible, the amount of litter on the public streets, parks, public places, and open spaces be reduced and that litter which does reach the natural environment be biodegradable. Existing landfill sites are rapidly approaching capacity, and additional sites are increasingly unavailable. Reduction of non -degradable wastes entering the waste stream and encouraging the use of recyclable packaging further these goals; and WHEREAS, replacing non -biodegradable food packaging with biodegradable packaging will further protect the public health and safety of the residents, the City's natural environment, creeks and wildlife; and WHEREAS, the minimization of non -degradable, non -returnable and non - recyclable food and beverage packaging originating at retail food establishments within the City is necessary and desirable to reduce the volume of land -filled waste; and WHEREAS, non -biodegradable and non -recyclable materials pose a challenge to any environmentally and financially responsible solid waste management program. Discarded food packaging constitutes a significant and growing portion of the City's waste stream. Regulation of food packaging is necessary to encourage a recyclable waste stream and to reduce the disposal of solid waste and the economic and environmental costs of waste management; and El -15 WHEREAS, biodegradable and recyclable products offer environmentally sound alternatives to products currently used. Biodegradable products decay, causing less harm to the environment and the landscape of the City than products now in use. Use and recycling of those alternative products saves the cost of disposing of waste in landfills and the energy and other resources used in production of new products; and WHEREAS, plastic pollution has proliferated such that there are six times as many bits of plastic waste in the surface layer of the Pacific Ocean as marine life. Plastic waste originating from the United States has been found at Midway Atoll in the far reaches of the Pacific, and every cubic yard of sediment in California's coastal creeks and streams contains one-half pound of plastic waste; and WHEREAS, bioplastics are commercially available and scientific studies show that these materials biodegrade both in compost and in the natural environment and return their base constituents to the food chain, such materials can be composted even if contaminated with food waste, and sugar cane stock (also known as bagasse) is suitable for hot foods and beverages. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Calabasas does ordain as follows: SECTION ONE: The Calabasas Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter 8.18 to read as set forth in the Exhibit A attached to this Ordinance. SECTION TWO. SEVERABILITY. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance or of Exhibit A hereto, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is rendered or declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Ordinance, and their application to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect and, to that end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. SECTION THREE. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage and adoption pursuant to California Government Code section 36937. SECTION FOUR. CERTIFICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. 2 02007-233 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 21" day of February, 2007. ATTEST: �n Gwe Peirce, Assistant City Clerk E1-16 3 ennis Wash -burn, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael G. Colantuono, City Attorney 02007-233 El -17 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )SS CITY OF CALABASAS 1, GWEN PEIRCE, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Calabasas, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance, being Ordinance No. 2007-233 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Calabasas, at a regular meeting of the City Council held February 21, 2007, and that it was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Mayor Washburn, Mayor pro Tern Bozajian, Councilmembers Groveman, Maurer and Wolfson. NOES: None. 1 ABSENT: None. A Gwen Peirce, CMC, Assistant City Clerk City of Calabasas, California El -18 Exhibit A Chapter 8.18 Food Packaging Materials SECTION 8.18.010. PURPOSE. The purposes of this chapter are to: A. Decrease the use of products which do not biodegrade and cannot be recycled in order to promote public health, reduce solid waste and litter, and protect wildlife and the environment. B. Eliminate, to the maximum extent practicable, the use of packaging at retail food establishments within the City that is non -biodegradable, non - recyclable, and which cannot be reused and thereby to protect the air, land and waters of the City and its environs. C. Reduce litter by encouraging the use of materials that can be reused, recycled or, if littered, can biodegrade into non -harmful component materials. Many packaging materials currently in use are highly durable, buoyant, light -weight and non -biodegradable and are therefore easily windblown and become litter even when placed in trashcans. Once in the environment, plastic wastes persist and detract from the appearance of the area longer than many other types of litter and due to their essentially indefinite presence in the environment, cause continuing environmental harm as by polluting waterways and the oceans. SECTION 8.18.020. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below, unless otherwise expressly stated herein or the context clearly requires otherwise: "Biodegradable" means capable of being broken down by micro-organisms commonly found in the environment into non -harmful substances or elements within a reasonably short time after disposal. "City Facilities" means any building, structure or vehicles owned or operated by the City of Calabasas. "Customer" means any person obtaining food or beverages from a restaurant or retail food establishment. "Degradable" means material which (1) substantially reduces to its constituent substances through processes initiated by natural organisms whose end products are substantially, but not necessarily entirely, carbon dioxide and water and (ii) is designed to degrade when exposed to ultraviolet light. Degradable materials do not include synthetic or plastic -coated cellulose -based items comprising more than five percent of the total volume of an item. 4 02007-233 E1-19 "Disposable Food Service Container" means disposable products used in the restaurant and food service industry to serve or transport prepared, ready -to - consume food or beverages and includes, but is not limited to, plates, cups, bowls, trays and hinged or lidded containers. "Disposable Food Service Container" excludes straws, cup lids, utensils, and packaging for Unprepared Food. "Environmentally Acceptable Packaging" means packaging every element of which is "Returnable", "Recyclable," "Biodegradable" or "Degradable", and does not contain expanded polystyrene (EPS). "Expanded Polystyrene (EPS)" means and includes blown polystyrene and expanded and extruded foams (sometimes incorrectly called Styrofoam°, a Dow Chemical Company trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation) which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). EPS is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, meat trays and egg cartons. "Food Provider" means any establishment which provides prepared food for public consumption on or off its premises and includes without limitation any store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, grocery store, super market, delicatessen, caterer, catering truck or vehicle; and any organization, group or individual which regularly provides food in conjunction with services. "Food Vendor" means any restaurant or retail food establishment. "Nonprofit Food Provider" means an organization which provides food and which is recognized by the Internal Revenue Services as a non-profit organization. "Packaging" means and includes all food -related wrappings, bags, boxes, coverings and containers, and shall further include cups, glasses and similar containers for drinking out of or for holding liquids, and plates and serving trays but shall specifically exclude plastic knives, forks, spoons, lids, straws and materials used to package unprepared food. "Polystyrene" means expanded polystyrene which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, form molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). "Polystyrene Foam" means a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). "Prepared Food" means food or beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared for consumption by a retail consumer on the premises of a retail food establishment. Prepared Food does not include raw, butchered meats, fish and/or poultry. 5 02007-233 E1-20 "Recyclable" means any material including glass, cans, cardboard, paper, mixed paper, or other items which can be recycled, salvaged, composted, processed, or marketed by any means other than land -filling or burning, whether as fuel or otherwise, so that they are returned to use by society. Recyclable materials include any plastic which can be feasibly recycled by a municipal recycling program in the State of California and presently comprise those plastics with the recycling symbols #1 through #5 including polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), and polypropylene (PP). For purposes of this chapter, recyclable materials do not include polystyrene, polystyrene foam or expanded polystyrene (which bear recycling symbol #6). "Recycling Program" means a process whereby used materials are separated from the solid waste stream and utilized as a raw material in the manufacture of a new product or for new economic use; "Restaurant" means any establishment that sells "Prepared Food," including itinerant restaurants, pushcarts and vehicular food vendors. "Retail Food Establishment" means any sales outlet, store, shop, vehicle or other place of business which sells or conveys foods or beverages to ultimate consumers, which foods or beverages are contained, wrapped, or held in or on food packaging. "Retail food establishment" shall include, but not be limited to, any place where food is prepared, mixed, cooked, baked, smoked, preserved, bottled, packaged, handled, stored, manufactured, and sold or offered for sale, including, but not limited to restaurant; drive-in; coffee shop; cafeteria; short-order cafe; delicatessen; luncheonette; grill; sandwich shop; soda fountain; bed and breakfast inn; tavern; bar; cocktail lounge; nightclub; roadside stand; take-out prepared food place; industrial feeding establishment; catering kitchen; mobile food preparation unit; commissary; grocery store; public food market; produce stand; food stand; or any other place in which food or drink is prepared for sale or for service on the premises or elsewhere; and any other establishment or operation where food is processed, prepared, served or provided to or for consumers for charge; "Returnable" means food or beverage containers or packages, such as, but not limited to, soft drink bottles and milk containers, that are capable of being returned to the distributor such as, but not limited to, dairies and soft drink bottlers, for reuse as the same food or beverage container at least once, and for which a redemption fee is charged by the retailer. "Supplier" means anyone selling, or otherwise supplying food packaging to, a restaurant or retail food establishment. "Unprepared Food" means any food which is not Prepared Food. SECTION 8.18.030. PROHIBITION A. Commencing March 31, 2008, no person owning, operating or managing a retail food establishment or a nonprofit food provider located in the city shall do or allow another to do any of the following, except as provided in section 8.18.060: 6 02007-233 E1-21 (1) sell or convey at retail, or possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail, any food or beverage that is placed, wrapped or packaged in the city in or on packaging other than environmentally acceptable packaging; nor (2) provide to customers, or possess with the intent to provide to customers, packaging other than environmentally acceptable packaging. B. The presence on the premises of a retail food establishment of packaging other than environmentally acceptable packaging shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of intent to sell, convey at retail, or provide that packaging to customers. C. Commencing July 1, 2007: (1) Food packaging other than environmentally acceptable food packaging shall not be used by officers, agents or employees of the city at city facilities for city events or otherwise in the conduct of the city's business. The city shall not acquire environmentally unacceptable food packaging. (2) The city shall not sponsor or co-sponsor events within the City at which food packaging other than environmentally acceptable food packaging is used or distributed by event organizers, agents of event organizers, food vendors and any other party (including a nonprofit organization) which enters into an agreement with one or more of the co- sponsors of an event to sell prepared food at the event or otherwise to provide an event -related service. The city's monetary contribution to such events shall be refunded to the city, if the city manager determines that food packaging other than environmentally acceptable food packaging was utilized. D. Commencing July 1, 2007, all rental agreements for any city facility shall require contracting parties to prevent the use or distribution of food packaging other than environmentally acceptable food packaging in the city facility. The agreement shall provide that the contractor's security deposit will be forfeited if the city manager determines that food packaging other than environmentally acceptable food packaging was utilized in violation of the rental agreement. SECTION 8.18.040. DEGRADABLE AND RECYCLABLE FOOD PACKAGING. Commencing on March 31, 2007, each retail food establishment in the City shall: 7 02007-233 El -22 A. Report on or before March 31, 2007 and the first business day of each calendar year thereafter, a written certification, signed under penalty of perjury by one authorized to bind the retail food establishment, stating that the owners and operators of the establishment are aware of the requirements of this chapter and comply with it. Such reports may be on a form provided for that purpose by the City Manager. B. Maintain written records evidencing its compliance with this chapter. SECTION 8.18.050. EXEMPTIONS A. During an emergency declared by the city manager or any other public official authorized by law to do so, food establishments, franchisees, contractors and retail food establishments doing business with the city, and those using city facilities, shall be exempt from this chapter. B. If the city manager determines that there is no commercially available environmentally acceptable food packaging that may be substituted for a particular item of non -environmentally acceptable food packaging, then the city manager may, by a written notice published or posted in the manner required by law for ordinances of the city, authorize the use of that item in the city until such time as he or she determines that an alternative has become commercially available, at which time he or she shall issue a written notice terminating the exemption, which notice shall be published or posted in the manner required by law for ordinances of the city. In determining whether alternatives to an item are commercially available, the city manager shall consider: (1) The availability of environmentally acceptable packaging for affected products; (2) Whether environmentally acceptable packaging alternatives are available at commercially reasonable prices; (3) The existence of franchise or other contractual obligations which commit a retail food establishment to use corporate logo or other products which are not available as environmentally acceptable packaging. The city manager shall annually review exemptions granted pursuant to this paragraph to determine whether current conditions continue to warrant the exemption. C. Items required to be purchased under contract entered into prior to the adoption of this chapter are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. 8 02007-233 E1-23 D. Items packaged outside the city, whether sold at retail within the city or elsewhere, are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 8.18.060. INSPECTION OF RECORDS. All records required by this chapter shall be made available for inspection by the city manager during normal business hours. It shall be unlawful for anyone having custody of such records to fail or refuse to produce them upon request by the city manager. SECTION 8.18.070. ENFORCEMENT A. The city manager shall enforce this chapter. The city manager may promulgate written regulations upon notice in the manner required by law for the publication or ordinances of the city and may take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this chapter, including, but not limited to, inspecting any retail food establishment's premises to verify compliance. B. Any person violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction punishable pursuant to section 1.16.020(B) of this code provided, however, that any person who falsely states that he or she is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter pursuant to section 8.18.040(B) or fails to timely file the reports required by that section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable pursuant to section 1. 16.010 of this code. C. Each and every sale or other transfer of food packaging other than environmentally acceptable food packaging shall constitute a separate violation of this ordinance. D. The city attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this chapter. E. The remedies and penalties provided in this section are cumulative and not exclusive of one another. SECTION 8.18.80. CONSTRUCTION; PREEMPTION. This chapter and any provision thereof shall be null and void upon the adoption of any state or federal law or regulation imposing the same or essentially the same limits on the use of prohibited products as set forth in this chapter. This chapter is intended to be a proper exercise of the City's police power, to operate only upon its own officers, agents, employees and facilities and other persons acting within its boundaries, and not to regulate inter -city or interstate commerce. It shall be construed in accordance with that intent. 9 02007-233 El -24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO PROHIBITING THE USE OF EXPANDED'POLYSTYRENE DISPOSABLE FOOD WARE AND ENCOURAGING THE USE OF COMPOSTABLE, RECYCLABLE AND REUSABLEFOOD WARE SECTION 1. Findings. WHEREAS, expanded polystyrene (EPS) disposable food ware has been associated with considerable environmental impacts, including being a problematic component of litter, which is unsightly and costly to clean up; and WHEREAS, littering EPS food ware can result in blocked storm drains, fouled waterways, and increased marine debris; and WHEREAS, EPS food ware is commonly used by food providers in the City of El Cerrito, and has limited recycling potential; and WHEREAS, the City of El Cerrito has a substantial interest in protecting its waterways, environment, and taxpayers from the negative impacts of EPS food ware; and WHEREAS, restricting the use of EPS food ware products and replacing non- compostable, non -reusable, or non -recyclable food service ware with compostable, reusable, or recyclable food service ware products will further protect waterways and promote environmental sustainability; and WHEREAS, compostable food ware products such as cups, plates, bowls and hinged containers are available in local stores, are increasingly available in the food service market; and WHEREAS, many businesses in Bay Area cities engage in organics recycling and have demonstrated that the use of compostable food ware can reduce disposal costs when the products are taken to composting facilities as part of an organics recycling program rather than disposed in a landfill; and WHEREAS, this proposed Ordinance will preserve and enhance the environment within the City of El Cerrito and is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), as amended, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) or Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of El Cerrito does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 2. Amendment of Municipal Code. Title 8 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new Chapter 8.24 and shall read as follows: 1 El -25 8.24.010 - Title. This Ordinance shall be known as the El Cerrito Food Ware Ordinance. The City of El Cerrito hereinafter shall be called "City." This Ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of the City. 8.24.020 - Operative Date. This Ordinance shall become operative on January 1, 2014 and shall become enforceable on July 1, 2014. 8.24.030 - Purpose. It is the intent of the City of El Cerrito in enacting Chapter 8.24 to eliminate the use of expanded polystyrene food ware and to encourage the use of reusable, recyclable or compostable food containers by food providers and customers in El Cerrito. 8.24.040 - Definitions. The following definitions apply to this Ordinance: A. "ASTM Standard" means meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International standards D6400 or D6868 for compostable materials, as those standards may be amended. B. "Compostable" means the product is capable of composting and is labeled in accordance with California law, or is consistent with the timeline and specifications of ASTM D6400 and D6868, without regard to material type. C. "City Facilities" means any building, structure or vehicle owned or operated by the City of El Cerrito, its agents, agencies, departments or franchisees. D. "Customer" means any member of the public obtaining Prepared Food from a Food Provider. E. "Disposable Food Ware" means all containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, forks, spoons, and knives and other items that are designed for one-time use for Prepared Foods, including service ware for take-out foods and/or leftovers from partially consumed meals prepared by Food Providers. This term does not include lids or straws. F. "Food Provider" means any vendor, business, organization, entity, group or individual, including any Restaurant or Retail Food Establishment, located or operating within the City of El Cerrito or providing food or beverage to the public, and any provider of Prepared Food at organized or special events occurring within the boundaries of the City of El Cerrito. 2 El -26 G. "Expanded Polystyrene" or "EPS" means and includes blown polystyrene and expanded and extruded foams (sometimes called Styrofoam, a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of Expanded Polystyrene insulation) which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). Expanded Polystyrene is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, meat trays and egg cartons. H. "Prepared Food" means food or beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared on the Food Provider's premises. For the purposes of this ordinance, Prepared Food does not include raw, butchered meats, fish and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. Prepared Food may be eaten either on or off the premises, also known as "take-out food". I. "Restaurant" means a restaurant, take-out food establishment, or any other business that receives 90% or more of its revenue from the sale of Prepared Food to be eaten on or off its premises. J. "Retail Food Establishment" means any store, shop, sales outlet, or other establishment, other than a Restaurant, including but not limited to a grocery store, delicatessen, mobile food preparation and sale unit, drive-in, coffee shop, cafeteria, short-order cafe, luncheonette, grill, sandwich shop, hotel, motel, movie house, theatre, bed and breakfast inn, tavern, bar, cocktail lounge, nightclub, roadside stand, take-out Prepared Food place, industrial feeding establishment, catering kitchen, commissary, special event, food market, produce stand, food stand, or similar place in which food or drink is prepared for sale, or for service, on the premises or elsewhere, and any other establishment or operation where food is processed, prepared, stored, served or provided to Customers. K. "Recyclable" means material that can be sorted, cleansed, and reconstituted using El Cerrito's available recycling collection programs for the purpose of using the altered form in the manufacture of a new product. "Recycling" does not include burning, incinerating, converting, or otherwise thermally destroying solid waste. L. "Reusable" means all materials in the product or package will be used more than once in its same form by the customer, food vendor or other reuse programs. Reusable food ware includes: food or beverage containers, packages or trays, such as, but not limited to, soft drink bottles and milk containers that are designed to be returned to the distributor by the customer that is provided take-out containers. Reusable also includes durable 3 E1-27 containers, packages or trays used on -premises or returnable containers brought back to the food vendor., M. "Reusable Food Ware" means all containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, and other items that are designed for prolonged use, including but not limited to ceramic, glass, porcelain, and metal food ware. 8.24.040 — EPS Food Ware Prohibited. _, A. Except as provided in this Chapter, Food Providers are prohibited from providing Prepared Food to Customers in Disposable Food Ware made from Expanded Polystyrene.. B. Except as provided in this Chapter, all City Facilities are prohibited from using Expanded Polystyrene Disposable Food Ware and all City Departments and Agencies will not purchase or acquire Expanded Polystyrene Disposable Food Ware for use at City Facilities or events. C. Except as provided in this Chapter, all City franchisees, contractors, vendors and caterers doing business with the City shall be prohibited from using Expanded Polystyrene Disposable Food Ware in City Facilities, at City events or on City projects within the City of El Cerrito. 8.24.060 — Permitted Disposable Food Ware. A. All Food Providers using any Disposable Food Ware will use Compostable, Recyclable or Reusable Food Ware. All Food Providers are strongly encouraged to use Reusable Food Ware in place of using Disposable Food Ware for all food served on -premises. A Food Provider may price its products or services to customers in a manner to cover any cost differential. B. All City Facilities using any Disposable Food Ware will use Compostable, Recyclable or Reusable Food Ware. All City Facilities are strongly encouraged to use Reusable Food Ware in place of using Disposable Food Ware for all food served on -premises. C. All City franchisees, contractors, vendors and caterers, when doing business with the City, will use Compostable, Recyclable or Reusable Food Ware. All City Facilities are strongly encouraged to use Reusable Food Ware in place of using Disposable Food Ware for all food served on -premises. D. All individuals, entities or organizations using City Facilities for public or private events shall comply with the requirements in this Chapter. rd E1-28 8.24.080 — Exemptions. A. Prepared Foods that are prepared or.packaged outside the City of El Cerrito as well as Prepared Foods prepared and packaged in the City of El Cerrito for use outside of the City of El Cerrito are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Purveyors of food prepared or packaged outside the City of El Cerrito are encouraged to follow the provisions of this Chapter. B. Food Providers may be exempted from the provisions of this Chapter for specific items or types of Disposable Food Ware if the City Manager or his/her designee finds that a suitable Compostable, Reusable or Recyclable alternative does not exist for a specific application and/or that imposing the requirements of this Chapter on that item or type of Disposable Food Ware would cause undue hardship. C. Any Food Provider or City Facility may seek an exemption from the requirements of this Chapter by filing a request in writing with the City Manager. The City Manager may waive any specific requirement of this Chapter for a period of not more than one year if the Food Provider or City Facility seeking the exemption has demonstrated that strict application of the specific requirement would cause undue hardship. D. A Food Provider or City Facility granted an exemption must re -apply prior to the end of the one year exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship if the Food Provider or City Facility wishes to have the exemption extended. The City Manager's decision to grant or deny an exemption or to grant or deny an extension of a previously issued exemption shall be in writing and shall be final. E. Expanded Polystyrene coolers and ice chests that are intended for reuse are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. F. In a situation deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be an emergency, or in the event that a local emergency or disaster has been declared in effect, for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, City Facilities, Food Providers, City franchisees, contractors, vendors and caterers doing business with the 'City shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. 8.24.140 — Enforcement and Violation — Penalty. A. Any violation of this ordinance is punishable as specified in Chapters 1.08 or 1.14 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code or by any other applicable law. B. The City Manager or his or her designee has primary responsibility for enforcement of this Ordinance. The City Manager is authorized to promulgate 5 El -29 regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, investigating violations, issuing fines and entering the premises of any Food Provider during business hours. Other City of El Cerrito staff may assist with this enforcement responsibility by entering the premises of a Food Provider as part of their regular inspection functions and reporting any alleged violations to the City Manager. SECTION 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, the City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the following reasons: (1) under Section 15061 (b)(3), it is not a project which has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; (2) under Section 15308, it is an authorized action by an agency with regulatory authority for the purpose of assuring the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment. SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City Council of the City of El Cerrito hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid. SECTION 5. No Conflict with Federal or State Law. Nothing in this Ordinance is intended to create any requirement, power or duty that is in conflict with any federal or state law. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2014 and be enforced on July 1, 2014; prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the passage thereof, the Ordinance or a summary thereof shall be posted or published as may be required by law, and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on August 20, 2013, and passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Abelson, Benassini, Friedman and Mayor Lyman NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Bridges 0 E1-30 Adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the September, 17, 2013, and passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Abelson, Benassini, Bridges, Friedman and Mayor Lyman NOES: None ABSENT: None APPROVED: 3 re y B. Ly an, yor ATTEST: heryl Nlorse, City Clerk IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of j the City of El Cerrito on September 18, 2013. Cheryl Mor e, Cit Clerk ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION I, Cheryl Morse, City Clerk of the City of El Cerrito, do hereby certify that this Ordinance is the true and correct original Ordinance No. 2013-04 of the City of El Cerrito; that said Ordinance was duly enacted and adopted by the City Council of the City of El Cerrito at a meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of September, 2013; and that said Ordinance has been ordered published and/or posted in the manner required by law. WITNESS my hand and the Official Seal of the City of El Cerrito, California, this 18th day of September, 2013. Cheryl M se, Cit Clerk 7 E1-31 WHEREAS, the City of Dana Point has a duty to protect the natural environment, the economy, and the health of its citizens; and WHEREAS, there are currently approximately 108 individual restaurants and food service businesses in the City; and WHEREAS, expandable polystyrene (EPS), a petroleum based product that is frequently used for food services purposes, enters various water bodies from both direct and indirect sources (such as storm drains), and negatively impacts the overall quality of ocean waters and adjacent beach areas; and WHEREAS, the litter problem resulting from expandable polystyrene (EPS) products is becoming increasingly difficult to manage and has costly negative implications for tourism, wildlife, aesthetics, and most recently, public storm drain systems; and WHEREAS, numerous studies have documented the prevalence of EPS debris in the environment, including storm drains, ocean waters and on beaches; and WHEREAS, a deterioration in the quality of the City's ocean waters and beaches threatens the public health, safety and welfare and negatively affects tourism and the local economy which depends on tourist trade; and WHEREAS, EPS debris poses a risk to the fragile ecological balance because wildlife often confuse EPS debris for a source of food, and the ingestion of EPS can result in reduced appetite and nutrient absorption and death by starvation; and WHEREAS, EPS products contribute to urban blight as litter, because, even when they have been disposed of properly, EPS products easily break down into smaller pieces, which are so light that they float in water and get carried by the wind; and WHEREAS, EPS food service products, by their nature, have a useful life that can be measured in minutes or hours, yet these products tame several decades to hundreds of years to biodegrade; and Ordinance No. 12-43 Prohibition of Styrofoam Page 2 E1-32 WHEREAS, the 1999-2000 Orange County Grand Jury report titled "The Rainy Season's First Flush Hits the Harbors of Orange County" strongly recommended that the County of Orange and the cities within it institute a procedure to substantially reduce the use of EPS within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, there is no meaningful way to recycle EPS products used for food service ware; and WHEREAS, there are alternatives to EPS products used for food service ware; and WHEREAS, the City of Dana Point desires to reduce the amount of beach litter and marine pollution and to protect wildlife by reducing the amount of EPS debris that enters the City's storm drains, watershed, ocean waters and beaches; and WHEREAS, the City Council has proposed a ban on the use of EPS food service products in the City to reduce the prevalence of EPS debris in the City's storm drains, watershed, ocean waters and beaches; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dana Point conducted a duly noticed public meeting regarding the proposed ban at their regular scheduled meeting of December 12, 2011 where testimony was invited and received; and WHEREAS, because the proposed ban is not an activity that will result in an adverse physical change in the environment, the proposed ban does not qualify as a "project" under section 21005 of the Public Resources Code, and accordingly, is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000-21177) ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, even if the proposed ban qualified as a "project" under section 21055 of the Public Resources Code, the project is exempt from the CEQA because (1) it is an activity undertaken "to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement and protection of the environment" (14 C.C.R. § 15308), and/or (2) "it can be Seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant [adverse] effect on the environment" (14 C.C.R. § 15061(b)(3)), and WHEREAS, even though CEQA does not require it, the City is willing to and has prepared an Initial Environmental Study on the proposed ban, and based upon this study, the City determined that the proposed ban is not an activity that will have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, because the proposed ban is not an activity that will have a significant adverse effect on the environment, the City prepared a Negative Declaration pursuant to section 21080(c) of the Public Resources Code and hereby adopts this Negative Declaration; and Ordinance No. 12-03 Prohibition of Styrofoam Page 3 El -33 WHEREAS, the proposed ban will have no negative impact on Fish and Game resources pursuant to Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DANA POINT HEREBY ORDAINS AS • SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. A new Chapter 6.46 "Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Ware" is hereby added to Title 6 of the Dana Point Municipal Code to read as follows: Section 6.46.010 Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings: "City Facilities" means any building, structure, or vehicle owned or operated by the City of Dana Point, its agents, agencies, departments, and franchisees, "Customer" means any person obtaining Prepared Food from a Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor "Disposable Food Service Ware" means all containers, trays, cartons, cups, and other items that are designed for one-time use and on, or in, which any Restaurant or Retail Food Vendors directly places or packages Prepared Foods or which are used to consume foods. This includes, but is not limited to, service ware for takeout foods andlor leftovers from partially consumed meals prepared at Restaurants or Retail Food Vendors such as plates, cups, bowls, lids, trays, and hinged or lidded containers. This does not include single -use disposable straws or utensils. "Expanded Polystyrene" (EPS) means polystyrene that has been expanded or "blown" using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam. EPS is sometimes called "Styrofoam," a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation. "Food Vendor" means any establishment located or operating within the City of Dana Point which provides prepared and ready -to -consume food or beverages for public consumption, including, but not limited to any store, supermarket, delicatessen, Restaurant, Retail Food Vendor, sales outlet, shop, cafeteria, catering truck or vehicle, sidewalk or other outdoor vendor, or caterer. Ordinance No. 12-03 Prohibition of Styrofoam Page 4 El -34 "Polystyrene" means and includes expanded polystyrene, which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques, including but not limited to fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). "Prepared Food" means food or beverages which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed, or otherwise prepared on the Food Vendor's premises and within the City of Dana Point with the intent of consumption on or off the premises as the balance, of an unfinished meal or as "takeout food." For the purposes of this Chapter, "Prepared Food" does not include raw, butchered, ground, chopped, or sliced meats, fish, and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance for subsequent preparation. "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the City of Dana Point that sells prepared food for consumption on, near, or off its premises by Customers. "Restaurant," for the purposes of this Chapter, includes mobile food preparation units as defined in Section 6.30.010 of the Dana Point Municipal Code, "Retail Food Vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet, or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a Restaurant, located within the City of Dana Point that provides Prepared Food. Section 6.46.020 Polystyrene (EPS) Food Service Ware Prohibited. (a) Except as provided by Section 6.46.030 of this Chapter, Food Vendors are prohibited from providing Prepared Food in Disposable Food Service Ware made of EPS. (b) Except as provided by Section 6.46.030 of this Chapter, all City Facilities, City -managed concessions, City -sponsored events, City permitted events and all franchisees, contractors, and vendors doing business with the City are prohibited from using Disposable Food Service Ware made of EPS within the City of Dana Point, (a) Foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Dana Point are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Purveyors of food prepared or packaged outside the City of Dana Point are encouraged to follow the provisions of this Chapter, (b) EPS coolers and ice chests that are intended for reuse are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Ordinance No. 12-03 Prohibition of styrofoam Page 5 El -35 (c) Upon receipt of a written application, the City Manager, or his or her designee, may exempt a Retail Food Vendor or Restaurant from the requirements of this Chapter for a period of up to one additional year after the operative date of this Ordinance, upon sufficient showing by the applicant that the provisions of this Chapter would cause undue, hardship. (1) The phrase undue hardship includes: (A) Situations where there are no reasonably feasible available alternatives to EPS food service ware for reasons which are unique to the Retail Food Vendor or Restaurant; or (B) Situations where compliance with the requirements of this Chapter would deprive a person of a legally protected right, (2) The written application shall include all information necessary for the making of a decision on the application, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The applicant may be required to provide additional information to permit the determination of facts regarding the exemption application. (3) An exemption application may be approved in whole or in part, with or without conditions. (4) A Retail Food Vendor or Restaurant granted an exemption must reapply in writing prior to the end of the one-year exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship if it wishes to have the exemption extended. (d) The City Manager and/or his designee may also determine to exempt from the requirements of this Chapter the procurement of supplies or services in the event of a proclaimed emergency or when otherwise deemed necessary by the City Manager for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare, mr-M, IT -TIN (a) Whenever the City Manager or his or her designee finds that any provision of this Chapter has been violated, the City Manager shall give notice of such violation by means of a written warning. In any such warning, the City Manager shall: (1) Set forth the specific violation or violations found-, and (2) Establish a specific and reasonable period of time for the correction of the violation or violations; and Ordinance No. 12-03 Prohibition of Styrofoam Page 6 El -36 (3) State that failure to comply with any notice issued in accordance with the provisions of this subsection shall be punishable by a fine in an amount consistent with subsection (b) of this Section. (b) Following the issuance of a written warning, an offense under this Chapter shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first conviction, and a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for the second and any subsequent conviction. (c) Each and every day that a violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation of this Chapter. (d) The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this Chapter. SECTION 3. Severability. If any Section, Subsection, Subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase and portion of this Ordinance irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions thereof may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are declared severable. SECTION 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective six (6) months after its passage and adoption, Within fifteen (15) days of the date of adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall post a copy of said Ordinance in places designated for such posting and shall certify to the same. The City Clerk shall certify the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. LARA ANDERSON, Mayor ATTEST: KAT hY—M. W#RD, City Clerk V Ordinance No. 12-03 Prohibition of Styrofoam Page 7 E1-37 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ss. CITY OF DANA POINT 1, Kathy M. Ward, Acting City Clerk of the City of Dana Point, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 12-03 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council on the 71h day of February, 2012, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council on the 21st day of February, 2012, by the following roll -call vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Bartlett, Schoeffel, Mayor Pro Tem Weinberg, and Mayor Anderson NOES: Council Member Brougs RTIST�!M 4 KAT M. WA CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 12-03 Prohibition of Styrofoam Page 8 CALIFORNIASTATE OF COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF DANA POINT AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING Kathy M. Ward, City Clerk, being first duly sworn, deposes, and says: E1-38 That in compliance with Mate Laws of the Mate of California, ORDINANCE NO, 12-03 being: .�=:Lei ♦ i10 1a " ■ was published in summary in the Dana Paint News newspaper on the 16 1h day of February, 2012, and the 1St day of March, 2012, and, in further compliance with City Resolution No. 01-10-08-1, on the gtn day of February, 2012, and the 23rd day of February, 2012, was caused to be posted in four (4) public places in the City of Dana Point; to wit: Dana Point Dana Point Post Office PointDana KAJHY M. ARD, CITY CLERK Dana Paint, California 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 28 El -39 ORDINANCE NO, 12-1332 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERD OSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 8.64 TO THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO BAN POLYSTYRENE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 1.10 TO MAKE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 8.64 SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURES The City- Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. A new Chapter 8.64 is added to Title 8 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 8.64 BAN ON POLYSTYRENE FOOD SERVICE WARE 8.64.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish standards and procedures to reduce adverse environmental and public health impacts and promote environmentally sustainable practices in the City of Hermosa Beach by prohibiting the use of certain disposable polystyrene food containers_ A. Polystyrene Food Service Ware, a lightweight petroleum-based plastic material, is commonly littered or blown out of trash receptacles and migrates to the storm drain system and eventually to the ocean and beaches. In the marine environment, this material breaks down into smaller pieces, which negatively impacts water quality and harms marine wildlife, which often mistakes polystyrene pieces for food. B. Littered Polystyrene Food Service Ware, especially expanded foam, is difficult to clean up and may cumulatively result in increased litter. Reduction of polystyrene in the environment will advance compliance with federal, state and city clean water mandates including compliance with Total Maximum Daily Loads and other requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Page I of 8 12-1332 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 El -40 C. Education about and reduction of food -soiled Polystyrene Food Service Ware, which can be difficult to clean and recycle, may advance waste stream reduction and recycling efforts and reduce the presence of this non -biodegradable material in landfills. D. Polystyrene Food Service Ware has been shown to pose human health impacts to workers and consumers and these impacts can be rmitigated by reducing its use, 8.64.020 Deflnitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings: "City Facility" means any building, structure, property, park, open space, or vehicle, owned or leased by the City of Hermosa Beach, or its agents, agencies, or departments. "City Contractor" means any person that enters into a written contract or verbal agreement to furnish products or services to or for the City of Hermosa Beach. "City -Sponsored Event- means any event, activity or meeting organized or sponsored by the City of Hermosa Beach or any department of the City of Hermosa Beach, "Disposable Food Service Ware" or "Disposables" means single -use, disposable Products used for serving or transporting Prepared Food, This includes but is not limited to plates, bowls, trays, wrappers or wrapping, platters, cartons, condiment containers, cups or drink, ware, or any other container in or on which Prepared Foods are placed or packaged for consumption, but excludes single -use disposable straws, cup lids, and utensils, "Food Provider" means any Person or place that provides or sells Prepared Food within the City of Hermosa Beach to the general public to be consumed on the premises or for take -away consumption. Food Provider includes but is not limited to (1) a grocery store, supermarket, restaurant, drive-thru, caf6, coffee shop, snack shop, public food market, farmers' market, convenience store, or similar fixed place where Prepared Food is available for sale on the premises Page 1 of 8 12-1332 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 =I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 El -41 or for take• -away consumption, and (2) any mobile store, food vendor, caterer, food truck, vending machine or similar mobile outlet. Food Provider also includes any organization, group or individual that regularly provides Prepared Food to its members or the general public as a part of its activities or services. "Person" means any person, business, corporation, or event organizer or promoter; public, nonprofit or private entity, agency or institution; or partnership, association or other organization or group, however organized. "Polystyrene" means a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing the styrene monomer, including but not limited to polystyrene foam or expanded polystyrene, processed by any number of techniques, including but not limited to fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, or extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene), and clear or solid polystyrene (oriented polystyrene). The Recycle Code for polystyrene is W or 'PS,' either alone or in combination with other letters. This definition applies to all Polystyrene Food Service Ware, regardless of whether it exhibits a Recycle Code. "Polystyrene Food Service Ware" means Disposable Food Service Ware that contains or Utilizes Polystyrene. "Prepared Food" means any food or beverage that is (1) ready to consume without any fort mer food preparation, alteration or repackaging; and (2) prepared, provided, sold or served by a Food Provider using any cooking, packaging or food preparation technique. Prepared Food may be eaten either on or calf the Food Provider's premises. Prepared Food does not include (1) any raw uncooked meat, poultry, fish or eggs, unless provided for consumption without f4fther food preparation, and (2) fresh. produce provided for consumption without food preparation or Page 3 of 8 12-1332 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E 1-421 repackaging, including fruits, vegetables, and herbs, sold by grocery stores, supermarkets, food I markets, farmers? markets and other food vendors. "Recycle Code" means a resin identification cede placed, on plastics to identify the material composition for separation of different types of plastics for recycling. 8.64.030 Food Packaging Prohibitions. A. No Food Provider shall distribute or sell Prepared Food in any Polystyrene Food I [ Service Ware at any location within the City of Hermosa Beach. Food Providers that distribute Prepared Food in Disposable Food Service Ware shall (1) distribute only Disposables that exhibit a Recycle Code other than No. 6 or PS, or (2) maintain documentation onsite of the composition of the Disposable Food Service Ware. Documentation may include information from the supplier, manufacturer, or bulk packaging for the Disposables, and any other relevant information demonstrating that the disposable material is not polystyrene. B. No Person shall distribute or sell Prepared Food in any Polystyrene Food Service Ware at City Facilities that have been rented, leased or are otherwise being used with permission of the City. This Subsection is limited to use of City facilities for which a Person has entered into an agreement with the City to rent, lease or otherwise occupy a City facility. Alt facility rental agreements for any City facility shall include a prevision rewiring contracting parties to assume responsibility for preventing the utilization and/or distribution sof Polystyrene Food Service Ware while using City facilities. The facility rental agreement shall indicate that the violating contractor's security deposit will be forfeited if the City Manager orhis/her designee determines that Polystyrene Food Service Ware was used in violation of the rental agreement- C. greem t_ C. No Person shall use or distribute Polystyrene Food Service Ware at City -sponsored. events, City -managed concessions and City meetings open to the public. This subsection shall Page 4of8 12-1332 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 El -43 Iapply to the function organizers, agents of the organizers, City Contractors, Food Providers and any other Person that enters into an agreement with. one or more of the function sponsors to sel I or distribute Prepared Food or otherwise provide a service related to the function. D. The City of Hermosa Beach, its Departments, and its City Contractors, agents, and employees acting in their official capacity, shall not purchase or acquire Polystyrene Food Service Ware, or distribute it for public use. 8.64.040 Exemptions. A. Food prepared or packaged outside the City of Hermosa Beach is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter, provided such food is not altered, packaged or repackaged within the City of Hermosa Beach limits unless otherwise stated. B. Food provided by the Hermosa Beach School District under its official Food Service program - C. Coolers and ice chests made of Polystyrene intended for reuse are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. D, The City Manager or his./her designee may exempt any Person from Section 8.64.030 I following the operative date of this ordinance, as follows: 1. A request for an exemption shall be filed in writing with the City Manager or his/her designee and shall include documentation of the reason for the claimed exemption and any other information necessary for the City to make its decision. The City may require the applicant to provide additional information as -necessary to make the required determinations, 2. The City Manager or his/her designee may approve the exemption for a maximum of one (1) year, with or without conditions, upon finding that compliance would create an undue hardship. Undue hardship shall be construed to include but not be limited to situations where: Page 5 of 8 12-1332 2 3 4 6 7 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WM El -44 a. There are no reasonable alternatives to Polystyrene Food Service 'mare for reasons that are unique to the applicant; or b. Compliance with the requirements of this Chapter would deprive a person of a legally protected right. The exemption may be extended for additional terms of up to one (1) year each, upon a showing of the continuation of the legal right. 3. The City Manager's written decision on the exemption is effective within ten (10) days of the decision. Decisions of the City Manager may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals shall be fled in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the decision and shall be accompanied by a free set by resolution of the City Council. Notice of hearing shall be given to the applicant at least ten (10) days prior to the bearing, The City Council shall make its decision within sixty (60) days of receiving the appeal. E. Section 8.64.030 shall not apply to individuals bringing food for personal consumption at City Facilities, including but not limited to City parr and the beach, provided the facility is being used for individual recreation or similar purposes and such facility use is not part of a larger organized event that is otherwise governed by that Section. F. Food Providers that are obligated to purchase or have purchased Polystyrene Food Service Fare under a contact entered into within the year prior to the operative date of this ordinance are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter for six (6) months year following its operative date. 8.64. 50 Enforcement and Compliance; A. This Chapter shall be enforced by the City Manager or his/her designee. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to create a private cause of action. The City Manager, or his/her designee, is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable Page 6 of S 12-1332 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E1-4 Iand necessary to enforce this Chapter including, but not limited to, inspecting any Food Provider's premises and requiring documentation of the composition of Polystyrene Food Service Ware material to verify compliance. B. Violations of the provisions of this Chapter are subject to the administrative penalty provisions of Chapter 1.10. C. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this Chapter. D. The remedies and penalties provided in this section are cumulative and not exclusive of one another. E. All Food Providers required under this Code to have a business license shall certify compliance with this Chapter on the annual business license renewal application. SECTION 2. Section 1. 10.040 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to add subparagraph (A)(19) to read as follows: 19. Chapter 8.64: Ban on Polystyrene Food Service Ware, SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall become operative and be in full force and in effect from and after one hundred eighty (180) days of its final passage and adoption, which will be March 10, 2011 SECTION 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated, in the City of Hermosa Beach in the manner provided by law. SECTION S. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original Ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the Page 7 of'$ 12-1332 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E 1-46 passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this I I"' day of September, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Fishman, Tucker, Mayor Duclos NOES: Bobko, DiVirgilio ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PRESIDENT of the City ATTEST: City Clerk YOR of the City of Hermosa. Beach, Califorma Page 8 of 8 VEIL ASITO FORM: Attorn-ey 12-1332 El -47 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 12-1332 was duly and regularly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting held at the regular meeting place thereof on the 11th day of September, 2012, and said ordinance will be published in the Easy Reader newspaper on September 20, 2012. The vote was as follows: AYES: Tucker, Fishman, Mayor Duclos NOES: Bobko, DiVirgilio ABSENT: None DATED: September 11, 2012 City Clerk .1 0 • REPORT 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FP� 7700 Leesburg Pike, Suite 421 Falls Church, VA 22043 tel (703) 592-9889 fax (703) 592-9864 )SERVICE PACKAGING email fpi@fpi.org I N 5 r I r u I r• webwww.fpi.org E2-2 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT: Executive Summary 2016 EDITION INTRODUCTION Every year, the Foodservice Packaging Institute (FPI) conducts surveys to gather information about the industry. The surveys review issues such as changes to volume and profits, expansion and purchasing plans, opportunities and challenges facing the industry, etc. The surveys, sent to both FPI members and non-members, represent the entire value chain in North America, including: • raw material suppliers; • machinery suppliers; • converters; • foodservice distributors; and • foodservice operators. Participation in the surveys is completely voluntary, and respondents can opt out of any question asked. The results of these surveys are compiled to create FPI's annual "State of the Industry Report." In 2016, more than 65 companies from the foodservice packaging value chain in North America responded to the surveys. Their responses were tabulated and published in a 50+ page "State of the Industry Report," which was distributed to FPI members and contributing participants only. What follows are the highlights from the 2016 reports. Please contact FPI's Natha Dempsey, ndempsey(&fpi.org, with any questions or to participate in next year's survey © 2016 Foodservice Packaging Institute, Inc. E2-3 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT: Executive Summary 2016 EDITION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY According to survey results, about 57 percent of respondents experienced growth in volume, and nearly 60 percent reported profit growth in 2015. This year, more than three quarters of the industry expect volume expansion and half expect profit growth. In another positive indication for the industry, 65 percent of the North American manufacturers reported corporate expansion plans through construction of new facilities, expansion of current facilities, and mergers and acquisitions. More than half of North American converters also plan to purchase new machinery in 2016. Respondents foresee that the greatest area for market expansion over the next five years is in the fast casual sector. This is due to the segment gaining the attention of the millennial generation and drawing customers from traditional quick- and full-service restaurants. Other areas for potential growth include convenience stores and quick serve restaurants. Based on the responses from North American converters and suppliers, five common challenges facing the industry over the next few years are (in order of importance): 1. Margin compression. 2. State of the global economy. 3. Development of new products in response to customer demands. 4. Public perception of packaging or foodservice packaging as "waste." 5. Environmental activism. © 2016 Foodservice Packaging Institute, Inc. 2 al a REPORT 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FP� 7700 Leesburg Pike, Suite 421 Falls Church, VA 22043 tel (703) 592-9889 fax (703) 592-9864 )SERVICE PACKAGING email fpi@fpi.org I N 5 r I r u I r• webwww.fpi.org E3-2 TRENDS REPORT: Executive Summary 2015 EDITION INTRODUCTION Every year, the Foodservice Packaging Institute (FPI) conducts a survey to gather information about the latest trends in the industry. The seventh annual survey, sent in September 2015, asked members to share their opinions on the following trends: • Foodservice packaging; • Raw materials used to make foodservice packaging; • Machinery used to convert foodservice packaging; • Foodservice distribution; and • Foodservice operations. The surveys include responses from the entire value chain in North America, including: • Raw material suppliers; • Machinery suppliers; • Converters; • Foodservice distributors; and • Foodservice operators. The results of these surveys were compiled to create FPI's annual "Trends Report." The 20 -page report contains two sections: the first lists direct comments and insights by industry players and the second compiles the data with additional insights from FPI staff. The report is available for all FPI members. What follows on page 3 are the highlights from the 2015 report. The full report may be purchased by non-members for $250. Please contact FPI's Natha Dempsey, ndempseyC&fpi.org, with any questions or to purchase the full report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY © 2015 Foodservice Packaging Institute, Inc. 2 RENDS REPORT: Executive Summary E3-3 0 I11111[07► The more things change, the more they stay the same. That could be the motto for the Foodservice Packaging Institute's 2015 Trends Report, when considering this year's responses compared to previous years. While there are certainly a number of similarities, a few things jump out, such as overarching themes of sustainability and customization across supply chain. Major trends include: • Packaging: Environmentally friendly or sustainable packaging remains a long-term overall trend. Specifically, compostable packaging was mentioned in an overwhelming number of responses. Other trends include the shift to a more natural look through the use of "Kraft" paper over bleached paper to promote the belief that "brown is the new green." Conversely, another trend of note includes an increase in graphics and color as operators recognize the opportunity to promote their brand on packaging. • Raw materials: "Green" packaging is apparent in raw materials, as different resins and papers are trending based on both the real and perceived environmental advantages of those materials. • Machinery: In the machinery used to manufacture foodservice packaging, the desire for highly automated machines that run faster, more efficiently and at lower costs continues — but with little innovation in the industry. • Distribution: Consolidation remains a major trend in foodservice distribution (despite the halted merger of the two largest foodservice distributors), along with SKU rationalization and increased competition from small- and medium-sized distributors. • Operations: In a continued effort to stand out and differentiate themselves from competitors, foodservice operators are increasingly choosing customized food and beverage items, as well as their associated packaging. Other major trends include increased breakfast business, "grab and go" items and smaller portion sizes that reflect the consumer snacking trend. Finally, cost concerns were seen throughout the foodservice packaging supply chain. Volatility in raw material markets is having an impact, leading to some changes (particularly within the resins). Newer packaging options that have not reached economies of scale are struggling to compete with more traditional options. Machinery suppliers are increasingly looking to automation to lower costs and increase productivity. Smaller distributors are trying to determine how to compete. And operators are concerned about increased expenses in food and labor, while not ignoring other necessary costs like packaging. © 2015 Foodservice Packaging Institute, Inc. 3 1 FOODSERVICE PACKAGING: THE BENEFITS APPENDIX E4 LRrESOUR,C' Foodservice packaging is safe, sanitary, convenient and economical. That's why it's called "the sensible solution." Foodservice packaging is more than just a convenience. It plays an important and ever- increasing role in our daily lives. Americans spend roughly 50 percent of their food budget in restaurants — and they're using foodservice packaging when they take home leftovers, order takeout or pick up ready -to -eat foods. SANITARY Why is foodservice packaging sanitary? Used only once, it: • Reduces the spread of infectious disease. Provides a measure of protection from personal contact. • Decreases the likelihood of foodborne illnesses. Multiple studies conducted at foodservice operations by health departments prove that single -use packaging is more sanitary than reusable options. Reusable foodservice items had "higher microbiological levels then disposable PROMOTIONAL 0 DID YOU KNOW? Paper cups were developed in 1908 to replace the common drinking cup, which was a source of infection and disease. items"and "higher than acceptable bacterial counts" • Is supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA's Food Code spells out sanitary and health benefits of single -use foodservice items and mandates their use in certain circumstances. For example,"In "Is, situations in which the reuse of multi -use items could result in N� I N i T I T U T F° 0 WHAT IS FOODSERVICE PACKAGING? Foodservice packaging refers to single -use cups, containers, bags, wraps, cutlery, etc., used by restaurants and other establishments that offer prepared foods and beverages. These items, made from a variety of materials like paper, plastic and aluminum, allow foodservice operators to serve their customers in a sanitary, convenient and economical manner. foodborne illness to consumers, single -service and single -use articles must be used to ensure safety" Learn more here. COST-EFFECTIVE How is foodservice packaging cost-effective? It: • Saves on equipment and supplies. Expensive dishwashers and other support equipment, such as racks, carts, shelving, bins, etc., aren't required. And, there is no need to buy new glasses, ceramics and silverware when existing stock is broken, damaged or stolen. • Saves on labor. Eliminate the need for additional labor to scrape, wash, rinse, dry and store reusable items. • Saves on storage space. Compact, nested and efficient foodservice packaging takes up less space than their reusable counterparts. 0 CONSIDERING A SWITCH TO REUSABLES IN AN EFFORT TO SAVE MONEY? Be sure to include new equipment purchases; increased utility costs; reordering broken, damaged, stolen or accidentally discarded items; and higher"back of house" payroll costs as additional labor will be needed. /P N ; FOODSERVICE PACKAGING 0 DID YOU KNOW? FPI co-sponsors the Crumbine Consumer Protection Award, which honors local environmental health jurisdictions that demonstrate outstanding food protection services to their communities.The award is named for renowned public health physician Dr. Samuel Crumbine, who campaigned successfully to eradicate the use of the common cup. SAFE Why is foodservice packaging safe? It: • Reduces workplace hazards. Foodservice packaging is lightweight, thus no heavy dishware to move. This helps reduce potential accidents, back injuries and insurance costs in foodservice operations. Foodservice packaging means no chipped or broken crockery and glassware that can cause cuts and scratches. There's no fear of shattering. • Is regulated by government entities. Foodservice packaging materials are evaluated by regulatory agencies such as the U.S. FDA and Health Canada to ensure materials meet stringent safety standards. eii,. fpi@fpi.org I www.fpi.org CONVENIENT How is foodservice packaging convenient? It: • Allows foods and beverages to be consumed anywhere. Foodservice packaging lets customers enjoy meals and snacks anywhere in a safe, convenient manner. Compact, lightweight packaging is easy to carry. • Keeps hot foods hot and cold foods cold. Single -use packaging can offer excellent insulation to keep foods and beverages at the desired temperature, not only increasing customer satisfaction but also helping to protect it from foodborne disease. 0 DID YOU KNOW? Outside of restaurants, public foodservice establishments such as hospitals, nursing homes, sports stadiums, mess halls, schools, universities and more have the flexibility to serve hundreds or thousands of people daily due to foodservice packaging. PROMOTIONAL How can foodservice packaging be promotional and used as a communications tool? It: • Conveys important messaging. Foodservice packaging can get key messages, such as reheating instructions or nutritional information, literally into the consumer's hands. Packaging can communicate post -use messages, such as°Don't litter" or "Please recycle or compost" FP I " N ; FOODSERVICE PACKAGING E4-3 • Promotes a brand. Customized packaging becomes a walking billboard, which can help drive sales. RESOURCE -EFFICIENT How does foodservice packaging help with resource efficiency? It: • Reduces water and energy. Using foodservice packaging reduces operators' consumption of water and energy resources needed to wash reusables. • Lessens the use of virgin raw materials. When recycled, the materials found in foodservice packaging can be turned into new products made with recycled content. DID YOU KNOW? Many foodservice packaging items can be recycled and/or composted. Go to www.fpi. org/stewardship to learn more about what the industry is doing to increase the recovery of these valuable materials. fpi@fpi.org I www.fpi.org APPENC Are you a foodservice operator? Then keep reading. You'll find the foodservice packaging resources you need right here. STRATEGIC SOURCING GUIDE The Strategic Sourcing Guide is a free guide that takes foodservice operators through the details to help organize their foodservice packaging purchase decisions — what's being packaged, the look and feel desired, annual volume and more. Packed with do's and don'ts, the manual summarizes the available options for sourcing new packaging. The guide's question and answer section, developed as a request for proposal, can be completed and distributed to potential foodservice packaging suppliers. It covers items as varied as your distribution plans to your expectations for customers'disposal of packaging. TECHNICALTOPICS As you consider new packaging, you'll want to know the various foodservice packaging rules, certifications and testing required by government bodies and your potential customers. FPI's Compliance Manual is a compendium of ru FOODSERVICE PACKAGING STRATEGIC SOURCING GUIDE Download the guide at www.fpi.org/products. regulations governing foodservice packaging products, plus other relevant standards, guidelines, recommendations and practices. It's meant for manufacturers, but also valuable for you, their customers. Read more here. I N i T I T U T F° " �i�lllllllllllll�r ',!!!IIII 0 WHAT IS FOODSERVICE PACKAGING? Foodservice packaging refers to single -use cups, containers, bags, wraps, cutlery, etc., used by restaurants and other establishments that offer prepared foods and beverages.These items, made from materials like paper, plastic and aluminum, allow foodservice operators to serve their customers in a sanitary, convenient and economical manner. More than 90 percent of foodservice operators use foodservice packaging, making it an integral part of their business. HANDLING AND STORAGE Single -use foodservice packaging products are more than just a convenience. Properly stored and handled foodservice packaging aids public health and minimizes the opportunity for food contamination, which helps keep food safe and consumers healthy. You may have questions about foodservice packaging. Where should packaging be stored? Can it be washed? How do you prevent contamination? Learn more about foodservice packaging sanitation at www.fpi.org/resources. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Foodservice packaging is a visible part of an operator's business. Operators often get questions from customers and others about environmental issues related to their packaging. Questions can also arise internally, as more operators consider sustainability goals. Issues such as recycling and composting, proper disposal and material innovations are important — and areas where FPI is the leading authority. Gear up for your°green" conversations here. BLOG FPI's blog covers industry news; the latest trends; hot topics within the foodservice packaging value chain; updates on the association's activities; and much /FPI " N ; FOODSERVICE PACKAGING more. Get the facts on foodservice packaging and read the opinions of industry experts like Lynn Dyer, Natha Dempsey and others. Check it out at www.fpi. org/fpi-bloq. MEMBERSHIP Want to stay up to date on foodservice packaging? FPI offers affiliate membership to foodservice operators (as well as your distributors and group purchasing organizations). And it's absolutely free! Members receive: FPI's electronic publications, including: Executive Briefs, a twice -monthly newsletter that reports the latest foodservice industry news, facts and trends from North American and beyond. Packaging Innovations & Insights, a quarterly newsletter highlighting new foodservice packaging products. Legislative and Regulatory Report, a recap of legislative and regulatory initiatives in the U.S. and abroad that may impact the industry. • Invitations to attend FPI's semi-annual conferences, attended by industry executives from throughout the value chain. These meetings rank as the top benefit by all FPI members. Affiliate members receive a 50 percent discount off registration fees to encourage participation. Contact us at fpi@fpi.org to learn more or sign up. ciiiailfpi@fpi.org I www.fpi.org The original since 1998. Certified compostable polymer. A M Pure chemistry. a\ ecoflex° in the web: www.plasticsportal.eu/ecoflex O■BASF The Chemical Company Original -- rhe rhe certified compostable polymer ecoflexr ecoflex° IS THE FIRST COMPOSTABLE POLYMER OF BASF ON A FOSSIL BASIS AND IS ON THE MARKET FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. Compared to conventional plastics, ecoflex° offers a decisive benefit: certified compostability. ecoflex° is an innovative pioneer in the field of biodegradable polymers, being an important raw material for many compostable and biobased plastics. ecoflex®is: ■ the ideal blend component for bioplastics ■ certified compostable ■ elastic as well as water and tear -resistant ■ processable on conventional blown film plants (for polyethylene) ■ printable and weldable ■ suitable for food contact ecoflex® - the optimal compound partner ecoflex° is an ideal blend component for the production of plastics from renewable raw materials making many final applications actually possible in the first place. This way ecoflex° provides the biobased and compost - able BASF polymer ecovio° with special product properties such as flexibility and toughness. E6-2 Next to polylactic acid (PLA), other compound partners such as starch can be used in order to achieve a specific characteristics profile for the final application. A high content of ecoflex° is particularly suited for the production of flexible film products in the packaging area. Mechanical characteristics, such as stiffness or puncture resistance, can be varied and specifically adjusted. ecovio' from BASF POLYLACTIC ACID (PLA) (e. g. from corn) CELLULOSE (e. g. from wood) ecoflex® STARCH (e. g. from potatoes) LIGNIN (e. g. from wood) PHAs (e. g. from glucose) 0 Certif ied The compostability ecoflexo E6-3 THANKS TO A SPECIAL CHEMICAL STRUCTURE, ecoflex° CAN BE BIODEGRADED BY MICROORGANISMS AND THEIR CORRESPONDING ENZYMES. Under the circumstances given in an industrial compost- in terms of biodegradability, compostability, compost ing plant, the ecoflex° molecules are biodegraded within quality, and plant compatibility. a few weeks. In the course of special certification procedures, independent institutes verify the suitability of bioplastics European standard EN 13432, European standard Australian standard AS 4736 EN 13432 Certification criteria Chemical test ■ Publication of all ingredients ■ Adherence of limit values for regulated metals ecoflex° offers various product grades that meet the fol- lowing, international and national standards and regula- tions for industrial composting, among others: wry Compost quality ■ Plant growth test ■ Ecotoxicity test ■ No negative impacts on the composting process W 00111POSTdBLE American standard Japanese standard ASTM 6400 GreenPla ti: Disintegration and biodegradab"i"fi° ■ Disintegration in particles smaller than 2 mm within 84 days ■ Biological biodegradation to water, CO2 and biomass to 90% of the sample within 180 days Quality You can rely on ecoflex° GUARANTEES VERIFIED QUALITY. ITS ECOLOGICAL PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED IN EXTENSIVE EXAMINATIONS. Scientifically recognized tests (plant growth test, Daphnia test, toxicological tests according to OECD directives) have proven in practice that ecoflex° has no negative consequences for nature or the environment. E6-4 Furthermore, ecoflex° is in its composition one of the few compostable polymers complying with the require- ments of the European food contact regulation' as well as the requirements of the US Food Contact Substance Notification2. 1 Commission Regulation (EU) No. 10/2011 of January 14, 2011 on materials and objects of plastic, designed to be in contact with food 2 According to Food Contact Substance Notification No. 907 of FDA Safe Ecologically tested and toxicologically safe The plant growth test The plant compatibility in the barley test is a key para- meter for compost quality. This test looks at the effect of the test substance on the growth of summer barley. The following samples are prepared and used for testing 75% reference soil 25 % compost with addition of ecoflex° " after 12 weeks composting The Daphnia test 50% reference soil 50 % compost with addition of ecoflex° " In this test, the pollutant -dependant immobilization of the Daphnia in solutions of different concentrations (series of dilutions) is used. Testing was carried out in accordance with DIN 38412 Part 30. The control solution contains microorganisms that biodegrade ecoflex° enzymatically. E6-5 A compost is recognized as plant -compatible, if in a mix- ture of 25 % compost with 75 % reference soil a 90 % bar- ley yield is achieved. In both variants, the test with ecoflex° shows no negative consequences on the barley yield. 0 M m N N i= s m 2 m M 150 120 90 60 30 0 25 % compost 50 % compost reference 75 % reference soil 50 % reference soil soil The stock solution to be tested also contains the degra- dation intermediates of ecoflex°. It is diluted step by step and for each concentration stage ten Daphnia are placed in the test solution (20 °C, pH 7.0 ± 0.2). After 24 hours, the number of Daphnia still swimming is counted. Even with a low dilution, as in the control solution there are still at least nine Daphnia swimming. The test is therefore passed. Please visit us at www.ecovio.com www.bioplastics.basf.com Asia Pacific: Dr. Karthikeyan Sharavanan BASF South East Asia Pte. Ltd 35-01 Suntec Tower One 7 Termasek Boulevard 038987 Singapore Phone: +65 6398 5115 Fax: +65 6430 9890 karthikeyan.sharavanan@basf.com North America: Keith A. Edwards BASF Corporation 1609 Biddle Ave. Wyandotte, MI 48192, USA Phone: +1 513 314 6359 Fax: +1 513 895 0448 keith.edwards@basf.com o•BASF The Chemical Company South America: Karina Daruich BASF S.A. Av. das Napoes Unidas, 14.171, 100 andar, Morumbi, 04794-000 Sao Paulo, SP, Brasil Phone: +55 11 2039 2733 Fax: +55 11 3043 3230 karina.daruich@basf.com Europe: BASF SE Biodegradable Polymers G-KT/BE - F206 67056 Ludwigshafen, Germany Phone: +49 621 60 42 581 Fax: +49 621 60 66 42 581 customerservice-biopolymers@basf.com Request of brochures: BASF SE Communications Performance Polymers KT/K, F204 Fax: +49 621 60 49 497 plas.com@basf.com w U) U) a m 0 Y t6 E 10 Note The data contained in this publication are based on our current knowledge and experience. In view of many factors that may affect processing and application of our product, these data do not relieve processors from carrying out their own investigations and tests; neither do these data imply any guarantee of certain properties, nor the suitability of the product for a specific purpose. Any descriptions, drawings, photographs, data, proportions, weights, etc. given m herein may change without prior information and do not constitute the agreed contractual N quality of the product. It is the responsibility of the recipient of our products to ensure that m any proprietary rights and existing laws and legislation are observed. (November 2012) Y 1MMMM APPENDIX E7 'CO vio Biodegradable Polymers Product Information Version 1.0 January 2015 G-PM/PB ecovio° F2223 Biodegradable Polyester for Compostable Film 0 = ecovio and ecoflex are registered trademarks of BASF SE Product Description ecovio° F2223 is our biodegradable film product containing renewable resources. It is basically a compound of our biodegradable copolyester ecoflex° F Blend and polylactic acid (PLA). ecoflex° F Blend is the con- tinuous phase in the structure of ecovio° F2223 transferring the benefi- cial film properties of ecoflex° F Blend into the new product. For more information please visit us at www.ecovio.com Product Information ecovio® F2223 E7-2 ecovio° F2223 exhibits the following properties: • High strength, stiffness and failure energy (dart drop) • Translucent, semi -crystalline structure with DSC melting point in two ranges: 140-155°C (PLA) and 110-120°C (ecoflex° F Blend) • High melt strength • Good thermostability up to 230°C • Excellent processability on conventional LDPE blown film lines • Good bag manufacturing process • Less odor • Nice white translucent color • Excellent welding properties • Printable in 8 colors by flexo printing ecovio° F2223 exhibits an excellent compatibility to other biodegrad- able polymers e. g. in dry blends with ecoflex° F Blend, PLA or ali- phatic biodegradable polyesters (e. g. Polycaprolactone PCL, Polybu- tylene -succinate PBS or Polyhydroxyalkanoates PHA), if their MVR is close to the MVR of ecovio° F2223. The processing of ecovio° F2223 on extrusion lines depends on the formulation, the extrusion technology and processing conditions. Tri- als are always recommended to assess the quality of the final prod- uct. ecoflex° masterbatches have to be used as required to tailor the slip and antibloc properties of the final product as well as the barrier to water vapour. Detailed information concerning our ecoflex° master- batches will be sent upon request. Certification of Compostability and ecovio° F2223 fulfils the requirements of the existing standards for Biodegradability compostable and biodegradable polymers, because it can be degrad- ed by microorganisms. Available Certificates: European standard EN 13432 i ZAustralian standard (t715u� American standard 1 1'.; European standard AS 4736 * ASTM 6400 EN 13432 The biodegradation process in soil depends on the specific environ- ment (climate, soil quality, population of microorganisms). Food Regulatory Status ecovio° F2223 is one of the few biodegradable plastics, which com- plies in its composition with the European food stuff legislation for food contact, EU Directive 2002/72/EC (as amended) and US food contact notification for the main components: e.g. FCN 178, 475 and 907. Specific limitations and more details are given on request. The converter or packer has to check the suitability of the article for the application. Form Supplied and Storage ecovio° F2223 is supplied as lenticular shaped pellets in 1 t big bags. Temperatures during transportation and storage may not exceed 70°C at any time. Storage time in an unopened bag may not surpass 12 month at room temperature (230C). 213 Product Information ecovio® F2223 E7-3 Quality Control ecovio° F2223 is produced as a standard material in a continuous pro- duction process according to DIN EN ISO 9001 : 2008. The melt volume rate, MVR, at 190°C, 5kg, according to ISO 1133 has been defined as specified parameter for quality control. A certificate can be provided with each lot number upon request. In order to obtain a high accuracy for the MVR measurement the granules should be dried for 6 hours at 70°C using e. g. an electronic moisture analyser (e. g. Brabender Aqua- trac plus). Other data given in our literature are typical values, which are not part of our product specification for ecovio° F2223. Applications ecovio° F2223 has been developed for the conversion to flexible films using a blown film process. Typical applications are packaging films, hygienic films, carrier bags. In view of numerous factors influencing functionality and shelf life of ecovio° films and finished articles made thereof the production parameters have to be tested by the convert- ers before utilisation. Additionally sufficient field tests are required to ensure the right functionality of the articles made from ecovio° F2223. Typical Basic Material Properties of ecovio® F2223 `see Quality Control Typical Properties* of ecovio® F2223 Blown Film, 30 pm `not to be construed as specifications We supply technical service information concerning the blown film pro- cess with ecovio° F2223 on demand. g/cm3 ISO 1183 1.24-1.26 kg /M3 DIN EN ISO 60 720 ml/10 min. ISO 1133 3.5-7.5 °C DSC 110-120 °C DSC 140-155 MPa ISO 527 760/350 MPa ISO 527 47/43 ISO 527 450/600 ASTM D 1709-04 450 g Method A mN DIN EN ISO 6383-2 500/450 Note The information submitted in this document is based on our current knowledge and experience. In view of the many factors that may affect processing and application, these data do not relieve processors of the responsibility of carrying out their own tests and experiments; nei- ther do they imply any legally binding assurance for a special purpose. It is the responsibility of those to whom we supply our products to ensure that any proprietary rights and existing laws and legislation are observed. (January 2015) BASF SE Global Marketing Biopolymers 67056 Ludwigshafen, Germany www.ecovio.com 313 19]/:�::-' FAM 4 L EUROPE Zero Waste Europe was created to empower communities to rethink their relationship with resources. In a growing number of regions, local groups of individuals, businesses and city officials are taking significant steps towards eliminating waste in our society. T Tn RY n CAPANNORI Located in the North of Italy, Capannori has one of the highest municipal recycling rates in Europe. This �- - d•o waste town. ,s an examp. of strong polio, decisions and community participation achieving groundbreaking results. This case study reviews the story of their success to date. c C Cr CL U 0 i O Cr4-0 T Nowhere is the phrase "Mighty oaks from little acorns grow" truer than in the small town of Capannori, Italy where a small but determined movement to stop the construction of an incinerator led to an Italy - wide grassroots Zero Waste movement. Battle of the Burners Capannori, a town of 46,700 inhabitants near Lucca in Tuscany, was set to be just another step in the relentless march of waste incineration in Italy. The Northern European model of burning waste to avoid the environmental and social problems associated with landfill and to produce energy was gaining traction in Italy, a country beset with a dramatic and urgent waste management problem. Local medical organisations and even environmental NGOs put up little resistance, seeing incineration as the least -bad solution to a seemingly impossible dilemma. Business interests and pressure from Northern Europe contributed to a rush to incineration that seemed unstoppable. Those who should have mounted the most strenuous defence against the encroachment of incinerators were lacking. The public debate did not discuss the fact that incineration encourages waste generation, competes with recycling, aggravates the sustainability challenge, sparks corruption and releases toxic emissions while capturing just a tiny bit of the energy stored in waste. CAPAN 0 E8-2 • Population: 46,700 • Zero Waste strategy signed in 2007 . 40% waste reduction in 10 years . Today, 82% of the waste is separately collected collected Communities such as Capannori were left to fight the construction of incinerators on their own. In 1997, primary schoolteacher Rossano Ercolini recognised the potentially damaging effects the planned local incinerator would have on the health of residents and on the surrounding landscape. With the help of Dr Paul Connett, a world expert on incineration and Zero Waste, he set about convincing local residents of the potential danger of erecting an incinerator in their community. The movement was successful in blocking construction and soon spread to three other communities threatened with incineration in the region. What's the Alternative? Tasked with implementing an alternative to incineration, Ercolini decided that the only approach was that of waste reduction. He took over the running of the local waste collection corporation, ASCIT, to create a door-to-door waste collection pilot scheme. After a year he stepped down from his role and went back to campaigning against incineration around Italy. Ercolini managed to persuade the town council of Capannori to be the first in Europe to sign up to the Zero Waste strategy in 2007, committing to sending zero waste to landfill by 2020. Door-to- door collection was introduced in stages across the municipality between 2005 and 2010, starting with small villages, where any mistakes could be identified and corrected early on, then extended to cover the entire municipal area in 2010. By that time, 82% of municipal waste was separated at source, leaving just 18% of residual waste to go to landfill. 'i O C C Q M U 4m O L O 4-0T E8-3 Evolution of separate collection and waste generation in Capannori 2004-2013 (in Kg/person/year) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 In 2012, a number of villages in the municipality became subject to a new 'Pay As You Throw' waste tariff, where the frequency of collection per household is measured using microchips in stickers on residual waste bags, scanned by a reader on the collection vehicle. In those areas the new tariff incentivized better separation and prevention, driving local source separation rates up to 90%. Transparency and Consultation Local politicians recognize that the key to their success with the door-to-door collection scheme and other zero waste measures was the early and active consultation of residents. Meetings were held in public places to gather input and ideas and involve the local Disposal ■ Recycling 39% waste reduction! 82% separately collected waste 2013 Source: Tuscany region population in the Zero Waste strategy. Printed information was sent to every address. A few weeks before door-to-door collection was introduced in a given area, volunteers distributed free waste separation kits to all homes, including the various bins and bags required and further printed information. Volunteers were trained to answer residents' questions about the new scheme, all of which meant that participation was smooth, immediate and effective. A study carried out by La Sapienza University in Rome, comparing door-to-door collection in three communities in Italy (Capannori, Rome, Salerno), found that in Capannori participation (99% of inhabitants sort waste) and satisfaction (94%) were higher than in the other two communities. This correlates to the high percentage of Capannori residents who received literature about the changes (98.6%), attended meetings about changes in collection (46%) and know where to go to ask for information about waste collection (91%). 'i O CL U 4m O O 4-0N T • An Economically Viable Solution The savings from no longer sending most waste to expensive landfill sites, and earnings from the sales of materials to recycling plants mean the scheme is economically self-sufficient, even saving the council over €2m in 2009. These savings are ploughed back into investments in waste reduction infrastructure, and reducing fixed "The co waste tariffs for residents by 20%. It has also funded the recruitment €2m of 50 ASCII employees, boosting savings employment in the region. Into inve Composting composting techniques. Those households that home compost are given a 10% discount on their waste tariff as an incentive, and spot checks have shown that 96% of households are still using their composters correctly. A biomethanisation plant for the area is currently in the uncil saved over planning and consultation stage. n 2009. These are ploughed back stments in waste reduction infrastructure, and reducing fixed waste One of the most successful tariffs f elements of the new collection 20%. It system has been the diversion of the organic waste stream. Not only the rec does ASCIT carry out frequent ASCIT door-to-door collection of organic waste, which is sent to a composting plant in the province, in 2010 public canteens in Capannori were supplied with Joraform composting machines. In the future these local collective composting machines could be extended to cover groups of residents, which can help to reduce the cost of collecting, transporting and treating organic waste by between 30 and 70%. Residents have been encouraged to take up home composting, with 2,200 households picking up free composters and receiving training on O h r Designing Waste Out of the System r residents by as also funded In 2010, Capannori set up the first Zero Waste Research Centre in uitment Of 50 Europe, where waste employees..." experts identify what is still being thrown in the grey residual waste bags and come up with solutions to get that 18% figure down even further. Finding that items such as coffee capsules were among the most commonly discarded items, the Research Centre held meetings with coffee manufacturers such as Nespresso and Illy to work on biodegradable or recyclable alternatives. The high volume of disposable nappies in residual waste led the municipality to offer subsidized washable nappies to local parents. 'i O CL M U 0 O 4-0N T E8-5 One Man's Trash Is Another's Treasure The Opportunities Behind Reuse Not only has work been done to improve recycling rates — emphasis has also been placed on reuse. The municipality opened its own Reuse Centre in the village of Lammari in 2011, where items such as clothes, footwear, toys, electrical appliances and furniture that are no longer needed but still in good condition can be repaired where necessary and sold to those in need, thereby diverting them from landfill and serving a vital social function. The centre is steadily expanding its activity- in 2012, 93 tonnes of objects were dropped at the centre and in 2013 those figures look set to rise. According to Rossano Ercolini, "The record figures from the Lammari Ecology Island' (drop-off point for bulky waste and reusable items, ed.) show that our culture is changing, partly due to the municipality's policies. Whereas before people threw everything away, now they realize that recovering things not only benefits the environment, but also those who can buy them at affordable prices". The centre also provides training in upcycling skills such as sewing, upholstery and woodwork, so as to spread the values and practice of reuse as far as possible. "in 2012, 93 tonnes of objects were dropped at the Reuse Centre where they were repaired and sold to those in need" Waste prevention pioneers Where Capannori is truly leading the field is in the area of waste prevention — between 2004 and 2013 the overall volume of waste generated per person dropped by 39% (from 1,92kg to 1,18 kg/person/year) and it is foreseen that it will continue to go down thanks to the extension of pay -as -you - throw scheme to all the municipality. More impressively, the rate of unseparated —or residual- waste per capita was reduced from 340 kg per year in 2006 to 146 kg in 2011, a drop of 57%. Compare this to the figures for Denmark, 409 kg unseparated waste per capita per year (2011), and you can appreciate the scale of the achievement. This means that beyond just boosting recycling rates, local policy makers have looked at ways to reduce waste generation at source. .z O C C co Q M U O O 4-0N T As part of their Zero Waste Strategy, they have identified 11 areas for action. Perhaps the most visible of these is the sale of products loose or on tap — the municipal council provided tax incentives to local small businesses to stock products that could be refilled with customers' own containers, such as liquid detergents. A grocery shop, Effecorta sprang up in Capannori in 2009 selling over 250 locally sourced food and drink products in bulk. Local residents can buy pasta, wine, oil and many other necessities without having to throw away any packaging. The Short Chain -- A Boon for Local Agriculture Two self-service refill stations for milk were opened, introducing a model of food distribution called 'the short chain'— the stations are supplied directly by a local farmers' cooperative and consumers buy without the intermediary of a packaging plant or retailer, so that they pay lower prices and farmers make more on each litre. It has been enormously successful, with 200L a day sold through the stations and 91% of customers refilling their own containers, thereby cutting about 90,000 bottles out of the waste system. Other initiatives have included a campaign to increase consumption of tap water rather than bottled (Italians are Europe's biggest consumers of bottled mineral water), doing away with disposable cutlery and flatware in public dings including schools, distributing cloth • shopping bags to all 17,800 households and 5,000 to businesses and stocking reusable nappies and sanitary products in municipal pharmacies. All of these initiatives are a result of proactive political nudges in the right direction, leading to residents becoming aware of and able to implement virtuous consumption habits. A Flagship Community Taking a proactive, holistic approach and involving residents in all stages of policy development are the key elements that have led Capannori to top the European waste prevention leagues and, through its position as the Zero Waste Network's Flagship Municipality, inspire other communities to aim higher than just fulfilling recycling targets. Its committed, visionary leaders have seen opportunities rather than problems, and through transparent engagement with the population have made this the achievement of an entire community. Today 100s of European municipalities follow the example of Capannori. Aimee Van Vliet Zero Waste Best Practices, August 2013 zE ', O WASTE For more information visit: www. zerowasteeu rope. eu www.facebook.com/ZeroWasteEu rope BRia Or contact: i nfo@zerowasteeu rope. eu Twitter @zerowasteeurope APPENDIX E9 Zero Waste Europe was created to empower communities to rethink R THE STORY OF r GO NTAR I NA The public company Contarina serves the districts of Priula and Treviso in Northern Italy, the best performers in waste prevention and recycling in a wide area in Europe. What is the secret for Contarina to recycle two times the European average and generate five times less residual waste? E9-2 Veneto is one of Italy's 20 regions. The region, of just under 5 million inhabitants, beats = the rest of the country with it's 65% recycling rate. Within the region of Veneto the public company Contarina is responsible for the management of waste in most of the Province 4a 0 of Treviso, including the capital Treviso. Here they serve 554 000 inhabitants in 50 U municipalities and has reached levels of source separation of up to 85% and generates p only 53kg of residual waste per inhabitant and year. In contrast, the EU average level is a i 42% source separation and a 285 kg per inhabitant and year of residual waste Ngeneration. qt It's not only these impressive rates that make Contarina a zero waste champion, but its commitment to continuously improve its performance and advance towards zero waste. It has its mind set on the goal of recycling 96,7% of its waste by 2022 and reduce the residual fraction to 10 kg per inhabitant and year. A proper commitment indeed! The ingredients for success If Contarina has managed to constantly increase its recycling rates year after year is thanks to the decision taken by the Province (the planning unit in Italy) back in 2005 to keep incineration out of the system, which has proven to be a pre -condition for maximizing recovery of value. Without the obligation to send waste for burning but with the pressure from the market to increase recycling Contarina has continued to increase recycling rates when others have plateaued because of put -or - pay contracts to feed incinerators. The second crucial ingredient has been good political will and cross -party consensus over the last decade. This is a remarkable point because among the 50 municipalities there have been mayors from different political parties ranging from left to right, yet they have managed to reach a consensus on waste management which shows that Zero Waste is above all about common sense and good management leading to increased operational efficiency and monetary savings. ' ONTARINA SPA - 100% Public Company - Serves 50 municipalities - 645 employees Treviso in the Veneto Region, Italy. N7 Thirdly the operational management has been extremely well -performing; a team of professionals has worked to keep advancing in the right direction and never stopped optimising the system even when entering domains where no other district of this size has been before. Last but definitely not least, any good project needs to count with good support and counseling and Contarina, has counted with the support of experts who are involved in the Zero Waste network, which has helped move things in any crucial moment. The story behind the public company Contarina is a public company owned by the Priula Consortium (Consorzio Intercomunale Priula) and the TrevisoTre (TvTre) Consortium which together represent 50 municipalities. Contarina started in 1989 as a half - private half -public enterprise providing services to 5 municipalities in the Priula Consortium and little by little it expanded to provide services of collection, treatment, management and communication for more municipalities. In 2006 TvTre Consortium enters in Contarina enlarging the number of municipalities and acquiring 40% of the shares of Contarina which effectively becomes 100% public. The company's daily objectives are to increase the percentage of separate collection, to reduce the amount of waste produced (in particular the percentage of non - recyclable waste), to raise the quality of the collected recyclable material, and to improve the service offered, optimising the cost -benefit ratio. The company also manages processing plants that handle non - recyclable dry waste and Organic and Green waste. Currently, Contarina is realizing two new plants for the development of recyclable waste and the recycling of absorbent products for personal ca re. E9-3 Municipal services including waste collection and handling but also street sweeping, special and hazardous waste collection and cemetery management, are also handled by Contarina. The success of Contarina is the result of a combination of several factors: • Great source separation at source, • Waste reduction incentives through pay -as -you -throw system, • Transparency and efficiency, • Political will and commitment to continuously improving the system. ..ipm� pill 1111 . y a t a O It Cl NATURAL PRODUCTION F DISTRIBUTION! RESOURCES and MATERIALS i y NDN RECYCLABLE WASTE i DESIGN and REDESIGN /'RECYCLABLE WASTE a, RECYCLING TREATMENT RESIDUAL WASTE RECYCLABLE a TRASH WASTE • BUY JUSE REUSE The integrated waste management system starts from the design of obge and packaging. in consideration of the entire life cyde.with the goal to be sustainable in all its phases- E9-4 Organlc waste Residual Glass, Paper Green waste plastic, cans STANDARD (lower populated areas) � fff�ffffffff, COMPLEX URBAN AREAS (historical centers and highly populated areas) _... Small bins and bags reserved for users with DO limited space. Efficient separate collection at source In order to achieve the exceptional separate collection rates of 85% the system needs to be extremely efficient. This can only be achieved with the use of intensive and adapted curbside collection combined with pay -as -you -throw system. Municipal solid waste is collected in five or six major waste -streams: non -recyclable dry, organics (food scraps), garden waste, paper and cardboard, glass, plastic and tin. In some Municipalities glass is collected alongside plastic and tins. They are placed in special colour-coded bins that are readily available, free of charge and collected curbside. The collection of different waste streams takes place in different days of the week; the fraction collected most often is the most important one, i.e. food -waste, the one collected less often is the residual waste, which is also the less important one in volume. Paper, green waste and other recyclables are collected between once and three times per week. Curbside collection is supplemented by the EcoCentri (Eco -Centres): centres equipped with large containers for other types of urban waste: from aggregates to bulk, from electrical and electronic appliances to hazardous waste. "Pay -as -you -throw": the less waste you generate the less money you pay Another fundamental principle of the "Contarina Model" is that the cost of the service to the user (family, company, corporation or other entity) is proportional to the amount of waste produced. This provides an incentive to do the right thing and minimize waste generation as well as promote home composting. 0 U 4- 0 L_ 0 E9-3 PAYT FeP 60% 40 Variable Fee Based on the number of household members 7 Amount related to the class of the user area and volume of supplied bins More concretely this boils down to splitting the fee for waste generation into two parts; one fixed and another one variable. The fixed part depends on the number of members living in the household whereas the variable portion is calculated according to two variables. One penalizes the number of times the non -recyclable dry waste bin is emptied. The other one is a bonus for those households doing home -composting which see a reduction of 30% on the variable fee. Creating obs and saving costs wit zero waste strategy The UN Environmental Program lists the so-called "Green Jobs" among those with the greatest growth potential in the near future. Employees of Contarina have "green jobs" and have contributed to the development of the company which has seen the number of its employees grow, thus confirming the world growth forecasts of the sector also at the local level. In 2014, for the city of Treviso, Contarina's , gll� 44-0 + I Based on the number of residual waste bin removals — 30% for home composting + fixed quota for garden waste Based on the number of residual waste bin removals + fixed quota for garden waste operational costs were contained during which time they also created 26 new job positions. The company also aims to offer new services to the territory with particular attention on the social implications of its activities. For many of the services provided (e.g. cleaning, managing the EcoCentri, maintaining public parks, etc.), the company partners with social cooperatives who work in employing disadvantaged people. Contarina's commitment in this field continues through the implementation of social projects that promote the reintegration of the long-term unemployed and those who are ineligible for assistance. This integrated management system generates positive effects that go beyond simple waste collection: the system extends to the environment, the economy and into people's lives. The percentage of separate waste collection in 2013 in the municipalities managed by Contarina reached almost 85%, with peaks in some municipalities around 90%, and ranks far above the national average (currently around 42%) and the regional one E9-4 Evoluti n of separate collection in municipalities managed by Contarina 100% 90% iiio 83,4% 80% PAYT 77,0% 78,1% 79.3% 73,8% 83,7%$5,d 70% 65,6% 79,0% PAYT 60% 64,4% 66,0% 67,8% 54 e % 58,2% 40% 44.8% ra 3A" 20% 27,2% curbside 10%1 collection 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 September Creation of'Green jobs' in Contarina 200% I50% 100% 50% 0% -50% 100% 2040 2002 2004 2006 2008 2D 10 2012 2014 for Veneto (Veneto, population 5 million, is currently around 65%, the highest regional average in Italy) . Even the production of non - recyclable dry waste (kg*inhabitant/ year) has reached optimum levels. On average, each inhabitant of the municipalities managed by Contarina produces 53 kg of waste per year. More separation, and therefore, less production of non -recyclable dry waste helps contain the costs that are on average about €178 per household and year in Priula. When comparing with the costs of rest of Italy one can see how good management and recycling Comparison of yearly fee per household 400 4350 € 245,f 41226,3 E200 E 150 E 100 ESO q. Italy Northem Italy Cmtarina (average 2011) more it also saves money to the taxpayers. Over the last 15 years waste management costs in Contarina have increased only 8% whereas at national level these costs have grown 70%, and the general cost index has grown around 30%. Transparency - a key issue for continuous improvement of the system It is important that citizens and other stake -holders have a clear picture of how the system works in order to allow the incentives to do its work in facilitating doing the right thing. For the operator it is also key to manage the data in a smart way in order to see where there is room for improving and optimising the system. This data system consists of a single database where each user's data can be viewed together with their geographical position, the bins provided, the recorded number of collections and the applicable rates. This unique database also allows users, through the Internet, to view information associated with their consumption and to report any discrepancies. 0 0 i 0 N 0 Residual waste treatment Present and future developments 33% J& 67% BIOLOGICAL SEPARATION TREATMENT U Ash Sorting Mm Sartfnr mciNERATiOw LANDFILL Waste 67% .. SRF 3396 tNi:IN�11ATION • 100% IF Waste Waste 12,59634% WESEM Loss through process Innovative projects 8% 12,5% RECYCLING REDESIGN 33% 33% From burning residuals to Zero Waste During the last decade Contarina has used a mechanical biological treatment (MBT) plant to treat the residual waste. The outputs of the MBT process were to turn 33% of the residual waste into Refuse Derived Fuel which was subsequently burnt for energy recovery and to send the remaining part of low - calorific waste to landfilling. However with the adoption of zero waste principles it sought a better and higher use for these materials. In 2015 Contarina is set to start the operation of a Material Recovery and Biological Treatment (MRBT) plant which is remarkably more efficient in recovering further materials also from residual waste for recycling operations. With the new system to manage residual waste it is possible to reduce the final residues that need to be disposed of to only 46,5% of the total residual waste. Since 85% of the waste is source separated, 15% amounting to 53 kg per inhabitant and year is processed and only 46,5% of this 15% or 53 kg is E9-5 disposed of. This results in only 24kg per inhabitant and year of the total waste produced being stabilized and sent to landfill. Additionally, contrary to incineration or landfill, this system makes waste very visible to allow for researchers and designers to study what cannot be recycled in order to design waste out of the system. On top of recovering more materials from residual waste this system works with cold treatments and is a lot more cost-efficient and safer from public health perspective than any kind of incineration. Also the capital investment for the machinery necessary to run this alternative process is many times cheaper than incineration (around 4-5 times cheaper at a same capacity). But the most important angle, is the adaptability of such a way of processing residuals, since it is capable to manage progressively more separately collected materials (organics, paper, plastics, etc.) and less residuals, thereby keeping cross -consistency with strategies to maximize separate collection and waste reduction. Future Zero Waste objectives Contarina has achieved outstanding results already but far from being complacent it seeks to go further and further in what personifies the zero waste spirit; never giving up on the efforts to reduce waste. The mayors of the municipalities within the public company are committed to accelerate the path towards the goal of "Zero Waste". In order to do so they have set up the following objectives by 2022: - reduce the current total amount of waste generated, aiming for 280 kg per inhabitant and year (average EU in 2012 was 492kg); - reduce the current amount of residual waste, aiming for 10 kg per inhabitant and year (average EU in 2012 was 285kg); - reach separate waste collection of 96.7%; - reduce the current bulk waste by 80%, aiming for 2 kg per inhabitant and year; - increase participation in household composting by 80% compared to the current percentage (up to 40% of participation); 96,7% of recycled waste 71r as% 46,7% - 80% of residual waste 1 11 10 51 ky,'nih. gr 10 kpjlnh.'yr by 2022 - continue optimising activities to allow for energy and fossil fuel savings; - support public or private initiatives to set up separate waste collection centers and raise awareness about waste reduction, reuse and recycling, as well as increasing number of specialised centres which intercept usable objects before they become waste; - promote "Zero Kilometer" policy for local food to improve consumption of proximity products which generate less food and packaging waste; - establish the "Zero Waste Observatory" with the aim of constant monitoring the residual fraction in order to be able to redesign it. Written by Joan Marc Simon, Zero Waste Europe, January 2015 Zero Waste Europe gratefully acknowledges financial assistance from the European Union. The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with Zero Waste Europe. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the funder. The funder cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. ,ZE STE �t * A • For more information visit: www. zerowasteeu rope. eu www.facebook.com/ZeroWasteEu rope gala Or contact: i nfo@zerowasteeu rope. eu Twitter @zerowasteeurope 5/10/2016 Rotten Luck: NYC's Pilot Compost Program in Trouble, with Shutdown of Delaware Processor - wNYC aam APPENDIX E10 Published in WNYC P Rotten Luck: NYC's Pilot Compost Program in Trouble, with Shutdown of Delaware Processor Dec 1, 2014 • by Amy Eddings From w®p0 New York City's fledgling composting program has hit a major snag. The iicarly two-year-old pilot P1 UJIZ <http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/composticollections_ocp.shtml> t <http://www.nyc.gov/htmI/nycwasteless/htmI/resources/reports_LL77_DiversionReportj une20l4.shtm1> takes food scraps from about a dozen neighborhoods and 400 schools as part of an effort to reduce waste. But the facility that processed most of that organic material was shut down last month, forcing the city to send the bulk of what's picked up to landfills. The problem stems from the highly -contaminated nature of New York City's organic waste, known in the composting industry as "feedstock." Most composting companies are small operations that take feedstock that's relatively easy to break down, like rotting fruits and vegetables, leaves, and grass clippings. But the Peninsula Composting Group's facility in Wilmington, Del., <http://www.peninsulacompostcompany.com/facilities/WORC.htmi> was more aggressive. It took that stuff and more, including discarded eggs and dead chicks from hatcheries, manure -filled animal bedding, and decaying meat and bones. The $20 million, 27 -acre facility also took material that was highly contaminated with plain old garbage, using magnets to pull out metals and employees to pick out plastics and other non- organic stuff. In October, Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control refused to renew Peninsula's permit <http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/News/Pages/DNREC-Secretary-Small-orders- closure-.aspx> . That decision followed a public hearing that drew 200 people. Most in attendance testified against Peninsula, describing odors that were so awful they induced nausea and prevented children from playing outdoors. http://www.wnyc.org/story/rotten-I uck-nycs-pi lot-com post-program-trouble-shutdown-delaware-processor/ 1/2 5/10/2016 Rotten Luck: NYC's Pilot Compost Program in Trouble, with Shutdown of Delaware Processor - WNYC w O _ ^ L "They were saying it smelled bad, and adamant about that," said Bill Miller, an environmental progra 1 manager at the state agency. By the state's accoun <http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Info/Documents/Secretarys%20Order%20No%202014-WH-0023.pdf> t <http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Info/Documents/Secretarys%20Order%20No%202014-WH-0023.pdf> , Peninsula was overwhelmed. Regulators found equipment that was not working. Non-compostable residue pulled from the food and yard waste, such as plastics, metal, and plain old trash, were piled up on site above approved levels. There were standing pools of leachate, the cloudy, smelly, liquid that often trails garbage trucks. There were fires. Peninsula's closure is a big blow to New York City. The Department of Sanitation had relied upon Peninsula's leniency, because the city's composting waste stream right now is filled with a lot of contaminants, especially plastics. Deputy Sanitation Commissioner Bridget Anderson, who oversees the composting initiative, said the department allowed people to use plastic liners in the brown bins they set at their curbsides to get them to give the program a try. "We're stuck right now in this place where we're trying to encourage the front end behavior and also figure out how to manage the processing side," she said. "So there's a little bit of a chicken -and -egg issue." She said the city is looking at ways to reduce contamination, especially in the schools. Some ideas include switching to cardboard lunch trays, reducing food packaging, and buying compostable utensils made of cornstarch instead of plastic. But those procurement changes will come slowly. In the meantime, Anderson said, the Sanitation Department is leaning on several other smaller compost processors in Dutchess County and in Connecticut to take the gunk that was going to Peninsula. "But it is true that some of this material is too contaminated to go to these other facilities," she concedes. And that means it will go to landfills. http://www.wnyc.org/story/rotten-I uck-nycs-pi lot-com post-program-trouble-shutdown-delaware-processor/ 2/2 aa �\ \\\d� ahoy MOO;, a�. ! L / / v y '��/� ������ M1141 �'I�Iryj�j E ' IV�f!'�q����, bar fe\ I Iit s/l r° r' n xcmr �� ,�� too LU !', 01 z top j 1611 R ow It RISON MWA y 3� � e 121 z 141 T _ _ ;moi f is --a / L' s^• .aa. �8 I _''„ y,� WW ki . vw MAN n, MIN C wi{' IX I �-sa� MY 0 � '. ' _ ®5t V � t f �=-+� one- Ask1� i I a ay`y3- %r AS, N 0 Ay� 0 00 0 r� W �opO = p ,0i � _ — ba o 4q o c a O.> G O p U co cn > R, x ° o a'eos o G `o co o 000s� U U p U "s O- U [9 O p N Ql m a a G' ui 'O R, ,, 2 C . O aJ L\ O p L'_ o b U 0 ca O =ff � Ca c) s E y E U o m c c n c a c U o p > vPO m° p rno P U O �p _ N N N O p a U a N a 'o n. Ri N O N [� (6' O x [n ,'� U U w R, '], p, U O � y u w e 3 3 a� z x�� � s s� � � 3 z��_�— a o W a �; .-• m� '� o �' � w x � m R .� °' � �° -°'o e d aj M 0 0 0@ 1 0 0 0 0 e y�`°][3-5wsx. -°3�E °Elo r e. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ® o �w�6Fum a aoo�o JT e 8 0 @ o z E$ o>d°`C f i.„o WGO* o e a` 0 O e o m y °m d oro ° n� a \\ \ o 0 \ a a 4 ! a" \ a o 0 0 R x oa, v v d a c' a o z = 09 2.��w�5 i° mos °o C. 3x wd nsiE _gym.. +�' � p c. G 6��u k',p• 1. i- y a f°a P4 T F OFl ? 'p, R W Q m o o'zm wz .. ..wF au,33 aE. Epi +'st .o U• v m % h' . m o 3. m o d _ aw m O iE '6 7° -69U R w W �"' sC, N N � O° N +91o .Q O N C r o cox .� o°, c •« s c b m a> a s°. y 0 'f,' ro ti' R 6 O o O ,� m❑ d cRi .y C p .�0. 'O m ,« G m° w So m d 0. LA ',7 3 `� o z^ Y a f v `° =o h" a - o z° R ,a� o a 0 ° a. m$. *4 y a o 0 Z d G y 'o o R y `� ai C m o �' � iv � � '� � � � o ,, y °� � cy, � � �° � Q 0 � m k7 `" d •« n N o '� H g3 ...�sxro°`n G-�= A's rOr CD O O g c� oo� grow ° N o q° a ti g R. (�J (' J Cl) cl� R' N ,.0 s sem+ 0 3d�aa�y� •� 4;-J _O d+ u W ij I h o, .^ o FSI -1 l.{JJ O 0 coo � _ N 3 O 0 i\ V) U y O O° cy] .i O b0 N `��Jy 4—J w .F 'B O' v O NO N O O N OJj ,p �O .� . o y � U CD 4- O m r4ii 7 -O R 0 R '°O a 'N m"ro fi o o a o � o 42 o 00 aw z�oayamro.a 00 o N ro o' ° a..° o o c ♦ w o .0 +4 x o v 'S F r m� E mE e �3goSr z a E E 3 3m U g U 3 E ,a Wum 3EU €E a aEE� o 0 x I i N •❑O � C by � o � m� y m 6 g o° a--� y a g'cR tlc °m oma°,�{{ O ° c °m 0 E" o m a LJ III ------ill c x m m o�c� b w C� Q � � °' aCi u � � sem. tw .ij o � � � � O ^, •n . • rl �n�, y� o U .xx. "" " a O oa O 3 m y G�-0ym� �7Vn�� �(1) ��T�'� m o R c°i R o W V J ° o .'°°a o Y0 0 d all ° N-4 o m (l� - J C q 5 G t J2 v51 El ❑,mow °n %R.,3���: a N41 W a y X .� A, El � ° Y ❑ ." w °+ 3 F ° , /)§�\]\\ §/)Q]:E®■®®:`��»e�N® 3))\) r`2 -A 2t\§}(() . lBr�eulw,:3 §M El ea ± "If you're spending ) ust as much energy shipping the stuff there, it doesn't make sense. Y) —JEFF MIKULINA, BLUE PLANET FOUNDATION sometimes, as you tryto move ahead and become more progressive. We Iearn things alongthe way." What did that mean for recyclables and H -POWER? "When you ask a question about whether it's actually greener to (send trash to H -POWER) than to ship our recyclables to the Mainland or to Asia—I haven't seen the statistics, but if it's true that it's causing us to consume more ener- gy, then that might be somethingwe would have to look at," Aalto says. Waste -to -energy plants weren't always abetter alternative. Until the EPA in- troduced its industrypollution (MACT) standards in 1990, emissions for the Plants were high, and in the early -adopter United States, it meant that they got a bad reputation that has lingered. Landfills, which emit methane as the trash decom- poses, have improved, too: At Waimanalo Gulch, the methane emitted is captured and burned off, The process does pro- duce some carbon dioxide, but methane is 18 times worse, from a global warming standpoint. Regulations, right now, also require the city and large businesses to recycle. So, a change in recycling practices would mean a change in regulations. "I think the public is slowly starting to understand," says Kahikina.'a was at a meeting in WaikW, and one ofthe hotel owners approached me and said, 'Why are we recycling? Doesn't it cost money? Aren't we using fossil fuel to ship it? Why aren't we just burning it all?' And I said, 'Are you trying to get me shot? You're sounding like me!' People are realizing that H -POWER is a feasible option," 54 HONOLULUMAGAZ[NE.COM July2015 .We asked local experts what they recommended in terms of sorting trash. What gets,recycied, and what should go straight into the trash? of Blue Planet Foundation tells me, only halfjokmg, "I'M ►Recycle atree-hugger tFiraugh.and through, and I wouldn't lose ALUMINUM is everybody s sloop if you dumped (the no-brainer. "Aluminum, no glass) in the ocean. It's sand in doubt, recycle," says Mikulina, another form;' citing the high environmental and financial cost of extracti ng new aluminum. Prevedouros agrees, adding that alum in um crushes easily into shippable ►Burn blocks, is "infinitely recyclable" - .... (meaning that you can create high-quality products out of it "The"best destination Por multiple times) and commands plastic would be the waste- a high price. to -energy (plant). Clearly," sa Prevedouros Oras >Recycle IF YOU WANT. H -POWER cant turn. glass into electricity. Instead of burning, says Chris. Baker, Covantas CFO, "glass, melts in the boiler, and causes problems with the combustion process" Technology exists to make use of the glass locally, as road base, but real-world complexities currently make that approach impractical It's a reminder that there is no ane -size -fits -all policy for recyclables when Jeff Mikulina ys Mikulina suggests, "don't make it in the first place.' By weight, plastic makes up only a small percentage of municipal trash, but it presents an outsize environmental headache, getting into the water system and pollutirig the oceans. The reasons we love plastic, its longevity and strength, are also the reasons we hate it: Most plastics do not biodegrade, . The Sierra Club's Anthony Aalto points out that scientist David Suzuki has estimated that each human body In the industrialized world contains ..about a pound of plastic, ingested In water and food. PAPER "AND'CARDBOARD are'heavy and hard to"compact further for"efficient shipping to (recycling plants; they burn beautlfuify,.andwe depressed in'pdoe 'Paperoh, my God. it's : reaVy perverse to recycle; _We re losing the opportunityto make " energy, and we're wasting more,." fdssilfuel to ship it somewhere else..lfyou have paper, put it in the gray bin;' says Prevedouros.' ►1urVS Out "WHY ARE YOU "composting it? It's ready to burn," says Prevedouros. The 100,000 tons of Breen waste O'ahu produces each year are free broniass; just like those bk)rnasS-tQ7. energy plants.on Kauai and. " Hawai Ii Island. Kahlklna is morecircvMpect,sayingihat, . in purely economic terms,it . makes sense to burn Vahu's green waste; but she adds that "We need to focus not only on the economic aspect, but also on the socialand environmental aspect as we[[," The green-waste`[oop is aiready o local, creatirigjobs and'keeping Y money. in-state. As good a fuel s as it is, it may makesenseto leave green waste as, is PAU ° 0 T a U O r w Waste management data *13 Ci oral E12-2 M 2012 plastics recycling and energy recovery reached 62% In 2012, 25.2 million tonnes of post -consumer plastics waste ended up in the waste upstream. 62% was recovered through recycling and energy recovery processes while 38% still went to landfill. Recycling Vk 25 Mtonne of post- I; consumer plastics waste Landfill Energy recovery Treatment for post -consumer plastics waste in the EU27+Norway and Switzerland Source: Consultic 20 E12-3 Since 2oo6 recycling and energy recovery have increased... The annual average of post -consumer plastics waste generation from 2oo6 to 2012 is 25 Mtonne. Mtonne 15 �� v Landfill c -26%0 Energk 10 recovery +27% Recycling 5 +40%0 o year 2oo6 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total plastics waste recycling and recovery 2oo6 — 2012 Source: Consultic 21 ... but landfilling is still the 1St option in many EU countries Plastics waste going to landfill (2012) • Above 66% >5o% to 66% 33% to 50% 0 below 10% i.e. landfill ban 2006 Date of landfill ban in force zoi6 Date of future landfill ban Source: Consultic 2014 Scotland zo16 19 —40► 22 E12-5 Zero plastics to landfill, a challenging but worthwhile goal Plastics waste going to landfill in Europe Mtonne 16 Decrease from 2005-2012 (-26%) 14 ■ Trend -line (extrapolation) 12 Zero plastics to landfill by 2025 scenario 10 2005 2010 2012 2025 2030 2037 F/= 6o million tonnes of plastics prevented from landfill, equivalentto over750 million barrels /,//, of oil or 6o billion euros 23 E12-6 In general, countries with landfill ban achieve higher recycling rates 0 CSwitzertand a Germany - vAustriaLuxembourg A t - u3 Denmark Sweden NethertandsC O UNorway Fintand France Estonia Iretand Stovakia Itaty Stovenia Czech ::. . ------- a ������� Spain Hungary b6lRomaniaUKLatviaButgariaGreeceLithuaniaCyprusMatta Potand o% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 6o% 70% Treatment of post -consumer plastics waste 2012 (EU -27 + CH/NO) Source: Consultic 8o% 90% 100% 40 Recycling rate 40 Energy recovery rate 40 Landfill rate 24 Plastics waste is a resource processE into granul d ed a e out of which new plastic products are made E12-7 The energy value of plastics is used to produce Plastics are sorted and crushed into "flakes", Those plastics which cannot be sustainably recycled can be used in washed, dried and sorted again... efficient Waste -to -Energy facilities to produce electricity and heat MILLION of plastics waste are aUc �•� TONNES landfilled every year 16 19 in Europe MILLION more citizens potentially supplied with energy recovered from plastics waste iatively cs are as fuel dustrial )sses, cing fuel s are strict is and andards of plastics packaging 41i was recycled in Germany in 2013 (based on input) 25 Estonia Finland Ireland Slovenia Romania* Poland Portugal Greece Slovakia Hungary Lithuania Czech Republic Bulgaria* Luxembourg Germany Norway Spain Cyprus Latvia Netherlands Belgium Italy France Austria UK Malta Sweden Switzerland Denmark E12-8 Plastics recycling and energy recovery complement each other Changes in recycling and energy recovery rates by country -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Source: Consultic * For Bulgaria & Romania: comparison 2012 vs. zoo? Comparison of Energy rates 2032 Vs. 2oo6 recovery rate Referred to post -consumer plastics 40 Recycling rate 26 E12-9 Plastics packaging has the highest recycling and energy recovery rates Austria I I I ���o U Luxembourg I I I I ,11�11_ Germany I I I iomi�mimi Switzerland Denmark I I Sweden I I I I Belgium I I I Netherlands I I I I I Norway I I I I Finland I I Estonia I I I I Italy I I I Czech Republic I I I I Slovenia OWI I I I Slovakia I I I I France I I Poland I I I Ireland I I I Romania EWI I I Hungary I I Spain Portugal OW Latvia Bulgaria I I I jig Lithuania OW UK I I Greece Cyprus ow Malta o% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 6o% 70% 8o% 90% 100% Packaging recycling and energy recovery rate by country 2012 40 Recycling rate (Referred to post -consumer plastics waste) Energy recovery rate Source: Consultic 27 Life cycle of a plastic bottle: recycling options f— paab,d th—gh d �tillati— aphtha . . . kimg, i,�, kthk,k, biTa— ,a[[kd aphta, as Thk—f—kd fiha Recycled PIT Is the raw material which Is used to ,,,d— flpullovers — Ad - PET D T Th— h,,t —1 .. Th, — imkimg of thk Pl-i, pkll- h.tkd — Fab icula Y — t tgkthk P —,haim ua �ub-- �hich ia ,d ula, cha thi ' d Thk "P la bl— a,d �t,ktchkd T, a PET boftle (Xym P —pl- (F) —ud Thk —uld —t bk Pdykthyl— Tfkphthalatk ia —1�d to - thk bl-ic i, —aday, th, aj,, IdEes- tylb, (a bolt k) 'haok, flak. i,to ga,ules Fib— ,od-io, t a 2o -/o of thk —yd�d ,ab,nal _ bolto'. Automatic cd—Op Matknal separation by separation of Flakes colour selection dk,avy ,processyi,g process To, further processing E12-10 Optoklk' 'o'k 'o,ou, kpa,atio, o 28 APPENDIX F1 Zero Waste USA I Inspiring Communities to Embrace and Achieve Zero Waste Z -Team Outreach & Social Media Training Would your organization benefit from an in-depth customized social media training while also learning about the substantial social and climate benefits of Zero Waste? These 2 or 3 -hour sessions can be held as special events, at regularly scheduled meetings or even as part of larger events. Read more... Read More Envision A World Without Waste, Strive for Zero Waste: No Burn, No Bury, No Toxics! A major hub of the broad and diverse Zero Waste movement, Zero Waste USA's mission is to facilitate the transition to a world without waste, promote the Zero Waste brand — No Burn, No Bury, No Toxics, and insure it is not diluted by short term interests. We collaborate with a wide variety of groups and individuals across the globe to organize events and projects — local, regional, national and international, offer resources, tools and strategies, provide a sophisticated training and recognition program and maintain a network of speakers and organizers able to assist communities and advocates in the pursuit of Zero Waste. We are "_­,,,_=,',, by volunteers, grants, sponsorships, trainings and project fees. Founded in 1996 as the GrassRoots Recycling Network, in 2014 we shifted to the name that fits us better — Zero Waste USA! Click on the AbOUt ZVVUSA page to read an expanded version of this statement. Recent Posts William P. Kenoi Mayor West Hawaii Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Phone(808)323-4770 Fax (808) 327-3563 July 27, 2016 County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT Scott Glenn, Director Office of Environmental Quality Control 235 South Beretania Street, Suite 702 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Glenn: FILE I -- I - � - COPY lk� o 13 2016 APPENDIX F2 Duane Kanuh. Director Joaquin Gamiao-Kunkel Deputy Director East Hawaii Office 101 Pauahi Street.. Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 Fax(808)961-8742 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) Applicant: BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC Request: Construct and Operate an Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (Waste to Energy Facility) TMK: (3) 6-8-001: Portion of 066 Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii The Hawaii County Planning Department has reviewed the draft environmental assessment for the subject project and anticipates a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) determination. Please publish notice of availability for this project in the August 23, 2016, OEQC Environmental Notice. We have enclosed a completed OEQC Publication Form, one copy of the draft EA, and a copy of the draft EA and the project summary hardcopy on disk. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jeff Darrow at 961-8158. Sincerely, DUANE KANUHA Planning Director JWD:mad P. wpwm60 CH343\2016 LRobichaux•AntFonsiDEA doc Enclosures: Draft EA (1 copy) Completed OEQC Publication Form Draft EA and Project Summary (on disk) cc ltr. only: Clint Knox, BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC David Robichaux, North Shore Consultants www.cohplanninxdeot.com Hawat'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planningid:hawaiicounty.gov I�-4L{7 pn rA 0% O � 1T1 z -c �• M C-) �6 _ z z -p < SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) Applicant: BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC Request: Construct and Operate an Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (Waste to Energy Facility) TMK: (3) 6-8-001: Portion of 066 Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii The Hawaii County Planning Department has reviewed the draft environmental assessment for the subject project and anticipates a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) determination. Please publish notice of availability for this project in the August 23, 2016, OEQC Environmental Notice. We have enclosed a completed OEQC Publication Form, one copy of the draft EA, and a copy of the draft EA and the project summary hardcopy on disk. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jeff Darrow at 961-8158. Sincerely, DUANE KANUHA Planning Director JWD:mad P. wpwm60 CH343\2016 LRobichaux•AntFonsiDEA doc Enclosures: Draft EA (1 copy) Completed OEQC Publication Form Draft EA and Project Summary (on disk) cc ltr. only: Clint Knox, BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC David Robichaux, North Shore Consultants www.cohplanninxdeot.com Hawat'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planningid:hawaiicounty.gov I�-4L{7 F2-2 Office of Environmental Quality Control FILE COPY February 2016 Revision APPLICANT PUBLICATION FORM A06 1 3 ?01 Project Name: Draft Environmental Assessment Hawaii Integrated Resource Recovery Facility, Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii Project Short Name: DEA Hawaii Integrated Resource Recovery Facility HRS §343-5 Trigger(s): Waste -to -Energy Island(s): Hawaii Judicial District(s): South Kohala TMK(s): (3) 6-8-001.066 Permits)/Approval(s): r Special Permit, Subdivision,. Solid Waste Management, Clean Air, building and grading Approving Agency: Planning Department, County of Hawaii Contact Name, Email, Jeff Darrow Darrow, Jeff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov (808) 961-8288 Telephone, Address Aupuni Center, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3, Hilo, HI 96720 Applicant: BioEnergy Hawaii Contact Name, Email, Clint Knox, Leed AP, Vice President, BioEnergy Hawaii Clint@komarinvestments.com Telephone, Address 74-5610 AIapa Street, Kailua Kona, HI 96740 : (949) 903-4769 Consultant: North Shore Consultants, LLC. Contact Name, Email, David Robichaux, North Shore Consultants robichaud001@hawaii.rr.com (808) 368-5352 Telephone, Address 2091 Round Top Dr. Honolulu, HI 96822 Status (select one) Submittal Requirements X DEA-AFNSI Submit 1) the approving agency notice of determination/transmittal letter on agency letterhead, 2) this completed OEQC publication form as a Word file, 3) a hard copy of the DEA, and 4) a searchable PDF of the DEA; a 30 -day comment period follows from the date of publication in the Notice. FEA-FONSI Submit 1) the approving agency notice of determination/transmittal letter on agency letterhead, 2) this completed OEQC publication form as a Word file, 3) a hard copy of the FEA, and 4) a searchable PDF of the FEA; no comment period follows from publication in the Notice. FEA-EISPN Submit 1) the approving agency notice of determination/transmittal letter on agency letterhead, 2) this completed OEQC publication form as a Word file, 3) a hard copy of the FEA, and 4) a searchable PDF of the FEA; a 30 -day comment period follows from the date of publication in the Notice. Act 172-12 EISP N Submit 1) the approving agency notice of determination letter on agency letterhead and 2) this ("Direct to EIS") completed OEQC publication form as a Word file; no EA is required and a 30 -day comment period follows from the date of publication in the Notice. DEIS Submit 1) a transmittal letter to the OEQC and to the approving agency, 2) this completed OEQC publication form as a Word file, 3) a hard copy of the DEIS, 4) a searchable PDF of the DEIS, and 5) a searchable PDF of the distribution list; a 45 -day comment period follows from the date of publication in the Notice. FEIS Submit 1) a transmittal letter to the OEQC and to the approving agency, 2) this completed OEQC publication form as a Word file, 3) a hard copy of the FEIS, 4) a searchable PDF of the FEIS, and 5) a searchable PDF of the distribution list; no comment period follows from publication in the Notice. FEIS Acceptance The approving agency simultaneously transmits to both the OEQC and the applicant a letter of its Determination determination of acceptance or nonacceptance (pursuant to Section 11-200-23, HAR) of the FEIS; no comment period ensues upon publication in the Notice. FEIS Statutory The approving agency simultaneously transmits to both the OEQC and the applicant a notice that it Acceptance did not make a timely determination on the acceptance or nonacceptance of the applicant's FEIS under Section 343-5(c), HRS, and therefore the applicant's FEIS is deemed accepted as a matter of law. Supplemental EIS The approving agency simultaneously transmits its notice to both the applicant and the OEQC that it Determination has reviewed (pursuant to Section 11-200-27, HAR) the previously accepted FEIS and determines that Page 1 of 2 F2-3 Office of Environmental Quality Control Applicant Publication Form February 2016 Revision a supplemental EIS is or is not required; no EA is required and no comment period ensues upon publication in the Notice. Withdrawal Identify the specific documents) to withdraw and explain in the project summary section. Other Contact the OEQC if your action is not one of the above items. Project Summary Provide a description of the proposed action and purpose and need in 200 words or less. BioEnergy Hawai'i, LLC (BEH) intends to lease 14.99 acres of land on the property now known as the West Hawaii Concrete Quarry to construct and operate an integrated resource recovery facility to divert municipal solid waste (MSW) from the County's Landfills. Recyclable materials will be recovered and collected for offsite sales. Organic materials will be further separated into those which can be digested in an anaerobic digester, and those that can be used for thermal conversion using a gasifier or pyrolysis unit. Waste digested in the AD system will produce renewable natural gas. Waste disposed in the thermal conversion unit will be used to produce electricity. The renewable natural gas will be used to power the waste collection fleet and also sold to offsite consumers to displace fossil fuels. The facility will provide a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emission over the existing solid waste disposal system. Permits required include County Special Permit, Solid waste management permit, and subdivision. Page 2 of 2 F2-4 Draft Environmental Assessment Hawaii Integrated Resource Recovery Facility Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii The County of Hawaii Department of Planning Applicant: BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC July 27, 2016 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-5 Draft Environmental Assessment Hawaii Integrated Resource Recovery Facility Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii Prepared for The County of Hawai' i Department of Planning Applicant: BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC Prepared by NORTH SHORE CONSULTANTS, LLC 2333 Kapiolani Blvd. Suite 2111 Honolulu, HI 96826 July 27, 2016 11 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility Project Summary F2-6 This Environmental Assessment has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), for the BioEnergy Hawaii Resource Recovery Facility proposed for South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. Name: BioEnergy Hawaii Resource Recovery Facility Location: 68-1244 Waikoloa Road, Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii Judicial District: South Kohala Applicant: BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC Approving Agency: County of Hawaii, Department of Planning Recorded Fee Owner: WQJ2008 Investment, LLC, A Washington Limited Liability Company and Ukumehame Quarry Company Limited Partnership, a Hawaii Limited Partnership. Tax Map Keys: TMK (3) 6-8-001:066 por. Land Area: 14.99 acres Existing Use: Rock Quarrying, greenwaste recycling, aggregate recycling Proposed Use: Construction of a resource recovery and energy conversion facility designed to use anaerobic digestion and thermal conversion technologies to divert up to 70% of the incoming municipal solid waste (MSW) from West Hawai'i's landfill, with the resultant production of electrical power, and advanced biofuels in response to public policy which encourages bioconversion of waste and the domestic production of renewable energy. Land Use Designations: State Land Use: Agriculture District General Plan: Agriculture Designation County Zoning: Agriculture -5 acres (A -5a) Special Management Area (SMA): Not within the SMA Major Approvals Required: County Special Use Permit Solid Waste Management Permit Clean Air Permit NPDES Permits Grading/Building Permits iii DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... VIII 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASESSMENT PROCESS DESCRIPTION..................................................... 2 1.2 EIS TRIGGERS AND CONTROLLING REGULATIONS............................................................. 2 1.3 APPLICANT AND APPROVING AGENCY.............................................................................. 4 1.4 LOCATION......................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 SITE HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION...................................................................................... 8 PART 2: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................ 10 2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVE........................................................................................................ 10 2.2 SUPPORTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS.......................................................................... 11 2.2.1 County of Hawaii Land Use Policies............................................................................ 11 2.2.2 County of Hawaii Waste Management Policies............................................................ 13 2.2.3 County of Hawai 'i Energy Policies............................................................................... 14 2.2.4 State Land Use Policies................................................................................................. 15 2.2.5 State Energy Policies.................................................................................................... 18 2.2.6 Federal Policy............................................................................................................... 19 2.3 FUEL AND POWER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS................................................................... 19 2.3.1 Current sources of power generation............................................................................ 19 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LAND FILLING AND WASTE CONVERSION OPERATIONS............................................................................................................................... 20 PART 3: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION......................................................... 22 3.1 APPEARANCE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY...................................................................... 22 3.2 OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................................ 24 3.2.1 Waste Receiving............................................................................................................ 26 3.2.2 Removal of Unsuitable Materials and Initial Separation Process ................................ 27 3.2.3 Separation of recyclable materials............................................................................... 27 3.2.4 Separation of Light and Heavy Materials..................................................................... 27 3.2.5 Anaerobic Digestion...................................................................................................... 28 3.2.6 Solid -Liquid Separation................................................................................................ 29 3.2.7 Biogas Cleaning............................................................................................................ 30 3.2.8 Power Generation and Energy Production................................................................... 31 3.2.9 Emergency Flare........................................................................................................... 32 3.2.10. Thermal Conversion................................................................................................... 33 3.2.11 Composting.................................................................................................................. 33 3.2.12 Alternative uses of digestate........................................................................................ 34 3.2.13 Summary of inputs and outputs from the Resource Recovery Facility ....................... 34 3.2.14 Agricultural Production.............................................................................................. 35 IV [?FA TnteQrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-8 3.3 FINANCIAL DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE .............................................. 35 3.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS............................................................................. 36 PART 4: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................................... 38 4.1 ALTERNATE TECHNOLOGIES........................................................................................... 38 4.2 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS.............................................................................................. 44 4.2.1 The Proposed location.................................................................................................. 45 4.2.2 Alternate location No. 1: Waimea Wastewater Treatment Plant Site ........................... 46 4.2.3 Alternate Site 2: The Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii (NELHA) ....................... 48 4.2.4 Alternative Site 3: West Hawai 'i Sanitary Landfill....................................................... 49 4.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE.............................................................................................. 52 4.4 DECISION CRITERIA......................................................................................................... 52 PART 5: DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................... 53 5.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, WATER AND AIR QUALITY .................................................... 53 5. 1.1 Geography and Topography......................................................................................... 53 5.1.2 Soils............................................................................................................................... 53 5.1.3 Surface Water and Groundwater.................................................................................. 54 5.1.4 Air Quality and Climate................................................................................................ 55 5.1.5 Noise and Odor............................................................................................................. 56 5.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................... 57 5.2.1 Flora and Fauna........................................................................................................... 57 5.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species............................................................................ 57 5.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT........................................................... 58 5.3.1 Public Views and Viewplanes....................................................................................... 58 5.3.2 Historical and Archaeological Resources..................................................................... 60 5.3.3 Cultural Uses and Traditional Practices...................................................................... 60 5.3.4 Traffic and Transportation............................................................................................ 62 5.3.5 Adjacent Land Use........................................................................................................ 66 5.3.6 Demographics and Socioeconomic Conditions............................................................. 66 5.3.7 Public Facilities and Services....................................................................................... 68 5.3.8 Employment................................................................................................................... 69 PART 6: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.................................................................... 70 6.1 DIRECT EFFECTS............................................................................................................. 70 6.2 IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES............................................................... 71 6.3 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS........................................................................ 72 ......... 73 8.0 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE....................................................................... 74 8.1 ANTICIPATED FINDING.......................................................................................................... 76 9.0 CONSULTED PARTIES, PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS AND CONTRIBUTORS........... 77 V DEA Integrated Resource RecoveryTacjljty F2-9 9.1 LIST OF PREPARERS......................................................................................................... 77 9.2 LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER CONSULTED PARTIES ................... 77 PART 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................. 79 Appendices: A. Comments Received prior to Publication B. Flora and Fauna Survey C. Archeological Assessment Survey D. Ka Pa'Akai Discussion (Cultural Impacts) List of Figures 1-1 Location map of the proposed project 1-2 Location of the proposed project in South Kohala 1-3 Site map 1-4 Site layout within the Waikoloa Quarry 2-1 South Kohala L UPAG Map 3-1 Typical horizontal plug flow -type anaerobic digestion facility 3-2 Typical vertical plug flow -type anaerobic digestion facility 3-3 Overview schematic of the organic recycling operations 3-4 Process flow diagram for the proposed action 3-5 Typical waste sorting equipment 3-6 Examples of organic feedstock delivery systems 3-7 Schematic of a horizontal and vertical plug flow digester 3-8 Process flow diagram for gas clean-up 3-9 Example of a combined heat and power (CHP) unit 3-10 Example of an emergency flare installation 4-1 Chemical reactions from gasification 4-2 Distances between the proposed site and occupied areas 4-3 Alternative site I location Waimea WWTP 4-4 Proposed site layout adjacent to Waimea WWTP 4-5 Alternative site location at NELHA 4-6 Alternative site location at West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill 5-1 Street view of the site entrance intersection. 5-2 Isometric view of the site entrance from 1000 feet 5-3 Peak hourly traffic estimates for 2020. 5-4 Existing daily use of Waikoloa Rd intersection by waste vehicles 5-5 Planned daily use of intersection by waste vehicles with the proposed action vi DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-10 List of Tables 2-1 Consistency with Hawaii State Planning Act HRS 226 2-2 Consistency with CZMA 2-3 Energy usage in Hawaii 5-1 List of plants observed at Waikoloa Quarry 5-2 List of animals observed at Waikoloa Quarry 5-3 Peak traffic volumes in 2020 without Aina Le 'a 5-4 Peak traffic volumes with Aina Le'a 5-5 US census data for Waimea CDP 5-6 Rate schedule for County of Hawaii waste disposed at WHSL 7-1 Summary of potential impacts and mitigation measures Vii DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-11 BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC (BEH) intends to lease 14.99 acres of land on a portion of the property now known as the West Hawaii Concrete Quarry to construct and operate an integrated resource recovery facility to divert municipal solid waste (MSW) from the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill (WHSL) and elsewhere. The project will substantially increase the landfill diversion and recycling rate as well as reduce the environmental impacts associated with conventional landfill disposal operations. It will be operated on approximately 200 tons of incoming MSW per day which is collected by local waste haulers, along with a variety of other waste materials. The facility design will allow for expanded capacity of over 400 tons per day (TPD) of MSW should the need arise. Of this volume approximately 70% will be suitable for energy conversion operations and the remaining 30% consisting of inert waste material will be disposed at the WHSL. In addition to the environmental benefits, the facility will generate a number of energy products, including engineered fuel, baseload electric power, renewable natural gas (RNG), and other advanced biofuels. The operations may also provide value-added products to support the local landscape and agricultural industry, such as soil amendment and natural fertilizer. The energy can be used for fleet fuel including the Pacific Waste Collection fleet, and can be sold to local users on the Big Island. The site entrance will be located 2.7 miles east of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Waikoloa Road. The facility will be located approximately 1 -mile south, of Waikoloa Road site entrance and accessed by a dedicated roadway and utility easement. Its location is 3 miles overland to the nearest development in Waikoloa Village, 3 miles from the WHSL, and 4 miles from the Waikoloa Beach Hotels. Operations at the proposed facility will include: • Delivery of waste and other organic materials in commercial collection trucks • Mechanical and manual material sorting and separation, • Recovery of recyclable materials • Anaerobic digestion of the wet organic fraction of the waste, • Thermal conversion of the dry fraction, • Production and refining of renewable natural gas (RNG), which is primarily methane, • Production of steam for generating electrical power, • Composting the stabilized organic fraction leaving the anaerobic digester, • Hauling residual inert waste material to WHSL. The existing access road will be utilized from Waikoloa Road to the south approximately 4000 feet ending at the quarry gate, a new dedicated internal access road (approximately 2500 feet) will be constructed within the quarry, ending on the subject property. Approximately 5 acres of viii DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-12 the parcel will be used for material processing and energy production, the remaining 10 acres will be utilized for final processing of the treated organic materials to produce nutrient -rich soil amendment products (compost). Incoming waste will be initially delivered by private haulers to a tipping floor located inside a negative pressure warehouse to control fugitive dust and odors. Bulky wastes and inorganic materials will be separated from the organic fraction using a state-of-the-art materials recovery facility. Recyclable materials will be recovered and collected for offsite sales. Organic materials will be further separated into those which can be digested in an anaerobic digester, and those that can be used for thermal conversion using a gasifier or pyrolysis unit. Waste digested in the AD system will produce renewable natural gas. Waste disposed in the thermal conversion unit will be used to produce electricity. Approximately 30% of incoming waste will be disposed in the landfill, almost all of which is expected to be inert. The site is located in the Agriculture District and will require modification to the existing Special Permit that was obtained for the existing quarry operations. Other major permits include Solid Waste Management Permit, Clean Air Act Permit, and an NPDES Stormwater Permit for construction. The applicant anticipates the proposed action to have impacts associated with construction and operation, the principal among these will be a slight increase in traffic along Waikoloa Road. All of the impacts identified with the proposed action are anticipated to be temporary and insignificant. Pending receipt of comments from agencies and interested parties, the applicant and approving agency anticipate a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the proposed action. ix F2-13 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility 1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASESSMENT PROCESS DESCRIPTION Adopted in 1974 and patterned after the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, Hawaii's environmental impact statement law, The Hawaii Environmental Protection Act (HEPA) requires the preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements for many development projects. The law is codified as in the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, which requires that government give systematic consideration to the environmental, social and economic consequences of proposed development projects prior to allowing construction to begin. The law also assures the public the right to participate in planning projects that may affect their community. The Office of Environmental Quality Control implements this law in Hawaii. An Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is an informational document prepared by the proposing agency or the private applicant and used to evaluate the possible environmental effects of a proposed action. An EA must give a detailed description of the proposed action or project and evaluate direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. The document must consider alternatives to the proposed project and describe any measures proposed to minimize potential impacts. An EA assesses the proposed project through research, discussion and review. It must, at a minimum, identify environmental concerns, obtain various relevant data, conduct necessary studies, receive public input, evaluate alternatives, and propose measures for minimizing adverse impacts. It is initially published as a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA), and subjected to a 30 -day review by the public and government agencies. After public comments are responded to, the draft is revised and submitted as the final EA (FEA). During the preparation of an EA, if significant environmental impacts are discovered or identified, the EA becomes and EIS Preparation Notice and the document is expanded into an EIS. For agency actions, the accepting authority is the Governor or Mayor, who must determine the acceptability of a FEA or FEIS. For private applicant actions, the approving agency determines the acceptability of a FEA/FEIS. After environmental documents are accepted, the action may be implemented. The publication in The Environmental Notice of an acceptance or non-acceptance determination by either the accepting authority or the approving agency initiates a 60 -day legal challenge period. DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-14 1.2 EIS TRIGGERS AND CONTROLLING REGULATIONS The proposed project is subject to an environmental review under the terms of HRS Chapter 343, which is commonly referred to as The Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA). HEPA compliance is required if one or more of the triggers specified in HRS 343-5 is in place. The OEQC guidance Manual lists these triggers as follows. 1. Use of State or County lands or use of State or County funds, other than funds to be used for feasibility or planning studies for possible future programs or projects that the agency has not approved, adopted, or funded, or funds to be used for the acquisition of unimproved real property; provided that the agency shall consider environmental factors and available alternatives in its feasibility or planning studies; provided further that an EA for proposed uses under Section 205-2(d)(11) or 205-4.5(a)(13) shall only be required pursuant to Section 205- 5(b). 2. Use of any land classified as conservation district by the state land use commission under chapter 205. 3. Use within a shoreline area as defined in Section 205A-41. 4. Use within any historic site as designated in the National Register or Hawaii Register, as provided for in the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law 89-665, or Chapter 6E. 5. Use within the Waikiki area of Oahu, the boundaries of which are delineated in the land use ordinance as amended, establishing the "Waikiki Special District". 6. Any amendments to existing county general plans where the amendment would result in designations other than agriculture, conservation or preservation, except actions proposing any new county general plan or amendments to any existing county general plan initiated by a county. 7. Any reclassification of any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission under Chapter 205. 8. Any construction of new or the expansion or modification of existing helicopter facilities within the State that may affect: A. Any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission B. A shoreline area 2 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-15 C. Any historic site as designated in the National Register or Hawaii Register 9. Propose any: A. Wastewater treatment unit, except an individual wastewater system or a wastewater treatment unit serving fewer than fifty single family dwellings or the equivalent B. Waste -to -energy facility C. Landfill D. Oil refinery E. Power generating facility Criteria No. 9 contains the primary trigger for HEPA. The proposed action is primarily waste conversion but is considered a waste -to -energy facility under the law. Municipal solid waste (MSW) will be diverted from the landfill to produce valuable products including electric power and renewable natural gas (RNG). This assessment is intended to satisfy the HEPA requirement for construction and operation of a waste -to -energy facility. Waste will not be buried or otherwise disposed on the property; therefore, the proposed action is not considered a landfill. Organic waste including cooking oil may be converted into non -liquid fuels as part of the process. The language of HRS 343 relating to oil refinery is not specific to refining petroleum oils, although that was likely to be its intended focus; however, as the law now stands, bioconversion of cooking oils or other fats could be considered an oil refinery. This assessment is intended to satisfy the HEPA requirement for construction and operation of an oil refinery. Power -generating facility as defined in HRS 343 does not apply to the proposed BEH facility as the definition of "power -generating facility" is limited to: (1) A new, fossil -fueled, electricity -generating facility, where the electrical output rating of the new equipment exceeds 5.0 megawatts; or (2) An expansion in generating capacity of an existing, fossil -fueled, electricity -generating facility, where the incremental electrical output rating of the new equipment exceeds 5.0 megawatts. With the possible exception of the initial and any subsequent cold starts, fossil fuels will not be used to generate power; therefore, the proposed action is not considered a power generating facility under HEPA. The use of a Special Purpose Revenue Bond (SPRB) authorized by the State Legislature may be considered Use of Public Funds, HRS 343-5 (1) requires environmental assessment for the use of public lands and funds. This assessment is intended to satisfy the HEPA requirement for the use of public funds. HEPA requires the applicant to prepare an Environmental Assessment if there are no anticipated environmental impacts that are considered significant to the environment or quality of life in 3 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-16 Hawaii. An Environmental Impact Statement is prepared if the anticipated impacts are significant or cannot be accurately determined. At this time the applicant and approving agency have not identified significant impacts associated with the proposed action. Pending further analysis and consideration of input from agencies and interested parties, the Approving Agency anticipates a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The subject property is also controlled by land use restrictions and ordinances at the State and County level. The site of the proposed facility is within the State Land Use Agriculture District and the County agriculture zone. Quarry activities, the current use, and all waste management activities proposed herein are not permissible uses in the State Agriculture District, but under State Law Ch. 205 of the Hawaii Revises Statutes, land uses that are "unusual and reasonable" are allowed under a Special Use Permit issued by the State Land Use Commission, or a Special Permit from the County Planning Commission for uses that are less than 15 acres. Quarry operations have been permitted under a Special Use Permit since 1992. Special Use Permit SP92-381is issued to WHC, Ltd. by the Land Use Commission for 219.99 acres of the same property. This Special Use Permit was amended in February 2016 to allow for (1) an extension of quarry activities until at least 2043, (2) allow greenwaste composting activities within the 219.99 -acre parcel, and (3) allow recycling operations for concrete and asphalt within the 219.99 acres. The amendment to SP92-381 did not authorize the integrated resource recovery facility proposed herein, and authorization for unusual and reasonable uses remains a requirement for the proposed action. The landowner and lessee have made a business decision to subdivide the parcel to separate 14.99 acres of the property proposed for use by integrated resource recovery facility. The new parcel will be withdrawn from the 219.99 acres and the landowner will amend the State Special Use Permit to reflect withdrawal of the new parcel. At that time the applicant intends to apply for a Special Permit from the County of Hawaii to authorize use of agricultural land for the proposed Integrated Resource Recovery Facility. 1.3 APPLICANT AND APPROVING AGENCY BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC (BEH) intends to develop a resource recovery and energy conversion facility that is subject to HEPA and will prepare the required environmental documents through its consultant North Shore Consultants, LLC (NSC). Use of the term applicant will apply to BEH. BEH was formed in March of 2006. The purpose and mission of the company is to establish a waste conversion plant on the Island of Hawaii to produce alternative energy from a sustainable renewable energy source (trash) thereby helping to reduce the Island's dependence on fossil fuel as its primary energy source and provide an environmentally sound alternative to landfill F1 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-17 disposal. Pacific Waste, Inc. with offices in Kailua-Kona is the managing partner of BEH. Guy Kaniho is General Manager of BEH and represents the applicant in all matters. Whenever an applicant proposes an action, the authority for requiring statements and for accepting any required statements that have been prepared shall rest with the agency initially receiving and agreeing to process the request for an approval. In the event that there is more than one agency that has jurisdiction over the action, and these agencies are unable to agree as to which agency has the responsibility for complying with section 343-5(c), HRS, the office, after consultation with the agencies involved, shall determine which agency is responsible. In making the determination, the office shall take into consideration, including, but not limited to, the following factors: 1. The agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the action as a whole; 2. The agency that can most adequately fulfill the requirements of chapter 343, HRS, and this chapter; 3. The agency that has special expertise or access to information; and 4. The extent of participation of each agency in the action. In practice the approving agency is generally the agency which has the major discretionary permits for approving the proposed action. The only major discretionary permit involved with this action is the Special Permit required for non-agricultural uses of land within the Agriculture District. That permit is through the County of Hawaii Council or Hawaii County Planning Commission and their representative the Hawaii County Planning Department (Planning Department), which will act as the approving agency. The Planning Department has the primary responsibility for approving non-agricultural uses of smaller parcels of land in the agricultural zone, as well as the expertise and access to information with regard to the regulatory requirements of the proposed action. 1.4 LOCATION The proposed resource recovery facility will be co -located with the West Hawaii Concrete aggregate quarry located at 68-1244 Waikoloa Road, Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. (Figure 1-1). The facility entrance will be located 2.7 miles east of the intersection between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Waikoloa Road. The facility will be located approximately 1 -mile south, of Waikoloa Road site entrance and accessed by a dedicated road. Its location is 3 miles overland to the nearest development in Waikoloa Village, 3 miles from the WHSL, and 4 miles from the Waikoloa Beach Hotels. The location is centered at latitude 191 53.902'N and longitude 1551 49.883'W. The current designation of the property is TMK 9 6-8-001:066 por., (14.94 acres). 5 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility Figure 1-1 Site location in the northwest portion of Hawaii Island F2-18 DEA Integrated Resource RecoveryTacjljty HSL F2-19 . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1-2 Location Map showing the northwestern half of the Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii Figure 1-3: The proposed Integrated Resource Recovery Facility will be located in the southwest corner of the West Hawaii Concrete quarry. The project site is Imile south of Waikoloa Road. VA DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility i A. RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY "f f +. ROAD AND, WATERLINE EXTENSION (APPROX. 2,500 L.F.) 1,015.00' COMPOST 1� OPS. i N 4' as I r f LOT 3-B-2 243.79 ACRES PROPOSED BEH PROP (APPROX. 15 ACRES) Figure 1-4: Site location within the Waikoloa Quarry. 1.5 SITE HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION EXISTING GREEN WASTE OPS SITE (APPROX. 5 ACRES) F2-20 The project site is within the existing Waikoloa Quarry approximately 1 mile south of the Waikoloa Road. The Waikoloa Quarry has been operated since 1995 and has held a pivotal role in supplying aggregate and concrete to construction and other sites in Hawaii County since that time. Portions of the Quarry have removed more than 40 feet of rock, and the top 5 -feet of of rock has been removed from the project area. The entire parcel covers 243.8 acres, with 219 acres included in the Quarry license. The remainder is buffer area and exclusions. With the exception of the quarry and its support equipment and temporary buildings, the parcel has never been developed; however, the area is included in the Waikoloa Maneuver Area which was used by the Military for training purposes. The U.S. Navy through a licensing agreement with Richard Smart of Parker Ranch acquired approximately 123,000 acres in Waikoloa in December 1943. Portions were used as an artillery firing range on which live ammunition and other explosives were employed, with the remaining acreage utilized for troop maneuvers, and the largest encampment on the island of Hawaii. In September 1946, the property was returned to Parker Ranch. Two munitions clearance efforts were conducted by the military; one in 1946 just prior to the departure of the Marines and the other in 1954 following an accidental detonation of N. DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-21 a dud fuse or shell killing two civilians and seriously injuring three others. The 1954 effort detected as many as 400 dud items including hand grenades, 60 and 81mm mortars, 75mm shells, 105 and 155mm shell fuses, 31mm anti-tank cannon shells, and 4.2 -inch mortars. The quarry and project site are within the Waikoloa Maneuver Area and they are classified as a Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS). The US Army Corps of Engineers conducts environmental response activities at FUDS on behalf of the Department of Defense. The Corps is the lead agency for investigating, reporting, deciding and implementing remedial action within Figure 1-5: Map of the Waikoloa FUDS area. The project site is within area L. the Waikoloa Maneuver Area. The Remedial Action Objective for all FUDS areas is to reduce the explosive hazard to human health and the environment due to the presence of munitions that may remain within the Munitions Response Site (i.e., projectiles, mortars, rockets, rifle grenades and hand grenades) such that future exposures to the explosive hazard can be determined as negligible. The project site is within Area L which is classified as a low risk area, but still within the FUDS, so there is some possibility of finding unexploded ordinance. Before building permits are approved the proponent, landowner or the US Army Corps of Engineers will ensure that the site cleared on unexploded ordinance and other materials remaining from Military training during the 1940s. C DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-22 2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVE The objective of the proposed action is to develop an integrated resource recovery and energy conversion facility that will: 1. Divert MSW from Big Island landfills 2. Recover valuable products from the waste steam, and 3. Utilize recovered materials to generate multiple revenue streams from renewable energy and material sales. The facility will initially be utilized by commercial waste haulers to recover the organic and recyclable resources contained in their collections. The applicant controls a significant portion of waste generated in West Hawaii, and will secure long-term supply contracts with private waste haulers which primarily collect waste from West Hawaii. The gate fee will be kept as low as possible to encourage all waste haulers to take advantage of the facility. This pricing will reduce the operating expenses for the island's commercial haulers while insuring adequate feedstock for the facility and accompanying environmental benefits for the island through advance materials recovery and recycling. At full development the plant will diminish the volume of MSW deposited into the WHSL by up to 70% thereby increasing its useful life. This volume reduction means a proportionate reduction in escaping greenhouse gases such as methane, carbon dioxide, and other volatile organic compounds being produced by existing landfill activities and potentially released to the atmosphere. The positive impacts associated with the proposed action include: • Reducing the release of greenhouse gasses through a substantial increase in the landfill diversion rate. • Increase current recovery rate of recyclable materials, and begin to recover nutrient -rich organic materials for highest and best use. • Generate renewable power and alternative biofuels to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuel. 10 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-23 2.2 SUPPORTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 2.2.1 COUNTY OF HAWAII LAND USE POLICIES The proposed resource recovery facility will be sited on land that is in the state Agriculture District and on land zoned A -5a (agriculture with the minimum building lots size of 5 acres) by the County. The permitted uses in the agricultural zone include all types of agriculture and most accessory to agriculture uses. Waste management activities are referenced only briefly in Section 25-5-72(c)(12): The following uses may be permitted in the A district, provided that a special permit is obtainedfor such use if the building site is located within the State land use agricultural district: (12) public dumps. The land use ordinance was written before recycling and conservation activities gained importance. While the proposed action is not a public dump, the recovery of waste materials is less obtrusive, polluting, visible and permanent form of waste management than is a public dump and is likely to be an approved use with a special permit. Likewise, the State agriculture district is reserved for agriculture and accessory to agriculture uses except those unusual and reasonable uses that may be authorized under a State Special Permit. Each district has a community development plan that documents the priorities and directions for that region of the Big Island. The project area is within the district of South Kohala. The South Kohala Community Development Plan (CDP) has the following objectives: • Be the forum for community input into managing growth and coordinating the delivery of government services to the community, • Create a long-range framework and direction to guide future decision making and Actions, • Translate the broad General Plan statements to specific actions, and • Direct physical development and public improvements within a specific area. Kohala CDP contains General Policy No. 5: Develop guidelines and programs that promote environmental stewardship and the concept of sustainability. Among the specific objectives are to encourage alternative energy, incorporate the concept of sustainability, and support programs that increase domestic food production. The proposed action supports all of the elements of General Policy No. 5 in the South Kohala CDP. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) contained within the General Plan is also an important declaration of permissible land uses around the county. LUPAG designations are usually consistent with the State Land Use Districts. However, the County can also use the LUPAG to indicate where they would like to see State Land Use reclassification changes in the future. For example, the Urban Expansion designation could show where the County thinks lands that are currently in the Agricultural District are appropriate for future reclassification to Urban. 11 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-24 The proposed project site is zoned agriculture but located within an area designated for urban expansion (Figure 2-1). The South Kohala Community Development Plan (November 2008) defines the proposed land use in Urban expansion areas as follows: Allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial, industrial -commercial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. Figure 2-1: Land -use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map showing the area (in red) near the proposed project site. It is located in an area designated for urban expansion in the LUPAG. 12 A INDUSTRIAL" N:M1I1 aP��" Kalrallue Rd - MEDIUM DENSITY j RURAt-- IMPORTANT URBAN ,LANDS 1 .: EXTENSIVEAG. ' 'k PUA t;/ 'A LOW DENSITY dr,CONSERVATION URBAN / RESO NODE + �o URBAN EXPANSION sikole.R % RURq R, IMPORTANT r, / AG LANDS ! / r -• Legend <. .•.... ,. ��` — Malor Roaes SOUTH KOHALA LUPAG '•� y- - CONSERVATION I -OPEN AREA �EX SIVLAO. `•\ - IAL .` I ,_ RURAL J URBAN EXPANSION ' \ LOW DENSITY URRAN \.•! VMEDIUM DENSfTY URBAN 0 RESORT NouE N 0 Q,5 1 . -: 2 .-, . .... � mausPlAL Miles Figure 2-1: Land -use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map showing the area (in red) near the proposed project site. It is located in an area designated for urban expansion in the LUPAG. 12 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-25 The County of Hawaii General Plan contains sections discussing solid waste management and land use guidelines that are relevant to the proposed action. Section 10.5.1 relates to health and sanitation. The General Plan discusses the objectives of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP, discussed her in section 2.2.2). The Plan relates shortcomings in the diversion rate with has never reached the goals contained in the ISWMP. Also relevant to the proposed action is the statistic that only 35% of the operating cost of the County solid waste management system is covered by tip fees, with 65% of the cost coming from the County General Fund. The General Plan calls for public-private cooperation to overcome the difficulties with solid waste management. By diverting 70 percent of incoming waste the proposed Waste Recovery Facility will substantially increase the diversion rate with Hawaii County and do so without using any public funding. The County General Plan also discussed land uses within the agriculture District in Section 14.2.1. Forty -Six percent of the total land area in the County is in the State Agriculture District. It observes: "Included in that area are lands with very high capacity or potential for agriculture as well as those with very low potential for agricultural productivity. " It also states: One key factor in adjusting to the changing socio-economic conditions is the restructuring of our land use regulatory system to distinguish between important agricultural land and other agricultural land. These distinctions should be made in the evaluative criteria for considering zone changes, permitted uses, minimum lots size requirements, and subdivision development standards. The proposed resource recovery facility is sited in a rock quarry that has little or no soil, little or no rainfall, and scarce sources of groundwater. The potential for productive agriculture is quite low, and it is a very good candidate for use other than agriculture. Although waste recovery is not considered an accessory to agriculture, the proposed action will benefit agriculture by providing a convenient and low-cost method of disposing agricultural waste, which will subsequently be converted to energy. They will also produce a substantial amount of nutrient rich compost soil amendment which can be utilized by the agricultural community to reduce the amount of fossil -fuel based fertilizers that are imported. 2.2.2 COUNTY OF HAWAII WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES The County of Hawaii has documented its policies and preferences for solid waste management in The County of Hawaii Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan Update, December 2009 (IRSWMP). The IRSWMP bears a subtitle of The Path to Zero Waste. Following the lead of the State ISWMP the waste management preferences are listed as: 1. Source Reduction, 2. Reuse, 3. Recycling and Bioconversion, 4. Landfilling, and 5. Incineration. 13 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-26 The Integrated Resource Recovery Facility proposed herein falls into category three. The 2009 IRSWMP did not expand upon the 2002 edition that called for a waste reduction technology for East Hawaii. Instead it specifically recommended against a Waste Reduction procurement for East Hawaii. The IRSWMP emphasized two options for East Hawaii waste; build a new landfill in the adjacent quarry, or truck waste to the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill (WHSL). Its major recommendations were to: 1. Implement programs designed to reduce the amount of waste entering the County's landfills, 2. Improve the County's infrastructure to accommodate waste reduction activities such as greenwaste composting and recycling. 3. Implement a Pay -as -you -throw system for residents, 4. Develop detailed cost estimates for a new landfill and trucking waste to WHSL. The Plan states that "Other Big Island projects may develop which would provide the opportunities to process organic materials and convert them into soil products that could be used to support land development... " It concludes that the County should continue to consider long-term options that may have synergy with other County needs and opportunities. Hawaii County adopted Resolution 356-07 which originally paced the County to a path toward zero waste in 2007. The resolution states that the County should "embrace and adopt the principals of zero -waste as a long term goal, and espouses a closed loop between production and consumption. The County commissioned a zero -waste implementation Plan in 2007. As of this date all that could be found was a draft delivered in 2009. The Draft Zero -Waste Implementation Plan urges greater recycling and composting an emphasis on source separation, on -island processing and recovery of waste, and changes in consumer behavior. 2.2.3 COUNTY OF HAWAII ENERGY POLICIES The Hawaii County General Plan is the controlling document for development throughout the county (Hawaii County General Plan, 2005). Energy concerns are referenced throughout the Plan but the overall policy for the county is described below: Hawaii County's Energy Goals and Policies Goals: 1. Strive towards energy self-sufficiency. 2. Establish the Big Island as a demonstration community for the development and use of natural energy resources. 14 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility Policies: F2-27 1. Encourage the development of alternative energy resources. 2. Encourage the development and use of agricultural products and by-products as sources of alternative fuel. 3. Encourage the expansion of energy research industry. 4. Strive to educate the public on new energy technologies and foster attitudes and activities conducive to energy conservation. 5. Ensure a proper balance between the development of alternative energy resources and the preservation of environmental fitness and ecologically significant areas. 6. Strive to assure a sufficient supply of energy to support present and future demands. 7. Provide incentives that will encourage the use of new energy sources and promote energy conservation. 8. Seek funding from both government and private sources for research and development of alternative energy resources. 9. Coordinate energy research and development efforts of both the government and private sectors. 10. Encourage the continuation of studies concerning the development of power that can be distributed at lower costs to consumers. 11. Strive to diversify the energy supply and minimize the environmental impacts associated with energy usage. 12. Continue to encourage the development ofgeothermal resources to meet the energy needs of the County of Hawai 'i. 13. Encourage the use of solar water heating through the continuation of State tax credit programs, through the Building Code, and in County construction. 14. Encourage energy-saving design in the construction of buildings. 15. Support net -metering and other incentives for independent power producers. The proposed action directly supports items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 11 of the County Energy Policy and does so without the use of public funds. 2.2.4 STATE LAND USE POLICIES The State of Hawaii has several overarching policy documents. Chie among these is the Hawaii State Planning Act HRS 226. HRS 226 "The Hawaii State Planning Act" was originally prepared in 1978. The purpose of this chapter was to prepare the Hawaii State Plan which serves as a guide for the future long-range development of the State; identify the goals, objectives, policies, and priorities for the State. HRS 226 identifies the goals, objectives, policies, and priorities for the State; provides a basis for determining priorities for allocating limited resources, such as public funds, services, human 15 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-28 resources, land, energy, water, and other resources; and to establishes a system for coordination of all major state, and county activities. HRS 226 contains 25 specific objectives and policies to guide state legislation and priorities for planning, permitting and funding. Table 2-1 provides an assessment as to the consistency of the proposed action with the objectives and policies contained in The Hawaii State Plan. Table 2-1: Assessment of the consistency with State planning priorities contained in HRS 226. Objective # Objective and policy for: consistent ? 226-5 population NA* 226-6 economy -in general Yes 226-7 economy -agriculture Yes 226-8 economy -visitor industry NA 226-9 economy -federal expenditures NA 226-10 economy -potential growth and innovative Activities Yes 226-10.5 economy -information industry NA physical environment -land-based, shoreline, and marine 226-11 resources Yes physical environment -scenic, natural beauty and historic 226-12 resources NA 226-13 physical environment -land, air and water quality Yes 226-14 facility systems -in general NA 226-15 facility systems -solid and liquid wastes Yes 226-16 facility systems -water Yes 226-17 facility systems -transportation NA 226-18 facility systems -energy Yes 226-18.5 facility systems -telecommunication NA 226-19 socio -cultural advancement -housing NA 226-20 socio -cultural advancement - health NA 226-21 socio -cultural advancement - education NA 226-22 socio -cultural advancement -social services NA 226-23 socio -cultural advancement- leisure NA socio -cultural advancement -individual rights and personal 226-24 wellbeing NA 226-25 socio -cultural advancement - culture NA 226-26 socio -cultural advancement- public safety NA 226-27 socio -cultural advancement -government NA *NA = not applicable to the proposed action The proposed action is consistent with specific objectives and policies in HRS 226 for the economy, the physical environment, and certain facility systems. None of the objectives and 16 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-29 policies contained in the State Planning Act are inconsistent with the proposed action, but many are not applicable. HRS Chapter 205 is the Statue which defines the four different land use districts used by State law, and describes the permissible uses within each district. HRS 205-2 and section 4.5 establish the permissible use of agricultural land. The permissible uses are designed to protect valuable agriculture land from competing uses. Although the proposed action is not accessory to agriculture, it will benefit agriculture, and is within the range of uses that can be authorized by a special use permit. HRS Chapter 344: State Environmental Policy Act. HRS 344 broadly defines the State's environmental policy. Its purpose is to "Conserve the natural resources, so that land, water, mineral, visual, air and other natural resources are protected by controlling pollution, by preserving or augmenting natural resources, and by safeguarding the State's unique natural environmental characteristics in a manner which will foster and promote the general welfare, create and maintain conditions under which humanity and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of the people of Hawaii" [HRS §344-3 (1)]. The proposed action provides a vast improvement in diversion rate, and reduces the release of greenhouse gasses over the existing methods of waste management now utilized in Hawaii County. HRS 205A-2, Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): The entire State is within the Coastal Zone according to Ch. 205-A. Of the 11 CZM initiatives the majority apply to coastal resources which are at its closest point 3.8 miles to the west at Anaehoomalu Bay. The ground conditions at in the vicinity of the project site are not conducive to surface runoff. Rainwater infiltrates rapidly and would intersect the groundwater within 10 feet of the mean sea level, where it would flow toward the west until it emerges along the western shore of Hawaii Island. Table 2-2 lists the objectives and policies of the Coastal Zone Management Act and an assessment of the consistency of the proposed action with those objectives and policies_ Table 2-2: Assessment of the consistency with objectives and policies of the CZMA Objective # Resource Objective and policy consistent 205-A.2 (1) Recreation Provide coastal recreational opportunities accessible to the NA public. Protect, preserve, and, where desirable, restore those natural 205-A.2 (2) Historic and manmade historic and prehistoric resources in the coastal NA zone management area that are significant in Hawaiian and Scenic and American history and culture. Protect, preserve, and, where desirable, restore or improve the yes 205-A.2 (3) open spaces quality of coastal scenic and open space resources. 17 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility *NA is not applicable to the proposed action F2-30 Objective 205-A.2 (3) to preserve and protect scenic open vistas is supported by the proposed action. The project site is not visible from any public right of way. Objective 205-A.2(5) is supported by the proposed action by providing private investment and facilities to provide what is usually an essential public service. These facilities will be used to stimulate the economy of the County in a sustainable manner by providing employment and reducing the amount of local capital that leaves the island to purchase fossil fuels. None of the objectives and policies of the CZMA are inconsistent with the proposed action, but many are not applicable. 2.2.5 STATE ENERGY POLICIES Policy development is a key to achieving the goal of meeting 70% of Hawai'i's energy needs with clean energy by 2030. Statewide, 90% of our energy comes from imported petroleum. By working to develop policies that support energy -efficiency efforts, renewable energy development, and transportation clean energy objectives, the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative is paving the way for Hawaii to reach its clean energy goals. On June 25, 2009, the initiative reached an important milestone when Gov. Linda Lingle signed into law four key energy bills that enhance Hawaii's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The energy agreement, part of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, puts Hawaii on a path to supply 40 percent of electricity needs and 70 percent of overall energy needs (including transportation) using clean sources by 2030, a far-reaching change for a state now over 90 percent dependent on imported fossil fuels. WOR Coastal Protect valuable coastal ecosystems, including reefs, from 205-A.2 (4) disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal NA ecosystems Economic ecosystems. Provide public or private facilities and improvements Yes 205-A.2 (5) use Coastal important to the State's economy in suitable locations. Reduce hazard to life and property from tsunami, storm NA 205-A.2 (6) hazards Managing waves, stream flooding, erosion, subsidence, and pollution. Improve the development review process, communication, 205-A.2 (7) development and public participation in the management of coastal NA Public resources and hazards. Stimulate public awareness, education, and participation in NA 205-A.2 (8) participation Beach coastal management. Protect beaches for public use and recreation. NA 205-A.2 (9) protection Marine Promote the protection, use, and development of marine and NA 205-A.2 (10) resources coastal resources to assure their sustainability. *NA is not applicable to the proposed action F2-30 Objective 205-A.2 (3) to preserve and protect scenic open vistas is supported by the proposed action. The project site is not visible from any public right of way. Objective 205-A.2(5) is supported by the proposed action by providing private investment and facilities to provide what is usually an essential public service. These facilities will be used to stimulate the economy of the County in a sustainable manner by providing employment and reducing the amount of local capital that leaves the island to purchase fossil fuels. None of the objectives and policies of the CZMA are inconsistent with the proposed action, but many are not applicable. 2.2.5 STATE ENERGY POLICIES Policy development is a key to achieving the goal of meeting 70% of Hawai'i's energy needs with clean energy by 2030. Statewide, 90% of our energy comes from imported petroleum. By working to develop policies that support energy -efficiency efforts, renewable energy development, and transportation clean energy objectives, the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative is paving the way for Hawaii to reach its clean energy goals. On June 25, 2009, the initiative reached an important milestone when Gov. Linda Lingle signed into law four key energy bills that enhance Hawaii's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The energy agreement, part of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, puts Hawaii on a path to supply 40 percent of electricity needs and 70 percent of overall energy needs (including transportation) using clean sources by 2030, a far-reaching change for a state now over 90 percent dependent on imported fossil fuels. WOR DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-31 The 2009 Hawaii State Legislature enacted this goal into law by establishing a renewable portfolio standard of 40 percent and an energy efficiency standard of 30 percent by 2030 in Act 155. Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 226-18, "Objectives and policies for facility systems - energy," as amended: "Planning for the State's facility systems with regard to energy shall be directed toward the achievement of the following objectives, giving due consideration to all: 1. Dependable, efficient, and economical statewide energy systems capable of supporting the needs of the people; 2. Increased energy self-sufficiency where the ratio of indigenous to imported energy use is increased; 3. Greater energy security in the face of threats to Hawaii's energy supplies and systems; and 4. Reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions from energy supply and use. On June 8, 2015 Governor David Ige signed House Bill 623 into law; requiring the State's utilities generate 100% of the power needed for local consumption from renewable sources by the year 2045. This statement of resolve is a clear message that renewable energy technologies including waste -to -energy will be part of Hawaii's future. 2.2.6 FEDERAL POLICY Waste conversion is a renewable energy technology because its fuel source, post -recycled MSW, is sustainable and non-depletable. According to the U.S. EPA, waste conversion is a "clean, reliable, renewable source of energy." In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Federal Power Act, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, recognize waste conversion power as renewable. 2.3 FUEL AND POWER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS 2.3.1 CURRENT SOURCES OF POWER GENERATION The US Energy Information Administration produces annual data on consumption of energy in each state. Table 2-1 shows the sources of our statewide energy consumption as of the end of 2013. Table 2-3 Energy Consumption in the State (Trillions of BTUs). Coal Nat. gas Petroleum Hydro Biomass Ethanol Geothem Solar Wind 15.3 3.5 233 0.7 8.2 3.0 2.6 9.3 4.8 5.45% 1.25% 83.1% 0.25% 2.9% 1.1% 0.93% 3.38% 1.7% 19 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-32 USEIA 2013: http://www.eia.govlstatelsedsldata.cfm?incfile—AtatelsedsAep sum/html/sum btu totcb.html&sid HI The data shows the extent of our dependence, with over 83% of our energy derived from imported fossil fuels. This figure is significantly better in Hawaii County due to the 38% of alternative energy produced for utility -line power on the Big Island (DBEDT 2014). According to Johnson et al (2006), per capita demand is lower than the U.S. average across all sectors, and the cost of electricity in Hawaii is among the highest in the nation. The island of Hawaii currently has approximately 300 MW of electricity generation capacity and a peak demand of 189 MW (DBEDT 2014). Geothermal dominates the production of energy from renewable sources, but there are sizeable inputs from solar thermal and run -of -the -river hydropower as well. The Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO), in contrast to its situation 20 years ago, now enjoys an excess of generating capacity. HELCOs generating assets run most efficiently at near full load. This along with its current excess of capacity creates market conditions that are not conducive for independent power producers to sell electricity to the utility. BEH began planning to utilize municipal solid waste for electricity production in 2008, but due to HELCO's excess of generating capacity and extensive PPA process, they concluded that production of alternative fuels was a more appropriate solution. Over 83 million gallons of gasoline and diesel were sold for highway use in Hawaii County during 2013 (DBEDT, 2013). Another 40 million gallons were sold for non -highway and miscellaneous use. A small amount of biodiesel was sold, figures were not readily available, but the applicant believes that it is safe to assume that the market for alternative fuels is relatively large and untapped. Drop in fuels such as RNG/CNG are expected to be readily marketable to public and private consumers including the utility. Fuel production also does not require as much up front capital cost and infrastructure as electricity. Finally, private waste haulers have expressed an interest to switch the collection fleet to run on CNG, making it into a closed loop recycling system. 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LAND FILLING AND WASTE CONVERSION OPERATIONS Disposing of solid waste in modern, managed landfills is the most commonly used waste management technique in the United States. After being placed in a landfill, organic waste (such as paper, food scraps, and yard trimmings) is initially decomposed by aerobic bacteria. After the oxygen has been depleted, the remaining waste is available for consumption by anaerobic bacteria, which break down organic matter into substances such as cellulose, amino acids, and sugars. These substances are further broken down through fermentation into gases and short - chain organic compounds that form the substrates for the growth of methanogenic bacteria. These methane (CH4) producing anaerobic bacteria convert the fermentation products into stabilized organic materials and biogas consisting of approximately 50 percent biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) and 50 percent methane (CH4), by volume. Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere 20 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-33 is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is more than 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100 -year period (EPA, 2016). Methane production typically begins within the first year after the waste is disposed of in a landfill and will continue for 10 to 60 years or longer as the degradable waste decomposes over time. In 2014, landfill CH4 emissions were approximately 181.8 MMT CO2 Eq., representing 25.7 percent of total U.S. anthropogenic methane, the largest single source of CH4 emissions in the United States, followed by enteric fermentation and natural gas drilling and production facilities. Emissions from MSW landfills accounted for approximately 95 percent of total landfill emissions, while industrial landfills accounted for the remainder. The incineration of waste in the United States in 2014 resulted in another 9.7 MMT CO2 Eq. emissions, over half of which (4.9 MMT CO2 Eq.) is attributable to the combustion of plastics. According to the Energy Recovery Council (2008), converting MSW to energy has tremendous potential to reduce climate -changing greenhouse gases. According to a model developed by the EPA, each megawatt -hour (MWh) of electricity generated through conversion of MSW results in a net negative CO2 footprint of 3,636 lbs. of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 -eq). If one considers life cycle carbon budgets, recycling and the conversion of organic waste recover almost pound -for -pound the same amount of greenhouse gasses as are disposed. Conversion systems achieve this net reduction by offsetting fossil sources of electricity, eliminating the methane emissions that would have occurred if the waste were landfilled, and recovering metals that can be recycled (which is much more energy-efficient than using raw materials). Anaerobic digestion converts approximately 1/2 of the biomass into methane which is captured for combustion or upgraded to biofuel, and the other half into CO2 which is released. This is one of the reasons that anaerobic digestion has been utilized for years in countries around the world to treat and stabilize the organic waste fraction of MSW. Advanced thermal conversion technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis have the ability to capture more than 90% of the carbon; however, pyrolysis and gasification technologies using MSW residue as the primary feedstock have not achieved widespread large scale commercial use in the US. The proposed action will virtually eliminate the release of methane from waste processed at the facility. CO2 will still be released to the atmosphere, however, because methane has a CO2 equivalence of 25, its removal by anaerobic digestion results in greenhouse gas emissions 96% less than would be expected from landfilling. 21 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-34 BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC ("BEH") is developing an integrated resource recovery and waste conversion facility on the Big Island of Hawaii. The facility will process Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and other organic materials to produce a renewable feedstock for use in biogas production as well as a post -recycled engineered fuel, suitable for energy conversion operations. The integrated facility design will separate and process the MSW by its material composition, allowing for the production of advanced biofuels for use in the transportation and power generation industry, as well as baseload renewable electricity. The organic recycling operations will also generate value-added agricultural products, such as natural fertilizer and compost -based soil to support the local landscaping and agriculture industry. In addition to providing a variety of energy and agricultural products, the facility will recover otherwise wasted recyclable commodities and divert the majority of the island's waste stream from its landfills. Recycling and waste diversion is a priority for all of the Islands in Hawaii, due to our limited land area and fresh water resources. Biogas production will be accomplished by incorporating anaerobic digestion operations into the integrated facility design. The process will utilize proven technology that has been developed to convert organic materials in a fully enclosed and continuous, biological process to produce an energy -rich biogas. The biogas can be used to generate renewable electricity and upgraded to natural gas -quality bio -methane known as "renewable natural gas" (RNG). RNG can also be compressed to produce bio -CNG and utilized as a low -carbon alternative transportation fuel. The facility will also produce a high calorific engineered fuel in order to maximize the energy value from the post -recycled MSW residue, such as, mixed paper, low -value plastics, textiles, and wood which cannot be utilized in the organic recycling operations. The high heating value of the engineered fuel can then be recovered through thermal energy conversion operations to generate renewable electricity. 3.1 APPEARANCE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY The proposed action includes construction and operation of a materials recovery facility (MRF) for waste processing and conversion and installation of an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility for treatment of organic waste and agricultural materials. The physical MRF facility will consist of a central material handling building (approx. 50,000 SF) along with an administration building. The AD facilities will consist of high -solids plug flow -type digesters, biogas storage and associated gas cleanup equipment. The plug -flow anaerobic digesters are horizontally or vertically—oriented cylinders. Figure 3.1 shows an example of an anaerobic digester facility using a horizontal plug -flow type of digester with its accompanying biogas holding tank and materials 22 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-35 processing building. Figure 3.2 shows an example of an anaerobic digestion facility using a vertical plug -flow type of digester with its accompanying biogas holding tank and material processing building. The location of the facility will be on a portion of TMK # 6-8-001:066, which is nearly 1 -mile south of Waikoloa Road within an existing quarry operated by West Hawaii Concrete. The quarry is currently utilized to remove rock, recycle waste concrete and asphalt, and compost greenwaste. These currently permitted activities are highly compatible and synergistic with the proposed action. The facility cannot be seen from any public right of way because of topography surrounding the site. Figure 3-1 Example of a plug flow anaerobic digester facility: (1) material receiving building; (2) horizontal plug flow digester; (3) biogas storage tank; (4) biogas upgrade system Figure 3-2 Example of a high -solids anaerobic digester facility: (1) material receiving building; (2) vertical plug flow digester; (3) biogas storage tank 23 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility 3.2 OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION F2-36 The resource recovery and conversion technologies proposed by BEH to transform MSW into energy are accomplished in nine steps: 1) Waste receiving; 2) Waste sorting, and removing unsuitable materials; 3) Separation and recovery of recyclable materials; 4) Separation and recovery of heavy "wet" organic materials and light "dry" high heating value materials; 5) Anaerobic digestion of wet organic materials into biogas; 6) Cleaning the biogas 7) On-site energy generation and heat -recovery 8) Upgrading biogas to produce RNG and compressing of the gas to produce bio -CNG 9) Thermal conversion of dry materials for energy generation Additional actions to be included with the proposed development and discussed in the operational assessment include full organic recycling operations that will incorporate production of composted soil amendment products, and farming bioenergy crops, shown schematically in Figure 3-3. �.aorwnss wam isn:�.ascr Figure 3-3: Schematic overview of organic recovery and recycling operations. A process flow drawing depicting the conversion process for the different materials to be processed in the facility is shown in Figure 3-4. This figure shows anticipated volumes at initial development for MSW. The Facility is designed to allow increased quantities of waste materials as needed. The facility may also receive greenwaste, energy crop biomass, sludge, fats, oil and grease, or other source separated organics such as food waste. 24 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-37 Figure 3-4: Process flow for various materials in the integrated resource recovery facility. .i DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility 3.2.1 WASTE RECEIVING F2-38 The conversion process commences when MSW arrives at the facility in waste collection vehicles (WCVs) such as front loaders, roll -off trucks and transfer trailers. The facility will be open approximately three hundred and twelve (312) days per year. It is anticipated that the facility will receive an average range of three to six (3 - 6) WCVs per hour between the hours of 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The WCVs enter the material handling building through a fast operated bay door that automatically opens as the vehicle approaches and closes once it is inside. The WCV will then maneuver within the building as directed to a partitioned receiving area to unload its contents. It will then pull forward to exit the building through a second fast operated bay door. The MSW is discharged and sorted within an enclosed building, onto a steel -impregnated concrete sorting floor (tipping floor). No waste will ever be stored outside of the building or in any uncontrolled area. Waste will not be visible to persons outside the building and fugitive litter such as paper or plastic waste if released from inside the building will be collected daily from the perimeter fence. Waste screening for inappropriate materials will be done for each load entering the tipping floor. Hazardous waste, bulky waste and pure recyclables will be directed to the appropriate facility. Figure 3-5: An example of material processing operations showing waste sorting equipment Resource recovery begins with pre-processing of the waste materials. Pre-processing includes: • Removing bulky, hazardous, and inert material from the incoming MSW. • Sorting and separating recyclables (metals, glass and high-value plastics). • Recovery and separation of the dry high BTU materials (for thermal conversion). • Recovery and separation of the wet organic fraction (for anaerobic digestion). • Collection of residuals for landfill disposal (primarily unusable inert materials). 26 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-39 3.2.2 REMOVAL OF UNSUITABLE MATERIALS AND INITIAL SEPARATION PROCESS After the MSW is deposited on the tipping floor visual inspection and first level pre-sorting is performed manually to remove large and noticeable prohibitive materials (i.e. appliances, structural steel, automobile parts, tires, large metal and steel items, concrete, large rocks, etc.). All extracted items will be placed in roll -off containers for commodity sale, reuse, or disposal depending on the inherent value or lack thereof. A Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program will also be implemented to divert restricted material from the incoming waste stream. The waste that remains after the initial pre-sorting is loaded onto a conveyor that feeds the main processing line, which is also located inside the material handling building and has its own air filtration system to reduce dust generated form processing equipment. The first step is to open all trash bags and reduce the size of large items (such as construction and demolition material). This is performed by a bag opener or primary shredder which will cut the waste material to a uniform size of no more than 10" minus. The waste material will then be transferred via conveyor to a screening process to remove most of the fines, glass, and organics. Screening is accomplished by trommel or disk screen operations to remove the inert and organic material that is less than 3" minus. The separated inert material is transferred to a trailer for landfill disposal. The organic material will be delivered to a temporary holding area (biogas system reception area) to be fed into the anaerobic digestion operations. 3.2.3 SEPARATION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS The recovery of recyclable commodities will be accomplished through a combination of automated and manual sort operations. Metals will be separated from the light and heavy fractions using magnetic and induced current separators. All ferrous metal ("FE") such as tin cans and lids and thin sheet metal, will be automatically separated using an over -band magnet separator. The aluminum and light non-ferrous ("NF") material (i.e. aluminum cans, pie tins, brass and copper) will be recovered by manual sort and an eddy current system. The plastics will be separated by type through both manual recovery as well as automated optical sort equipment, this flexible design allows for increased recovery based on commodity values. 3.2.4 SEPARATION OF LIGHT AND HEAVY MATERIALS After the screening process the remaining waste material will be directed to air separation equipment. This process will separate the dry "light" high caloric material (i.e. paper, fiber, textiles and wood), from the wet or heavy fraction. The light fraction will a suitable engineered fuel and directed to thermal conversion operations to generate electrical power. The wet "heavy" fraction includes organic materials such as food waste, plant materials, manure and waste that is easily digestible by bacterial metabolism and low caloric material such as dirt, rocks and small pieces of glass which will ultimately be transferred to the same transfer trailers as the inert material screened in the first step. 27 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-40 3.2.5 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION The separated organic fraction of the MSW is delivered to the biogas system reception area via belt conveyor or front end loader from the Material Recovery Facility. The organic fraction which is free of metals and large debris greater than 2 inches in size is temporarily held in storage bunkers. Small contaminants such as plastics, stones and glass fragments can remain in the material as they will pass through a plug -flow type digester and can be easily removed during the processing of the final product. The pre-treated material remains in flat bunkers from which the anaerobic digesters are fed continuously for round-the-clock operation. Feeding of the digesters is accomplished by the use of a conveyor chain system and a plug screw conveyor which introduces the material into the digester automatically. The infeed operations can utilize a loader or crane feeding system as shown in Figure 3-6 below. Figure 3-6: Photo on left shows loader infeed; photo on right shows automatic crane delivery. Anaerobic digestion is the degradation of organic matter by microorganisms under anaerobic conditions (absence of oxygen). The principle used for the design of anaerobic digesters is based on ensuring an adequate residence time of suspended solids (solids retention time) inside the reactor that will ensure a consistent yield of removal of the volatile solids (and corresponding COD). The proposed high -solids anaerobic digester design will utilize an approximate 20 to 30 -day hydraulic retention time to ensure adequate treatment of the organic material. Moisture in the form of excess process water or other on-site sources is added to the material fed to the digester as needed in order to maintain optimal dry matter content in the digester. A portion of the treated discharge from the digester is recirculated to the feeding line in order to inoculate the newly - introduced feed with a pre -conditioned biological population for optimal digestion. A schematic depiction of a horizontal and vertical high -solids plug -flow type anaerobic digester is shown is Figure 3.7. WOR DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-41 Feeding tubes Extraction / Dosing screw Pump v f —rGas storage Hydraulic group of the pumps JF6eding pump Figure 3-7 Schematic representations of a horizontal (left) and a vertical (right) plug flow anaerobic digester In the horizontal design, movement of the material from the feed inlet to the digested product outlet of the digester is carried out by a central turning paddle mechanism. The paddle mechanism is designed to prevent settling out of any heavy material while providing optimal mixing and opportunity for biogas escape to the gas collection system. In the vertical design, material is circulated through the digester utilizing a pump and gravity design, which does not require any internal paddle mechanism. In both designs, the digestion process is carried out at thermophilic digestion conditions; temperature range between 99 to 131°F (approx. 37 to 55°C). Heat input for the digestion process is supplied by the onsite CHP heat exchanger. The major part of the organic material is degraded and converted into biogas with a methane content of approximately 60 %, CO2 near 40% and hydrogen sulfide and other minor components making up the remainder. Gas produced is collected in a separate storage tank for use as raw biogas, or further refinement. 3.2.6 SOLID -LIQUID SEPARATION After the 20 to 30 -day residence in the anaerobic digester the material within the digester is converted into a mixture of liquid and solid digestate which is devoid of refractory organic materials and enteric bacteria. If required, the solid and liquid digestate can be separated with a decanter centrifuge located within the reception building. Depending on the infeed material, the anaerobic digester unit selected may require more moisture than is derived from waste, and therefore could be a net consumer of water and effluent liquids. Separated solids will be conveyed to a storage area or transfer trailer for additional composting or land application. Digestate solids can be used to amend the poor soils in order to allow cultivation of areas that are now fallow to produce biomass for digestion. 29 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-42 3.2.7 BIOGAS CLEANING Removal of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from raw biogas is required to eliminate its corrosive effects on machinery and to avoid the production of sulfur dioxide (SO2) during combustion. Biogas purification and upgrading can be achieved a number of ways, including scrubber towers that utilize a bio -catalytic process or incorporating a compression phase combined with membrane filtration. Either process can be implemented to produce bio -methane, also known as Renewable Natural Gas (RNG), which can also be compressed to be used as a transportation fuel (bio -CNG or compressed biogas). Some clean-up technologies produce waste products that require management and disposal. Solid and liquid wastes produced from gas cleanup will be disposed or recycled using licensed contractors in association with permitted disposal facilities. Market forces will determine the percentage of gas that is upgraded to RNG and bio -CNG. Raw biogas from the AD units contains between 400 to 600 BTU per standard cubic foot (scf). After sulfide removal this gas can be used in new biogas generating systems designed by Caterpillar, Jenbacher and others. The term renewable natural gas (RNG) is reserved for biogas that has been stripped of CO2, complex volatile organic compounds, silica, and the remaining hydrogen sulfide. RNG is normally between 930 to 1000 BTU/scf. The higher energy content makes it a suitable substitute for propane or other pipeline gas. RNG can be stored at room temperature and distributed by blowers for movement around the local area, or distributed to a utility system if gas pipelines are available. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is required for transportation fuel so that the required energy content can be stored in a portable container. Transportation fuels will be made available for retail sales to the waste collection fleets and other interested fleet managers. CNG (or bio -CNG) is still a compressed gas and not a liquid fuel. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) must be stored at very low temperatures and is not required for distribution within Hawaii. 30 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-43 Figure 3-8: Diagrammatic description ofgas clean-up process with multiple products. 3.2.8 POWER GENERATION AND ENERGY PRODUCTION A portion of the cleaned biogas can be supplied via biogas blower stations to one or more combined heat and power (CHP) units, which are modified diesel engines capable of performing on raw biogas. The CHP unit can be installed pre -mounted in a special container, including all necessary peripheral equipment, including heat storage tanks and heat distributors. 31 Optlonal CBG (compressed blogas) OEM '" 750 storage hdlfer NO �OYrit7r65Stlr Optlonal gas grld Injentlon Yltro-gertpnxanarMT Injad ons A4tPIItY7 Gasgrid CM-rkh gee stream gag antilyser i i i Gas condltloning 71 -- izkodHual healerr M'11k 1:a.system Opth-111 prntrnntmmnnt Flllatts) Cxgesler vodwr raw h,ogae source — i;: rni ie:r seri •ernprrdl Start _, A -%area Carhan Alr000lad Neal exdierwr Mmpressw �+nlller F2-43 Figure 3-8: Diagrammatic description ofgas clean-up process with multiple products. 3.2.8 POWER GENERATION AND ENERGY PRODUCTION A portion of the cleaned biogas can be supplied via biogas blower stations to one or more combined heat and power (CHP) units, which are modified diesel engines capable of performing on raw biogas. The CHP unit can be installed pre -mounted in a special container, including all necessary peripheral equipment, including heat storage tanks and heat distributors. 31 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-44 Figure 3-9: Example: CHP unit in Container with heat Recovery and Cooling System The exhaust gasses will be cleaned by air pollution control equipment before being released. Regulated pollutants such as nitrous oxide (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO) and minor component such as volatile organic compounds (VOC) generated by these engines are anticipated to be well below the limits established under the Clean Air Act. It is likely that these units will require a permit to operate under the Clean Air Act. 3.2.9 EMERGENCY FLARE A biogas flare will be installed as an emergency consumer of biogas to avoid methane emissions to the environment in case of a breakdown of the CHP unit or other downstream production. The capacity of the biogas flare should be a minimum 120 % of the expected biogas production. The flare height is approximately 50 ft. above ground level. During normal operations it will have only a pilot light burning. In the event of a shutdown within the plant the flare will activate to prevent the release of methane. No actual flame would be visible. Figure 3-10: An example of the emergency flare configuration 32 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-45 3.2.10. THERMAL CONVERSION The facility will also produce a smaller amount of high calorific engineered fuel in order to maximize the energy value from the post -recycled MSW residue, such as, mixed paper, low - value plastics, textiles, and wood which cannot be utilized in the anaerobic digestion operations. The high heating value of the post -recycled engineered fuel (PREF) can then be recovered through thermal energy conversion operations to generate baseload renewable electricity. The integrated project design provides for the opportunity to incorporate modular thermal conversion units on-site to generate auxiliary electrical power. The proposed thermal conversion (TC) system is a distributed -scale conversion technology capable of processing a broad range of feedstocks. The modular design allows for expandability while maintaining a small efficient footprint. High-temperature TC operations are conducted within enclosed chambers with limited or no oxygen in order to convert solid materials into a combustible gas. The high -BTU gas can be utilized in standard steam boilers or gas generator configurations. Alternatively, thermal conversion may be designed to produce pyrolysis oils, which could also displace diesel fuel in the generators and other machinery and equipment used to power the facility. Distribution of electrical power to other tenants on or near the site are planned. Electrical power sales and distribution to the Hawaii Island utility is possible by tying into power lines in a nearby transmission corridor, but new electrical infrastructure to connect to the transmission lines would be required. The applicant may also have the option to sell this PREF to an off-site energy producer to support other alternative energy initiatives. By manufacturing a locally sourced fuel product from waste material, the project may be able to displace imported fuel oil required for power generation for dedicated loads or to support local micro -grid development. 3.2.11 COMPOSTING Anaerobic digestion of organic wastes uses bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms to produce methane in conditions where there is no oxygen. This process kills enteric bacteria and other disease vectors, and reduces the volume of waste by around 25%. After 20 to 30 days of digestion without oxygen the digestate is moved to a composting facility where a completely different set of bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms further break down organic materials into bioavailable plant nutrients. As the organic materials exist the digester the moisture content is adjusted, greenwaste chips or similar bulking agents are mixed into the compost materials and they are place in windrows using specialized composting equipment. Each windrow is over 100 feet long 8-9 feet high and around 16 -feet wide at the base. Windrows are kept aerated by turning them at least 5 times over the course of the next 21 days. During that period internal windrow temperatures will be maintained in excess of 55 -degrees Celsius for more than 15 days. 33 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-46 Once again this composting process is effective in killing enteric bacteria, such as e -coli and other disease vectors. At the end of this process the finished compost will be tested by batch to ensure pathogen removal and sold as soil amendment for landscape and agricultural use. 3.2.12 ALTERNATIVE USES OF DIGESTATE Stabilized organic materials such as digestate from this facility have value as post recycled engineered fuel (PREF). Composting may be deferred if a market is identified for PREF. Also the digestate and greenwaste materials may have value as feed for livestock after further processing. BEH has identified the highest and best use of organic waste as feedstock for production of renewable natural gas (RNG), and to this end will direct as much of the incoming materials as possible toward that goal. Secondary markets such as soil amendment may be used to maximize waste diversion and reuse of value added products as necessary to support production of RNG. 3.2.13 SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND OUTPUTS FROM THE RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY The initial design volume for the proposed action is approximately 100,000 tons per year (TPY), or 320 tons per day (TPD) of incoming mixed materials. This feedstock material will include; municipal solid waste (MSW), construction and demolition waste (C&D), source separated organics (SSO), green waste, biomass and other organic material. The majority of the feedstock, 87,000 TPY (280 TPD) is composed of MSW and C&D waste. The estimated material composition of this feedstock consists of 10% recyclables (9,200 TPY), 39% organic fraction (34,500 TPY), 22% light fraction (19,800 TPY), and 29% inert landfill residue (23,500 TPY). The remainder of the incoming feedstock, 13,000 TPY is composed of mixed organic materials. The recovered recyclable commodities (30 TPD) of glass, metal and plastic will be delivered to local recycling brokers and buyers. The organic waste fraction (I 10 TPD) will be combined with the mixed organic materials (40 TPD) and processed through anaerobic digestion and compost operations to produce energy -rich biogas and nutrient -rich soil amendment material. At this design load the biogas will generate approximately 11 MMBTU per hour, which is equivalent to 2,000 diesel gallon equivalents per day. The post -digester stabilized organic material (digestate) can be mixed with shredded green waste to produce high-quality compost (105 TPD). The light waste fraction (63 TPD) consisting of high -heating value materials can be used for on-site power generation through thermal conversion operations or sold for off-site energy production. On-site energy conversion would generate approximately 2,000 kWh/day of renewable electric power and produce an estimated 20% ash and char residue to be landfilled (12 TPD). In addition to the 29% landfill residue (75 TPD) that is separated during the waste pre-processing operations; the organic/compost operations will produce another 11 TPD on inert landfill material. Additional 34 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-47 minor waste streams will be produced in air, wastewater and filtration residue. These will also be disposed at WHSL. 3.2.14 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION BEH intends to use end products of anaerobic digestion (AD) to support the local farming efforts on the dry side of the Island. Land -applied solid digestate will increase local recycling of carbon, energy, and nutrients. Solid digestate has been marketed for years as both a compost -based agricultural product and a commercial home -and -garden soil amendment product. The proposed operations may add shredded green waste material from collections to the digestate if soil improvement requires soil structural changes for improved growing conditions. In environments similar to the dry side of Waimea, there is considerable value in both the water and inorganic nutrients. Nutrients within the digestate are largely sufficient to offset the use of fossil fuel based chemical fertilizers, as well as associated environmental impacts caused by such fertilizers. The proposed action includes use of both digestate fractions to increase agricultural production in the vicinity of the project site. Soils over a very large area in the project vicinity are classified as very poor (Class E) by the University of Hawaii Land Study Bureau (See Section 5.1.2). This classification is based on the soil productivity, availability of water, and suitability for tilling and cultivation. None of these criteria are favorable. Much of the land surrounding the proposed project site is not suitable for agriculture, and only poorly suited for extensive grazing operations. The use of digestate for soil improvements could open normally unsuitable areas for crops including cattle feed, biomass, sugarcane and other processed food production where similar productivity problems exist. 3.3 FINANCIAL DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE In 2009, the Hawaii legislature approved legislation authorizing the issuance of up to one - hundred million dollars in special purpose revenue bonds ("SPRB") to assist BEH in the development of a waste conversion facility in Hawaii. BEH intends to utilize the SPRB to finance eighty percent (80%) of the capital costs to develop the property, construct the facility, purchase and install the necessary equipment for the cogeneration plant. The remaining twenty percent (20%) of the project cost will be funded with equity contribution by the developer. BEH intends to submit its LOI to the Department of Budget and Finance in the second quarter of 2016. The application and review procedures including preparation of due diligence documents may take up to one year to complete. The SPRB therefore will be put to sale in the first or second quarter of 2017. The sale of the bonds may be made to the public through an investment banker, or directly to a financial institution. As mentioned above, the remaining equity required funding the balance of the cost and expenses will be paid through additional capital contributions made by the project developer. 35 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-48 3.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS A preliminary list of the major permits and approvals required for completion of the project include: Land Lease: BEH has executed a Lease Option Agreement with WQJ2008 Investment, LLC and the Ukumehame Quarry Company LP tenants in common to lease a 14.99 -acre portion within the 244 -acre parcel. The landowners will subdivide the BEH lease area into a second parcel. Subdivision: An application to subdivide a 14.99 -acre portion of parcel 6-8-001:066 will be prepared and submitted to the County. The subdivision will produce a new parcel that remains under the same ownership, but will be leased to the proponent and used for the proposed action. Special Permit from County of Hawaii: The County of Hawaii's zoning code allows waste treatment facilities only on industrial zoned (MG) parcels. The development of a resource recovery facility on agricultural lands requires a Special Permit from the Hawaii County Zoning Commission. Language of the ordinance is contained in the Zoning Commission Rule 6. Zoning Commission Rule Paragraph 6-2 states: Any person who desires to use its land within a State Land Use agricultural or rural district other than for an agricultural or rural use may petition the Commission for permission to use its land in the manner desired. The Commission may grant the Special Permit if the proposed use: (a) Is an unusual and reasonable use of land situated within the Agricultural or Rural District, whichever the case may be; and (b) Would promote the effectiveness and objectives of Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended. The Planning Commission shall also consider the criteria listed under section 6.b(3) (5) (A -G), which are: A. Such use shall not be contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by the Land Use Law and Regulations; B. The desired use shall not adversely affect surrounding properties; C. Such use shall not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, school improvements and police and fire protection; D. Unusual conditions, trends, and needs have arisen since the district boundaries and regulations were established; E. The land upon which the proposed uses sought is unsuited for the uses permitted within the district; 36 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-49 F. The proposed use will not substantially alter or change the essential character of the land and present use; and G. The request will not be contrary to the General Plan and official Community Development Plan and other documents such as Design Plans. The proposed action is consistent with the objectives and criteria for Special Use Permits. It will be built and operated on the same parcel now having a Special Use Permit (Permit No. 833 (SP92-381 as amended) granted to West Hawaii Concrete for quarry and other activities. The State Land Use Commission has recommended that the 14.99 -acre subject parcel be withdrawn by amendment to Special Use Permit SP92-381 at such time that the subdivision is completed. Because of the size of the proposed new parcel, jurisdiction would remain with the County Planning Commission. The Special Permit could be granted upon withdrawal of the portion of land from the State Special Use Permit SP 92-381. Solid Waste Management Permit: All solid waste management facilities in the State are required to obtain a solid waste management permit from the Hawaii Department of Health. Initial discussions with the appropriate personnel in DOH have begun to support the HEPA process. RCRA Small Quantity Generator Permit: The EPA requires businesses and individuals who regularly generate less than 1,OOOkg per month of hazardous wastes or less than 10 KG of extremely hazardous waste to register as a small quantity generator. Although the facility will not accept any hazardous materials for thermal conversion, it is likely that some household hazardous wastes will get through the inspections and be left with the operator. A RCRA small quantity generators permit will be obtained in the event that hazardous materials are left at the facility. Clean Air Permit: The facility will require a permit to operate under the Clean Air Act. The type of Air permit whether covered or non -covered is yet to be determined; however, the process for obtaining an air permit has begun and is likely to continue until after publication of the DEA. Initial discussions with the Hawaii Department of Health Clean Air Branch have begun as part of the HEPA process. NPDES Permit: Grading of the facility will ultimately cover more than one acre of land. A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Form C construction stormwater permit will be required along with a notice of Intent for general coverage under the NPDES program. This permit will be obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health -prior to the start of construction. Initial discussions with the Clean Water Branch of DOH have begun to support the HEPA process. Grading/Building Permits: Building, electrical, plumbing and grading permits will be obtained from the County of Hawaii at such time as the final designs are completed. 37 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-50 4.1 ALTERNATE TECHNOLOGIES In 2014, the United States generated about 4,093 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity US Energy Information Administration, 2015). About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum). Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014: • Coal = 39% • Natural gas = 27% • Nuclear= 19% • Hydropower = 6% • Other renewables = 7% o Biomass = 1.7% o Geothermal = 0.4% o Solar= 0.4% o Wind = 4.4% • Petroleum= I% • Other gases < I% By contrast over 70% of electric generation in Hawaii is from petroleum. 13.6% was from coal; 5% from wind, and around 3% each from biomass, solar and geothermal (Hawaii State Databook 2013). Energy used for transportation tells quite a different story. Americans burn 13 million barrels of petroleum fuels per day. 98% of transportation is fueled by petroleum, with the vast majority of the remaining 2% taken up by ethanol. Only around 3200 of the 1.2 million vehicles registered in Hawaii are electric. Other alternative fuels now in development include methanol, fossil propane, hydrogen and methane. When used for transportation methane is called Compressed natural gas (CNG) or when is from a renewable source it is renewable natural gas (RNG). CNG/RNG vehicles emit 85-90 percent less carbon monoxide, 10-20 percent less carbon dioxide, and 90 percent fewer reactive non - methane hydrocarbons than gasoline -powered vehicles. Reactive hydrocarbon emissions produce ozone, one of the components of smog that causes respiratory problems. These favorable emission characteristics result because natural gas is 25 percent hydrogen by weight; the only combustion product of hydrogen is water vapor. Natural gas is usually placed in pressurized tanks when used as a transportation fuel. Even compressed to 2,400-3,600 pounds per square MR DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-51 inch (psi), it still has only about one-third as much energy per gallon as gasoline, requiring extra tanks to be installed (US Department of Energy 2014). Biomass power in Hawaii has historically centered on waste materials that would represent a cost or environmental problem if not used for energy. The economics of most biomass technologies rely on a tipping fee. Examples include H -Power and AES Power in Honolulu that burn MSW and tires respectively. The Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar (HC&S) Mill on Maui is the last remaining sugar mill in the State which uses bagasse that would otherwise be a significant disposal problem. The historical relationship between biomass power and waste products is long and closely tied; but historically for production of electric power, not transportation fuels. Hawaii's utilities, except for Kauai, are publicly traded monopolies. The primary responsibility of their directors, by law, is to benefit the shareholders. For the Utilities, purchasing power from independent power producers does not serve that objective. While fuels are also regulated by the PUC it will be difficult for the dominant suppliers to build the barriers to entry that are equivalent to the electric utilities. Many entities, including Hawaii Gas and the HEI utilities have embraced the concept of fossil natural gas as a bridge fuel as a primary supplement to liquid petroleum fuels until such time as hydrogen or other clean renewable fuels become practical. RNG is a clean -burning carbon neutral fuel. RNG can be used in the same way as traditional natural gas, to heat water, cook food and warm our homes and businesses. It's part of our clean energy future. Securing economic growth and protecting the environment, long viewed as competing ends, are increasingly seen as interdependent. As a result, efforts to pursue these ends through both government policy and private investment have, in part, focused on the role that renewable natural gas can play in achieving the critical objectives of a clean energy economy: reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, creating sustainable jobs and increasing the diversity of the domestic energy supply portfolio, thereby enhancing America's energy security. At its full potential, RNG could well be the most reliable and the most cost-effective renewable energy source. It's clean and efficient. When burned for energy, renewable natural gas has the same low -carbon properties as natural gas, but with an added unique benefit. When captured for conversion into renewable gas, methane that would otherwise have entered directly into the atmosphere is combusted, resulting in the release of water vapor and a smaller amount of CO2, which is a much less harmful GHG. The heat trapping (or greenhouse) effect resulting from burned methane is up to 20 times less potent than that resulting from directly released methane. Capturing these gases for renewable natural gas production is a positive step toward climate change mitigation. Renewable natural gas can be used directly at the site of production; in residential, commercial and industrial applications; for electricity generation or for transportation in the form of compressed natural gas; or even for liquefied natural gas. 39 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility Benefits of Renewable Natural Gas include: F2-52 • Reduction in Direct Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Renewable gas reduces GHG emissions by making use of a renewable fuel. This scenario represents recycling the carbon already circulating in the environment. As a transportation fuel, renewable gas produces more than 25 percent less GHG emissions than gasoline. The biogas potential from all feasible sources would be equivalent to 10 billion gallons of gasoline per year, reducing GHG production by the equivalent of 580 million tons of CO2. • Improved Waste Management. Collecting and processing animal waste from agricultural activities prevents run-off into local waterways and reduces groundwater contamination. • It represents a new revenue source for American farmers. Renewable gas creates an opportunity for dairy, hog and poultry farmers to convert waste into a valuable supplementary revenue source. • Increased domestic energy production. Renewable gas provides improved energy and national security by increasing the domestic production of renewable energy that could replace foreign produced transportation fuels such as oil. • Innovative Domestic Job Creation. As the renewable natural gas industry continues to grow, increasing production leads to the development and deployment of new technologies, while creating new green jobs for Americans. Currently, renewable natural gas that is used directly for electricity generation receives a production tax credit (PTC), but there are no incentives for renewable gas production directed towards non -electricity producing applications. There are many other tax incentives for various renewable energy sources and technologies. An investment tax credit (ITC) for renewable gas for direct use would create a level playing field for investors and help generate a clean and renewable resource from products that are currently emitting greenhouse gas emissions. BEH has long standing relationships with local waste management companies currently operating collection services throughout the Big Island and Maui. The objective of the proposed action is to develop a more efficient method of waste management which reduces environmental impacts and waste management cost in their area of operation. Intermittent sources are not considered a suitable alternative due to the excess capacity that now exists in the generating infrastructure. Replacement of stable power sources with intermittent sources may be difficult for HELCO to justify on the basis of grid stability. Methods that do not utilize waste are also not considered because the proponents' primary objective is to improve current waste management practices. Alternatives to the proposed action must be currently available waste conversion technologies with potential to: • Produce a reliable source of energy or fuels, • Reduce environmental impacts associated with traditional waste disposal, and .o DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-53 • Stimulate the local economy through reduction in imports, increased local production, and maintaining Hawaii's primary asset, its environment. Several technologies can be identified to meet the criteria for reliability and reduction of imports. Geothermal Energy: A principle asset of Hawaii County is its plentiful supply of geothermal heat. At its ultimate development geothermal energy may supply a substantial fraction of the line power required to run the County, and with interisland cable possibly the entire State. Geothermal power is cost effective and Rankine cycle technologies create virtually no emissions during normal operations. Geothermal energy can be produced at competitive rates and is a well demonstrated technology. Although geothermal energy could and should be developed, it does not satisfy the criteria on reducing the environmental impacts of traditional waste disposal, and will receive no further consideration in this assessment. Incineration: Hawaii has only recently been so dependent on fossil fuels due to the sugar industry, which supplied almost half of the electricity needed in the State at its peak. All of it was derived from waste bagasse which would otherwise be a disposal problem. Incineration of biomass is still done at the HC&S mill on Maui, which is the last operating sugar mill in Hawaii. Incineration of municipal solid waste for many years was the cheapest form of solid waste management. The Clean Air Act of 1972 placed restrictions on emissions from incinerators and other sources of air pollution. The cost of operating air pollution control equipment dramatically increased the cost of incineration, which surpassed landfilling as the most economical method for disposing waste. Incineration of MSW is an important component of the waste management strategy for Oahu. Incoming waste is prepared and cleaned of non-processable and non -burnable materials through a series of conveyors and shredders, then combusted in furnaces at temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit to reduced organic materials to an inert ash residue that is only 10 percent of its original volume. As a result of the combustion process, heat is released and transferred to the boiler tube surfaces where water inside the tubes is turned into high pressure steam. The steam is then sent to a turbine/generator where mechanical energy is converted to electricity. Flue gases pass through a state-of-the-art pollution control system before being released through the stack. The facility operates two 854 tons -per -day (RDF) water wall furnaces and one 900 ton -per -day mass burn unit. The refuse capacity is 3,000 tons per day. Up to 90 megawatts of electricity is generated and sold to Hawaiian Electric Company. H -Power supplies up to 9% of the electric demand for Oahu. Incineration may be an acceptable alternative to the proposed action or for the dry organic component of incoming waste. If the proponent chose to incinerate this dry organic material, it would consist of between 94 and 150 tons per day of sorted wood paper, textile and dried digestate. Energy production from incineration would be similar to that discussed in Chapter 3.2.10. 41 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-54 Incineration of MSW meets the three criteria for consideration in this assessment. This technology is well demonstrated and reliable source of electric energy. It reduces the environmental impacts of landfilling by converting organic materials into CO2 rather than methane (CH4). Methane, as a greenhouse gas, is 23 times more damaging to the atmosphere than an equivalent amount of CO2. It allows for greater recovery of recyclable materials, and displaces imported petroleum, and would require local labor to operate. Despite its advantages incineration of waste is not being considered in the proposed action due the controversial nature of the practice and likely public opposition. Pyrolysis/Gasification: Gasification is a term used for a process similar to combustion but with limited or no oxygen so that organic materials are not completely oxidized (burned) but instead they are dissociated into their gaseous components (gasification), or reduced to long -chain hydrocarbons (pyrolysis). One of the big differences between gasification and incineration is that a gasifier has no stack and very few emissions because the gasses produced are the most valuable component and they are captured and refined into gaseous or (through the Fischer-Tropsch process) liquid fuels. Gasification of coal or biomass begins with long -chain organic molecules and ends with the production of hydrogen gas, methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water, and minor components as shown in Figure 4-1. The chemistry of gasification is quite complex and is accomplished through a series of physical transformations and chemical reactions within the gasifier. Some of the major chemical reactions are shown in the diagram below. In a gasifier, the carbonaceous feedstock undergoes several different processes and/or reactions: • Dehydration — Any free water content of the feedstock evaporates, leaving dry material and evolving water vapor which may enter into later chemical reactions. • Pyrolysis — This occurs as the feedstock is exposed to rising temperature in the gasifier. Devolatization and breaking of the weaker chemical bonds occurs, releasing volatile gases such as tar vapors, methane, and hydrogen, along with producing a high molecular weight char which will undergo gasification reactions. • Combustion — The volatile products and some of the char react with limited oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and in doing so, provide the heat needed for subsequent gasification reactions. • Gasification — The remaining char reacts with CO2 and steam to produce CO and hydrogen (1-12). • Water -gas -shift and methanation — These are separate reversible gas phase reactions taking place simultaneously based on gasifier conditions. These are minor reactions which play a small role within in the gasifier. Depending on the desired product, the syngas may undergo further water -gas shift and methanation processing downstream from the gasifiers. 42 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility Gasification with Oxygen C+1t202' CO Gasifier Gas Combustion with Oxygen Composition 4 0— C + 02 — CO2 (Vol i%) Gasification with Carbon Dioxide H2 25-30 C + CO2 •- + 2CO CO 30-60 CO2 5-15 Gasification with Steam H2O 2-30 !Jyge C + H2O a--- CO + H2 CH{ 0 - 5 Gasification with Hydrogen H2S 0.2-1 C + 2H2 •--• CHi CDS 0-0.1 N2 0.5-4 Water -Gas Shift Ar 0.2-1 Z _ CO + H2O •--•H2 + CO2 NH3 + HCN 0 - 0.3 Methanat ion AshtSlaglPM CO + 3H2 •-- ■ CH4 + H2O F2-55 Figure 4-1: Schematic representation of the chemical reactions and products ofgasification. Thermal technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis will play a vital role in the future of waste management and energy production as they have in the past. Gasification of coal began in the early 1900s. Coal gasification and conversion to synthetic fuels was developed in Germany by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923. During World War II, Germany used synthetic oil manufacturing to produce substitute oil products by using the Fischer–Tropsch process. Today, worldwide commercial synthetic fuels plant capacity is over 240,000 barrels per day, including gasification/Fischer Tropsch plants in South Africa, Qatar, and Malaysia. The leading company in the commercialization of synthetic fuel is Sasol, a company based in South Africa. Sasol operates the world's only commercial Fischer Tropsch coal -to -liquids facility with a capacity of 150,000 barrels per day (24,000 m3/d). Numerous large projects have also been built in China and Qatar. Biomass gasification has been demonstrated at smaller scales by European and American companies and are successfully operating around the world. The majority of biomass gasification plants use the producer gas for direct firing of boilers or turbine generators. Clean- up of syngas can be done using the Fischer-Tropsch method, although the catalysts are somewhat expensive particularly on a smaller scale. Biomass gasification requires a very stable internal environment to produce consistent quality syngas. Lumber mills in the Pacific Northwest and Canada have successfully demonstrated the use of sawdust for gasification, but to date, successful gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW) has not been demonstrated. The difficulty associated with gasification of MSW is the heterogeneity of the incoming fuel which results in an unstable reaction within the gasifier. This may be resolved through pre-treatment, 43 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-56 sorting or drying waste as well as artful blending; however, gasification of MSW is not well demonstrated and not nearly as reliable as anaerobic digestion. The major components of the proposed action will involve preparation of waste for anaerobic digestions, but the proposed action is likely to include some form of gasification or pyrolysis for the residual light fraction of organic waste entering the facility. Using the sorted, dried, and blended light fraction will reduce variations introduced from infeed variations. Gasification technologies meet the three criteria for consideration in this assessment. It reduces the environmental impacts of landfilling by converting organic materials into usable gas or liquid fuels. It allows for greater recovery of recyclable materials, and displaces imported petroleum, and would require local labor to operate. On this basis pyrolysis/gasification cannot be eliminated from further consideration, and is likely to be a component of the proposed resource recovery effort at the project site. Pyrolysis and gasification differ in one significant area from incineration; that is the gasses are largely captured and converted to fuel rather than discharged to the atmosphere. 4.2 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS Three alternative locations were analyzed for suitability. The criteria for assessing the site selection are: • Sufficient available land and water, • Proximity to the source of waste generation, • Proximity to sensitive areas, • Potential impacts to view planes, and • Adequate access and egress. The site selection criteria are not weighted but the first criterion is considered a project killer; and as a result, no sites without at least 10 acres of land and ability to obtain water for agricultural and industrial uses are considered. For this document we assume that the center of generation is at the intersection of Alii Drive and Kuakini Highway in Kailua Kona. The haul distance between the collection and disposal points has a significant effect on the cost of doing business as well as social and environmental impacts associated with heavy truck traffic and emissions. The proximity of this facility to sensitive areas may have influence on both environmental quality and quality of life issues. Sensitive areas can include those frequented by threatened and endangered species, a scenic natural area, any unique or irreplaceable site from a cultural or historical perspective, or sensitivity can be defined as a location with competing land uses that may be impacted by the proposed development. DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-57 The view planes along the coastline of the Big Island are quite important to residents and visitors alike. Locations that interfere with the viewplane or scenic vistas in West Hawaii would be considered to have a significant impact. The adequacy of access and egress from the facility is important to safety of BEH drivers and other highway users as well as the cost of development. A location that requires significant infrastructure development is likely to increase the cost of construction to the extent that it would impact the economics of the proposed action. 4.2.1 THE PROPOSED LOCATION Siting for resource recovery facilities in Hawaii has been challenging for both municipal and private developers. BEH has been actively seeking suitable locations for their facility since 2008. The proposed action is to co -locate the facility with the West Hawaii Concrete quarry in Waikoloa. The site was chosen over approximately 4 others because of its location and physical characteristics. The West Hawaii Concrete (WHC) site is located off of Waikoloa Road 2.7 miles east of its origin at Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. The site is 3 miles by road to Waikoloa Village (2.8 miles overland); 6.6 miles by road to the WHSL (3 miles overland); 9.7 miles west of the intersection with Mamalahoa Highway; 20 miles southwest of Waimea and 28 miles north of Kailua-Kona. Its nearest residential neighbor is in Waikoloa approximately 2.8 miles to the north, and The Waikoloa resort is 3.5 miles to the east. The parcel is isolated from Waikoloa Road by a paved dedicated access road 3/4 of a mile. The project site and existing quarry and waste management uses are not visible from any developed parcel. Similar and complementary land -use activities are already in-place, including quarry operation, rock crushers, and a greenwaste recycling area. M1 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-58 Figure 4-2: Location Map showing Alternative Waikoloa Quarry site in relation to Waikoloa Village, Waikoloa Resort and the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill. The area is and with little rainfall and no soil. Local topography is uneven, which reduces the ability to observe the area from a distance. The quarry operations have been ongoing since 1996, and are authorized under Special Permit No. 833 (92-381). The Waikoloa Quarry location has both strong points. • Land area is more than adequate • Water is supplied by an existing 6 -inch force main; • It is 28.5 miles from the center of waste generation, • There are no nearby sensitive areas or receptors, • There are no impacts to view planes, and the site is quite far from any other development, • Access and egress from Waikoloa Road is adequate to handle traffic associated with the facility. 4.2.2 ALTERNATE LOCATION NO. 1: WAIMEA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE Alternate site 1 is adjacent to the Waimea Wastewater Treatment Plant at 68-1650 Mamalahoa Highway in Kamuela, Hawaii. (Figure 1-1). The current designation of the property is TMK # .o DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-59 6-8-001:070, (14.94 acres). The parcel is one mile southwest of the Waimea airport, 2 miles south of the urban areas of Waimea, and 6.5 miles northeast of Waikoloa as the crow flies. The proposed location scores well on many points. • It has the adequate amount of land available within a suitable parcel. • It is 36 miles from the center of waste generation which is longer than some of the other potential locations, but centrally located to allow for Island -wide growth. • It is not close to any known sensitive area, • It is protected from view from almost all angles, and • It has an existing access and egress easement through Parker Ranch land. Alternate site No 1 would be a suitable location for the proposed action. Parker Ranch has extended a lease offer to BEH for lease of the property for the purpose of resource recovery activities, and BEH has negotiated to acquire the property. The terms of the lease are not as favorable as those for the proposed action and the site is further from the center of generation than the selected site resulting is a higher cost of operation. Environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are similar between the sites, except that Alternative 1 is slightly more visible from public right of ways, closer to residential areas and would require more improvements. These factors make the proposed location preferable to Alternative 1. Figure 4-3: Detailed location of Alternate I site in relation to Waimea Town and the Waimea- Kohala Airport. The boundary is located 2000 feet west of Mamalahoa Highway. 47 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-60 Figure 4-4: Site Map of the Facility showing the alternate location parcel boundaries and existing wastewater treatment infrastructure. The Integrated Resource Recovery Facility site plans are superimposed on the photograph adjacent to the south side of the existing infrastructure. 4.2.3 ALTERNATE SITE 2: THE NATURAL ENERGY LABORATORY OF HAWAII (NELHA) The applicant intended to place the facility at the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii as early as 2008. A term sheet was developed with the NELHA Board of Directors and a lease agreement was pending approval of an EIS. In 2010 the EIS Preparation Notice was published, but by 2011 it became clear that NELHA did not have funds or authorization to allow for an access road to be constructed. The applicant began negotiations with the State Department of Transportation to install a new site access road, but was informed that the process for planning, design and authorization for access to the site would take many years. NELHA offered land that was not accessible during any reasonable period for business development, and for this reason efforts to place the facility at this site have been put on hold, pending guaranteed accessibility approvals and construction of necessary access roads. Figure 4-5 shows the site layout proposed for NELHA. MR DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility N E 6,HA AERIAL SITE PLAN F2-61 Figure 4-5: Proposed NELHA alternative 2 site showing the proposed access point from Kaahumanu Highway. The parcel offered by NELHA has no existing access and none can be derived within a reasonable period. 4.2.4 ALTERNATIVE SITE 3: WEST HAWAII SANITARY LANDFILL The County of Hawaii owns the WHSL, which is operated under a contract with Waste Management of Hawaii. The site opened in 1993 and is approximately 300 acres, of which 149 acres are permitted for landfill activities. The landfill accepts approximately 360 tons per day or 130,000 tons per year. The estimated life of West Hawaii Landfill is 55 years, based on current tonnage. Waste collected by west side commercial haulers is now disposed at this location. Tipping fees paid by commercial users are now set at $85/ton, a cost that is passed on to the consumer (http://www.hawaiizerowaste.org/facilities/). The county has developed the non -landfill portions of the site for greenwaste composting, metal recycling, disaster debris management, and for alternative waste processing technologies. Either of these areas would be suitable for the proposed action. Lease acquisition for non -county development would be through a solicitation and bid process originated by the County Department of Environmental Management. The WHSL currently has no access to potable water. Industrial brackish water could be derived from shallow wells installed on the site; however, anaerobic digestion is quite sensitive to salts .• DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-62 and makeup water for the AD processing would have to be trucked in to the site at some considerable expense. The WHSL is approximately 24 miles north of Kailua-Kona, the source of the majority of waste. Alternative location No. 3 scores well on some points. • It has the adequate amount of land available within a suitable parcel. • At 24 miles from the center of waste generation it is the least haul distance • It is close to the Waikoloa Resort, and any new waste management development at the WHSL site would generate resistance from the Waikoloa and the Kona Coast Resort Association. • Manmade berms have protected the site from view from almost all angles, this practice would have to be extended to cover the alternative technology site. • It has an existing access and egress easement, but the lack of potable water would likely result in a much higher cost of operation. 50 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-63 Figure 4-6: Alternative WHSL Site at Pu 'uanahulu. Note the designated area for a future Hi - Tech facility. The WHSL site has no access to potable water which is a serious flaw for anaerobic digestion. 51 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility 4.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE F2-64 The no action alternative is to not build any resource recovery facility. The current waste management infrastructure in West Hawaii utilizes a state of the art landfill that has sufficient capacity to last for more than 50 years at current rates. This capacity is quite long in comparison to other areas in Hawaii. The 50 -year life estimate for WHSL does not include accepting waste from east Hawaii. The South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL) is nearing capacity and one of the few alternatives remaining is for the County to haul waste from the East side to WHSL. The process has already begun with the County reshuffling the disposal location for a number of their transfer stations. Operation of the two landfills represents the largest single component of the County's general funds, and trucking will add to that cost. The no action alternative does not support the objectives of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan which calls for source reduction and reuse as the preferred methods of waste management. It also does nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Landfilling is traditionally considered the least cost waste management system; however, the proposed resource recovery facility will be comparable. Landfilling is the least environmentally - friendly method of waste management. There is no incentive to recycle wastes with a large capacity landfill available; many materials that could be cost-effectively recovered in a more advanced waste -processing system are buried and lost. Landfilling also releases the most greenhouse gasses of all waste management methods. All organic wastes decompose directly into carbon dioxide, methane or volatile organic carbons. Those which are not captured and flared by the landfill gas collection system are released directly to the atmosphere. The no action alternative is rejected because it does not meet the criteria for the proposed action and it does not support the County's planning objectives. 4.4 DECISION CRITERIA The proposed action at the proposed location is selected because it is the least impacting, most feasible, and least cost alternative that is supported by the Planning objectives described in the County's Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan and elsewhere. 52 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-65 5.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, WATER AND AIR QUALITY 5.1.1 GEOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHY The project site is located on the western flank of Mauna Kea Volcano and is within the USGS stratigraphic formation identified as Hamakua Volcanics (hm) (Sherrod e.t al, 2007). The unit consists of intermittent lava flows mixed with wind-blown tephra fall and colluvial deposits. The parcel has a mild slope toward the west with elevation between 800 and 820 feet above mean sea level (msl). The site and surrounding areas do not have gulches or other natural drainage features that are commonly found at lower elevations. 5.1.2 SOILS Soils in the State of Hawaii have been characterized by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, 2014). The majority of soils at the project site are identified by NRCS as: A'a lava flow with characteristic described below: Lava flows, ' a' a, 2 to 20 percent slopes MAP UNIT SETTING • National map unit symbol: 2klfr • Elevation: 0 to 13,680 feet • Mean annual precipitation: 7 to 80 inches • Mean annual air temperature: 41 to 86 degrees F • Frost free period: 180 to 365 days MAP UNIT COMPOSITION • Lava flows, 'a 'a: 100 percent SETTING • Landform: Aa lava flows • Down-slope shape: Linear • Across -slope shape: Linear, convex • Parent material: Aa lava Typical profile • C - 0 to 39 inches: extremely cobbly sand • R - 39 to 49 inches: bedrock PROPERTIES AND QUALITIES • Slope: 2 to 20 percent 53 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-66 • Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 10.0 percent • Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 60 inches to lithic bedrock • Natural drainage class: Excessively drained • Runoff class: Very low • Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr.) • Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.4 inches) INTERPRETIVE GROUPS • Land capability classification (irrigated): 8s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s The parcel has also been classified by the University of Hawaii's Land Study Bureau (LSB), which is an agricultural productivity classification. "A" rated soils are the most productive while "E" classed soils are the least. Soils in the project areas all received a productivity rating of "E" signifying that the area is not suitable for extensive agriculture. Reasons for the poor classification include shallow rocky soils which hold water poorly and the lack of practically available irrigation water. Because the soil is of marginal agricultural value there are few potential impacts on soils or agriculture resulting from the withdrawal of agricultural land from the available pool for the proposed project. Soil improvement using digestate are contemplated pending approval and receipt of permits. If these soil improvement demonstrations are successful, the project may exert positive impacts on the agricultural value of the surrounding areas. 5.1.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER A hydrologic assessment of the surface and groundwater resources at the site was completed by Tom Nance Water Resources Engineering, Inc. in June 2015. The report summarizes current knowledge of groundwater conditions beneath, and in the general vicinity of the project site. Groundwater beneath the site and encompassing the area from the shoreline for at least seven (7) miles inland occurs as a basal lens which floats on saline groundwater beneath it and shows level fluctuations in response to ocean tides and longer -tern mean ocean level changes. For about five miles in land, including directly beneath the quarry site, the groundwater is brackish but generally suitable for landscape irrigation of salt tolerant grasses and plants. The groundwater beneath the site stands about four (4) feet above sea level. Ground elevation at the quarry varies from 680 to 920 feet above sea level. The intervening lava between ground level and the groundwater below consists of numerous flows comprising what is known as the vadose (unsaturated) zone. The WHC quarry site is located in the Anaehoomalu Aquifer System as delineated by the State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM). At the quarry site, the delineated aquifer is 5. 7 miles wide and the quarry is situated midway across that width. The CWRM has set the sustainable yield of the aquifer based on a calculated recharge of 69 million gallons per day (MGD) over its 291 square mile area (CW—M' s 1990 Water Resources 54 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-67 Protection Plan). That is equivalent to about five (5) inches per year or 22 percent of the rainfall on the aquifer's total area. Since there are no operating wells upgradient of the WHC quarry site, it also translates to a flow on the order of 12 MGD per mile of width beneath the quarry site. Nance estimates the water quality beneath the site is brackish; with chlorides in the range of 250 — 350 mg/L. This water quality is suitable for irrigating salt tolerant species but not a wide range of landscape plants. The report concludes that activities at the site are not likely to impact the groundwater quality of quantity. Although the USGS topographic maps show intermittent streams in the vicinity of the quarry, no surface features reflected overland flow. An assessment of the percolation rates of this relatively un -weathered A'a make it unlikely that any overland runoff could occur. 5.1.4 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE The County of Hawaii has very few sources of air pollutants, but one of them is quite significant. The largest source of air emission in the State is Kilauea Volcano located over 58 miles southeast of the project site in Kau. Air emissions from the volcano consist primarily of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. Despite this distance, the magnitude and the predominant northeasterly trades bring volcanic haze (VOG) to West Hawaii on a regular basis. The project area is among the least impacted portions of the Big Island due to its location and topography, but VOG regularly reaches the Waikoloa area. Other sources of air emissions in West Hawaii are limited to one power generating station using fossil fuel, two airports and a few highways. The proposed resource recovery activities and production of energy will involve point source emissions of regulated air pollutants. These point sources include RNG-fired engines, pressure release valves, storage tanks, thermal conversion emissions, and occasionally an emergency flare. Anaerobic digestion captures gasses that are produced as a result of the decomposition of organic materials and refines them for use in energy production. Approximately 50% of the organic materials introduced are converted to methane (CH4), which is the primary energy producing gas. The main byproduct of this process is carbon dioxide (CO2), which is not a regulated air pollutant. Capturing the methane produced in anaerobic digestion results in a positive impact to the environment over alternative methods of disposal that release them to the atmosphere. Permits to operate will be required from the Clean Air Branch of the Department of Health. Thermal conversion of the dry fraction of waste will create emissions from the gasification or pyrolysis processes. This equipment will include air -pollution control components to reduce the release of gasses and particulate matter to a level that is acceptable under the clean air act. All equipment will obtain the appropriate operating permits from the Hawaii Department of Health. West Hawaii's climate provides an international attraction for tourists because of its consistent weather patterns and mild climate. The annual average temperature range is between 65 and 85 55 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility degrees Fahrenheit. The average annual rainfall is around 25 inches, with rainfall more consistent than in the northerly islands of Hawaii at around 2 inches per month. Tradewinds are somewhat mitigated by the mountains that lie windward of the project site, and are generally hidden beneath a diurnal convection pattern cause by differential heating of the land and sea. 5.1.5 NOISE AND ODOR The project site is located in a rural area with no nearby neighbors. The nearest residence is 2.7 miles west in the Waikoloa Village. The nearest residence in Waikoloa town is 3.1 miles to the north. Even by Big Island standards the project site is relatively isolated. These distances are sufficient to dissipate any but the largest noises. Odors tend to dissipate faster, particularly of rough terrain that is often quite windy. Existing sources of noise and dust include blasting and rock crushing operations in the same quarry. New sources of noise from the proposed action will include: • vehicular noise from waste delivery trucks currently operating out of the old industrial area in Kailua-Kona • Muffled Heavy equipment and generator noise coming from inside buildings • Miscellaneous noise from electrical equipment such as pumps and fans Noise is regulated by the Hawaii Department of Health under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Title 19-342F. In the agricultural district noise levels at the property line are restricted to levels below 70 Db both day and night. The majority of operations associated with the proposed resource recovery facility will occur inside closed buildings. Traffic will be restricted to business hours, however some of the mechanical systems will be operational at all times. None of these sources are expected to reach levels nearing 70 Db at the property line. Odors associated with MSW will be controlled using three different methods. Best Management practices will be developed and implemented as part of the solid waste management permit. Waste delivery will be in trucks that are required to cover their loads. Odors on delivery vehicles are minimized by restricting air circulation within the waste. Waste hauling vehicles arriving and departing the facility will be required to be completely enclosed. The tipping floor is located inside a building with rapid roll -up doors. As a waste vehicle approaches the rollup door is opened and subsequently closed by an electric eye switch. Once inside the building odors are controlled by ventilating the structure through an odor filter. These filters are commonly available and effective at reducing odors. Different models may use compost or diatomaceous earth as the active filter media. The tipping floor will be washed at the end of each day to minimize bacterial degradation and resultant odors within the facility. No waste will be stored outdoors. 56 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-69 Gasses generated by anaerobic digestion and thermal conversion processes will be scrubbed and captured for use. The filter media from scrubbers captures volatile organic carbons that create the majority of odors. Standard Air pollution control equipment will be installed on emission sources as required by the clean Air Act. All required permits will be secured in advance of operation or, as required, construction. 5.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 5.2.1 FLORA AND FAUNA A botanical survey of the entire quarry site was conducted in June 2015 by Ron Terry Ph.D. and Patrick Hart, Ph.D. of Geometrician Associates, LLC (Appendix B). The survey objectives were to Identify any threatened or endangered species on the subject property, Identify and report all species observed, determine the likelihood of the presence of threatened and endangered species, and identify the locations of any threatened or endangered species found on the property. Geometrician reported that the species observed were extremely non -diverse owing to the disturbance and lack of natural soil at the site. All eight plant species are listed in table 5-1. Of these only two were indigenous and they were poorly represented. None of the plant species were endemic, or otherwise rare or unique. During the survey 5 species of birds were observed. None were indigenous rare or unique (Table 5-2). No threatened or endangered species were observed. The area may be frequented by Pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis ) and Golden plover (Pluvialis fulva) both native but not threatened and protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 5.2.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES No threatened or endangered species were observed or believed to be present at the site. Tree tobacco plants were observed. These are occasionally predated on by the endangered Blackburn's sphinx moth. It is possible that small numbers of the endangered endemic Hawaiian Petrel (pterodroma sandwichensis), and the threatened Newell's Shearwater (puffinus auricularis newelli), over fly the project area between the months of May and November (Harrison 1990). Both of these pelagic species nest high on the slopes of Mauna Loa and in the saddle area between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea (Henshaw 1902). Dr. Terry specifically searched for indications of the Blackburn's Sphinx Moth (BSM). Although there are scattered tree tobacco plants present, no indications of BSM colonization within the quarry. 57 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-70 Table 5-1: List of plant species observed at Waikoloa Quarry June 2015 (R. Terry and P.J. Hart, 2015) Scientific name Common name Life form Status* Argemone glauca Calotropis giantea Cenchrus setaceus Nicotianica glauca Prosopis pallida Senna occidentalis Waltheria indica Verbascum thapsus * I= Indeginous, A= Alien Pua Kala herb I Crown flower shrub A Fountain grass herb A Tree tobacco shrub A Kiawe tree A Coffee senna herb A Uhaloa herb I mullein herb A Table 5-2: list of animal species observed at Waikoloa Quarry June 2015. Scientific name Common name Status Acridotherese tristis Common myna Alien resident Alauda arvensis Eurasian skylark Alien resident Carpodacus mexicanus House finch Alien resident Serinus mozambicus Yellow fronted canary Alien resident Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Alien resident (TERRY AND HART, 2015) 5.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 5.3.1 PUBLIC VIEWS AND VIEWPLANES The resource recovery facility structures will be warehouse -type steel building covering approximately one acre. Its maximum elevation is approximately 40 feet above ground level. The Anaerobic digesters and associated components will be located behind the receiving building when approaching from the Waikoloa Road. Anaerobic digestion tanks will be approximately 20 feet tall. Gas storage and cleanup equipment will also be below 40 feet above natural ground surface. None of the facilities or equipment will be visible from Waikoloa Road or other public right-of-ways (Figures 5-1 and 5-2). MR DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-71 Figure 5-1: The intersection of the WHC site access road with Waikoloa Road. The Resource recovery facility is more than I mile down this road and at a lower elevation. Camera elevation is approximately 8 feet above the roadway. Figure 5-2: The intersection of the WHC site access road with Waikoloa Road from an elevation of approximately 1000 feet. 59 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-72 5.3.2 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES In 1991, the current project area was included in an archaeological inventory survey (Jensen and Burgett 1991) of a roughly 300 -acre property conducted by Paul H. Rosendahl. Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) for the then proposed quarry location. PHRI identified nineteen sites and established an archaeological preserve with a fifty -foot buffer zone. This led to the boundary definition of the current quarry parcel. The archaeological preserve located on TMK: (3) 6-8-001:067 is immediately to the north of the quarry. The nineteen sites were recorded along the top and around the margins of two 'a 'a ridges located within the northern third of their study area. These sites appeared to be interconnected by a poorly defined trail system, which was likely only minimally used at the time the features were constructed and for limited access thereafter. No middens, artifacts, or other portable cultural material were detected on the surface of any of the features or in the subsurface testing of a rock shelter feature (SIHP Site 1505 I B). Although never excavated, the features at this site were mostly interpreted to be burials and as a result of the PHRI investigation, all nineteen sites were preserved "as is". The Waikoloa Development Company chose not to proceed with any additional data recovery or further evaluation at that time. A buffer zone of fifty feet was created around the area where the archaeological features were found, and an archaeological preserve was created. The preserve is on the parcel (TMK: (3) 6-8-00 :067) to the north of the subject property. In May of 1999, PHRI conducted archaeological monitoring for further development of the quarry site and associated access road. In a letter report, PHRI (Rechtman 1999) confirmed that the established buffer zone was maintained: the access road was well makai of the buffer boundary and the northern boundary of the quarry was placed an additional 50 meters south of the buffer zone. An archaeological study was conducted by Gotay and Rechtman in June 2015 in support of Special Permit application (Appendix Q. This study reports no archaeological sites were observed with the current project area and almost no natural landscape was present as prior and ongoing mechanical quarrying activity and the associated network of ungraded and graded access roads cover roughly ninety-five percent of the approximately 220 -acre quarry area. Gotay and Rechtman conclude that there are no sensitive or valuable archeological sites within the quarry area. As the subject property is a subset of the larger parcel those conclusions can be extended to the 14. 99 -acre parcel as well. 5.3.3 CULTURAL USES AND TRADITIONAL PRACTICES In July 2015, Dr. Robert Rechtman completed an assessment of the cultural uses and traditional cultural practices in the vicinity of the project site (Appendix D). His report presents a quite interesting history of the area and in particular its transition from pre -contact to modern day uses by native Hawaiian people. His report is entitled a Ka Pa' akai Discussion after the Hawaii Supreme Court landmark decision (Ka Pa 'akai 0 Ka 'iiina v Land Use Commission), in which an analytical framework for addressing the preservation and protection of customary and traditional native practices specific to Hawaiian communities was created. The court decision •1 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-73 established a three-part process relative to evaluating such potential impacts: first, to identify whether any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources are present; and identify the extent to which any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised; second, to identify the extent to which those resources and rights will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and third, to specify the feasible action, if any, to be taken by the regulatory body to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist. Rechtman's discussion summarizes information from known chants and oral traditions in the area from the time of its first known chief, Pili, arriving from Kahiki. The name Waikoloa refers to a cold north wind that was sent to destroy the canoes of Pili and his party. In another account the place name Waikoloa, literally translated to "water carried far" was from another legend where a heroic young girl was carrying sacred water in an Awa bowl when the wind: Waikoloa" picked it up from the bowl and transported it from Holoholoku to Waiki'i to form a new spring. A third derivation of the place name comes from a legend that of the several streams at the base of the Kohala mountains, one in particular was frequented my large numbers of wild ducks, and that the steam named Waikoloa was named duck water after that stream. Another interesting story of the area contained in Rechtman's Ka Pa akai discussion recounts the introduction of livestock to the Big Island. "In 1792, Captain George Vancouver, who had sailed with Cook during his 1778-1779 voyages, arrived in Kealakekua Bay with a small fleet of British ships, where he met with Kamehameha. Vancouver stayed only a few days during this first visit, but returned again in 1793 and 1794 to resupply his fleet. Vancouver introduced cattle and sheep to the Island of Hawaii during his 1793 and 1794 visits, giving them a gifts to Kamehameha I, who immediately made them kapu, thus preventing them from being killed (Kamakau, 1992). Five cows, two ewes, and a ram brought by Vancouver in 1793 were set free to roam in the saddle area of Waimea between Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Hualalai (Escott 2008). The ancestor of these 8 animals are still present in the vicinity of the project site. " During one of his visits Vancouver anchored at Kawaihae and a member of his crew, Archibald Menzies, a surgeon and naturalist, trekked inland towards Waimea. Menzies' journal records the journey and describes the land in the vicinity of the project area as follows: I travelled a few miles back ... through the most barren, scorching country I have ever walked over, composed of scorious dregs and black porous rock, interspersed with dreary caverns and deep ravines ... The herbs and grasses which the soil produced in the rainy seasons were now mostly in the shriveled state, thinly scattered and by no means sufficient to cover the surface from the sun's powerful heat, so that I met with few plants in flower in this excursion. (Menzies 1920:55) 61 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-74 Several additional descriptions are included in the report. All descriptions for the surrounding vicinity were of a hot, dry, inhospitable landscape that was poorly utilized if at all. Rechtman concludes: "Upon collective review of these prior cultural studies, a pattern that emerges is that two types of significant cultural resources are regularly referenced in the historical and oral -historical literature. One of these types of resources are landscape features referred to as pu 'u (prominent hills) and the other are trails; both are highly traditionally valued and culturally significant. Pu'u not only mark the traditional landscape, but these natural features are almost always named and storied places with ancestral associations; while the network of trails on the traditional landscape provides a connection of both place and people. Numerous pu'u and trails are identified within Waikoloa, but none are within or in the proximity of the subject property area. " "Given the culture -historical background presented above, along with the summarized results of prior archaeological and oral -historical studies in the general Waikoloa area, and combined with the twenty year history of intensive land use within the permit area, it is the finding of the current analysis that there are no specific valued natural and cultural resources within the current project area; and there has been no evidence identified of traditional and customary cultural practices having been exercised, nor have any such practices been documented as taking place in the past within this project area." 5.3.4 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Data obtained from the Hawaii Dept. of Transportation (DOT) shows the existing utilization of Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Queen K.) and the upper portions of Waikoloa Road as of March 2015. Table 5-3: Current traffic volumes at (1) Queen K highway between Waikoloa Road and Waikoloa Beach Road, and along Waikoloa Road between Mamalahoa Highway and Pua Melia Street as of March 2015 Roadway and Direction AM Peak PM Peak 24 hour totals Queen K. south 754 468 9436 Queen K. North 779 804 9456 Waikoloa Road east 149 193 2099 Waikoloa Road west 204 204 2071 Hawaii DOT personal communications 312016 This volume of traffic in both locations consists of 2.8% heavy truck traffic. 62 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-75 Roadway and traffic conditions in the study area were surveyed on June 26, and 27, 2007 by the Hawaii Department of Transportation, and revised for the Proposed Aina Le'a subdivision in 2010 (Planning Department 2010a). Based on historical traffic growth records the 2007 data was adjusted to estimate expected traffic volumes in 2020 at a rate of 1.5% annual increase. The EIS included in the study prepared by SSFM include Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, Waikoloa Road, and Mauna Lani Drive. Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway is the primary arterial highway on the west side of the island of Hawaii. The highway passes through the North Kona and South Kohala districts and connects Kailua Village with the Kona International Airport, the Kohala resort areas, and Kawaihae. It is a two lane Class I State Highway with limited access and a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour. The intersections on this highway are fully channelized and signalized at the intersection of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway at Waikoloa Road. Waikoloa Road is a two-lane undivided County roadway that runs between the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to the west and Mamalahoa Highway to the east. This intersection serves as an access point to the Waikoloa Village, mauka of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. Waikoloa Road is presently the only roadway running between Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway for many miles. The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour except the span within the Waikoloa Village urban district. In this area, Waikoloa Road becomes a four lane divided roadway with posted speed limits of 35 miles per hour. The intersection of Waikoloa Rd and Queen is designed to handle volumes of 1,900 vehicles per land per hour (Hawaii DOT, 2012). Daily traffic volumes were derived from the 24-hour meter counts. Waikoloa Road had about 10,000 vehicles per day (in 2012). Turning movement counts were made during the peak periods of 6:00 to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 to 5:30 p.m. The individual volume of traffic in each lane for the peak morning and afternoon peak hours are estimated until 2020 using data from proposed developments as well as annual increases in traffic density of 1.5%. Waikoloa Road, which generally serves residential traffic, shows a higher outbound flow in the morning peak hour and a higher inbound flow in the afternoon peak. Peak traffic volume estimates in 2020 without the Aina Le'a Development but with an additional 3040 single family homes from other developments are shown in Table 5-3. Table 5-4: Peak traffic volumes in 2020 (SSSFM, 2012) Roadway / Intersection Morning Peak Afternoon Peak Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. northbound 536 944 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. southbound 884 743 Queen K northbound turning east on Waikoloa 252 761 Queen K southbound turning east on Waikoloa 313 354 Waikoloa Rd turning north on Queen K 587 191 Waikoloa Rd turning south on Queen K. 1254 456 63 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility Source: FEIS Villages of Aina Le 'a Appendix M(2010) Peak Hour Traffic 2020 AM/PM o 578/191 3 1254/456 313/354 252/761 Kawaihae Queen K Kona � 536/944 884/743 0 Figure 5-3: Peak hourly traffic estimates for 2020 from SSSM, 2012 F2-76 If Aina Le'a is to be developed it will add a considerable amount of traffic but roadway improvements include two new intersections to Queen Kaahumanu Highway that are located north of the Waikoloa Road intersection and other roadway improvements to Waikoloa Road. The level of service is generally quite good at the current time and continues until the large number of new residential units is built for Aina Le'a. The TIAR shows that levels of service are reduced by 2020 without the Aina Le'a project but maintained with the project improvements. The total intersection volume is estimated to be over 13,000 vehicles per day. The current contribution of waste -hauling vehicles from Pacific Waste averages 16 vehicles per day. The proposed action will require waste trucks to bypass the Landfill and travel up Waikoloa Road to the entrance for the Waikoloa Quarry site. This will result in an additional 34 vehicles passing through the intersection, the majority of which are turning east on Waikoloa Road. Figures 5-3 and 5-4 show the existing and planned contribution of waste containing vehicles to the intersections in question in vehicles per day. Note that the current estimate of the intersection volume is 13,000 vehicles per day. Access to the project site will be from Waikoloa Road. The existing West Hawaii Concrete (WHC) Access Road and intersection will be utilized without changes. The WHC access road is located 2.7 miles east of the intersection between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Waikoloa Road and 9.2 miles west of the intersection between Waikoloa Road and Mamalahoa Highway. The Resource Recovery Facility will be located approximately 1 -mile down the access road, south of Waikoloa Road intersection. At full development 6 - 8 waste collection vehicles (WCVs) per hour would be expected to arrive at the facility during business hours. WCVs will originate primarily in North Kona and to a lesser extent in the resort district of South Kohala. DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility Existing Pacific Waste Traffic (Trucks/day) ❑0 10 0.2 Waimea WW p Mamalahoa Kona 0.2 1❑ � ��0 2 CC 0 0 0 3.2 0---I L:: 3.6 Kawaihae Queen K Kona 3.2 3.6 F2-77 Figure 5-4: The number of waste containing vehicles currently using the ingersections at both ends of Waikoloa Road in Vehicles per day. Previous figure reports vehicles per hour. Planned Pacific Waste Traffic (bucks/day) 4--- 0.2 Wa imea Mamalahoa Kona 0.2 �❑ � ��0 2 C4 0 0 o-` 21 Kawaihae Queen K Kona �[2 0.4 Figure 5-5 The number of waste containing vehicles (per day) expected as a result of the proposed action. These vehicles now dispose of waste at the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill (WHSL). Their destination would change to the Waikoloa Quarry site. The majority of WCVs now use Queen :7 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-78 Kaahumanu Highway between Kailua-Kona and The WHSL at Pu'uanahulu. By this analysis the proposed action will increase traffic within the intersection of Waikoloa Road and Queen Kaahumanu Highway by 0.23 %. Alternatively, and not shown above, some trucks departing Kailua-Kona may approach the Waikoloa Quarry site from Mamalahoa Highway, this would further reduce the number of Waste containing vehicles using the lower intersection. Working hours for the vast majority of waste collection routes do not coincide with peak traffic hours. These are commonly the hours that both drivers and dispatchers attempt to avoid. 5.3.5 ADJACENT LAND USE The subject property is bounded on the south by a 20,000 -acre agricultural parcel owned by the State of Hawaii. It stretches the entire distance between the two highways and surrounds the parcel used for the WHSL. Land on the east, west and north sides of the quarry are two parcels with a total area 2806 acres also zoned agriculture. These are owned by Waikoloa Mauka, LLC. The subject property is surrounded by thousands of acres of poor quality grazing land which are owned by large corporate or public entities. Land use on the surrounding lands Is low-density grazing. The proposed action is not expected to exert a significant impact on land uses on any of the surrounding properties. The waste Recovery Facility will be 3 miles from the nearest residence in Waikoloa Village and 2.7 miles from Waikoloa Resort. This compares with 1.3 miles between the WHSL and Waikoloa Resort. The quarry operations have been ongoing since 1992. Neither waste recovery nor Quarry operations are visible from any public access due to distance and topography. 5.3.6 DEMOGRAPHICS AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS The project site is located within the Waikoloa Census Designated Place (CDP). As of the census of 2010, there were 6,362 people, 1,750 households, and 1,225 families residing in the CDP. The population density was 251.1 people per square mile (96.9/km2). There were 2,057 housing units at an average density of 107.5 per square mile (41.5/km2). The racial makeup of the CDP was 45.92% White, 0.48% African American, 0.21% Native American, 16.65% Asian, 9.20% Pacific Islander, 1.46% from other races, and 26.09% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 8.99% of the population. There were 1,750 households out of which 41.2% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 51.5% were married couples living together, 13.0% had a female householder with no husband present, and 30.0% were non -families. 19.7% of all households were made up of individuals and 3.6% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.74 and the average family size was 3.15. In the CDP the population was spread out with 29.9% under the age of 18, 6.2% from 18 to 24, 34.2% from 25 to 44, 23.0% from 45 to 64, and 6.7% who were 65 years of age or older. The • • DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-79 median age was 35 years. For every 100 females there were 104.3 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 101.0 males. The median income for a household in the CDP was $50,040, and the median income for a family was $55,222. Males had a median income of $36,134 versus $30,881 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $21,328. About 8.6% of families and 10.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 14.2% of those under age 18 and 1.8% of those age 65 or over Table 5-5: Selected data from the US Census Bureau for Waikoloa CDP and the State of Hawaii Waikoloa Village CDP Hawaii State Population, 2014 estimate X 1,419,561 Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base X 1,360,301 Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014 X 4.4% Population, 2010 6,362 1,360,301 Persons under 5 years, percent, 2010 7.1% 6.4% Persons under 18 years, percent, 2010 25.1% 22.3% Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2010 9.6% 14.3% Female persons, percent, 2010 49.9% 49.9% White alone, percent, 2010 (a) 47.1% 24.7% Black or African American alone, percent, 2010 (a) 0.7% 1.6% American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2010 (a) 0.8% 0.3% Asian alone, percent, 2010 (a) 16.1% 38.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 11.3% 10.0% 2010 (a) Two or More Races, percent, 2010 21.6% 23.6% Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2010 (b) 10.2% 8.9% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2010 43.9% 22.7% Living in same house 1 year & over, percent, 2009-2013 88.2% 84.9% Foreign born persons, percent, 2009-2013 12.8% 17.9% Language other than English spoken at home, pct. age 5+, 20.0% 25.4% 2009-2013 High school graduate or higher, persons age 25+, 2009-2013 97.0% 90.4% Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of people age 25+, 2009- 26.9% 30.1% 2013 Veterans, 2009-2013 595 112,625 67 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility 5.3.7 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES As a result of the proposed action the following public services may be improved: • Organics will be diverted from the waste stream and treated in order to produce energy and nutrient -rich soil amendment, • Solid waste disposal costs may be reduced if haulers pass along savings to their customers, • The proponent and subscribers will have clean -burning non-fossil fuel available for transportation fuel and stationary power. This will displace imported fossil fuel, • Locally produced alternative fuels may become available to the general public, • Alternative electric power generation may become available to subscribers, • Resource recovery activities will conserve remaining landfill life and reduce greenhouse gas production, and • Resource recovery activities will divert recyclable materials from landfill disposal to conserve resources. Public facilities and services that will be negatively impacted include a minor increase in truck traffic along Waikoloa Road. In addition, the landfill tipping fee charged the County by Waste Management Inc. may increase due to the lower quantity of waste being disposed; While there may be a decrease to the total volume of waste being disposed in the WHSL it will not affect the minimum requirements for the validity or enforceability of the existing contract between Waste Management and The County. Since 1992, various studies have recommended more than one alternative for the disposal of solid waste in Hawaii County. Among the recommendations in the 2002 Updated Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan (IRSWMP), two of the recommendations stated "construct no new landfills in East Hawaii ", and "procure a waste reduction facility for the East Hawaii waste stream using either mass -burn waste -to -energy, thermal gasification, or anaerobic digestion technology". The 2002 ISWMP also recommended hauling waste to the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill (WHSL). The County permitted and built the East Hawaii Sort Station for that purpose, but never hauled waste due to pressure from the Council and the resort community in West Hawaii. Subsequent to adoption of the 2002 Updated IRSWMP, the County issued three (3) requests for proposals (RFP) for construction of a waste reduction facility. The first RFP issued in 2004 was cancelled by the County prior to award. The second RFP was issued in 2006 and later awarded to Wheelabrator Technologies for the construction of a mass -burn waste -to - energy facility at the County -owned South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL). In 2008, due to higher than anticipated costs, the County Council rejected the second RFP. A third RFP was issued in 2014, and withdrawn in 2015 prior to an award. The 2009 Updated IRSWMP made residual management strategy recommendations including evaluating the feasibility and cost- effectiveness of developing anew lined landfill adjacent to the SHSL site and long -hauling solid DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-81 waste to the WHSL site taking into account hauling operations, haul routes, traffic issues and equipment acquisition plans. In 2010-2011, the Department of Environmental Management executed a contracts to evaluate both alternatives. The Hilo Landfill Feasibility Study Report estimated the net cost for landfilling ranged from $70 /ton to $130 /ton depending upon the method of leachate treatment. The estimated net cost for long- hauling ranged from $53 /ton to $57 /ton. This also included the estimated savings derived from a lower disposal rate for increased volume of waste at WHSL. The actual costs for hauling wastes from SHSL to WHSL approximately $28 per ton based on County's estimates (DEM 2012). The proposed action is scheduled to be completed in 2018. By that time both County costs and waste volumes should increase, SHSL will be once again nearing capacity, and there are no defined strategies ready for managing East Hawaii waste other than hauling waste to either the WHSL or the proposed Integrated Resource Recovery Facility. Environmental impacts to Hawaii County will be reduced by utilizing the Integrated Resource Recovery Facility in comparison to those associated with landfilling. 5.3.8 EMPLOYMENT BEH will give hiring preference to local labor and management personnel. The facility is expecting to employ fifteen to twenty-four (15-24) full-time employees. The employees will consist of a variation of the following: • Plant Manager (1) • Technical Manager (1) • Controller (1) • Office personnel (2-3) • Control Room Operator (2-3) • Biogas Plant / Power Generation personnel (1-2) • Waste Processing Facility Operators (3-6) • Skilled Mechanics (2-3) • General Labor and Maintenance (2-4) • Compost operators (2-4) •• DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility 6.1 DIRECT EFFECTS F2-82 Direct effects of the proposed action include an increase of traffic on average of 34 vehicles per day going through the intersection of Waikoloa Road and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. This amounts to a slightly over two-tenths of one percent increase (0.23%) through the intersection. These additional vehicles are not likely to affect the level of service through the intersection, and will not exert any significant impacts on traffic. Under normal circumstances the additional vehicles will avoid peak traffic hours, and most will not pass Waikoloa Village on their way to the Waikoloa Quarry site. Vehicles originating to the south will have an extra four miles to travel beyond the WHSL to the new site at the Waikoloa Quarry, however, a lesser number of waste vehicles originating north of Waikoloa Road will have a shorter distance to travel. Net fuel usage will increase slightly, however this fuel will be renewable natural gas instead of diesel or other fossil fuels. The proposed action will reduce the amount of fossil fuels burned on the Big Island by over 650,000 gallons per year at full operation. These will be replaced with renewable natural gas, which is not a fossil fuel and burns much cleaner than petroleum fuels. The proposed action will reduce the amount of MSW entering the WHSL between 175 and 300 tons per day. The volume of waste diverted includes 21 tons per day of recyclable materials that will be returned to service rather than be buried. Diverting waste from the landfill reduces the amount of greenhouse gasses that would be released from the landfill by 96% (CO2 equivalent) that would be released from this waste if buried in the landfill. The landfill is now equipped with a landfill gas collection system that captures some portion of the methane that would otherwise be released; however, this system is inefficient and gas is incinerated on site without energy recapture. The proposed action has a net positive effect on the release of greenhouse gasses and airborne contaminants resulting from burning petroleum fuels. The models presented above indicate that the proposed action will not significantly change the amount of public funds expended for waste management. There is a chance of accidents, fires or spill associated with any industrial facility. The facility design will comply with federal, State and County safety standards including those for secondary containment and fire prevention. During normal operations no release of petroleum or hazardous materials is expected from the proposed action. An organic composting facility will be permitted on the site to produce valuable byproducts from digestate and greenwaste entering the resource recovery facility. Compost requires moisture for fermentation. The compost piles are expected to sit atop low permeable liner materials to reduce the amount of compost leachate from entering the subsurface; however, there may be small 70 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-83 amounts of organic liquids leaching from the greenwaste and digestate that percolates through the low permeable surface. The site sits above an aquifer that is not utilized due to its high flow rate of travel and lack of static head. It is difficult to extract fresh water from beneath this area and the majority of wells at this elevation or lower are brackish. 6.2 IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES As with any human endeavor there is a commitment of human and natural resources. Most projects utilize materials that cannot practically be recovered. The construction and operation of the Resource Recovery Facility requires an irretrievable commitment of resources during both construction and operation. The major commitments of resources that will not be recovered include: Capital Expense: The cost of building and operating the facility and the required infrastructure is not publicly available, but can be estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars. This commitment of resources by BEH and its investors does not come from public sources. The money will relieve the County of its requirement to build and operate waste treatment facilities, or at lease reduce the utilization and expense normally charged to the County General Fund. These capital resources are expected to be recouped over the operating life of the facility and therefore may not be irretrievable. Human Resources: In addition to the money for construction BEH has spent the past 7 years developing the designs, selecting a location, retaining consultants and preparing plans for this facility. This represents thousands of hours of labor and related human resources that would otherwise be directed to other, probably similar, environmentally sensitive waste management proj ects. Materials: Large amounts of steel, other metals, petroleum -derived plastics, concrete and other materials are mined, refined, molded, bent, welded and bolted together to form the components of a resource recovery facility. Many of these materials can be recycled at the end of the facility's service life, but recycling itself requires both energy and materials. A large fraction of the materials used for construction and operation of the facility and appurtenant infrastructure are not practically recoverable. Fossil Fuels: Fossil fuels will be consumed in the construction and transportation of the machinery and materials to Waikoloa; however, the net use of fossil fuels will be reduced by a substantial amount in comparison to that used. During operation at a gross volume of 300 tons per day the facility will produce enough electric power and bio -CNG to displace over 844,000 diesel gallon Equivalents (DGE) per year. 71 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility 6.3 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS F2-84 A secondary impact or secondary effect may also be called an indirect impact or indirect effect. The term categorizes effects that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. A cumulative impact is one which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. The BEH Resource Recovery facility construction and operation will not result in measurable changes in community growth, land use patterns, population density, or natural systems. The site is within an area used as an industrial aggregate source for many years. The addition of a resource recovery facility synergistic with the currently approved mix of industries located or proposed for the quarry. The proposed action will join and support a nationwide shift away from landfilling for the purpose of recovery valuable products from waste. In this sense there is a slow but irreversible shift toward recycling, reuse and conservation of materials. When taken on a larger scale it could be considered part of a positive cumulative impact; however, there are no additional facilities planned for Hawaii County. 72 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-85 Table 7-1 provides a summary of potential impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed action. Affected Environment Impact Impact and Mitigation Level of Concern Surface Water Resources None Impact: Potential stormwater runoff during and Drainage construction or operation Mitigation: None. No surface water runoff is anticipated, but use Best Management Practices Groundwater Resources Low Impact: Potential release of contaminated water Mitigation: Wet work will be done on impervious concrete surface, composting on low permeable liner Seismic and Geological None None: buildings to appropriate code Soils and Agriculture None None: Site is covered by an SUP for quarry activities Flora and Fauna Low Impact: habitat destruction of T&E species Mitigation: none. Area is previously disturbed and poor habitat for listed species Air Quality Positive Impact: emission from waste handling/treatment will be offset by reduction is use of petroleum fuels. Mitigation: equipment to be operated under requirements of Clean Air Act. Visual Character None None: Facility cannot be seen from outside Noise None None: Facility cannot be heard from public areas Odor None None: Facility cannot be smelled from public areas Social Positive Impact: recovery of materials, job creation Historical and None None: No resources identified Archaeological Economic Positive Impact: increased materials recovery/sales, reduction is tip fees, Cultural None Traditional practices and important cultural sites will be preserved Public Facilities and Positive Reduced demand for County -owned landfills. Services Roads and Traffic Low Very small increase in traffic at key intersections Consistency with Govt. Consistent Materials recovery supported by Federal, State and Plans and Policies Local Plans Irretrievable Resources Positive Impact: Reduced demand on natural resources through materials recovery 73 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility In determining whether an action may have a significant effect on the environment under HRS 11-200, the proponent must consider every phase of a proposed action, the expected consequences, both primary and secondary, and the cumulative as well as the short-term and long-term effects of the action. An action shall be determined to have a significant effect on the environment if it: 1. Involves an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction of any natural or cultural resource; The proposed action would not result in an irrevocable commitment, loss or destruction of any protected natural resource. No threatened or endangered species were identified within the development area. Previous archeological studies concluded that there is no evidence of traditional practices or cultural artifacts within the footprint of the proposed action. 2. Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment,- No nvironment;No new natural areas will be developed in the proposed action, but unused and low quality agriculture land will be used for non-agricultural purposes. The use of agricultural land for waste management requires a Special Permit in the County of Hawaii. This permit is designated for unusual but reasonable land uses on agricultural land. It will fall to the County Planning Commission to determine whether the loss of this agricultural land is justified by the proposed resource recovery facility. 3. Conflicts with the state's long-term environmental policies or goals and guidelines as expressed in chapter 344, HRS, and any revisions thereof and amendments thereto, court decisions, or executive orders; The proposed action is consistent with the County General Plan, and the West Hawaii Functional Plan. 4. Substantially affects the economic welfare, social welfare, and cultural practices of the community or State; The proposed action has beneficial impacts on the social and economic welfare of the County. It obviates the need for the County taxpayers to support an expensive waste reduction technology and displaces imported petroleum from local sources. 5. Substantially affects public health; The proposed action benefits public health by reducing emissions to air, soil and water over current waste management methods. 74 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-87 6. Involves substantial secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities; The secondary and cumulative impacts from the proposed action are to reduce the impacts of landfilling at the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill and displace imported fuel. 7. Involves a substantial degradation of environmental quality; Temporary impacts associated with construction will include minor amounts of dust and noise, neither of which will be perceptible above background levels in a rock quarry. Other emissions are expected to be well within acceptable levels and less than those for landfilling waste. Environmental quality impacts are net positive. 8. Is individually limited but cumulatively has considerable effect upon the environment or involves a commitment for larger actions; The proposed action is not part of any other development and no commitment for larger actions is required. 9. Substantially affects a rare, threatened, or endangered species, or its habitat; The area in the vicinity of the subject property is a rock quarry. Much of the area surrounding the project site is previously disturbed bare rock. Special status species that depend on the parcel were not identified. 10. Detrimentally affects air or water quality or ambient noise levels; The proposed action is not expected to result in degradation of the quality of air, water or soil at the site, above it or beneath it, however the proposed action may reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses, leachate and dust at the West Hawaii Sanitary landfill. The site location ensures that noise generated by the facility is imperceptible from publicly accessible areas. 11. Affects or is likely to suffer damage by being located in an environmentally sensitive area such as a flood plain, tsunami zone, beach, erosion prone area, geologically hazardous land, estuary, fresh water, or coastal waters; The site is not within an environmentally sensitive area. 12. Substantially affects scenic vistas and view planes identified in county or state plans or studies; or, The scenic vistas and unique view planes, and unique community character will be preserved by the proposed action. The facility will not be visible from any nearby areas accessible to the public. 13. Requires substantial energy consumption. The objective of the proposed action is to recover and reuse waste materials through bioconversion to methane. In reusing the methane to prevent it from being released to the 75 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility • • atmosphere. The proposed action will not reduce energy consumption, but will displace fossil fuels that are now used for electrical energy and transportation fuels. 8.1 ANTICIPATED FINDING Based on analysis of the 13 significance criteria listed above, the proposed action is not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts when conducted within the constraints of the required plans and permits. Comments received from the public and various agencies during this DEA review period, will provide new information, which will be considered in the final conclusion of this assessment. Pending receipt of these comments from agencies and interested parties, this assessment anticipates reaching a Finding of No Significant Impact. 76 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility 9.1 LIST OF PREPARERS This EISPN has been prepared by North Shore Consultants, LLC. David Robichaux, Project Manager, is primarily responsible for its content. Invaluable assistance with technical content and editorial review has been obtained from: Clint Knox, Vice President, BioEnergy Hawaii Ron Terry Geometrician Associates Bob Rechtman, ASM Affiliates, Inc. Charles Jencks, Second & Peck Real Estate, LLC Goodfellow Brothers Inc. 9.2 LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER CONSULTED PARTIES Parties consulted during preparation of the DEA represent some of those who have direct influence on planning and permitting for the proposed project. Agencies and individuals consulted to this point include: State of Hawaii DOH Office of Environmental Quality Control DOH —Solid Waste Management Office DBEDT — Energy DOT- Highways Division Land Use Commission County of Hawaii Office of the Mayor Department of Environmental Management Planning Department Interested Parties WQJ2008 Investment, LLC Ukumehame Quarry Company, LP WHC, Ltd (d.b.a. West Hawaii Concrete) Hawaii Island Economic Development Board Aha Moku State Board 77 • DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-90 Agencies and interested parties who have been provided copies and are requested to provide comments during the comment period include: Federal Agencies: US Army Corps of Engineers US Department of Agriculture Federal Emergency Management Agency US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service US Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration State Agencies: State Land Use Commission DBEDT- Office of Planning Department of Health -All DLNR Forestry and Wildlife DLNR-Land Division DLNR-State Historic Preservation Division Department of Transportation County Agencies: Civil Defense Department of Environmental Management Planning Department Public Works Department of Research and Development Department of Water Supply Police Department Fire Department Interested Parties Kona Coast Resort Association Hawaii Gas HIEDB Waikoloa Community Association Waikoloa Resort Aha Moku MR DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-91 County of Hawaii Planning Department (2010) Final EIS for the Villages at Aina Lea, Volume l http://oegc.doh.hawaii.gov/Shared%20Documents/EA_and EIS_Online_Library/Hawaii/2010s/ 2010-11-08-HA-FEIS-Villages-Aina-Lea-Vol l .pdf County of Hawaii Planning Department (2010) Final EIS for the Villages at Aina Lea, Volume 2 http://oegc.doh.hawaii.gov/Shared%20Documents/EA and EIS_ Online_Library/Hawaii/2010s/ 2010-11-08-HA-FEIS-Villages-Aina-Lea-Vol2.pdf Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism, 2009. Energy Resources Coordinator Annual Report, 2009 Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism, 2013. State of Hawaii Databook, 2009. http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/databook/2013-individual/17/170713.pdf Department of Environmental Management (2012) Letter Report: Pilot Study on Long -Hauling Waste to the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill. http:Hrecords.co.hawaii.hi.us/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=62282&dbid=l Doris, E., J McLaren, V. Healey, and S. Hockett, (2009) State of the States 2009: Energy Recovery Council (2015) "Waste -to -Energy is a Climate -Friendly, Renewable Energy Source." Energy Recovery Council, http://www.energyrecoveryc ouncil . org/userfiles/file/ERC %202009%20climate- renewable%20paper.pdf. Hansen J., (2004). Riscaldamento globale: una bomba da disinnescare. (Global warming: a bomb to be defused). Le Scienze, No. 428, p. 76. Hawaii County, 2005 Hawaii County General Plan. ww.co.hawaii.hi.us/la/gp/2005/main.html R.W. Beck (2012) Hilo Landfill Feasibility Study, Prepared for the County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management. htlp://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink8/l/doc/62056/Pagel.aspx University of California at Riverside. (2009) Evaluation of Emissions from Thermal Conversion Technologies Processing Municipal Solid Waste and Biomass. Prepared for Bioenergy Producers Association. 42pp 79 DEA Integrated Resource Recovery Facility F2-92 US Department of Energy (2016) Renewable Energy Development and the Role of Policy http://gpps1.eere.energy.gov/states/state_of the_states.cfm US EPA, (2006). Global anthropogenic non -0O2 greenhouse gas emissions: 1990-2020. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division. US EPA, (2016a) Overview of Greenhouse Gasses: Methane. htip://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html US EPA, (2016b). Draft US Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report 2009 - 2014, Chapter 7: Waste htlp://www3.epa. gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2016- Chapter-7-Waste.pdf US Department of Energy, 2014. Alternative fuels used in Transportation. Curriculum for Grades 5 — 8. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/fl7/transportation_ alternativefuels.pdf O F2-93 Appendices A. Comments Received prior to Publication B. Flora and Fauna Survey C. Archeological Survey D. Ka Pa'Akai Discussion (Cultural Impacts) F2-4 Appendix A Comments Received Prior to Publication William P. Kenoi 11-crwir West I Jawai -i ( )fflce 74-5044 Alic Kci iiii dablc I hvy K - :6 1 IJOI-K O -AI. [ ].'LWai 'i (�671- 40 pholl': f C1S1 '32-3-1,70 1'" 0081 -327-3563 Junc 22, 2016 Counh, of Hawaili PLA'\NING DEPARTMENT -Mr, David CiIdll' C�i Vd. _'S, Lij te 2 1. 11 ?. I(-,jwikiJ:_j_ HI 9,6X26 Duar Mr. Robichaux: Dun ,F27,95 Oh-ector Joaquin Gainiao-Kunkel I )eprxn. Ple'eclor SUBJECT: Comments for Pre -Draft Environnwntal Ass�ssmcnt for the HawaiLi Inkgraied Resource Rccovery Facility TNI K:(I, (P-8-00 1: Pq r(Jun of 066 UNE I I awai, i Off-lec 1 Malkalli SUML SUile 3, Hilo, Hawaj'i %,720 P1101ir (808) LM I -821V Uim (NO91 WjJ 4742 pre -draft em.4'0ilnl�mtal a-tiseasnient for illc I I-4_9()-,LL::_42 portion of w, Sm!rh Kojialla, I lawai'L illClUdc thc f011owill') changes: 1',(fn-'n L, Lo - il%c i)rcm%,?-v-.- I LLI)d i Vidcd and I' S '1 4 C P arc el, 2- include a section in the Drall EA that clearly' ()LJtJir1eS the "Land UsQ­ politics of tiic property - MLhidiii!? Col,riity Toning _5a), St',ite (..Lind U. GrBOUndwy (�;­ii�r�il flail LL, MG (Urkin Exparl!�:ori), C01-trit-V 07 i T):aw, and W11trt*,. 111ti'Uding cx)nsl'�'.cnca withth(: 11[an-,%,- -:zf.�Uhs, POIIL;t,` H­�'. objectives, cOr1,1,,1cl-1cy vvilth South Koha1aCOrnn-_,,in1,, Du% ok!71: 11 tL[S% p"Alclos ar.d and cons�stcr%�cywlitli ill,:. /,onrc. V1,irziacnient Arcm'!,z po mus lclllu obJLcC'l%:CS. 3. Under"Special Perl-nfl ftom County of flawal-l­ earl f;nie 31. bcsi&­, thc� t'�vo cniteH'tl m. cli h oned. Lhere a number of additional cri Lculia or app rovq I that sho ki I. d be I ist ed arid 71 dic draft F_A_ 4. Hicrc Lare a nurnbcr o f- rcporl:� rc;enti or;:,d ii rb- (I ri it FA, inckiding the Survey, :hc :irck-acolo,,c.I. Jj"U4 JL)C ILLJL L p I cas C: 'I ]I C, IL�7 C th,t c. dra.-L FA. www.-�cl! 1p lann.1 IlOCpL.;N11k1 Haotwrr C�Awmw k = jF1jwdQppw1mnqh, Pp()wrAraxiffEMp1vi.vr Phu IF, ?I I I, F2-96 Mr. D�Ivid Robicll<wx N01"1) 1 -, (M, C.D 11 S LL i I ',J 11 [ S loge 2 JL132Q.22, 2016 FUDS ,L,,�A:? WD S stands Or Wonverly Defuiisc The subject WOW& W 100AN WHO 0. W LO dVO 101 he fit,; P4 lily ol.'the of uriexpIedod 1-t.i 1-1�1 within i c�,. Thc .--W ear ,kw !us i wil Wer 10 nmh: v Ared. Please t:S Ti -hat mcf- Th k' I«1 (*I n an c Q � an d o ni zati on � (�O � 1.,� L: I I k.; .: : I �. �� �: 7 2 -'. � --- im-, 1 --, 7i d :i �:,A s to i flIC � Ld C ni -, n y o t h k� I- F cd cni I � S'� me and ( � a i o yu 16 �. am! ogakw4w and individuak 7bew Would inJudw, but not bc lil-nitet.- To fo"Io% Fedenal Aggenyw -s ;Lip- T -TS Anny Coi-v [,, Mparti-nent oi' It! I -C • Federal Emergencv 0 US Dcpartment of Intcrior, Fi;-, -tc • US D epartm W of Kansponati on- 1; ed -'d :�,, i a',o, (11 -, i i : i i �trafion Stab; Alysavie gg cies di Slarc Land Kc • D B 1 -'1 �T- i! • D up F I I - h, - A'1 D i `, i, i, D1 -NI I County Amncte� 0 Civi� Dcfcl,!�C • I'l �inn n.,, D k� 1) Li: I i I ! C I'L DLvpi.-1-1,[11k:n[ and ',Xvclopi-nent OC2�Lrtllic-fl ol'w;�:k:r Supply Ii ,c, D cp arori c n- F2-97 Mr. David Robichaux North Shore Consultants Page 3 J Lme 22, 2016 Agencies/QLganizations • 1 lawai i an Electric and Light Cornp-ny (I IE LCO) • Sierra Club Waikoloa Community Association ■ Hawai'i Island Chamber of Commerce Kana -Koh a] a Chamber o f Corn rnerve Elected Offic-gals •Govemor • Mayor • Us. US rc", L: :l I "j! 1.. (I . I .2 ( k! Ll CO Laic I I D J, -. r I �:, R, cp t,c: cl,, t a I- Ve EA (2 copfc-0, a cx)j-nplctcd OL,Q(-' Publication Foml, V., 1) 1: hn -, i I I .'.I I - j J Ll d L� : L � c i if j Y 0." LIA - J f yuu Piave any q ut�.,,;t o n s, please fcel f Tcc [0 sinceruly, UAN KANUHA N an n i i T) i ri.ctor 1F\'V D: III a.(-- P- -,i i i (% I e r,- () LQ("' ! R L ELI,- U'S -d OC F2-98 Appendix B Flora and Faunal Assessment F2-99 General Botanical Survey and Vertebrate Fauna Assessment, Waikoloa Quarry Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii By Ron Terry, Ph.D. and Patrick J. Hart, Ph.D. Geometrician Associates, LLC July 2015 Introduction This biological survey was prepared for West Hawaii Concrete, which leases land and operates a rock quarry on 219.990 acres of land at Waikoloa within TMK (3) 6-8- 001:066 (Figure 1) ("the property").' A Special Permit to allow for the operation of the quarry operation at the property was approved by the County of Hawaii Planning Commission in September 1992, and the Special Permit was issued by the State Land Use Commission in January 1993. West Hawaii Concrete has operated a rock quarry at the property since 1995. This survey was prepared as part of information for an amendment to the Special Permit to extend the life of the permit to run the quarrying operation to 2043 or longer, to add approval of West Hawaii Concrete's composting operation to the Special Permit, and to enable processing and recycling of Portland cement concrete (PCC) and asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) on the site. According to the quarry operators, the top five feet of rock has been removed from 95% of the approximately 220 -acre quarry property as part of quarrying activities, and very little natural surface exists. This is evident in aerial and ground photos of the property (Figures 2 and 3). The objectives of the botanical component of this survey were to 1) describe the vegetation; 2) list all species encountered; 3) determine the likelihood of the presence of rare, threatened or endangered (T&E) plant species; and 4) identify the locations of any T&E individuals found. The area was surveyed by Ron Terry and Patrick Hart (r6sumes for whom are attached to the end of this report) in June 2015. Plant species were identified in the field and, as necessary, collected and keyed out in the laboratory. Special attention was given to the possible presence of any federally listed T&E plant species (USFWS 2015), although the habitat did not indicate a strong potential for their presence. The survey also included a limited faunal survey restricted to providing a list of birds and introduced mammals, reptiles, or amphibians observed during the botanical survey. Also considered in this report is the general value of the habitat for native birds and the Hawaiian hoary bat. Not included in the survey were invertebrates or aquatic species or habitat. 1 Since December 2008 the property has been owned by WQJ2008 Investment LLC and Ukumehame Quarry Company LP. F2-100 Vegetation Type and Influences The geology of the property consists of Mauna Loa 'a`a lava flows of various ages between 1,500 and 3,000 years old (Wolfe and Morris 1996). These black, rugged, nearly unvegetated lava flows in Waikoloa and adjacent Pu`uanahulu are known as the Kaniku lava flows. Elevations range from about 680 to 920 feet above sea level. The natural slope perpendicular to the sea (prior to grading) is on the order of 5 percent. Like most `a`a flows, the surface is highly irregular, with local relief of more than 20 feet and steep slopes around boulders and rock outcrops. The area receives an average annual rainfall of about 10 inches (Giambelluca et al 2013). The natural, pre -human vegetation of this part of the Kaniku Lava Flow was likely very sparse native herbs and grasses, perhaps including pili grass (Heteropogon contortus) and ilima (Sida fallax). The types of dry grasslands and shrublands described by Gagne and Cuddihy (1990) for other parts of low -elevation Waikoloa do not occur because soil has simply not had time to develop in this young substrate. Typical vegetation in older areas surroundings the Kaniku lava flow in which at least some soil has formed likely consisted of `ilima and pili grass along with kwt,elu grass (Eragrostis variahilis) and vines such as pd'u-o-Hi'iaka (Jacguemontia ovalifolia), with a perhaps diverse but fairly sparse cover of native dry -forest trees and shrubs including 'a `ali `i (Dodonaea viscosa), sandalwood or iliahi (Santalum ellipticum), lama (Diospyros sandwicensis), wilhrili (Erythrina sandivicensis) and uhiuhi (Me=oneuron kavaiensis). Small remnants of now -endangered species such as uhiuhi and rare species such as iviliwili that were formerly fairly widely distributed still persist in some areas. Other endangered species such as red 'ilima (Ahutilon menziesii) have been completely extirpated by cattle grazing and feral goat browsing. Previous Surreys of the Property Botanist Winona Char conducted several botanical surveys of the quarry site in 1992 as part of the original permitting documentation for the quarry (Char 1992 and 1992b). In a May 1992 survey, she found that fountain grass covered 30 to 50% of older lava flows, but less than 3% on younger lava flows, although it was still the dominant species. A few kiawe trees and indigo plants were present. The only natives were 'uhaloa (Waltheria indica) and the fern iwa'iiva (Doryopteris decipiens). Although she made an intensive search for pololei fern (Ophioglossum concinnum), which at the time was considered endemic and a category 1 candidate endangered species, none were located. She noted that the plant might emerge after the first heavy downpour, after which it would likely quickly die off, with only its invisible underground rhizomes remaining until the next large rain. She then resurveyed the area after heavy rains in October 1992 associated with Hurricane Iniki. This time, she did find some ferns within a small gully in the pahoehoe, along with seedlings of a number of weeds not previously observed. Since that time, the O. concinnum has been included in species O. pol phylluni, an indigenous fern that is widespread around the world. Although cryptic, it Biological Survey. Waikoloa Quarry, Island of Hawai `i, Page 2 F2-101 is locally abundant on a seasonal basis, and is no longer considered endangered or even rare (Palmer 2003). Results: Vegetation Our survey in 2015 was of a landscape that had been heavily scraped and quarried, but with a vegetation that did not differ markedly from that of 25 years ago. Vegetation over the property is still fairly sparse, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. It consists of two types: 1. Graded and actively used areas, with sparse vegetation of fountain brass (Cenchrus setaeeus), a non-native, fire -promoting grass, and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), a weed that springs up heavily in this part of the island when lava is disturbed. Very few other species are present. This occupies nearly all of the property. 2. Undisturbed areas, which vary from unvegetated to very sparse fountain grass. Flora The flora of the quarry as of ,lune 2015 is extremely non -diverse. All plant species found on the property during the survey are listed in Table 1. Of the eight species detected, only two were native. There were a few individuals of the indigenous (native to the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere) 'uhaloa and puakala (Argemone glauca). There were no endemic (found only in the Hawaiian Islands) plants. All other plants were weeds, and no rare or unusual plant species were present. The only tree present was the non-native kiaive (Prosopis pallida), of which we only observed four individuals. Given enough time without further disturbance, a larger variety of non-native weeds common in the Waikoloa area would undoubtedly begin to invade. Threatened and Endangered Plant Species and Critical Habitat No threatened or endangered plant species as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appear to be present on the property, nor are there uniquely valuable habitats. No existing or proposed federally designated critical habitat is present on the property. Botanical Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures The history of heavy, continuous disturbance coupled with the lowland context has resulted in a flora and vegetation on the property that has little value in terms of conserving native vegetation or threatened or endangered plant species. As such, no adverse botanical impacts on the property are expected as a result of the continuing and proposed uses. Fauna During the survey we observed five bird species, all of them common non -natives (see Table 2). Birds were generally sparse due to the sparse vegetation. Biological Survey, Waikoloa Quarry, Island of Ha►vai'i, Page 3 F2-102 We would expect the migratory resident Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva) to be present at least occasionally, as it is frequently seen in the area and throughout the State of Hawaii during its residence here from August to April each year. The Golden Plover is not a threatened, endangered or candidate species. Similarly, the Short -eared Owl or pueo (Asir, flainmeus sandrvichensis), which is an endemic (i.e., native and unique to Hawai`i), sub -species of this near cosmopolitan species, likely hunts in the area. It is unlikely that any native forest birds would make much use of the property because of the lack of forest within five miles. Although they would likely never be seen, it is possible that small numbers of the endangered endemic Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandtivichensis) and the threatened Newell's Shearwater (Puffrnus auricularis neivelli) over -fly the property between the months of May and November. The Hawaiian Petrel was formerly common on the Island ofHawai`i. This pelagic seabird reportedly nested in large numbers on the slopes of Mauna Loa and in the saddle area between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea, as well as at the mid -to -high elevations of Hualalai. It has within recent historic times been reduced to relict breeding colonies located at high elevations on Mauna Loa and, possibly, Hualalai. Hawaiian Petrels were first listed as an endangered species by the USFWS in 1967 and by the State ofHawai`i in 1973. Newell's Shearwaters were also once common on the Island of Hawaii. This species breeds on Kauai, Hawaii, and Molokai. Newell's Shearwater populations have dropped precipitously since the 1980s (Banko 1980, Day et al., 2003). This pelagic species nests high in the mountains in burrows excavated under thick vegetation, especially ulzrhe (Dicranopteris linearis) fern. Newell's Shearwater was listed as a threatened species by the USFWS in 1975 and by the State of Hawaii in 1973. The primary cause of mortality in both Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters in Hawaii is thought to be predation by alien mammalian species at the nesting colonies. Collision with man-made structures is considered another significant cause. Nocturnally flying seabirds, especially fledglings on their way to sea in the summer and fall, can become disoriented by exterior lighting. When disoriented, seabirds often collide with manmade structures, and if they are not killed outright, the dazed or injured birds are easy targets of opportunity for feral mammals. There is no suitable nesting habitat within or close to the property for either species. Various mammals would be expected on the property, including feral goats (Capra hircus), small Indian mongoose (Herpestes a. auropunctatus), mice (Mus spp.), rats (Rattus spp.), and perhaps feral cats (Felin catus). None of these alien mammals have conservation value and all are deleterious to native flora and fauna. During the survey, only goats were observed. Goat browsing on young, green fountain grass was evident, and it also appeared that goats may have been browsing on young tree tobacco leaves. Although tree tobacco is somewhat poisonous to goats, they are known to browse on it when little else is available (Green and Newell 1982). Although not detected in the survey, which took place in daylight, the only native Hawaiian land mammal, the Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), may also Biological Survey, Waikoloa Quarry, Island of Haivai `i, Page 4 F2-103 be present in the general area, as it is present in many areas on the island of Hawaii. They may forage for flying insects on the property on a seasonal basis. Bats roost in trees and very tall shrubs, only one of which was present on the property. There are no native terrestrial reptiles or amphibians in Hawaii. No reptiles and amphibians were detected during the survey, but it is likely that various geckoes (Family Gekkonidae) are present. As discussed above, this report does not cover invertebrates, which a separate faunal specialist is studying because of the potential presence of the endangered Blackburn's sphinx moth, the larval stage of which is known to feed on tree tobacco. Impacts and Mitigation Measurer for Fauna We offer the following recommendations in order to avoid impacts to endangered but widespread native birds and the Hawaiian hoary bat: To minimize impacts to the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, we recommend that trees taller than 15 feet should not be removed or trimmed during the bat birthing and pup rearing season (June 1 through September 15). At the present time, only one such tree, a kiaire, appears to be present. If any activities incorporate outdoor lighting, they may attract endangered Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters, which may become disoriented by the lighting, resulting in birds being downed. To avoid the potential downing of Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters by their interaction with outdoor lighting, we recommend no construction or unshielded equipment maintenance lighting after dark between the months of April and October. All permanent lighting should be shielded in strict conformance with the Hawaii County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (Hawai`i County Code Chapter 9, Article 14), which requires shielding of exterior lights so as to lower the ambient glare caused by unshielded lighting. Report Limitations No biological survey of a large area can claim to have detected every species present. Some plant species are cryptic in juvenile or even mature stages of their life cycle. Dry conditions can render almost undetectable plants that extended rainfall may later invigorate and make obvious. Thick brush can obscure even large, healthy specimens. Birds utilize different patches of habitat during different times of the day and seasons, and only long-term study can determine the exact species composition. Although this survey was conducted in accordance with accepted practice, the findings of this survey should be interpreted with proper caution; in particular, there is no warranty as to the absence of any particular species. However, the property is not a likely habitat for rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species. Biological Sun?ey, Waikoloa Quarry, Island of Hawai'i, Page 5 F2-104 Literature Cited Banko, W. E. 1980. "Population Histories — Species Accounts Seabirds: Newell's Shearwater (`A`o)." Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of IJawai`i at Manoa, Department of Botany, Technical Report #5A. Char, W. 1992a. Botanical Assessment, Waikoloa Quarry Site South Kohala District, Island of Hawai `i. Prep For. Belt Collins & and Waikoloa Development Company. 1992b. Resurvey for Ophioglossum Concinnum, Waikoloa Quarty Site South Kohala District, Island of Hawai `i. Prep For. Belt Collins & and Waikoloa Development Company. Day, R. H., B. Cooper, and T. C. Telfer. 2003. Decline of Townsend's (Newell's Shearwuters (Pufnus auricularis newelli) on Kauai, Hawaii. The Auk 120: 669- 679. Gagne, W., and L. Cuddihy. 1990. "Vegetation," pp. 45-114 in W.L. Wagner, D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer, eds., Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai `i. 2 vols. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Giambelluca, T.W., Q. Chen, A.G. Frazier, J.P. Price, Y. -L. Chen, P. -S. Chu, J.K. Eischeid, and D.M. Delparte, 2013. Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 94, 313-316, doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00228.1. Green, L.R., and Newell, L.A. 1982. Using Goats to Control Brush Regrowth on Fuelbreaks. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-59. Berkeley, CA. Palmer, D. D. 2003. Hawai'i's Ferns and Fern Allies. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS). Washington: GPO. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ University of Hawaii at Hilo, Dept. of Geography. 1998. Atlas of Hawaii. 3rd ed. Honolulu: University ofHawai`i Press. Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris. 1996. Geologic Map of the Island of Hawaii. USGS Misc Investigations Series Map i -2524-A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. Biol(Wical Survey, Waikoloa Quarty, Island of Hawaii, Page 6 F2-105 Base Map C Google Earth Biological Survey, Waikoloa Quarry, Island of Hazvai `i, Page 7 F2-106 Figure 3. Property Photos 3a. Active Rack Crushing Area ♦ 3b. Typical Scraped Area Biological Survey. Waikoloa Quarry, Island of Nawar 'i, Page 8 F2-107 Figure 3. Property Vegetation Photos 3c. Landscape on Older Lava Flow Pre Quarry ♦ 3d. Scraped Area Left, Natural Surface Right, Younger Lava Flow Biological Survey, Waikoloa Quarry, Island of Hau ai `i, Page 9 F2-108 Table 1. List of Plant Species Detected at Waikoloa Quarry Scientific Name FamilyCommon Name Life Form ".�+taru, .lr,QeYnone glazica Papaveraceae Pua kala Herb I C'ulofrol?is SiWantea Ascle iadaceae Crown flower Shrub A Ccnelzrus setacezis Poaceae Fountain grass Herb A ';"ic-vijanzy hizica Solanaceae Tree tobacco Shrub A Prci:m ?iti pallida Fabaceae Kiawe Tree , A Senna occidentalis Fabaceae Coffee senna llerb A Waltheria indica Malvaceae `Uhaloa I Ierb I Verbascum tha x9s Scro hulariaceae Mullein Herb A A = alien. E = endemic, I = indigenous, End = Federal and State listed Endangered Species Several plants were either sterile or unidentifiable, including a non-native composite. Table 2. Bird Species Observed at Waikoloa Quarry Scientific name Common name Status Acridotheres tristis Common Myna Eurasian Sk lark Alien Resident Alien Resident Alauda arvensis Car odacus mexicanus House Finch Alien Resident Serinus in ambicus Yellow -Fronted Canaa Alien Resident Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Alien Resident Biological Survey, Waikoloa Quarry, Island of'Hawai `i, Page 10 F2-109 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH PATRICK J. HART Associate Professor, Department of Biology University of Hawaii at Hilo 200 W. Kawili St. email:pjhart(ahawaii.edu Hilo HI. 96720 phone: 808-974-7645 EDUCATION Ph.D. Zoology (Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology), 2000 University of Hawaii, Manoa B.A. Biology, 1985 University of California, Santa Barbara PROFESSION . �_L EXPE V 11 N (-E 20V. present Assistant/Associate Professor, Department of Biology, University of Hawaii at Hilo 2002-2005 Post -Doctoral Researcher, USGS-BR.D, Kilauea Field Station 2001 : Laurer, Department of Zoology, Univer,.itl "! E 1,.:: w,ii, Manoa 2000-2001 1 ucturer, Department of Biology, University of 1-1;iwaii, Hilo 1993-1999 Research Assistant, Department of Zoology, University of Hawaii, Manoa 1991-1993 Teaching Assistant, Department of Zoology, University of Hawaii, Manoa 1992 Instructor, School for Field Studies 1989-1990 Volunteer, United States Peace Corps RECENT PUBLICATIONS (last five years) Wu, J. X., D. M. Delparte, and P. J. Hart. 2014. Movement patterns of a native and non-native frugivore in Hawaii and implications for seed dispersal. Biotropica 46:175-182. VanZandt, M., D. DelParte, P. Hart, F. Duvall, and J. Penniman. 2014. Nesting characteristics and habitat use of the endangered Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis) on the Island of Lanai. Waterbirds 37:43-51. Hart, Patrick, M.F. Ramos-Ordonez, C. Rodriguez -Flores, C. Soberanes- Gonzalez, B. Behrstock, M.C. Arizmendi, and D. Mehlman. 2013. Orange - billed Sparrow (Arremon aurantiirostris), Neotropical Birds Online (T. S. Schulenberg, Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; retrieved from Neotropical Birds Online Sridhar, H., U. Srinivasan, R.A. Askins, J. Canales-Delgadillo, C. Chen, D. N. Ewert, G. A. Gale, E. Goodale, W. K. Gram, P. J. Hart, K. A. Hobson, R. L. Hutto, S. W. Kotagama, J. L. Knowlton, T. M. Lee, C. A. Munn, S. Nimnuan, F2-110 B. Z. Nizam, G. Peron, V. V. Robin, A. D. Rodewald, P. G. Rodewald, R. L. Thomson, P. Trivedi, S. L. Van Wilgenburg, and K. Shanker. 2012. Positive relationships between association strength and phenotypic similarity characterize the assembly of mixed -species bird flocks worldwide. American Naturalist 180:777-790. Hart, P.J. 2012. Patterns of tree mortality in a monodominant tropical forest. Tropical Forests. P. Sudarshana (Ed.) ISBN: 978-953-51-0255-7. Samuel, M. D., P. H. F. Hobbelen, F. DeCastro, J. A. Ahumada, D. A. LaPointe, C. T. Atkinson, B. L. Woodworth, P. J. F1art, and D. C. Duffy. 2011. The dynamics, transmission, and population impacts of a\ i,in malaria in native Hawaiian birds: a modeling approach. Ecological Applications 2.1+ 8): 2960-2973. Hart, P. J., B. L. Woodworth, R. Camp, K. Turner, K. McClure, K. Goodall, Henneman, C. Spiegel, J. LeBrun, E. Tweed, and M. Samuel. 2011. Bird and resource variability across an elevational gradient in Hawaii. The Auk 128:113-126. Hart, P.J. 2010. Tree growth and age in an ancient Hawaiian wet forest: vegetation dynamics at two spatial scales. Journal of Tropical Ecology 25:1-11. Tucker-Mohl, K., P. J. Hart, and C. Atkinson. 2010. Can lowland dry forests represent a refuge from avian malaria for native Hawaiian birds? Pacific Conservation Biology 16:181-186. Flaspohler, D.J., C. Giardina, G.P. Asner, P.J. Hart, J. Price, C.K. Lyons*, and X. Castaneda*. 2009. Long-term effects of fragmentation and fragment properties on bird species richness in Hawaiian forests. Biological Conservation 143:280-288. Gaudioso, J.M., D.A. LaPointe, and P.J. Hart. 2009. Knemidokoptic mange in Hawaii 'Amakihi (Hemignathus virens) on the Island of Hawaii. Journal of Wildlife Disease 45:497-501. Eggert, L.S., L.A. Terwilliger, B.L. Woodworth, P.J. Hart, D. Palmer, and R.C. Fleischer. 2008. Genetic structure along an elevational gradient in Hawaiian Honeycreepers reveals contrasting evolutionary responses to avian malaria. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8:315. 14 TCBES GR_. 1' �. , ' JE STUDENTS MENTORED AS PRIMARY ADVISOR (INCLUDING 5 HAWAIIAN/ PACIFIC ISLANDERS) DURING LAST 5 YEARS AT U14 HILO: • Jackie Gaudioso, Bobby Hsu, Samuel Brooks, Chris Todd, Seth. Judge, Stephan Kropidlowski, Thomas Jones, Kainana Francisco, Christina Cornett, Tony Kovach, Ann Tanimoto, Joshua Pang - Ching, Tishanna Ben, James Akau F2-111 GRANTS RECEIVED (LAST FIVE YEARS) Price, D.P., P.J. Hart, E. Stacy, and M. Takabayashi.. Understanding Biotic Response to Environmental Change in Tropical Ecosystems Through a Place -Based Context ($4,999,999) Hart, P. J., P. Banko, and A. Timmermann. 2013. UH Climate Science Center grant Reconstructing pre -historic climate variability in Hawaii and the tropical Pacific ($81,000) Hart, P. J. 2012. National Park Service. Vegetation inventory and mapping support. ($270,000) Hart, P. J. 2010. National Park Service. Landbird inventory and monitoring ($300,426) Price, D.P., P.J. Hart, E. Stacy, and M. Takabayashi. 2008. CREST center in tropical ecology and evolution in marine and terrestrial environments ($4,999,995) PROFESSIONAL, ASSOCIATIONS American Ornithologists Union Cooper Ornithological Society Wilson Ornithological Society WASK Geometrician Associates LLC Integrating Geographic .Science and Planning PO Box 396, Hilo Hawaii 96721 PHONE: 808-969-7090 e-mail: rterryCd,hawaii.rr.com website: geometricianassociates.com CHIEF PERSONNEL: Ron Terry, Ph.D. Principal Environmental Assessment, Botany, Vegetation Remote Sensing Patrick Hart, Ph.D. Associate Terrestrial and Aquatic Botany and Zoology Layne Yoshida, B.S. Associate Botany, Forestry CONSULTING SPECIALTIES: Environmental Preparation of NEPA & State Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Analysis: Statements, and Other Government Permit -Related Impact Documents. Flora & Fauna: Flora and Fauna Studies, Section 7 Consultation, Remote Sensing of Vegetation RECENT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PROJECTS: Biological surveys/training sessions (8 to date) for Environet, Waikoloa Maneuver Area (2013-15) ➢ Biological surveys of County Open Space Properties (6 to date) (HI County P&R 2014-15) ➢ Botanical survey Kilauea -Kauai Proposed Bicycle Path (Private 2013) Ka'6 Forest Reserve Management Plan Environmental Assessment (DLNR 2012) Hilo Hillside Subdivision Section 7 ESA Consultation, FEMA (Private 2011) ➢ Monk Seal Recovery Facility Environmental Assessment (Marine Mammal Center 2011) Biocontrol of Strawberry Guava Environmental Assessment (U.S. Forest Service 2010) ➢ Kea'au Palioa Highway Improvements Botany Report (SSFM/Dept. of Trans. 2010) ➢ Ha'ena State Park Biological Report (PBR Hawaii/DLNR 2009) ➢ La'i`6pua Endangered Species Preserve Management Plan (DHHL 2008) ➢ Environmental Assessment for Hakalau Forest NWR, Kona Forest Unit (USFWS 2008) ➢ Waikoloa Makai Botany Report (SSFM 2008) ➢ Aina Haina Conservation District Parcel Botany Report (Private 2007) ➢ Mohouli Drainage Botany Report (SSFM 2006) ➢ La`aloa D -Bar Ranch Botany Report (Private 2005) ➢ Environmental Assessment for State Kahikinui Forest Restoration, Maui (DLNR 2004) Botanical Report for Koa Timber (2002) ➢ Flora and Fauna Reports, Cellular Towers (5 reports, 1998-2004) ➢ Flora and Fauna Reports, Parker Ranch Quarry Sites (6 reports, 1999-2004) QUALIFICATIONS OF RON TERRY, PH.D.: Ron Terry, Ph.D., earned a B.A. in Geography in 1980 from the University of Hawaii at Hilo. Supported by a National Science Foundation grant, he earned a Ph.D. from Louisiana S�.me University, also in Geography, in 1988. He was Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Hawai' i :;t Hilo from 1987- 1992. During his professorship he began his consulting business, and began full-time con- long in 1992. He remains an Affiliate Professor at UH -Hilo. He has been a board member of several State boards and commissions related to environmental management. F2-113 Appendix C Archaeological Assessment Survey F2-114 An Archaeological Assessment Survey of west Hawaii Concrete Waikoloa Quarry TN4K: (3) 6-8-001:066 (por.) Waik6loa Ahupua`a South Kohala District Island of Hawaii x717555 t -es 1_1 Executive EXECUTIVE SUMMARY F2-115 At tlu request of Jennifer Lim of Carlsmith Ball LLP, on behalf of West Hawaii Concrete, ASM Affiliates conducted an archaeological assessment survey of a roughly 220 acre portion of TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 within the West Hawaii Concrete Waik6loa Quarry Property, Waik6loa Ahupua'a, South Kohala District, Island of Haw•ai'i. The current study area is located along the boundary between the districts of South Kohala and North Kona and surrounded by undeveloped 'a'rr lava flows on all sides. West Hawaii Concrete has been operating a concrete quarry within the study area since at least 1995. West Hawaii Concrete intends to seek approval from the Leeward Planning and State Land Use Commissions to extend the duration of the Special Permit and expand the permitted uses to include the following activities in addition to the currently permitted concrete quarrying: green waste processing and composting, cement concrete recycling and asphalt concrete recycling. This survey was undertaken in accordance with Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§13-284, and was performed in compliance with the Rules Governing Minimal Standards for Archaeological Inventory• Surveys and Reports as contained in Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§ 13-276. According to 13§ 13-284-5 when no archaeological resources are discovered during an archaeological survey the production of an Archaeological Assessment report is appropriate. Compliance with the above standards is sufficient for meeting the historic preservation review process requirements of both the Department of Land and Natural Resources --State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR—SHPD) and the County of Hawaii Planning Department. PHRI (Jensen and Burgett 1991) previously prepared an archaeological inventory survey of a roughly 300 -acre parcel of land that included the 220 acre parcel which constitutes the current study area. PHRI recorded an absence of cultural resources within the current study area and the presence of nineteen sites in an area adjacent to the current study parcel. Intensive archaeological survey for the current study was conducted on May 20, 2015 by Teresa Gotay, M.A. and Layne Krause, B.A. under the direction of Robert B. Rechtman, Ph. D. Archaeological survey focused on the limited undeveloped sections around the periphery of the quarry site within the study area. Walking north -south transects spaced approximately 25 meters apart, fieldworkers did not encounter any archaeological resources. Given the negative findings of the prior study and the similar findings of the current study, it is concluded that the proposed extension and amendment of the existing Special Permit will not impact any known historic properties. It is therefore recommended that no further historic preservation work is needed. Archaeological Assessment ThtK: (3) 6-8-001:066 CHAPTERS F2-116 Tabic o Contem— Page 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION........................................................................................14 2. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................ 9 CULTURE- I IISTORICAL CONTEXT............................................................................. 9 PRIOR. AR( I I GEOLOGICAL STUDY........................................................................... 26 3. STUDY .A R i" A EXPECTATIONS .............................................................................. 27 4. FIELDWORK..............................................................................................................28 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... 29 REFERENCES CITED.....................................................................<.............................30 FIGURES Page 1. Study area location...................................................................................................................... 2 2. Tax Map Key (TMK) (3): 6-8-001 showing location of current study area (portion of Parcel066).................................................................................................................................. 3 3. Google EarthTM satellite image showing location of current study area outlined in red............ 4 4. Transmission line and access road marking the southern boundary of study area, viewto the east........................................................................................................................... 5 5. Weigh station and graded access road near the entrance to study area, view tothe northwest.......................................................................................................................... 5 6. Mechanical quarrying activity within the current study area, view to the east ........................... 6 7. Quarrying activity within the central portion of the study area, view to the northeast ............... 6 8.2015 Google Earth aerial of study area showing network of access roads and quarried areas............................................................................................................................................ 7 9. Aerial comparison showing quarry activity within study area: a. April 2000, b. August 2014........................................................................................................................... 7 10. Geologic map (Wolfe and Morris 1996) showing study area within lava flows and correspondingdates.................................................................................................................. 8 11. Portion of Hawaii Registered Map No. 2124 showing Waik6loa Ahupua`a ca. 1901 and current study arealocation............................................................................................... 10 12. Registered Map No. 574 showing Waik6loa, the kalana of Waimea and the approximate location of the current study area (prepared by Kaelemakule, n.d.).................. 12 13. Hawai`i Registered Map No. 712 showing the kalana of Waimea and associated ahupita `a ca. 1866 with approximate location of the current study area ................................ 13 14. Hawaii Registered Map No. 1080 showing kalana of Waimea with Waik6loa Ahupua`a asit is appears today............................................................................................................... 15 15. Portion of the 1923 U.S.G.S. Pu`u Hinai quadrangle showing the current study area within Kaniku Lava Flow...... Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 V Table of Contents F2-117 Page 16. Emerson sketch map of South Kohala coast cal 1882 (from Escott 2008:43) ........................ 24 17. Portion of Tax Map (3) 6-8-001 showing archaeological preserve and current studyarea................................................................................................................................ 27 18. Minimally disturbed section in the northeastern portion of the current study area ................ 28 19. Small section of unquarried area in the southeastern portion of the study area. ... ................. 29 TABLE Page 1. Sites in archaeological preserve north of the study area (from Jensen and Burgett 1991)....... 26 iii Archaeological Assessment TIv1K: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-118 1. Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION At the request of Jennifer Lim of Carlsmith Ball LLP, on behalf of West Hawaii Concrete, ASM Affiliates conducted an archaeolo icai assessment survey of a roughly 220 acre portion of TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 within the West Hawaii Concrete Waik5loa quarry site, Waik6loa Ahupua'a, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii (Figures 1, 2, and 3). West Hawaii Concrete intends to obtain approval from the Leeward Planning Commission and the State Land Use Commission to extend and amend the existing Special Permit, which allows for the operation of a quarry, to include the following activities: green waste processing and composting, cement concrete recycling and asphalt concrete recycling. This project area was subject to an archaeological inventory survey (Jensen and Burgett 1991) conducted in 1991 prior to the establishment of the quarry operation. As the Special Permit process dictates compliance with HRS Chapter 6E, and in an abundance of caution, the landowner decided to provide an updated archaeological study to verify that no historic properties would be affected by the proposed expanded operations. This survey was undertaken in accordance with Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§ 13-284, and was performed in compliance with the Rules Governing Minimal Standards for Archaeological Inventory Surveys and Reports as contained in Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§13-276. According to 13§13-284-5 when no archaeological resources are discovered during an archaeological survey the production of an Archaeological Assessment report is appropriate. Compliance with the above standards is sufficient for meeting the historic preservation review process requirements of the Department of Land and Natural Resources --State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR—SHPD), the State Land Use Commission (LUC), and the County of Hawaii Planning Department with respect to the issuance of permits for land use and ground -altering activities. This report contains background information outlining the current study area's environmental and cultural contexts, a reg iew of the findings from one previous archaeological study conducted within the current study area, and curve, expectations based on the culture -historical context and previous investigation. An explanation of the current survey methods and findings will also be presented in addition to conclusions and recommendations based on the results of the current study. Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-119 1. Introduction Figure 1. Study area location. 2 Archaeological Assessment TNIK: (.) 6-8-001:066 CDr; wivinpwiul - I is ♦ F2-121 1. 111i1'Ud UC6011 Figure 3. Google EarthTM satellite image showing location of current stud}' area outlined in red. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The current study area consists of 219.990 acres of land within a portion of TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 located in Waik6loa Ahupua`a, South Kohala District, Hawaii Island. The study area is situated roughly 4 miles mauka of the beachfront at `Anaeho`omalu Bay, and is located along the South Kohala/North Kona boundary (see Figure 1). The studN. area is bounded at its south end by a transmission line corridor and unpaved access road (Figure 4), while the east, west, and north sides of the project area terminate in undeveloped land corresponding with the following TMK parcels: (3) 6-8- 001:005 (west) and (3) 6-8-001:067 (north and east). Bordering the study area to the north, on TMK (3) 6-8-001:067, is an archaeological preserve containing nineteen sites within a roughl% 30 acre area. A gated access road enters the northwest corner of the study arca from Waik6loa Road. This access road leads directly into a graded area with a weigh station (Figure 5) that marks the northwest boundary of the quarry site. Evidence of prior and current mechanical quarrying activity was observed during the field investigation (Figures 6 and 7). These quarried areas and the associated network of ungraded and graded access roads extend south-southeast from the northwest corner of the study area and cover roughly ninety-five percent of the approximately 220 acre property (Figure 8). The study area lands have been operated as a quarry by West Hawaii Concrete since 1995; Figure 9 shows a comparison of aerial photos of the study area taken 14 years apart, which highlights the mechanical alterations to the terrain over time. The study area is situated at elevations ranging between 694 and 925 feet (211 and 282 meters) above sea level, within two lava flows that emanated from Mauna Loa known as the Kaniku Lava Flow (see Figure 1). Both flows within the study area are rugged expanses of 'a'd with near complete absence of soil. The earliest flow dates from between 3,000 and 5,000 years ago while the more recent flow occurred between 1,500 to 3,000 years ago (Wolfe and Morris 1996). Most of the Kaniku flow within the current study area has been altered by the ground disturbance associated with the quarry operations (see Figure 8). Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-122 l . Introduction Figure 4. Transmission line acid access road marking the southern boundary of study area, view to the east. Figure 5. Weigh station and graded access road near the entrance to study area. view to the northwest. Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-123 I. InII- dLI00011 Figure 6. Mechanical quarrying activity within the current study area, view to the east. Figure 7. Quarrying activity within the central portion of the study area, view to the northeast. Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-124 1. Introduction figure 8.2015 Google Earth aerial of study area showing network of access roads and quarried areas. Figure 9. Aerial comparison showing quarry activity within study area: a. ,April 2000, b. August 2014. Archaeological Assessment TNIK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-125 1. Introduction Figure 10. Geologic map (Wolfe and Morris 1996) showing study area within lava flows and corresponding dates. The mean annual rainfall within the project area is 290.4 millimeters, with most of the rain (39-47 millimeters) falling during the wettest winter months of December and January, and very little rainfall (9-12 millimeters) during the driest summer months of June, July, and August (Giambelluca et al. 2013). As a result of the and conditions, vegetation is sparse (see Figure 4), consisting primarily of scattered tufts of fountain grass (Pennisetum setacaeum). Fauna in the study environment is also limited by the harsh climate; however, fieldworkers did observe the droppings and skeletal remains of feral goats (Capra sp.). Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-126 2. Backaroim 2. BACKGROUND To generate a set of expectations regarding the types of archaeological resources that might be encountered within the study area, and to establish an environment within which to assess the function, age, and significance of any such resources, a general cultural -historical background for the region is presented. The following section consists of a synthesis of Precontact settlement patterns and historically documented land use combined with a review of the findings of a prior archaeological investigation conducted in the current study area. As previously discussed, the current project area is situated in what is today referred to as the ahuprra'a of Waik6loa in South Kohala District on the leeward side of the Island of Hawaii (Figure 11). It is within this context that the following discussion of the history and culture of the study area is framed. The chronological summary presented below begins with the peopling of the Hawaiian Islands and includes the presentation of a generalized model of Hawaiian prehistory containing specific legendary references to the vicinity of the study area and a discussion of the general settlement patterns for the district of South Kohala. This is followed by a summary of events in South Kohala atter European contact, which includes a discussion of the changing lifeways and population decline of the early Historic Period, a review of land tenure in the study ahupua'a during the 0hele 'Aina of 1848, and ends with a summary of land use within the current study area during the late Historic Period. A Generalized Model of Hawaiian Prrhki-r % The generalized cultural sequence that follows is based on Kirch's (1985) model, and amended to include recent revisions offered by Kirch (2011). The conventional wisdom has been that the first inhabitants of Hawaii Island probably arrived by at least A.D. 300, and focused habitation and subsistence- activity on the windward side of the island (Burtchard 1995; Kirch 1985; Hommon 1986). However, there is no archaeological evidence for occupation of Hawaii Island (or elsewhere in the archipelago ofHawai`i) during this initial settlement, or colonization stage (A.D. 300 to 600). More recently, Kirch (2011) has convincingly argued that Pol\rt,_,4ins may not have arrived to the Hawaiian Islands until at least A.D. 1000 and simply expanded rapidly thereafter. T 1 i > revision would alter the timing of Kirch's (1985) Settlement, Developmental, and Expansion Periods, possibly shit; ug the Settlement Period to A.D. 1000 to 1100, the Developmental Period to A.D. 1100 to 1350, and the Expansion P...iod to A.D. 1350 to 1650. The Settlement Period is believed to have been initiated by the arrival of settlers from the southern Marquesas Islands. This was a period of great exploitation and environmental modification, when early settlers adapted their familiar patterns and traditional tools into subsistence strategies suited to their new Hawaiian environment (Kirch 1985; Pogue 1978). Their ancient and ingrained philosophy of life tied them to their environment and kept order, which was maintained by the conical clan principle of genealogical seniority (Kirch 1984). According to Fornander (1969), the early Hawaiians brought from their homeland certain universal Polynesian customs: the major gods Kane, Ku, and Lono; the kapu system of law and order; cities of refuge; the 'aumakrra concept; various epiphenomenal beliefs; and the concept ofmana. In the traditional district or moku of Kohala, the long ridge of the Kohala Mountains extends perpendicular to the predominant northeasterly trade winds, creating an orographic rainfall pattern that separates the district into two distinct environmental zones; a wetter windward zone on the eastern (Hamakua) side, and a drier leeward zone on the western (Kona) side. The first settlers of Kohala likely established a few small communities, primarily in the windward valleys and gulches, near sheltered bays with access i_, sh water and had an occupational focus on the collection of marine resources. Evidence of the earliest occupation k•: +ard Kohala has been collected from Kapa`anui, where Dunn and Rosendahl (1989) recovered radiocarbon sautpies with a potential early date (A.D. 461), and from `Anaeho`omalu where Barrera (1971) reported A.D. 900 as the initial date for settlement. These early dates should be viewed with suspicion (see Kirch 2011), but it is possible that they represent the earliest establishment of small, short- term camps to exploit seasonal, coastal resources in leeward Kohala. Data recovered from Mahukona, along the leeward coast of North Kohala, suggest initial occupation taking place there by about A.D. 1280 (Burgett and Rosendahl 1993:36); while Cordy (2000) reported on sites in windward Kohala that are believed to have been utilized in the early thirteenth century. Permanent settlement in Kohala has been reported as early as A.D. 1300 at Koai'e, a coastal settlement, with subsistence primarily derived from marine resources and likely supplemented by small-scale agriculture (Tomonari-Tuggle 1988). Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 9 F2-127 a Y h.j .-, r . 6, I r I I ;k I u,", I ; I t �,3 NV vo 0 STIIL�- mv-1 localio� A Figure 11. Portion of Hawaii Registered Map No. 2124 showing Waik6loa Ahupua'a ca. 1901 and current study area location. 10 Archaeological Asscssmcnt TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 > L V NV vo 0 STIIL�- mv-1 localio� A Figure 11. Portion of Hawaii Registered Map No. 2124 showing Waik6loa Ahupua'a ca. 1901 and current study area location. 10 Archaeological Asscssmcnt TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-128 2. Background During the Developmental Period, a uniquely Hawaiian culture emerged. The portable artifacts found in archaeological sites of this period reflect not only an evolution of the traditional tools, but some distinctly Hawaiian innovations. The two-piece fishhook and the octopus -lure breadloaf sinker are Hawaiian inventions of this period, as are `ulu maika stones and lei Who palana. The latter was a status item worn by those of high rank, indicating a trend toward greater status differentiation. The very standard Hawaiian rectangular quadrangular tanged adze (kv'i) evolved from the typical Polynesian variations of plano-convex, trapezoidal, and reverse -triangular cross-sections (Kirch 1985). A few areas in Hawai'i produced quality basalt for adze production including a well-known quarry on Mauna Kea on the island of Hawaii. As the island reached its maximum carrying capacity, the limited resources resulted in social stress and hostility that lead to wars between neighboring groups (Kirch 1985). Soon, large areas of Hawaii were controlled by a few powerful chiefs. The Expansion Period of Hawaiian prehistory is characterized by extreme social stratification, major socioeconomic changes, and intensive land modification, which included expanded efforts to intensify upl;im; agriculture. During this period, most of the ecologically favorable zones of the windward and coastal regions }? , major islands were settled and the more marginal leeward areas were being developed. The greatest population gr..,,, ;i. occurred during this time, which included a second major migration to Hawaii from Tahiti, in the Society Islands. One of the earliest specific references to Waikoloa appears in the work of Samuel Manaiakalani Kamakau who recounted the chants and legendary traditions of Hawaiian prehistory in his writings. According to Kamakau (1976) the priest Pd'ao arrived in the Hawaiian Islands during the 13'h century from Kahiki, which has since been interpreted as Tahiti. Pd'ao was the keeper of @ie ° 5.@ k0'ka'ilimoku, who had fought bitterly with his older brother, the high priest Lonopelc, who expelled hint i;LyJ'J :i• Wirieltnd (Kamakau 1991). Lonopele did not let Pa'ao lea %r- peacefully, but instead called on the cold north winds to sink his canoes; one of the winds was named "Waikoloa" i Kamakau 1991:5). Despite Lonopele's best efforts, Pa'ao's canoe was not destroyed and he and his companioi , o E-ioy eight men, two stewards, his sister, chief Pili and his wife and the prophet Makuaka' umana) arrived safely in i ,t y%ai'i after their perilous journey. Kamakau (199 1) recounts the following details of Pa'ao and Pili's arrival in Hawai • is It is thought that Pd'ao came to Hawaii in the time of the ali'i La'au because Pili ruled as mo'i after La'au. You will see Pili there in the line of succession, the mo'o ka'auhau, of Hanala'anui. It is said that Hawaii Island was without a chief, and so a chief was brought from Kahiki; this is according to chiefly genealogies. Hawaii Island had been without a chief for a long time, and the chiefs of Hawaii were ali'i maka'dinana or just commoners, maka'ainana, during this time. ... There were seventeen generations during which Hawaii Island was without chiefs—some eight hundred years.... The lack of a high chief was the reason for seeking a chief in Kahiki, and that is perhaps how Pili became the chief of Hawaii. He was a chief from Kahiki and became the ancestor of chiefs and people of Hawaii Island. (1991:100-102) The moku of Kohala appears in several versions of the Pili ruling line's origin story; such as a version discussed by Beckwith (1976) in which Mo'okini and Kaluawilinau, two kirhuna of Moikeha, decide to stay on at Kohala. In addition, Kamakau (1964) recounts that In the burial cave of Pu'uwepa in Kohala, Hawaii are deposited the bones of Pa'ao, the famous kahuna who built the heiau of Mo'okini at Kohala, and who lived a span of 15 generations before he died. Its entrance is said to be beneath the sea (1964:41) The Pili chiefs initial ruling center was likely in Kohala too, but Cartwright (1933) suggests that Pili later resided in and ruled from Waipi'o Valley in the Hamakua District. Rosendahl (1972) has proposed that settlement in leeward Kohala during the Expansion Period was related to seasonal, recurrent occupation. Coastal sites were occupied in the summer to exploit marine resources, while upland sites were occupied during the winter months with a primary focus on agriculture. According to Hommon (1976), an increasing reliance on agricultural products may have caused a shift in social networks as well; kinship links between coastal settlements disintegrated as those links within the mauka-makai settlements expanded to accommodate the exchange of agricultural products for marine resources. This shift is believed to have resulted in the establishment of the ahuptia`a system. The implications of this model include a shift in residential patterns from seasonal/temporary occupation to permanent, dispersed occupation of both coastal and upland areas. According to Kirch's (1985) model, the concept of the ahupua'a was established sometime during the A.D. 1400s, adding another component to a well -stratified society. This land unit became the equivalent of a local community, with its own social, economic, and political significance. Ahupua'a were ruled by alf'i 'ai ahupua'a or lesser chiefs; Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 1 I F2-129 2. Background who, for the most part, had complete autonomy over this generally economically self-supporting piece of laud, which was managed by a konohiki. Ahupua'a were usually wedge or pie -shaped, incorporating all of the eco -zones from the mountains to the sea and for several hundred yards be. ,)td the shore, assuring a diverse subsistence resource base (Hommon 1986). This form of district subdividing was '_I" -al to early Hawaiian life, and was the product of strictly adhered to resource management planning. In this syste,,_- .he land provided fruits and vegetables and some meat for the diet, and the ocean provided a wealth of protein resources (Rechtman and Maly 2003). The a10 and the maka'dinana (commoners) were not confined to the boundaries of their ahupria'a; when there was a perceived need, they also shared with their neighbor ahupua'a 'ohaiaa (Hono-ko-hau 1974). The ahupua'a were further divided into smaller sections such as the 'ili, mo'o winzi, pauku'ainur, klhapili, koele, hakuone, and ktrakua (Hommon 1986, Pogue 1978). The chiefs of these land units gave their allegiance to a territorial chief or mo'r (king). Traditionally, Waikoloa was an 71i of the kakina (or 'okuna) of Waimea (Figure 12), a land division that in ancient times was treated as a sub -district, smaller than a district imoku o loko), but comprised of several other land divisions that contributed to its wealth (Maly and Maly 2002). The lands within the kalana of Waimea were those that form the southern limits of present day South Kohala District including 'buli, Wai`aka, Lalamilo, Puako, Kalahuipua-a, 'Anaeho'omalu, Kanakanaka, Ala`ohi`a, Paulama, Pu-ukalani, Pu'ukapu, and Waikoloa, where the current study area is located (Figure 13). 4 :' rl n'i Mile. Ii: JIKM Ojr . CU*fr116 �al,ih ll�r`d - F r t P 1 - �A. 11A I U`i� 4VA11'j` 11AWA31 Figure 12. Registered Map No. 574 showing Waik6loa, the kalaata of Waimea and the approximate location of the current study area {prepared by Kaelemakule, n.d.). 12 Archaeological Assessment TX1K. (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-130 2. Background w �i s r� I i 1 i I h A 4 Y WAIMEA � SOV" SORA LA Ij z y _ . Approximate location P y w ,of current study area � OT� H K O N A _ 1 _ Figure 13. Hawar`i Registered Map No. 712 showing g' p it t he kalann of Waimea and associated ahrtpriGr'a ca. ] $fi5 with approximate location of the current study area. Archaeological Assessment TMK; (3) 5-8-001:065 13 F2-131 2. Background Bernice Judd, a former librarian at the Hawaiian Mission Children's society, explains that: In the early days Waimea meant all the plateau between the Kohala Mountains and Mauna Kea, inland from Kawaihae. This area is from eight to ten miles long and from three to five miles wide. There was no running water on Mauna Kea, so the inhabitants lived at the base of the Kohala Mountains, where three streams touched the plain on their way towards the sea... The middle stream, which was famous for wild ducks, was named Waikoloa, or Duckwater. This and the most westerly stream, called Kahakohau, went towards Kawaihae, but neither reached the sea, except in times of flood. (Judd 1932:14) In some early accounts, Waikoloa Ahupua'a was referred to as Waikoloa Nui, and the neighboring ahuptia'a of Lalamilo as Waikoloa Iki (Maly 1999). Unlike the early maps of Waimea prepared by Kaelemakule (see Figure 12) and S.C. Wiltse in 1866 (see Figure (3), Hawaiian Government Survey maps prepared by John M. Donn in 1901 (see Figure 11) and by C.J. Lyons in 1928 (Figure 14) both show the ahuptua'a of Waik6loa as it appears today. Heiau construction flourished during the Expansion Period as religion became more complex and embedded in a sociopolitical climate of territorial competition. Monumental architecture "played a key role as visual markers of chiefly dominance" (Kirch 1990:206). This pattern continued to intensify from A.D. 1500 until contact (A.D. 1778), and archaeological evidence suggests that substantial revisions were made to the political system as well. Within Kohala, the Great Wall complex at Koai'e is organized with platforms in the complex set apart from contemporaneous features, Griffin et al. (1971) interpret this separation within the complex as symbolic of class stratification. During the Expansion Period agricultural intensification occurred primarily in the uplands of South Kohala. Although most of the taro and sweet potato fields of South Kohala were located in the rainier uplands near the present day town of Waimea (where there was also a sizable permanent population),Handy and 1•[andy relate that: the coastal section of Waimea, now called South Kohala, has a number of small bays with sandy shores where fishermen used to live, and where they probably cultivated potatoes in small patches... Puako near the Kona border was a sizable fishing village at one time where there were undoubtedly many sweet potato patches" (1991:532) In addition to taro and sweet potato fields, W kea (white cane), the most common variety of sugarcane (Sacchartum oj)lcinarum) was often planted near Hawaiian homes and was utilized for a variety of medicinal and culinary purposes (Handy and Handy 1991). Sugar cane was also used as thatch for houses when pili grass (Heteropogon contortus) or lau kala (Pandanus odorti%sinnts) were in short supply (Malo 1903). The name of the village of Puako, literally translates as "sugarcane blossom" (Pukui et al. 1974). Pukui (1983) cites the following ancient proverb that references the sugar cane in Kohala: I 'ike 'fa no o Kohala i ka pae W, a o ka pae ko is kole ai ka x aha. One can recognize Kohala by her rows of sugar cane which can make the mouth raw when chewed. Pukui stresses that Hawaiian proverbs have layers of meaning that are best left to the imagination of the reader and offers the following interpretation of this proverb: When one %wanted to fight a Kohala warrior, he would have to be a very good warrior to succeed. Kohala men were vigorous, brave, and strong. (1983:127) Another Hawaiian legend, the Legend of Kaniku and Kanimoe, two mo'o or water -spirits with lizard bodies, is worth mentioning as part of the current investigation because the study area is located within the lava flow (Figure 15) that bears the water spirit's name. According to an interview documented by Wolforth et al., these two moo took the form of beautiful women and lived in the "large coastal fishpond of Wainanali'i in Pu'uanahulu" (2005:6). According to the legend, Kaniku and Kanimoe were turned to stone when a lava flow covered the fishpond and as a result, their bodies still lie side by side in the middle of the 'a 'd flow, which is how the Kaniku Lava Flow got its name (Wolforth et al 2005). 14 Archaeological Assessment TNIK: (3) 6-8-001:066 N c`7 N H 990, [Do -8-9 (£1 :`IIAi.I 1uawssassv Iealvo[oagya.ad E i 0, ' t1 punwidjaeg •Z —. 990:100-8-9 (0 :NIV.L luialss.)SSV p"ll'soloar-t1mv co u f�p 61 F2-134 2. Background By the seventeenth century, large areas of Hawaii Island (moku aina — districts) were controlled by a few powerful ali'i 'ai moku. There is island -wide evidence to suggest that growing conflicts between independent chiefdoms were resolved through warfare, culminating in a unified political structure at the district level. It has been suggested that the unification of the island resulted in a partial abandonment of portions of leeward Hawaii, with people moving to more favorable agricultural areas (Barrera 1971; Schilt and Sinoto 1980). 'Umi a Liloa, a renowned ali'i of the Pili line who ruled from Waipi`o Valley, is often credited with uniting the island ofHawai`i under one rule (Cordy 1994). According to Kamakau (1992) `Umi was a skilled fisherman, and fishing for aku, his favorite fish, often brought him to the beaches of South Kohala from Kalahuipua'a to Makaula, where he also fished for 'ahi and kala with many other famed fishermen and all the chiefs of the kingdom. 'Umi's reign lasted until around ca. A.D. 1620, and was followed by the rule of his son, Keawenui a 'Umi, and then his grandson, Lonoikamakahiki (Cordy 1994). Kirch (1985) places the beginning of the Proto-Historic Period (A.D. 1650-1795) during the rule of Lonoikamakahiki. This period was marked by both political intensification and continual conquest by the reigning ah'i. Wars occurred regularly between intra -island and inter -island polities during this period, and included battles that transpired in the vicinity of the current study area. One such battle was fought between Lonoikamakahiki (Lono) and his older brother, Kanaloakua'ana, who rebelled against him. According to Fornander, Kanaloakua'ana and his rebel forces were situated at: ... the land called Anaehoomalu, near the boundaries of Kohala and Kona. The rebel chiefs were encamped seaward of this along the shore. The next day Lono marched down and met the rebels at the place called Wailea, not far from 'A .� inanalii, where in those days a watercourse appears to have been flowing. Lono won the battle, and ;ii,: : ,�hel chiefs tied northward with their forces. At Kaunooa [Kauna'oa], between Puako and Kawa 7l,,w, they made another stand, but were again routed by Lono, and retreated to Nakikiaianihau, wberr Fl.ey fell in with reinforcements from Kohala and Hamakua. Two other engagements were fousdl,t .,; Paupa [on the plain north of Waikoloa] and Puukohala, near the Heiau of that name, in both of which Lono was victorious... (Fornander 1996:120-121) Later, Lonoikamakahiki battled the forces of Maui led by Kamdlalawalu (Kama) on the plain of Waikoloa below Pu'u '0a'oaka (Maly and Maly 2002). According to Kamakau: After Kama-lala-walu's warriors reached the grassy plain, they looked seaward on the left and beheld the men of Kona advancing toward them. The lava bed of Kaniku and all the land up to Hu'ehu'e was covered with the men of Kona. Those of Ka'u and Puna were coining down from Mauna Kea, and those of Waimea and Kohala were on the level plain of Waimea [Waikoloa]. The men covered the whole of the grassy plain of Waimea like locusts. Kamalalawalu with his warriors dared to fight. The battlefield ofPu`oa'oaka was outside of the grassy plain of Waimea, but the men of Hawaii were afraid of being taken captive by Kama, so they led [Kamalalawalu's forces] to the waterless plain lest Maui's warriors find water and hard, waterworn pebbles. The men of Hawaii feared that the Maui warriors would find water to drink and become stronger for the slinging of stones that would fall like raindrops from the sky. The stones would fall about with a force like lightning, breaking the bones into pieces and causing sudden death as if by bullets ... ... The Maui men who were used to slinging shiny, water -worn stones grabbed up the stones of Pu'oa'oaka. A cloud of dust rose to the sky and twisted about like smoke, but the lava rocks were light, and few of the Hawaii men were killed by them. This was one of the things that helped to destroy the warriors of Kama-lala-walu: They went away out on the plain where the strong fighters were unable to find water ... The warriors of Maui were put to flight, and the retreat to Kawaihae was long. [Yet] there were many who did reach Kawaihae, but because of the lack of canoes, only a few escaped with their lives ... Kamalalawalu, ruler of Maui, was killed on the grassy plain of Puako, and some of his chiefs were also destroyed. (Kamakau 1991:58-60) By the 1700s, the rule of Hawai'i Island was divided amongst the chiefs of Kona and Hilo (Kamakau 1992). Keawe, a Pili line ruler xid the son of Kanaloakapulehu, was the chief of Kohala, Kona, and Ka't5. When Keawe died, he split the rule of his I,:e7ds between two of his sons, further dividing the island's chiefdoms; Kalaninui'iamamao became the ruling chief of Ka'u, and Ke'eaumoku became the ruling chief of Kona and Kohala (Kamakau 1992). Wars between the ali'i com::..tted unabated through this transition. Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 17 F2-135 2. Background During this time of warfare, and following the death of Keawe, Kamehameha was born in North Kohala District in the ahupua'a of Kokoiki, near the heiau of Mo'okini (Kamakau 1992). There is some controversy about the year of his birth, but Kamakau (1992) places the birth event sometime between A.D. 1736 and 1758, most likely nearer to the later date. Kamehameha's ancestral homeland was in Halawa, North Kohala District (Williams 1919). About A.D. 1759, Kalani'6pu'u conquered East Maui and defeated his wife's brother, the Maui king Kamehamehanui, by using Hana's prominent Pu'u Kau'iki as his fortress. He appointed one of his Hawaii chiefs, Puna, as governor of Hana and KTpahulu. Following this victory, Ke`eaumoku, the son of Keawepoepoe who had originally supported Kalani'6pu'u against Keawe'6pala, rebelled against the Hawai'i chief. He set up a fort on a hill between PololO and Honokane Valleys in windward North Kohala, but Kalani'6pu'u attacked him there and reigned victorious. Using ropes, Ke'eaumoku escaped to the sea and fled in a canoe to Maui where he lived under the protection of the Maui chiefs (Kamakau 1992). In A.D. 1766 Kamehamehanui, the king of Maui, died following an illness and Kahekili became the new ruler of that island. Ke'eaumoku took Kamehamehanui's widow, Namahana, a cousin of Kamehameha 1, as his wife, and their daughter, Ka'ahumanu, the future favorite wife of Kamehameha I, was born in a cave at the base of Pu'u Kau'iki, Hana, Maui in A.D. 1768 (Kamakau 1992). In A.D. 1775 Kalani'iipu'u and his Hana forces raided and destroyed the neighboring district of Kaup6 in Maui, and then launched several more raids on Moloka'i, L'ana'i, Kaho'olawe, and parts of West Maui. It was at the battle of Kalaeoka'ilio that Kamehameha, a favorite of Kalani'6pu'u, was first recognized as a great warrior and given the name of Pai'ea (hard -shelled crab) by the Maui chiefs and warriors (Kamakau 1992). During the battles between Kulani'6pu'u and Kahekili (1777-1779), Ka'ahumanu and her parents left Maui to live on the island of Hawaii (Kamakau 1992). Kalani'6pu'u was fighting on Maui when the British explorer Captain James Cook first arrived in the islands. History After Contact The arrival of Western explorers in Hawai'i marked the end of the Precontact Period and the beginning of the Historic Period. With the arrival of foreigners, Hawai'i's culture and economy were drastically altered. Demographic trends during this period indicate population reduction in some areas, due to war and disease, yet increases in .ethers, with relatively little modification of material culture. There was a continued trend toward craft and status ,-cc I ization, intensification of agriculture, ali'i controlled aquaculture, upland residential sites, and the enhancement o; i r;�ditional oral history. The Ku cult, luakini heiau, and the kapu system were at their peaks, although Western influence was already altering the cultural fabric of the Islands (Kirch 1985; Kent 1983). Foreigners very quickly introduced the concept of trade for profit, and by the time Kamehameha I had conquered Oahu, Maui and Molokai, in 1795, Hawai'i had seen the beginnings of a market system economy (Kent 1983). Some of the work of the commoners shifted from subsistence agriculture to the production of foods and goods that they could trade with early visitors. Introduced foods often grown for trade with Westerners included yams, coffee, melons, potatoes, corn, beans, figs, oranges, guava, and grapes (Wilkes 1845). Later, as the Historic Period progressed, Kamehameha I died, the kapu system was abolished, Christianity established a firm foothold in the islands, and introduced diseases and global economic and political forces began to have a devastating impact on traditional Hawaiian lifeways. This marked the end of the Proto-Historic Period and the decline of the uniquely innovative Hawaiian culture. The Arrival of Captain James Cook and the End of Kalani'6pu'u's Reign (1778-1782) British explorer Captain James Cook, in command of the ships H.M.S. Resolution and H.,1.S. Discovery, first landed in the Hawaiian islands on January 18, 1778. The following January, Cook returned to Kealakekua Bay in South Kona District during the annual Makahiki festival. According to John Ledyard, a British marine on board Cook's ship, more than 15,000 inhabitants were present at the bay at that time, and as many as 3,000 canoes came out to greet the ships (Jarves 1847). It has been suggested that Captain Cook was mistaken for the returned god Lono himself, as men would not normally be allowed to paddle out during the Makahiki without breaking the kapu and forfeiting all of their possessions (Kamakau 1992). Cook set sail shortly thereafter but a storm forced him to return to return to Kealakekua Bay for repairs. Cook's return set off a series of unfortunate events that ended in Cook's death along with four of his men and several natives on the shores of Ka'awaloa (Kamakau 1992). Atter Captain Cook was struck down, the British ships fired cannons into the crowd at the shore and several more natives were killed. Kalani'6pu'u and his retinue retreated inland, bringing the body of Cook with them. Kamakau writes: 18 Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-136 2. Background ... The bodies of Captain Cook and the four men who died with him were carried to Ka-lani-`opu`u at Maaunaloia, and the chief sorrowed over the death of the captain. He dedicated the body of Captain Cook, that is, he offered it as a sacrifice to the god with a prayer to grant life to the chief (himself) and to his dominion. Then they stripped the flesh from the bones of Lono. The palms of the hands and the intestines were kept; the remains (pela) were consumed with fire. The bones Ka- lani-`opu'u was kind enough to give to the strangers on board the ship, but some were saved by the kahunas and worshiped. (1992:103) After the death of Captain Cook and the departure of the H. M.S. Resolution and Discovers,, Kalani'6pu'u moved to Kona (Kamakau 1992). When famine struck in Kona District, Kalani'6pu'u ordered that all the cultivated products in Kona be seized. He then set out on a circuit of the island; his first stop was Hinakahua in Kapa`au, North Kohala. During his stay in Kohala, Kalani'6pu'u proclaimed that his son Kiwala'6 would be his successor, and he gave the guardianship of the war god Kuka'ilimoku to Kamehameha. However, Kamehameha and a few other chiefs were concerned about their land claims, which Kiwala'6 did not seem to honor (Fornander 1996; Kamakau 1992). The heiau of Moa 'ula was erected in Waipi'o at this time (ca. 1781), and after its dedication Kalani`6pu'u set out for Hilo to quell a rebellion by a Puna chief named Imakakolo`a. Imakakolo'a was defeated in Puna by Kalani`6pu'u's superior forces, but he managed to avoid capture and hide from detection for the better part of a year. While the rebel chief was sought, Kalani'6pu'u "went to Ka -'u and stayed first at Punalu'u, then at Waiohinu, then at Kama'oa in the southern part of Ka -'u, and erected a heiau called Pakini, or Halauwailua, near Kama'oa" (Kamakau 1992:108). Imakakolo'a was eventually captured and brought to the heiau, where Kiwala'6 was to sacrifice him. "The routine of the sacrifice required that the presiding chief should first offer up the pigs prepared for the occasion, then bananas, fruit, and lastly the captive chief' (Fornander 1996:202). However, before Kiwala'6 could finish the first offerings, Kamehameha, "grasped the body of Imakakolo'a and offered it up to the god, and the freeing of the tabu for the heiau was completed" (Kamakau 1992:109). Upon observing this single act of insubordination, many of the chiefs believed that Kamehameha would eventually rule over all of Hawaii. After usurping Kiwalao's authority with a sacrificial ritual in Ka'u, Kamehameha retreated to his home district of Kohala. While in Kohala, Kamehameha farmed the land, growing taro and sweet potatoes (Handy and Handy 1972). Kalani'6pu'u died in April of 1782 and was succeeded by his sun Ki%tala'5. The Rule of Kamehameha 1(1782-11319) After Kalani'6pu'u died, several chiefs were unhappy with Kiwala'6's division of the island's lands, and civil war broke out. Kiwala'6, Kalani'6pu'u's son and appointed heir, was killed in July of 1782 at the battle of Moku'6hai in South Kona. Supporters of Kiwala'6, including his half-brother Kc6ua and his uncle Keawemauhili, escaped the battle of Moku`6hai with their lives and laid claim to the Hilo, Puna, and Ka'u D 4,1 ricts. According to 'I'i (1963), nearly ten years of almost continuous warfare followed the death of Kiwala'6. as Kamc. i.uneha endeavored to conquer the islands of Maui and Oahu and unite the island of Hawaii under one rule. Ke6ua h, came Kamehameha's main rival on the island of Hawaii, and he proved difficult to defeat (Kamakau 1992). Keawear,auhili would eventually give his support to Kamehameha, but Ke6ua never stopped resisting. Around 1790, in an effort to secure his rule, Kamehameha began building the heiau of Pu'ukohola at Kawaihae, which was to be dedicated to the war god Kuka'ilimoku (Fornander 1996). When construction of Pu'ukohola Heiau was completed in the summer of 1791, Kamehameha sent two of his counselors, Keaweaheulu and Kamanawa, to offer peace to Ke6ua. Ke6ua was enticed to the dedication of the Pu'ukohola Heiau by this ruse and when he arrived at Kawaihae he and his party were sacrificed to complete the dedication (Kamakau 1992). The assassination of Kermit gave Kamehameha undisputed control of Hawaii Island by about 1792 (Greene 1993). Between 1792 and 1796 Kamehameha mostly resided at Kawaihae and worked the lands of the Waik6loa-Waimea region (Maly and Maly 2002). By 1796, Kamehameha had conquered all the island kingdoms except for Kaua'i. It wasn't until 1810, when Kaumuali'i of Kauai gave his allegiance to Kamehameha, that the Hawaiian Islands were unified under one ruler (Kuykendall and Day 1976). In the twelve years following the death of Captain Cook, sixteen foreign ships (all British and American) visited Hawaiian waters (Restarick 1927). In 1790, two sister ships, the Eleanora and the Fair American, were trading in Hawaiian waters when a skiff was stolen from the Eleanora and one of its sailors was murdered. The crew of the Eleanora proceeded to slaughter more than 100 natives at Olowalu on Maui. After leaving Maui, the Eleanora sailed to Hawaii Island, where one of its crew, John Young, went ashore and was detained by Kamehameha's men. The other vessel, the Fair American, was captured by the forces of Kamehameha off the coast of North Kona, and in an Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 19 F2-137 2. Background act of retribution for the Olowalu massacre, they slaughtered all but one crew member, Isaac Davis. Guns and a cannon (later named "Lopaka") were recovered from the Fair American, and were kept by Kamehameha as part of his fleet (Kamakau 1992). Kamehameha made John Young and Isaac Davis his advisors. In 1792, Captain George Vancouver, who had sailed with Cook during his 1778-1779 voyages, arrived in Kealakekua Bay with a small fleet of British ships, where he met with Kamehameha. Vancouver stayed only a few days during this first visit, but returned again in 1793 and 1794 to resupply his fleet. Vancouver introduced cattle to the Island of Hawaii during his 1793 and 1794 visits, giving them as gifts to Kamehameha I, who immediately made the cattle kapir, thus preventing them from being killed (Kamakau 1992). Five cows, two ewes, and a ram brought by Vancouver in 1793 were set free to roam in the saddle area of Waimea between Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Hualali (Escott 2008). During one of his visits Vancouver anchored at Kawaihae and a member of his crew, Archibald Menzies, a surgeon and naturalist, trekked inland towards Waimea. Menzies' journal records the journey and describes the land in the vicinity of the current study area as follows: I travelled a few miles back... through the most barren, scorching country I have ever walked over, composed of scorious dregs and black porous rock, interspersed with dreary caverns and deep ravines ... The herbs and grasses which the soil produced in the rainy seasons were now mostly in the shriveled state, thinly scattered and by no means sufficient to cover the surface from the sun's powerful heat, so that I met with few plants in flower in this excursion. (Menzies 1920:55) Around the turn of the century, Kamehameha gave control of present day Waik6loa then Waik6loa ls,`ui Ahupua`a (excluding the coastal 71i of 'Anaeho`omalu and Kalahuipua`a) to Isaac Davis (Rosendahl 2000). Although the land of Waik6loa Nui gifted to Davis encompassed a large area, it lacked extensive resources, and was primarily a place for catching birds and gathering pili grass. When Davis died in 1810 without naming an heir, John Young took control of the land and protected it for Davis' children, who were at that time too young to take on the responsibility (Rosendahl 2000). Waikoloa Nui would eventually become a favored pasture for the cattle given by Vancouver to Kamehameha. By the early nineteenth century the kapu cattle quickly multiplied in the region to the extent that they became a scourge for the native planters of the Waimea area. In order to protect the upland agricultural fields from the overwhelming number of grazing cattle, sometime between 1813 and 1819, Kamehameha ordered the construction of a wall extending from the northern boundary of Waik6loa Nui to near Pu'u Huluhulu (Barrere 1983). The wall was designed to keep wild cattle in Waik6loa Nui and out of the more agriculturally productive areas on the Waimea side. The wall was called Pa of Kauliokamoa after the konohiki who oversaw its construction (Wolforth 2000). During the first part of the nineteenth century, Hawaiian culture and economy continued their radical transformation as capitalism and industry established a tight grip on the islands. The sandalwood (Santalurn ellipticum) trade, established by Euro -Americans in 1790 and turned into a viable commercial enterprise by 1805, was flourishing by 1810 (Oliver 1961). This added to the breakdown of the traditional subsistence system, as farmers and fishermen were ordered to spend most of their time logging, which resulted in food shortages and famine and eventually led to population decline. Kamehameha, who resided on the Island of Oahu at this time, did manage to maintain some control over the trade on Hawaii Island (Kuykendall and Day 1976, Kent 1983). Upon returning to Kailua in 1812, Kamehameha ordered men into the mountains of Kona to cut sandalwood and carry it to the coast, paying them in cloth, rapa material, food and fish (Kamakau 1992). Kamakau indicates that: this rush of labor to the mountains brought about a scarcity of cultivated food ... The people were forced to eat herbs and tree ferns, thus the famine [was] called Hi-laulele, Haha-pilau, Laulele, Pualele, 'Ama'u, or Hapu'u, from the wild plants resorted to. (1992:204) Once Kamehemeha realized that his people were suffering, he declared all the sandalwood to be government property and ordered the people to return to their cultivation of the land and devote only part of their time to sandalwood production (Kamakau 1992). In the uplands of Kailua, a vast plantation named Kuahewa was established where Kamehameha himself worked as a farmer. Kamehameha enacted the law that anyone who took one corm of taro or one stalk of sugarcane must plant one cutting of the same in its place (Handy and Handy 1991). While in Kailua, Kamehameha resided at Kamakahonu, from where he continued to rule the islands for another nine years. He and his high chiefs participated in foreign trade, but also continued to enforce the rigid kapu system. 20 Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-138 2. Background The Death of Kamehameha I and the Abolition of the Kapu Si4tem (1819-1820) Kamehameha I died on May 8, 1819 at Kamakahonu in Kailua-Kona, and the changes that had been affecting the Hawaiian culture since the arrival of Captain Cook in the Islands began to accelerate. Following the death of a prominent chief, it was customary to temporarily eliminate all of the regular kapu that maintained social order through the strict separation between men and women; elite and commoner. Thus, following Kamehameha's death, a period of 'ai noa (free eating) was observed along with the relaxation of other traditional kapu. It was the responsibility of the new ruler and kahuna to re-establish kapu and restore social order, but at this point in history traditional customs were significantly altered: The death of Kamehameha was the first step in the ending of the tabus; the second was the modifying of the mourning ceremonies; the third, the ending of the tabu of the chief; the fourth, the ending of carrying the tabu chiefs in the arms and feeding them; the fifth, the ruling chiefs decision to introduce free eating ('uinua) after the death of Kamehameha; the sixth, the cooperation of his aunts, Ka-ahu-manu and Ka-heihei-malie; the seventh, the joint action of the chiefs in eating together at the suggestion of the ruling chief, so that free eating became an established fact and the credit of establishing the custom went to the ruling chief. This custom was not so much of an innovation as might be supposed. In old days the period of mourning at the death of a ruling chief who had been greatly beloved was a time of license. The women were allowed to enter the heiau, to eat bananas, coconuts, and pork, and to climb over the sacred places. You will find record of this in the history of Ka-ula-hea-nui-o-ka-moku, in that of Ku-ali'i, and in most of the histories of ancient rulers. Free eating followed the death of the ruling chief; after the period of mourning was over the new ruler placed the land under a new tabu following old lines. (Kamakau 1992: 222) Immediately upon the death of Kamehameha I, his son and would be successor, Liholiho was sent away to Kawaihae to keep him safe from the impurities in Kamakahonu brought about by his father's death. After purification ceremonies Liholiho returned to Kamakahonu: Then Liholiho on this first night of his arrival ate some of the tabu dog meat free only to the chiefesses; he entered the lauhala house free only to them; whatever he desired he reached out for; everything was supplied, even those things generally to be found only in a tabu house. The people saw the men drinking rum with the women kahu and smoking tobacco, and thought it was to mark the ending of the tabu of a chief. The chiefs saw with satisfaction the ending of the chiefs tabu and the freeing of the eating tabu. The kat:u said to the chief, "Make eating free over the whole kingdom from Hawaii to Oahu and let it be extended to Kauai!" and Liholiho consented. Then pork to be eaten free was taken to the country districts and given to commoners, both men and women, and free eating was introduced all over the group. Messengers were sent to Maui, Molokai, Oahu and all the way to Kauai, Ka-umu-ali'i consented to the free eating and it was accepted on Kauai. (Kamakau 1992: 225) The indefinite period of free -eating initiated by Liholiho and his failure to reinstate the kapu system from Hawai'i to Kaua'i made the traditional religion of Hawaii vulnerable to the Christian missionaries who began to arrive shortly thereafter. As a result, within one year after Kamehameha I's death Christianity had officially replaced the native Hawaiian religious practices. By December of 1819, Kamehameha II had sent edicts throughout the kingdom renouncing the ancient state religion, ordering the destruction of the heiau images, and ordering that the heiau structures be destroyed or abandoned and left to deteriorate. He did, however, allow the personal family religion, the 'aumakua worship, to continue (Oliver 1961; Kamakau 1992). With the end of the kapu system, modifications in the social and economic patterns began to affect the lives of the common people. Kohala 1820-1848: A Land in Transition In October of 1819, seventeen Protestant missionaries set sail from Boston to Hawaii and arrived in Kailua-Kona on March 30, 1820. Many of the ah'i, who were already exposed to western material culture had adopted their dress and religion and welcomed the opportunity to become educated in a western style. Soon they were rewarding their teachers with land and positions in the Hawaiian government. During this period, the sandalwood trade wreaked further havoc on the lives of the commoners, as they weakened from the heavy production, exposure, and famine just to fill the coffers of the alVi, who were no longer under any traditional constraints (Oliver 1961; Kuykendall and Day 1976). The lack of control of the sandalwood trade was to soon lead to the first Hawaiian national debt as promissory notes and levies were initiated by American traders and enforced by American warships (Oliver 1961). The Hawaiian culture Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 21 F2-139 2. Background was well on its way towards Western assimilation as industry in Hawaii went from the sandalwood trade, to a short- lived whaling industry, and gave way to the more lucrative, but environmentally destructive sugar industry. Some of the earliest written descriptions of Kohala come from the accounts of the first Protestant Missionaries that visited the island. In 1823 the Reverend William Ellis described Waimea as a fertile, well watered land "capable or sustaining many thousands of inhabitants" (Ellis 1969:399). Ellis notes that another missionary, Asa Thurston, h:id counted 220 houses in the area, and estimated the population at between eleven and twelve hundred. During his travels along the coast of North Kohala Ellis noted that most of the villages were empty as the men of the region had been ordered to the mountains by the King to collect sandalwood. He writes: About eleven at night we reached Towaihae [Kawaihae], where we were kindly received by Mr. Young.... Before daylight on the 22nd, we were roused by vast multitudes of people passing through the district from Waimea with sandal -wood, which had been cut in the adjacent mountains for Karaimoku, by the people of Waimea, and which the people of Kohala, as far as the north point, had been ordered to bring down to his storehouse on the beach, for the purpose of its being shipped to Oahu. There were between two and three thousand men, carrying each from one to six pieces of sandal -wood, according to their size and weight. It was generally tied on their backs by bands of ti leaves, passed over the shoulders and under the arms, and fastened across their breasts. (Ellis 2004:405-406) The population of South Kohala continued to reside either near the shore or in the uplands of Waimea throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, but as previously discussed, the arrival of foreigners, their introduction of a western economy, and the rise of the sugar and cattle industries had a profound impact on daily life in Kohala. Even the landscape of Waimea was substantially altered; initially through deforestation associated with the sandalwood trade, followed by the effects of countless grazing cattle (Rechtman and Prasad 2006). A network of stone walls began to appear as a way for people to keep feral cattle out of their gardens and house lots. Commercial ventures soon replaced traditional agricultural practices and introduced crops (Irish potatoes, watermelons, cabbage, onions, tomatoes, mulberries, figs, and beans) were grown to replenish the cargo ships at Kawaihae Harbor; and in the late 1840s many of the potatoes grown in the Waimea area were shipped to California to help feed the gold rush (Haun et al. 2003). In addition, a sugar mill operated in the Waimea area from the 1820s until the 1840s. The 1835 missionary census lists 6,175 people living in Kohala and another 1,396 people, including 500 men, 510 women, and 386 children, living in Waimea (Schmitt 1977). In 1837 there were sixty foreigners in Waimea employed as mechanics and bullock hunters (Brundage 1971); and in his report to the American Board of Commissioners to Foreign Missions in 1840, Lorenzo Lyons stated "in my field are sixty or seventy foreigners, from seven or eight different nations. They are beef catchers, sugar manufacturers, shoe makers, merchants, masons, doctors, formers, and what not" (Doyle 1953:118). By 1840, bullock hunting had drastically reduced the population of wild cattle on Hawaii Island, so much so that a five year kapu was placed on hunting them solely for their hides and tallow (Bergin 2004). This lead to further efforts to tame, brand, fence, and herd privately owned cattle (Wilkes 1845). The decline of the whaling industry in Hawaiian waters during this time, combined with the kapu on killing wild cattle, lead to a period of economic hardship and population decline in the Waimea area (Escott 2008). By the mid -nineteenth century, the agriculturally marginal areas of leeward Kohala were abandoned in favor of more productive and wetter lands in windward Kohala. According to Tomonari-Tuggle (1988), the remnant leeward population was concentrated into a few small coastal communities (such as Puak6, located roughly 5 miles northwest of the current study area) and dispersed upland settlements. These settlements were no longer based on traditional subsistence patterns, largely because of the loss of access to the full range of necessary resources. As a result, the windward slopes of North Kohala and the Waimea plain eventually became the population centers for the district. Tomonari-Tuggle clarifies some of the reasons for this migration: Outmigration and a demographic shits from rural areas to growing urban centers reflected the lure of a larger world and world view on a previously isolated community. Foreigners, especially whalers and merchants, settled around good harbors and roadsteads. Alii and their followers gravitated towards these areas, which were the sources of Western material goods, novel status items which would otherwise be unavailable. Associated with the emergence of the market, cash -based economy, commoners followed in search of paying employment. (1988:33) The population of the district of Kohala declined rapidly as native populations were decimated by disease and a depressed birth rate. Postcontact epidemics in 1848 and 1849 killed more than 10,000 people in twelve months 22 Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-140 2. Background throughout the Hawaiian Islands (Tomonari-Tuggle 1988). In 1848 in North Kohala, Rev. Bond reported that 100 people had died within a three week period, and in October of that year he reported that a measles epidemic had nearly every resident of the district in the hospital (Damon 1927). Following these epidemics, the population of the district had been reduced to nearly half of the more than 6,000 people reported in the 1835 census (Schmitt 1977). The number of coastal residents soon dwindled and most of the coastal villages were inhabited by only a few solitary residents. An 1848 description of the town of Waimea cited by McEldowney stated that "it can scarcely be said that there is any native population at all."(1983:432). This statement seems to sum up the devastating demographic changes that were taking place as the native population had been reduced by disease, displacement, and ongoing revisions in land tenure. Legacy of the Great Xfdhele (1848-1895) By the middle of the nineteenth century, the ever-growing population of Westerners forced socioeconomic and demographic changes that promoted the establishment of a Euro -American style of land ownership in the Hawaiian Islands, and the Great 1fahele became the vehicle for determining ownership of native lands. During this period, land interests of the King (Kamehameha III), the high-ranking chiefs, the all'i, and the low -ranking chiefs, the konohiki, were defined. The chiefs and konohiki were required to present their claims to the Land Commission to receive awards for lands provided to them by Kamehameha III. They were also required to provide commutations to the government in order to receive royal patents on their awards. The lands were identified by name only, with the understanding that the ancient boundaries would prevail until the land could be surveyed. This process expedited the work of the Land Commission (Chinen 1961:13). During the Mdhele, all lands were placed in one of three categories: Crown Lands (for the occupant of the throne), Government Lands, and Konohiki Lands. All three types of land were subject to the rights of the native tenants therein. In 1862, the Commission of Boundaries (Boundary Commission) was established in the Kingdom of Hawai'i to legally set the boundaries of all the ahupua'a that had been awarded as part of the Mithele. Subsequently, in 1874, the Boundary Commission was authorized to certify the boundaries for lands brought before them. The primary informants for the boundary descriptions were elderly native residents of the land. The boundary information was collected primarily between 1873 and 1885 and was usually given in Hawaiian, but transcribed in English. The disposition and distribution of the lands of Waimea was rather complicated and was under dispute between the Boundary Commissioners, kama'dina informants, and land petitioners. Waimea was a discrete land unit (see Figure 13) considered to be a kalana (county) or 'okana (subdistrict) as opposed to an ahupuWa (Pukui and Elbert 1986). To further confound the issue, some of the land units within Waimea were considered ahuptta'a while others were considered 71i kftpono, defined by Puhui and Elbert as "A nearly independent 71i land division within an ahupua'a paying tribute to the ruling chief and not the chief of the ahupua'a. Transfer of the ahupua `a from one chief to another did not include the 'ili kftpono located within its boundaries" (1986:98). As a result of the MMhele and Boundary Commission testimonies, many smaller ahupua'a names were dropped and the `ili kiipono were given ahupua `a status; the majority of the Waimea area was retained as Crown Lands, with the exception of a portion of Waik6loa Ahupua'a that was awarded as Konohiki Lands. Over 140 claims for Land Commission Awards (LCAw.) were made by native tenants within the Waimea area. Nearly all of these claims were for house lots or cultivated sections (Haun et at. 2003). Of the land commission awards reviewed by Kelly and Nakamura (1981:30), over twenty percent were issued to persons with non -Hawaiian surnames. During the &Idhele, Waik6loa (Nui) Ahupua'a was awarded to George Davis Hu'eu (LCA 8521-B; see Figure 2), son of Isaac Davis, one of Kamehameha I's trusted advisors. According to Wolforth et al. (2005), Kamehameha I had given Davis the land as a reward for his service, but after Davis died prematurely under suspicious circumstances in 1810, his friend John Young (another advisor to Kamehameha I) took it upon himself to make sure that Isaac Davis' children would receive their father's lands when they came of age. A portion of Young's Last Will and Testament read as follows (Cahill 1999:167): ... I give and bequeath to be equally divided between my surviving children and the surviving children of my departed friend, the late Isaac Davis, of Milford in England, in such manner as it may please His Majesty the King and his Chiefs; Provided always that each and all of the said children receive a just and equal portion. (reproduced in Wolforth et al. 2005:12) As a result, John Young's lands were designated `ina ho'oilina or inherited lands, during the Mdhele, a designation applied only to these lands that does not appear elsewhere in the Mahele records (Wolforth et al 2005). Royal Patent number 5671 was issued to Isaac Davis that consisted of a large area of dry, non -arable terrain on Archaeological Assessment T VII: (3) 6-8-001:066 23 F2-141 2. Background grassy slopes known as pili lands (after the pili plant that grew in abundance there), which extended to the 'a'd on the Kona District boundary; and did not include any portion of the fertile uplands or shoreline access (Wolforth et al. 2005). In 1865, George Hu'eu, Davis's only surviving heir, received Waik6loa as an unsurveyed Land Commission Award. We consider it clear that in making the grant the King intended to give, and did give to Isaac Davis, a tract of land of very great extent, although not of proportionate value, There were no cattle or sheep in this country when the grant was made, and the land given to Isaac Davis only yielded what revenue could be derived from wild birds and pili grass (Boundary Commission 1867 in Wolforth et al 2004:13) In 1868, George H11'eu leased his remaining lands in Waik6loa to the Waimea Grazing and Agricultural Company, which made them the largest ranching operation on the island (Escott 2008). Under the terms of the lease, the HiVeu family was allowed to continue grazing their 1,000 head of cattle, 1,000 head of sheep, and 100 horses there (Escott 2008). By the late -1870s, largely due to persistent drought conditions within its grazing lands, the Waimea Grazing and Agricultural Company went out of business; Parker Ranch purchased their herd and acquired their lease for roughly 95,000 acres of Waik6loa. A sketch map prepared by J. S. Emerson in 1882 during the Hawaiian Government Survey of South Kohala (Figure 16), shows the Parker Ranch grazing lands and the network of trails that ran through them. Section 1 Kofia(a Sea Coast from Lae Z1polu, 9,6tala to _sem :fcpalaoa. village hpua 7,-kand countiy back ...........9 .• - - - _ to Jr%lall7l(Z `((Ca (rPWf. ?F.ii -, n,L,ukr ^lel. -Y't cdra. �rrwl f6 htu5 _1'. 9Lu 7flal/, ,, '�,�` iki LA •1tt . .............. ........... .............y;*a7M L.td �P t ' ir�MJf .that Figure 16. Emerson sketch map of South Kohala coast ca/ 1882 (from Escott 2008:43). The coastal areas of Waik6loa, 'Anaeho`omalu and Kalahuipua'a had been passed from Kamehameha I to Kamehameha II and then to Kamehameha III who retained them as Crown Lands until he passed them on to his wife Queen Kalama (LCA 4452; Wolforth et al. 2005). Only nine small residential kuleana were awarded in the uplands of Waik61oa near the town of Waimea and none were awarded within or in close proximity to the current study area (Maly 1999). Coastal residents in South Kohala, relied primarily on the ocean for sustenance, and they augmented their diet wid-, produce procured through trade with the upland areas. In addition, according to testimony from 1865 Boundary Commission hearings, Waik6loa Ahupua'a was known as a place for bird catching; Ehu testified, "Waik6loa was the land that had the birds" (Maly 1999:88). 24 Archaeological Assessment TkIK: (3) 6-8-001:066 I tr Xaa ^a Aupapu•', �•• �•' RJ+(iiM ndf,ffy n,th �\''�,,� vnGafara6u 8n � J4.]tieR fay'iSlterp � .!S'taervn X afy � R 1e�Jiala'N4 ��- .................... )Ertl. Figure 16. Emerson sketch map of South Kohala coast ca/ 1882 (from Escott 2008:43). The coastal areas of Waik6loa, 'Anaeho`omalu and Kalahuipua'a had been passed from Kamehameha I to Kamehameha II and then to Kamehameha III who retained them as Crown Lands until he passed them on to his wife Queen Kalama (LCA 4452; Wolforth et al. 2005). Only nine small residential kuleana were awarded in the uplands of Waik61oa near the town of Waimea and none were awarded within or in close proximity to the current study area (Maly 1999). Coastal residents in South Kohala, relied primarily on the ocean for sustenance, and they augmented their diet wid-, produce procured through trade with the upland areas. In addition, according to testimony from 1865 Boundary Commission hearings, Waik6loa Ahupua'a was known as a place for bird catching; Ehu testified, "Waik6loa was the land that had the birds" (Maly 1999:88). 24 Archaeological Assessment TkIK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-142 2. Background In the decades following the Mdhele of 1848, the population along the Kohala coast continued to decline and the remnant inland agricultural fields were abandoned as they succumbed to the ravages of free-range cattle or were bought up by ranching and sugar interests. The remaining tenants built ktrleana walls to enclose their homes, gardens, and domesticated animals in an effort to keep free -ranging animals out of their property and also to mark property boundaries as part of the new land tenure system (Tomonari-Tuggle 1988). The economy also transitioned, becoming cash based and taxes were collected. Foreigners controlled much of the land and most of the businesses, and the native population was largely dependent on these foreigners for food and money (Haun et al. 2003). By the early 1860's, Western Contact had made its inevitable mark on Kohala, but the community remained essentially Hawaiian in nature, and foreigners were still only a small minority in actual numbers (Tomonari-Tuggle 1988). Oral histories indicate that a dry land planting area referred to as Makahonu was present in Waik6loa near the inur-_.4ction of Waik6loa Road and Queen Ka`ahi +a-,anu Highway, makai of the current study area. There is no info -,nation in the oral histories of what way in the planting area although `Anaeho'omalu and whcr proximal locations were favorable arra:t iter grutiiir_ .t:wtct potatoes (Handy and Handy 1991). According to Makahonu "was still used ahrough the turn of the [tr;._atieth] century" (1999:153). I Itc .simA -%rea ' icivaiti during the Twentieth Century Between the years of 1895 and 1913, the Puak6 Sugar Plantation and Mill operated on 1800 acres along the bay in Puak6 (Puak6 Hisotrical Society). This short-lived operation was run by the Hinds who also founded the Haws Mill and Plantation in North Kohala and included leased portions of the Parker Ranch. The Plantation and Mill were forced to close as a result of damaging floods, the lack of freshwater and the high winds that plagued the area (John Hind n.d.). While operational, the Puak6 Sugar Plantation led to an influx of population in the area and helped spur the development of roadways connecting Puak6 with Kawaihae and Waimea. (1pon cessation, the leased lands reverted back to Parker Ranch. 1", c landholdings of Parker Ranch continued to grow as then manager Alfred W. Carter acquired thousands of acre, in 11 ; .i.,iloa and neighboring ahupua'a that included the Pu•uloa Sheep and Stock Company, which encompassed o%.,r ,."'!+r+ acres and the Ke'amuku Sheep station in Waik6loa. Over the next decade these lands were converted ti. t L aal,� ranching. By 1932, Parker Rand. ;.a�•_I grown to include over 325,000 acres of fee lands (Bergin 2004). With the expansion of ranching operations. l : , a 1: -. on also expanded in Waimea. In December of 1943, nearly 123,000 acres t I Lird n the Waimea-Waik6loa area were leased by the U. S. War Department for use as a troop training area (Escott -low- t The U.S. Military's 91,000 -acre Waik6loa Maneuver Area was the site of an artillery firing range on which live ; atmunition and other explosives were employed, with the remaining acreage utilized for troop maneuvers. The Waik6loa Manuever Area extended from the coast to present- day Pohakuloa Training Area, and from the Waimea-Kawaihae Road to south of Waikoloa Road, where the current study area is located. According to Escott: The military utilized portions of this property for troop maneuvers and weapons practice, while other areas served as artillery, aerial bombing and naval gun fire ranges. Troop exercises were conducted using 30 caliber rifles, 50 caliber machine guns, hand grenades, bazookas, flame throwers, and mortars. Larger ordnance and explosive (OE) or unexploded ordnance (UXO) items used included 37 millimeter (mm), 75 mm, 105 min, and 155 mm high explosive (HE) shells, 4.2 inch mortar rounds, and barrage rockets. From 1943 through 1945 nearly the entire Waikoloa Maneuver Area was in constant use, as the Marine infantry reviewed every phase of training from individual fighting to combat team exercises In September of 1946, the Waik6loa Maneuver Area, with the exception of the 9,141 acre Lalamilo Firing Range, was returned to Parker Ranch (Haun et al. 2010). When the use permit was cancelled in December of that year, the lands once again reverted to leased cattle pasture administered by the Territory of Hawaii. Following World War II, the lands in the vicinity of the current study area were once again used for cattle ranching and bird hunting; however, clean-up of unexploded ordnance within the Waikoloa Maneuver Area is still ongoing. Since the 1950s modern development_ , �wconrrated along the coast and around the Villages of Waimea and Waik6loa, north of current study area. Lt 1949-50 t11L coastal lands of Puak6 were divided into the Puako Beach Lots and a road was built to Kawaihae, which brought many new residents to the area (Maly 1999). During the 1970s the current alignment of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway (Highway 19), extending from Kailua to Kawaihae, was constructed across the coastal sections of Waikoloa ahupua'a; Waikoloa Road was built to connect the new lower highway with the upper highway (Highway 190); and Waik6loa Village was established about 3.5 miles northeast of the current study area. With the construction of the new highways and the shifting residential patterns, the older coastal roads and maukalmakai travel routes largely fell into disuse. Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 25 F2-143 2. Background PRIOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY The current study area was included in a 1991 archaeological inventory survey of a roughly 300 -acre property conducted by PHRI (Jensen and Burgett 1991) fora then proposed quarry location. PHRI identified nineteen sites and established an archaeological preserve with a fifty foot buffer zone, which led to the definition - -f the current quarry parcel. The archaeological preserve is located on TMK: (3) 6-8-001:067 immediately to the L.� of the current study area (Figure 17). The 1991 PHRI archaeological investigation consisted of 100 percent aerial survey at 30-50 feet altitude via helicopter augmented by pedestrian survey of 15-20 percent of the property in areas identified as high probability with respect to the presence of historic properties. Nineteen sites were recorded (Table 1) along the top and around the margins of two 'a'd ridges located within the northern third of their study area (to the north of the current study area). These sites appeared to be interconnected by a poorly defined trail system, which was likely only minimally used at the time the features were constructed and for limited access thereafter. No midden, artifacts, or other portable cultural material were detected on the surface of any of the features or in the subsurface testing of a rock shelter feature (SIHP Site 15051B). Table 1. Sites in archaeological preserve north of the study area.* SIHP .Sita :1'r). # of f eaiurc.v Feature Type f rinerion 15i13t► _ (A) Mound (B) Paving Possible burial 15031 1 Rock shelter Temporary habitation 15032 1 Platform Possible burial/ceremonial 15050 1 Platform Possible burial/ceremonial 15051 4 (A)Platform (B) Rock shelter Temporary habitation with possible (C) Modified sink (D) Terrace burial(s) 15052 a (A -D) Platforms Possible burial/ceremonial 15053 1 Platform Possible burial 15054 1 Platform Possible burial 15055 1 Platform Possible burial 15056 1 Platform Possible burial/ceremonial 15057 2 (A and B) Platforms Possible burial/ceremonial 15058 1 Modified outcrop Indeterminate 15059 1 Trail Transportation 15060 1 Platform Possible burial 15061 1 Platform Possible burial 15062 1 Rock shelter Temporary habitation 15063 1 Filled blister Possible burial 15064 1 Terrace Possible burial 15065 1 Rock shelter Temporary habitation 'Data source is Jensen and Burgett (1991). As a result of the PHRI investigation, all nineteen sites were preserved "as is". The Waikoloa Development Company chose not to proceed with any additional data recovery or further evaluation at that time. As previously discussed, a buffer zone of fifty feet was created around the area where the archaeological features were found, and an archaeological preserves was created on the parcel (TMK: (3) 6-8-001:067) to the north of the current study area. In May of 1999, PHRI conducted archaeological monitoring for the development of the quarry site and associated access road. In a letter report, PHRI (Rechtman 1999) confirmed that the established buffer zone was maintained: the access road was well »rakai of the buffer boundary and the northern boundary of the quarry (the current study area) was placed an additional 50 meters south of the buffer zone. 26 Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 4 F2-144 3. Study Area Expectations Figure 17. Portion of Tax Map (3) 6-8-001 showing archaeological preserve and current study area. 3. STUDY AREA EXPECTATIONS Given the recent specific land use history (quarrying activity throughout roughly 95% of the study area), intact archaeological resources if extant could only be identified around the periphery of the land disturbance. Also given that the current study area was investigated for archaeological sites prior to the establishment of the quarry, with negative results, the expectation for finding archaeological sites is extremely low. Based on ethnohistoric and prior archaeological information, the types archaeological features that could exist in this area might be related to the procurement of specific resources, such as pili grass and birds (such features would include trails and temporary shelters), or related to burial activities (such features would include platforms, pavements, and trails). There is also the possibility of identifying Historic Period ranching features (trails and enclosures), and evidence of middle twentieth century military activity (enclosures and debris scatters). Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 27 F2-145 4. Fieldwork 4. FIELDWORK On May 20, 2015, Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D., Teresa Gotay, M.A. and Layne Krause, B.A. performed a field survey of the study area, which included a visual inspection of the existing quarried areas (roughly 95% of the study area) and a pedestrian survey of the limited undeveloped and minimally disturbed portions of the study area along the periphery of the quarry operation (Figures 18 and 19). In the undeveloped periphery of the study area, field investigators walked north -south transects approximately 25 meters apart; weather conditions and ground visibility were conductive for thorough observation of the terrain. No archaeological features or portable cultural material was encountered during the pedestrian survey of the study area. A small amount of metal shrapnel was observed during the current fieldwork. This debris is likely related to the former use of the Waikoloa Maneuver Area (ca. 1943-1946) by the U.S. Military. Figure 18. Minimally disturbed section in the northeastern portion of the current study area. 28 Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-146 5. Conclusion and Recommendations Cigwre 19. Soratt section of uncivarried area in the southeastern portion of the study area. 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Given the negative findings of the current study, supported by similar findings of the prior archaeological study (Jensen and Burgett 1991) that included the current study area, it is concluded that the proposed extension and amendment to the existing Special Permit will not significantly impact any known historic properties. No further historic preservation work is recommended at this time. Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 29 F2-147 References Cited REFERENCES CITED Barrera, W., Jr. 1971 Archaeological Excavations and Survey at Keauhou. North Kona, Hawaii. Departmental Report Series 71-10. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Barr6re, D. 1983 Report 2: Notes on the Lands of Waimea and Kawaihae. IN Clark and Kirch (editors) Archaeological Investigation of the Mudlane-Waimea-Kawaihae Road Corridor, Island of Hawaii, pp. 25-38. Prepared for State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Beckwith, NL 1976 Hawaiian Mythology. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bergin, B. 2004 Loyal to the Land: The Legendmy Parker Ranch, 750-1950. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Brundage, L. 1971 41fry , : Carter Hawaii 's Dean of Cattlemen and Notes on Hawaiian Livestock. Privately printed, la, Hawaii. Burtchard, G. 1995 Population and Land Use on the Keauhou Coast, the Mauka Land Inventory Survey, Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii Island. Part I: Narrative Volume. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. (IARII). Prepared for Belt Collins and Associates and Kamehameha Investment Corporation, Honolulu. Burgett, B., and P. Rosendahl 1993 Summary of Archaeological Inventory Surveys, Kapaanui Agricultural Subdivision and Mahukona Property, Lands of Kapaanui, Kou, Kamano, klahukona Ist and 2nd, Hihiu, and Kaoma, North Kohala District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-5-7-02:1 l and TMK:3-5-7-03:1-3,10-14,16-18). PHRI Report 743-020993. Prepared for Chalon International of Hawaii, Inc Chinen, J. 1961 Original Land Titles in Hmraii. Honolulu: privately published. Cordy, R. 1994 A Regional Synthesis of Hamakua District, Hawaii Island. Historic Preservation Division, DLNR, State of Hawaii. 2000 Exalted Sits the Chief.' The Ancient History of Hawai'i Island. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, Hawai-i. Damon, E. 1927 Father Bond of Kohala. The Friend, Honolulu. Doyle, E. 1953 Makua Laiana: The Story of Lorenzo Lyons. Compiled from the manuscript journals, 1832-1886. Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin. Dunn. A.. and P. Rosendahl t 989 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Kapaanui Agricultural Subdivision, Lands of Kapaanui and Kou, North Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 568-100289. Prepared for Ahualoa Development, Inc. 30 Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-148 Ru."crences Cited Ellis, W. 1969 Polynesian Researches, Hawaii. Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc., 1831. Reprint. 2004 Journal of`JVilliam Ellis, A Narrative ofan 1823 Toter Through Hawai `i. Mutual Publishing. Escott, G. 2008 Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) and Supporting Functions for Former Waikoloa Maneuver Area, Hawaii on Portions (1,320.063 acres) of the Former Waikoloa Maneuver Area, Lalamilo and 'Ouli Ahupua'a, South Kohala District, Hawaii [TMK: (3)-6-2-001:050, 051, 065; AND (3)-6-6-02:031, 032, 034, 035, 39-43]. SCS Project Number 970-1. Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District: Honolulu. Fornander, A. 1969 An Account efthe Polynesian Race: Its Origin and Migrations. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc. 1996 Ancient History of the Hawaiian People to the Times of Kamehameha L Mutual Publishing. Australia. Giambelluca, T., Q. Chen, A. Frazier, J. Price, Y. Chen, P. Chu, J. Eischeid, and D. Departe 2013 Online Rainfall Atlas ofHawai'i. Bull. Amer. Afeteor. Soc. 94, 313-316, doi: 10. 1 175/BAMS-D- I 1- 00228.1 Greene, L. 1993 A Cultural History o f Three Traditional Hawaiian Sites on the lFest Coast of Hawaii Leland. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center. Griffin, P., T. Riley, P. Rosendahl, and H. Tuggle 1971 Archaeology of Halawa and Lapakahi: Windward Valley and Leeward Slope. New Zealand Archaeological Association,Vewsletter 14(3):101-112. Handy, E.S.C., and E.G. Handy 1991 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore and Environment. B.P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 223. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum Press. (Revised Edition). Haun, A., D. Henry, and K. McGuire 2003 Archaeological Inventory Survey DHHL Residential Development at Lalamilo (TMK: 3-6-6-01:10, 54 & 77 and 3-6-6-04:12-17). South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. Haun & Associates, Report 116-071203, Keaau, Hawaii. Prepared for PBR Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii. Haun, A., S. Kailihiwa, and D. Henry 2010 Archaeological Assessment Portions of TMK: (3) 6-8-01:37 and (3) 6-8-02:19 Land of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. Haun and Associates Report 714-012610. Prepared for D W 'Aina Le'a Development, Waikoloa, Hawaii. Hind, J. n.d. Kohala in 1873 and During Twenty Years Thereafter. Privately published. Hommon. R. 1976 The Formation of Primitive Slates in Pre -Contact Hawaii. Ph.D. Dissertation (Anthropology), University of Arizona, Tucson. University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1986 Social Evolution in Ancient Hawaii. IN Kirch, P. (editor), Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation:55-88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hono-ko-hau Study Advisory Commission 1974 The Spirit of Ka-Loko Hono-Ko-Hau. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 31 F2-149 References Cited I''t, J. 1963 Fragments of Hawaiian History. Bishop Museum Special Publication 70. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Jarves, J 1847 History of the Hawaiian Islands: Embracing Their Antiquities, Mythology, Legends, Discovery by Europeans in the Sixteenth Century, Re -Discovery by Cook, With Their Civil, Religious and Political History, From the Earliest Traditionary Period to the Present Time. Honolulu: C.E Hitchcock. Jensen, P. and B. Burgett 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey Waikoloa Beach Resort Reserve Lands 300 -Acre Quarry Site, Land of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI report 1041-122091. Prepared for Waikoloa Development Company, Waikoloa, HI. Judd, B. 1932 "Early Days of Waimea, Hawaii" Fortieth Annual Report of the Hawaiian Historical Society for the year 1831 with papers read at the annual meeting February 29, 1932. Kamakau, S. 1976 The Works of the People of Old, Na hana a ka Po'e Kahiko. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 61. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1991 Tales and Traditions of the People of Old, Nd Mo'olelo a ka Po'e Kahiko. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. The Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu (Revised Edition). Kent, N. 1983 Hawaii: Islands Linder the Influence. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Kirch, P. 1984 The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1985 Feathered Cods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 1990 Monumental Architecture and Power in Polynesian Chiefdoms: A Comparison of Tonga and Hawaii. World Archaeology 22(2). 2011 When did the Polynesians Settle Hawai'i7 A Review of 150 Years of Scholarly Inquiry and a Tentative Answer. Hawaiian Archaeology Vol. 12:3-26. Kuykendall, R., and A. Day 1976 Hawaii: A History; From Po>ynesian Kingdom to American .Statehood. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice - Hall, Inc. McEldowney, H. 1983 A Description of Major Vegetation Patterns in the Waimea-Kawaihae Region During the Early Historic Period. IN Clark, J., and P. Kirch (1983). Maly, K. 1999 Nd Ala Hele Afa Kai O Kohala Henra. Kumu Pono Associates Report HiAla-17K (043099). Prepared for Nd Ala Hele Program State Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Hilo. 32 Archaeological Assessment T;NIK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-150 References Cited Maly, K, and Maly. U. 2002 li, ff'ahi 4,fo'olelo No Ka 'Rina A hle Na 'Ohana O Waiki'i Ma Maikoloa (Kalana O Waimea, .. -jala). A Me Ka 'Aina Mauna: A Collection of Traditions and Historical Accounts of the Lands ,i 1°milies of Waiki'i at Waikoloa (Waimea Region, South Kohala), and the Mountain Lands, Island of Hawaii (TMK Overview Sheet 6-7-01). Kumu Pono Associates Report HiWaikii6l- 111202. Prepared for Waiki'i Ranch Homeowner's Association, Kamuela, Hawai'i. Menzies, A. 1920 Hawaii Nei, 128 Years Ago. Edited by William F. Wilson. Honolulu: The New Freedom Press. Oliver, D. 1961 The Pacific Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pogue, J. 1858[1978] Mooleo Hawaii. Hale Paipalapala Aupuni, Honolulu (Revised Edition). Pukui, M. 1983 'Olelo Noeau, Hawaiian Proverbs & Poetical Sayings. B.P. Bishop Ifuseum Special Publication 71. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Pukui, M., S. Elbert, and E. Mo'okini 1974[1966] Place Names of Hawaii. Revised and Expanded Edition. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Pukui M. and S. Elbert 1986 Hcnvaiian Dictionary. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Rechtman, R. 1999 Letter to Mel Macy, West Hawaii Concrete. PHRI Letter Report 98-1929. Rechtman, R., and K. Maly 2003 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Development of TMK:3-7-3-9:22, 'O'oma 2"'u Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, Volume I and II. Rechtman Consulting Report RC -0154. Prepared for Helber Hastert & Fee, Honolulu, Hawai'i. Rechtman, R., and U. Prasad 2006 An Archaeological and Cultural Assessment Survey of Pu'u Ne'ene'e Ranch (TMKs: 3-64- 01:051,053, 156, 157, 158, 159), Pu`ukapu Ahupua'a, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. Rechtman Consulting Report RC -0399. Prepared for Ken Russell, Kukulu Pono Construction LLC. Kamuela, Hawaii. Rosendahl, P. 1972 Archaeological Salvage of the Hapuna-Anaehoomalu Section of the Kailua-Kawaihae Road (Queen Kahumanu Highway), Island of Hawaii, Department Report Series 72-5. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK 6-8-01:22, Land of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Report 2017-072000. Prepared for White Sand Beach LP, Tinguely Development, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Schilt, R., and A. Sinoto 1980 Limited Phase I Archaeological Survey of Mahukona Properties, North Kohala, Island of Hawaii. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Prepared for Belt, Collins and Associates. Schmitt, R. 1977 Historical Statistics of Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Archaeological Assessment TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066 33 F2-151 References Cited Tomonari-Tuggle, M. 1988 North Kohala: Perception of a Changing Community. A Cultural Resource Management Study. Prepared for Division of State Parks, Outdoor Recreation, and Historic Sites, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii. Wilkes, C. 1845 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the fears 1838-1842, Under the Command of C. Wilkes, U.S.N., Volume 4. Philadelphia: Loa and Blanchard. Williams, J. 1919 A Little Known Engineering Work in Hawaii. IN Thrums Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1919. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. Wolfe E., and J. Morris. 1996 Geologic hlap of the Island of Hamai'i. Geologic Investigations Series Map 1-2524-A. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Wolforth, T 2000 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of Approximately 15 Acres for a Proposed Quarry and Related Activity at Parker Ranch Within Waikoloa Ahupua'a, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii (TMK: 6-8-01:001). Scientific Consultant Services, Inc., Report 216-1, Honolulu, Hawaii. Prepared for William L. Moore Planning, Hilo and Parker Ranch, Waimea. Wolforth, T., G. Escott, and L. McGerty 2005 Inventory Survey for the Saddle Road Extension: Investigations into Resource Extraction in the Middle Elevations of Waikoloa Ahupua'a in Kohala and Pu`uanahulu Ahupua'a in Kona [TMK 6- 7-01:3; 6-8-01:5 and 27; 6-8-02:13, 14, and 15, and 7-1-03:1 ]. SCS Report 173.2 prepared for DMT Consultant Engineers. 34 Archaeological Assessment TNJK: (3) 6-8-001:066 F2-152 Appendix D Ka Pa'Akai Discussion F2-153 West Hawaii Concrete Waikoloa Quarry — Ka Pa'akai Discussion WEST IIAVI'All CONCRETE WAIKOLOA QUARRY Ka Pa'akai Discussion July 2015 Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D. ASM Affiliates West Hawaii Concrete intends to continue and expand the currently permitted use of an approximately 220 acre portion of the existing West Hawaii Concrete Waik6loa Quarry Property (TMK: (3) 6-8-001:066) in Waikoloa Ahupua`a, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii (Figure I). West Hawaii Concrete has been carrying out quarrying operations since at least 1995 and plans to extend their existing Special Permit beyond quarrying to include the following activities: green waste processing and composting, cement concrete recycling and asphalt concrete recycling. For this expansion of activities, West Hawaii Concrete must obtain approval from the County of Hawaii Leeward Planning Commission and Hawaii State Land Use Commission (LUC) in order to extend and modify their current Special Permit to include the proposed uses. Article XII, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution obligates the State and its agencies, such as the LUC, "to protect the reasonable exercise of customarily and traditionally exercised rights of native Hawaiians to the extent feasible when granting a petition for reclassification of district boundaries." (Ka Pa `akai O Ka'dina v Land Use Commission, 94 Hawaii 31, 7 P.3d 1068 [2000]). Under Article XII, section 7, the State shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights. In the context of land use permitting, these issues are commonly addressed when the LUC is asked to approve a petition for the reclassification of district boundaries, as such an action most often initiates activities that precede initial intensive development. While the approval of a Special Use Permit for a green waste processing and concrete recycling project does not involve the reclassification of any lands, West Hawaii Concrete thought it prudent to provide a discussion of such rights to facilitate the Special Use Permit decision making processes for both the Leeward Planning Commission and the LUC. In the September 11, 2000 Hawaii Supreme Court landmark decision (Ka Pa'akai O Ka'dina v Land Use Commission), an analytical framework for addressing the preservation and protection of customary and traditional native practices specific to Hawaiian communities was created. The court decision established a three-part process relative to evaluating such potential impacts: first, to identify whether any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources are present; and identify the extent to which any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised; second, to identify the extent to which those resources and rights will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and third, to specify the feasible action, if any, to be taken by the regulatory body to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist. In an effort to identify whether any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources are present within the proposed project area, and identify the extent to which any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are, or have been, exercised (the first part of the analytical process); historical archival information was investigated, and prior cultural studies that included consultation and oral -historical interviews were reviewed. A summary of this analysis is presented below. F2-154 \%'est Hawaii Concrete Waikoloa Quarry - Ka Pa'akai Discussion One of the earliest specific references to Waikoloa appears in the work of Samuel Manaiakalani Kamakau who recounted the chants and legendary traditions of Hawaiian prehistory in his writings. According to Kamakau (1976) the priest Pa`ao arrived in the Hawaiian Islands during the 13'x' century from Kahiki, which has since been interpreted as Tahiti. Pa`ao, who was the keeper of the god Ku'ka'ilimoku, had fought bitterly with his older brother, the high priest Lonopele, who expelled him from his homeland (Kamakau 1991). Lonopele did not let Pa'ao leave peacefully, but instead called forth a series of wind storms to sink his canoe; one of the winds, a cold north wind, was named "Waikoloa" (Kamakau 1991:5). Despite Lonopele's best efforts, PA'ao's canoe was not destroyed and he and his companions (thirty eight men, two stewards, his sister, chief Pili and his wife and the prophet Makuaka'irmana) arrived safely in Hawai'i after their perilous journey. Kamakau recounts the following details of Pd'ao and Pili's arrival in Hawai'i: It is thought that Pd'ao came to Hawai'i in the time of the ali'i La'au because Pili ruled as mo'i after La'au. You will see Pili there in the line of succession, the mo'o kfr'auhau, of Hanala'anui. It is said that Hawaii Island was without a chief, and so a chief was brought from Kahiki; this is according to chiefly genealogies. Hawaii Island had been without a chief for a long time, and the chiefs of Hawaii were aIN maka'ainana or just commoners, maka'ainana, during this time. ... There were seventeen generations during which Hawaii Island was without chiefs—some eight hundred years.... The lack of a high chief was the reason for seeking a chief in Kahiki, and that is perhaps how Pili became the chief of Hawaii. He was a chief from Kahiki and became the ancestor of chiefs and people of Hawaii Island. (Kamakau 1991:100-102) The moku of Kohala appears in several versions of the Pili ruling line's origin story; such as a version discussed by Beckwith (1976) in which Mo'okini and Kaluawilinau, two kahuna of Moikeha, decide to stay on at Kohala. In addition, Kamakau (1964) recounts that In the burial cave of Pu'uwepa in Kohala. Hawaii are deposited the bones of Pwao, the famous kahuna who built the heiau of Mo'okini at Kohala, and who lived a span of 15 generations before he died. Its entrance is said to be beneath the sea (1964:41) The Pili chiefs initial ruling center was likely in Kohala, but Cartwright (1933) suggests that Pili later resided in and ruled from Waipi'o Valley in the Hamakua District. In addition to the tales of legendary chiefs, the Legend of Kaniku and Kanimoe, two moo or water -spirits with lizard bodies, is relevant to the current analysis because the project area is located within the lava flow (Figure 2) that bears one of the water spirit's name (Kaniku). According to an interview documented by Wolforth et al. (2005:6), these two rno'o took the form of beautiful women and lived in the "large coastal fishpond of Wainanali'i in Pu'uanahulu." According to the legend, Kaniku and Kanimoe were turned to stone when a lava flow covered the fishpond and as a result, their bodies still lie side by side in the middle of the 'a 'a flow, which is how the Kaniku Lava Flow got its name (Wolforth et al. 2005). According to Maly (1999:25) the name Waikoloa literally translates to "water carried far" and he cites the origin of this translation to be a historical account entitled Ka `ao Ho'oniva Pu'urvai Nur Ka Miki (The Heart Stirring Story of Ka Miki) that was published as a serial in the Hawaiian Language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawai'i between 1914- 1917, and authored by John Wise and J.W.H.I. Kihe. As Maly translated, there was an event where Ka Miki (the hero of the story) was carrying sacred water in an 'awn bowl when the wind Waikoloa lifted water out of the bowl and transported it a long distance (from Holoholoku to Waiki'i) to form a new spring. Bernice Judd, a former librarian at the Hawaiian Mission Children's society, offered a different origin of the name Waikoloa and explained that: In the early days Waimea meant all the plateau between the Kohala Mountains and Mauna Kea, inland from Kawaihae. This area is from eight to ten miles long and from three to five miles wide. There was no running water on Mauna Kea, so the inhabitants lived at the base of the Kohala Mountains, where three streams touched the plain on their way towards the sea... The middle stream, which was famous for wild ducks, was named Waikoloa, or Duckwater. This and the most westerly stream, called Kahakohau, went towards Kawaihae, but neither reached the sea, except in times of flood. (Judd 1932:14) Traditionally, Waikoloa was an 71i of the kalana (or 'okana) of Waimea (Figure 3), a land division that in ancient times was treated as a sub -district, smaller than a district imoku o loko), but comprised of several other land divisions that contributed to its wealth (Maly and Maly 2002). The lands within the kalana of Waimea were those that form the southern limits of present day South Kohala District including 'Ouli, Wai'aka, L'alamilo, Puako, Kalahuipua'a, F2-155 West Ha�kaii Concrete Waikoloa Quarry —Ka Pa'akai Discussion 'Anaeho'ontalu, Kanakanaka, Ala'6hi'a, Paulama, Pu'ukalani, Pu'ukapu, and Waikoloa, where the project area is located. In some early accounts, Waikoloa Ahupua'a was referred to as Waikoloa Nui, and the neighboring ahupira'a of Lalamilo as Waikoloa Iki (Maly 1999). By the seventeenth century, large areas of Hawaii Island (moku aina — districts) were controlled by a few powerful ali'i 'ai moku. There is island -wide evidence to suggest that growing conflicts between independent chiefdoms were resolved through warfare, culminating in a unified political structure at the district level. It has been suggested that the unification of the island resulted in a partial abandonment of portions of leeward Hawaii, with people moving to more favorable agricultural areas (Barrera 1971; Schilt and Sinoto 1980). 'Umi a Uloa, a renowned ali'i of the Pili line who ruled from Waipi'o Valley, is often credited with uniting the island of Hawaii under one rule (Cordy 1994). According to Kamakau (1992) 'Umi was a skilled fisherman, and fishing for aku, his favorite fish, often brought him to the beaches of South Kohala from Kalahuipua'a to Makaula, where he also fished for 'ahi and kala with many other famed fishermen and all the chiefs of the kingdom. 'Umi's reign lasted until around ca. A.D. 1620, and was followed by the rule of his son, Keawenui a 'Umi, and then his grandson, Lonoikamakahiki (Cordy 1994). Lonoikamakahiki's reign was marked by political intensification and regularly occurring wars between intra - island and inter -island polities, which included battles that transpired in the general vicinity of the current project area. One such battle was fought between Lonoikamakahiki (Lono) and his older brother, Kanaloakua'ana, who rebelled against him. According to Fornander, Kanaloakua'ana and his rebel forces were situated at: ... the land called Anaehoomalu, near the boundaries of Kohala and Kona. The rebel chiefs were encamped seaward of this along the shore. The next day Lono marched down and met the rebels at the place called Wailea, not far from Wainanalii, where in those days a watercourse appears to have been flowing. Lono won the battle, and the rebel chiefs fled northward with their forces. At Kaunooa [Kauna'oa], between Puako and Kawaihae, they made another stand, but were again routed by Lono, and retreated to Nakikiaianihau, where they fell in with reinforcements from Kohala and Hamakua. Two other engagements were fought at Puupa [on the plain north of Waikoloa] and Puukohala, near the Heiau of that name, in both of which Lono was victorious... (Fornander 1996:120-121) Later, Lonoikamakahiki battled the forces of Maui led by Kamalalawalu (Kama) on the plain of Waikoloa below Pu'u 'ba'oaka (Maly and Maly 2002). According to Kamakau: After Kama-lata-walu's warriors reached the grassy plain, they looked seaward on the left and beheld the men of Kona advancing toward them. The lava bed of Kaniku and all the land up to Hu'ehu'e was covered with the men of Kona. Those of Ka'u and Puna were coming down from Mauna Kea, and those of Waimea and Kohala were on the level plain of Waimea [Waikoloa]. The men covered the whole of the grassy plain of Waimea like locusts. Kamalalawalu with his warriors dared to fight. The battlefield ofPu'oa`oaka was outside of the grassy plain of Waimea, but the men of Hawaii were afraid of being taken captive by Kama, so they led [Kamalalawalu's forces] to the waterless plain lest Maui's warriors find water and hard, waterworn pebbles. The men of Hawaii feared that the Maui warriors would find water to drink and become stronger for the slinging of stones that would fall like raindrops from the sky. The stones would fall about with a force like lightning, breaking the bones into pieces and causing sudden death as if by bullets ... ... The Maui men who were used to slinging shiny, water -worn stones grabbed up the stones of Pu'oa'oaka. A cloud of dust rose to the sky and twisted about like smoke, but the lava rocks were light, and few of the Hawaii men were killed by them. This was one of the things that helped to destroy the warriors of Kama-lala-walu: They went away out on the plain where the strong fighters were unable to find water ... The warriors of Maui were put to flight, and the retreat to Kawaihae was long. [Yet] there were many who did reach Kawaihae, but because of the lack of canoes, only a few escaped with their lives ... Kamalalawalu, ruler of Maui, was killed on the grass), plain of Puako, and some of his chiefs were also destroyed. (Kamakau 1991:58-60) While the project area is located proximate to the lands in these stories, it receives no specific mention suggesting that it was peripheral to the areas and events described. Marking the end of the Precontact Period, Hawaiians' first significant encounter with Europeans occurred in 1778 when Captain James Cook and his crew on board the ships H.M.S. Resolution and Discovery arrived in Kaua'i. With the arrival of foreigners, Hawai'i's culture and economy were drastically altered. Demographic trends during this period indicate population reduction in some areas, due to war and disease, yet increases in others, with relatively little modification of material culture. There was a continued trend toward craft and status specialization, intensification of F2-156 West Hawaii Concrete Waik6loa Quarry — Ka Pa'akai Discussion agriculture, ali'i controlled aquaculture, upland residential sites, and the enhancement of traditional oral history. The Ku cult, luakini heiau, and the kapu system were at their peaks, although Western influence was already altering the cultural fabric of the Islands (Kirch 1985; Kent 1983). Foreigners very quickly introduced the concept of trade for profit, and by the time Kamehameha I had conquered O'ahu, Maui and Molokai, in 1795, Hawaii saw the beginnings of a market system economy (Kent 1983). This marked the end of an era of uniquely Hawaiian culture. Some of the work of the commoners shifted from subsistence agriculture to the production of foods and goods that they could trade with early visitors. Introduced foods often grown for trade with Westerners included yams, coffee, melons, potatoes, corn, beans, figs, oranges, guava, and grapes (Wilkes 1845). In 1792, Captain George Vancouver, who had sailed with Cook during his 1778-1779 voyages, arrived in Kealakekua Bay with a small fleet of British ships, where he met with Kamehameha. Vancouver stayed only a few days during this first visit, but returned again in 1793 and 1794 to resupply his fleet. Vancouver introduced cattle and sheep to the Island of Hawaii during his 1793 and 1794 visits, giving them as gifts to Kamehameha I, who immediately made them kapu, thus preventing them from being killed (Kamakau 1992). Five cows, two ewes, and a ram brought by Vancouver in 1793 were set free to roam in the saddle area of Waimea between Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Hualalai (Escott 2008). During one of his visits Vancouver anchored at Kawaihae and a member of his crew, Archibald Menzies, a surgeon and naturalist, trekked inland towards Waimea. Menzies' journal records the journey and describes the land in the vicinity of the project area as follows: I travelled a few miles back... through the most barren, scorching country I have ever walked over, composed of scorious dregs and black porous rock, interspersed with dreary caverns and deep ravines ... The herbs and grasses which the soil produced in the rainy seasons were now mostly in the shriveled state, thinly scattered and by no means sufficient to cover the surface from the sun's powerful heat, so that I met with few plants in flower in this excursion. (Menzies 1920:55) In the early 1800x, Kamehameha gave control of present day Waik6loa then Waik6loa Nui Ahupua'a (excluding the coastal 'di of `.Anaeho`omalu and Kalahuipua`a) to Isaac Davis (Rosendahl 2000). Although the land of Waik6loa Nui gifted to Davis encompassed a large area, it lacked extensive resources, and was primarily a place for catching birds and gathering pili grass. When Davis died in 1810 without naming an heir, John Young took control of the land and protected it for Davis' children, who were at that time too young to take on the responsibility (Rosendahl 2000). Waik6loa Nui would eventually become a favored pasture for the cattle given by Vancouver to Kamehameha. By the early nineteenth century the kapu cattle quickly multiplied in the region to the extent that they became a scourge for the native planters of the Waimea area. In order to protect the upland agricultural fields from the overwhelming number of grazing cattle, sometime between 1813 and 1819, Kamehameha ordered the construction of a wall extending from the northern boundary of Waik6loa Nui to near Pu'u Huluhulu (Barrere 1983). The wall was designed to keep wild cattle in Waik6loa Nui and out of the more agriculturally productive areas on the Waimea side. The wall was called Pa of Kauliokamoa after the konohiki who oversaw its construction (Wolforth 2000). The year 1819 was a pivotal one in Hawaiian history. In May of that year Kamehameha died in Kona and his young son Liholiho assumed rule over the kingdom. In concert with Kamehameha's widows Ka`ahumanu and Ke6puolani, Liholiho abolished the ancient religion and quelled a rebellion to reinstate the traditional kapu system in December of 1819. In October of 1819, seventeen Protestant missionaries set sail from Boston to Hawaii and arrived in Kailua-Kona on March 30, 1820, to a county in religious turmoil and ripe for conversion. Many of the a1i `i, who were already exposed to western material culture had adopted their dress and welcomed the opportunity to become educated in a western style. Soon they were rewarding their teachers with land and positions in the Hawaiian government. During this period, the sandalwood trade wreaked further havoc on the lives of the commoners, as they weakened from the heavy production, exposure, and famine just to fill the coffers of the alit, who were no longer under any traditional constraints (Oliver 1961; Kuykendall and Day 1976). The lack of control of the sandalwood trade was to soon lead to the first Hawaiian national debt as promissory notes and levies were initiated by American traders and enforced by American warships ('Oliver 1961). The Hawaiian culture was well on its way towards Western assimilation as industry in Hawaii went from the sandalwood trade, to a short-lived whaling industry, and gave way to the more lucrative, but environmentally destructive sugar industry. The population of South Kohala continued to reside either near the shore or in the uplands of Waimea throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, but as previously discussed, the arrival of foreigners, their introduction of a western economy, and the rise of the sugar and cattle industries had a profound impact on daily life in Kohala. Even the landscape of Waimea was substantially altered; initially through deforestation associated with the sandalwood trade, followed by the effects of countless grazing cattle (Rechtman and Prasad 2006). A network of stone walls began F2-157 West Hawaii Concrete Waik6loa Quarry — Ka Pa'akai Discussion to appear as a way for people to keep feral cattle out of their gardens and house lots. Commercial ventures soon replaced traditional agricultural practices and introduced crops (Irish potatoes, watermelons, cabbage, onions, tomatoes, mulberries, figs, and beans) were grown to replenish the cargo ships at Kawaihae Harbor; and in the late 1840s many of the potatoes grown in the Waimea area were shipped to California to help feed the gold rush (Haun et al. 2003). In addition, a sugar mill operated in the Waimea area from the 1820s until the 1840s. As reported in the Sanchvich Island Gazette in September 10, 1836, the lower elevation of Waik6loa (inclusive of the current project area) was considered to be inhospitable: The western part of the district remains to be noticed. This consists of a gradual descent of about 10 miles to the seaside. It is entirely composed of an uneven rock waste, covered with long grass. This barren tract is untenanted and uncultivated, Rain seldom falls here and, besides the grass, nothing is seen to vary the monotony until you approach the coast, when the eye is only relieved by the tallow blossoms of the Nohu [Tribulus]. By the mid -nineteenth century, the agriculturally marginal areas of leeward Kohala were abandoned in favor of more productive and wetter lands in windward Kohala. According to Tomonari-Tuggle (1988), the remnant leeward population was concentrated into a few small coastal communities (such as Puak6, located roughly 5 miles northwest of the project area) and dispersed upland settlements. These settlements were no longer based on traditional subsistence patterns, largely because of the loss of access to the full range of necessary resources. As a result, the windward slopes of North Kohala and the Waimea plain eventually became the population centers for the district. Tomonari-Tuggle clarifies some of the reasons for this migration: Outmigration and a demographic shift from rural areas to growing urban centers reflected the lure of a larger world and world view on a previously isolated community. Foreigners, especially whalers and merchants, settled around good harbors and roadsteads. Alii and their followers gravitated towards these areas, which were the sources of Western material goods, novel status items which would otherwise be unavailable. Associated with the emergence of the market, cash -based economy, commoners followed in search of paying employment. (1988:33) The population of the district of Kohala declined rapidly as native populations were decimated by disease and a depressed birth rate. Epidemics in 1848 and 1849 killed more than 10,000 people in twelve months throughout the Hawaiian Islands (Tornonari-Tuggle 1988). In 1848 in North Kohala, Rev. Bond reported that 100 people had died within a three week period, and in October of that year he reported that a measles epidemic had nearly every resident of the district in the hospital (Damon 1927). Following these epidemics, the population of the district had been reduced to nearly half of the more than 6,000 people reported in the 1835 census (Schmitt 1977). The number of coastal residents soon dwindled and most of the coastal villages were inhabited by only a few solitary residents. An 1848 description of the town of Waimea cited by McEldowney stated that "it can scarcely be said that there is any native population at all."(1983:432). This statement seems to sum up the devastating demographic changes that were taking place as the native population had been reduced by disease, displacement, and ongoing revisions in land tenure. At the time of the Great Mdhele in 1848, the disposition and distribution of the lands of Waimea was rather complicated and was under dispute between the Boundary Commissioners, kerma `dina informants, and land petitioners. Waimea was a discrete land unit (Figure 4) considered to be a kalana (county) or 'okana (subdistrict) as opposed to an ahupua'a (Pukui and Elbert 1986). To further confound the issue, some of the land units within Waimea were considered ahupita'a while others were considered 71i kupono, defined by Puhui and Elbert as "A nearly independent 71i land division within an ahuptia'a paying tribute to the ruling chief and not the chief of the ahupua'a. Transfer of the ahupua'a from one chief to another did not include the `i1i kilpono located within its boundaries" (1986:98). As a result of the alahele and Boundary Commission testimonies, many smaller ahuptia'a names were dropped and the `i1i kfrpono were given ahupita *a status; the majority of the Waimea area was retained as Crown Lands, with the exception of a portion of Waik6loa Ahupua`a that was awarded as Konvhiki Lands. Over 140 claims for Land Commission Awards (LCAw.) were made by native tenants within the Waimea area. Nearly all of these claims were for house lots or cultivated sections (Haun et al. 2003). Of the hunt k.� inmission awards reviewed by Kelly and Nakamura (1981:30), over twenty percent were issued to persons with ion -Hawaiian surnames. During the Mdhele, Waik6loa (Nui) Ahupua`a, including the project arta, was awarded to George Davis H0'eu (LCA 8521-B; Figure 5), son of Isaac Davis, one of Kamehameha I's trusted advisors. According to Wolforth et al. (2005), Kamehameha I had given Davis the land as a reward for his service, but after Davis died prematurely under suspicious circumstances in 1810, his friend John Young (another advisor to Kamehameha 1) took it upon himself to make sure that Isaac Davis' children would receive their father's lands when they came of age. A portion of Young's Last Will and Testament read as follows (Cahill 1999:167): F2-158 West Hmkaii Concrete Waik6loa Quarry - Ka Pa'akai Discussion I give and bequeath to be equally divided between my surviving children and the surviving children of my departed friend, the late Isaac Davis, of Milford in England, in such manner as it may please His Majesty the King and his Chiefs; Provided always that each and all of the said children receive a just and equal portion. (reproduced in Wolforth et al. 2005:12) As a result, John Young's lands were designated 'ina ho `oilina or inherited lands, during the Mdhele, a designation applied only to these lands that does not appear elsewhere in the Mahele records (Wolforth et al 2005). Royal Patent number 5671 was issued to Isaac Davis that consisted of a large area of dry, non -arable terrain on grassy slopes known as pili lands (after the pili grass that grew in abundance there), which extended to the 'a'd on the Kona District boundary; and did not include any portion of the fertile uplands or shoreline access (Wolforth et al. 2005). 1n 1865, George Hii'eu, Davis's only surviving heir, received Waik6loa as an unsurveyed Land Commission Award. We consider it clear that in making the grant the King intended to give, and did give to Isaac Davis, a tract of land of very great extent, although not of proportionate value, Thera were no cattle or sheep in this country when the grant was made, and the land given to Isaac Davis only yielded what revenue could be derived from wild birds and pili grass (Boundary Commission 1867 in Wolforth et al 2005:13) In 1868, George Ha'eu leased his remaining lands in Waik6loa to the Waimea Grazing and Agricultural Company, which made them the largest ranching operation on the island (Escott 2008). Under the terms of the lease, the Hd'eu family was allowed to continue grazing their 1,000 head of cattle, 1,000 head of sheep, and 100 horses there (Escott 2008). By the late -1870s, largely due to persistent drought conditions within its grazing lands, the Waimea Grazing and Agricultural Company went out of business; Parker Ranch purchased their herd and acquired their lease for roughly 95,000 acres of Waik6loa. A sketch map prepared by J. S. Emerson in 1882 during the Hawaiian Government Survey of South Kohala (Figure 6), shows the Parker Ranch grazing lands and the network of trails that ran through them; none of these trail are located in the vicinity of the current project area, which is simply labeled as 'a'd on the map. The coastal areas of Waik6loa, 'Anaeho'ontalu and Kalahuipua'a had been passed from Kamehameha I to Kamehameha II and then to Kamehameha III who retained them as Crown Lands until he passed them on to his wife Queen Kalama (LCA 4452; Wolforth et al. 2005). Only nine small residential ktileana were awarded in the uplands of Waik6loa near the town of Waimea and none were awarded within or in close proximity to the current project area (Maly 1999). Coastal residents in South Kohala, relied primarily on the ocean for sustenance, and they augmented their diet with produce procured through trade with the upland areas. In addition, according to testimony from 1865 Boundary Commission hearings, Waik6loa Ahupua'a was known as a place for bird catching; Ehu testified, "Waik6loa was the land that had the birds" (Maly 1999:88). In the decades following the Xfdhele of 1848, the population along the Kohala coast continued to decline and the remnant inland agricultural fields were abandoned as they succumbed to the ravages of free-range cattle or were bought up by ranching and sugar interests. The remaining tenants built kuleana walls to enclose their homes, gardens, and domesticated animals in an effort to keep free -ranging animals out of their property and also to mark property boundaries as part of the new land tenure system (Tomonari-Tuggle 1988). The economy also transitioned, becoming cash based and taxes were collected. Foreigners controlled much of the land and most of the businesses, and the native population was largely dependent on these foreigners for food and money (Haun et al. 2003). Between the years of 1895 and 1913, the Puak6 Sugar Plantation and Mill operated on 1800 acres along the bay in Puak6 (Puak6 Hisotrical Society). This short-lived operation was run by the Hinds who also founded the Haw -1 Mill and Plantation in North Kohala and included leased portions of the Parker Ranch. T Puak6 Sugar Plantation was forced to close as a result of damaging floods, the lack of freshwater and the high winds that plagued the area (John Hind n.d.). While operational, the Puak6 Sugar Plantation led to an influx of population in the area and helped spur the development of roadways connecting Puak6 with Kawaihae and Waimea. Upon cessation of plantation activities, the leased lands reverted back to Parker Ranch. The landholdings of Parker Ranch continued to grow as then manager Alfred W. Carter acquired thousands of acres in Waik6loa and neighboring ahupua'a that included the Pu`uloa Sheep and Stock Company, which encompassed over 3,700 acres and the Ke`amuku Sheep Station in Waik6loa. Over the next decade these lands were converted to cattle ranching. By 1932, Parker Ranch had grown to include over 325,000 acres of fee lands (Bergin 2004). With the expansion of ranching operations, population also expanded in Waimea. In December of 1943, nearly 123,000 acres of land in the Waimea-Waikoloa area were leased by the U. S. War Department for use as a troop training area (Escott 2008). The U.S. Nlilitary'.s 91,000 -acre Waikbloa Maneuver Area was the site of an artillery firing range on which live atnmunition and other explosives were employed, with the 6 F2-159 West Hawaii Concrete Waikoloa Quarry - Ka Pa'akai Discussion remaining acreage utilized for troop maneuvers. The Waikoloa Manuever Area extended from the coast to present- day Pohakuloa Training Area, and from the Waimea-Kawaihae Road to south of Waikoloa Road, where the current project area is located. According to Escott: The military utilized portions of this property for troop maneuvers and weapons practice, while other areas served as artillery, aerial bombing and naval gun fire ranges. Troop exercises were conducted using 30 caliber rifles, 50 caliber machine guns, hand grenades, bazookas, flame throwers, and mortars. Larger ordnance and explosive (OE) or unexploded ordnance (UXO) items used included 37 millimeter (mm), 75 mm, 105 mm, and 155 mm high explosive (HE) shells, 4.2 inch mortar rounds, and barrage rockets. From 1943 through 1945 nearly the entire Waikoloa Maneuver Area was in constant use, as the Marine infantry reviewed every phase of training from individual fighting to combat team exercises. (Escott 2008) In September of 1946, the Waikoloa Maneuver Area, with the exception of the 9,141 acre Lalamilo Firing Range, was returned to Parker Ranch (Haan et al. 2010). When the use permit was cancelled in December of that year, the lands once again reverted to leased cattle pasture administered by the 'Territory of Hawaii. Following World War II, the lands in the vicinity of the project area were once again used for cattle ranching and bird hunting; however, clean- up of unexploded ordnance within the Waik6loa Maneuver Area is still ongoing. Since the 1950s modem development, concentrated along the coast and around the Villages of Waimea and Waikoloa, north of the project area, has intensified. In 1949-50 the coastal lands of Puak6 were divided into the Puak6 Beach Lots and a road was built to Kawaihae, which brought many new residents to the area (Maly 1999). During the 1970s the current alignment of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway (Highway 19), extending from Kailua to Katisaihae, was constructed across the coastal sections of Waikoloa ahupua'a; Waik6loa Road was built to connect the new lower highway with the upper highway (Highway 190); and Waikoloa Village was established about 3.5 miles northeast of the project area. With the construction of the new highways and the shifting residential patterns, the older coastal roads and maukalmakai travel routes largely fell into disuse. In 1991, the current project area was included in an archaeological inventory survey (Jensen and Burgett 1991) of a roughly 300 -acre property conducted by Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) for the then proposed quarry location. PHRI identified nineteen sites and established an archaeological preserve with a fifty foot buffer zone, which led to the boundary definition of the current quarry parcel. The archaeological preserve is located on TMK: (3) 6-8- 001:067 immediately to the north of the current study area (Figure 7). The nineteen sites were recorded along the top and around the margins of two 'a'd ridges located within the northern third of their study area. These sites appeared to be interconnected by a poorly defined trail system, which was likely only minimally used at the time the features were constructed and for limited access thereafter. No midden, artifacts, or other portable cultural material were detected on the surface of any of the features or in the subsurface testing of rock shelter feature (SIHP Site 15051B). Althoug) :1,:--'1 '1 .' ,,-,I , ated, the features at this site were mostly interpreted to be burials and as a result of the PHRI investi_. Lion, al i`rti.ccii sites were preserved "as is". The Waikoloa Development Company chose not to proceed with any additi, u;i:._:,Lat recovery or further evaluation at that time. As previously discussed, a buffer zone of fifty feet was created arc, i --ict cafe area where the archaeological features were found, and an archaeological preserve was created on the parcel (1 N 1 K: (3) 6-8-001:067) to the north of the current study area. In May of 1999, PHRI conducted archaeological monitoring for further development of the quarry site and associated access road. In a letter report, PHRI (Rechtman 1999) confirmed that the established buffer zone was maintained: the access road was well makcri of the buffer boundary and the northern boundary of the quarry (the current project area) was placed an additional 50 meters south of the buffer zone During the archaeological study (Gotay and Rechtman 2015) conducted in support of the present permit application no archaeological sites were observed with the current project area and almost no natural landscape was present as prior and ongoing mechanical quarrying activity and the associated network of ungraded and graded access roads cover roughly ninety-five percent of the approximately 220 acre project area; this is clearly seen in a recent aerial photograph (Figure 8). There have been several studies conducted over the past fifteen or so years (Haun et al. 2010; Maly 1999; Maly and Maly 2002; Wolforth et al. 2005; Wong -Smith 2007, 2009) that contain cultural and oral -historical information relevant to Waik6loa Ahupua`a and the general area covered under the current permit application. A review of the information contained in these studies is relevant for the present analysis. Maly (1999), in his study of the coastal trails of South Kohala, reported the results of oral -historical interview with ten individuals knowledgeable of the South Kohala inclusive of the current permit area. His interviewees included: Robert Keakealani, Sr. (from earlier 1980-86 taped interviews); Robert Keakealani, Jr.; Leina`ala F2-160 West Hawaii Concrete Waikaloa Quarry - Ka Pa `akai Discussion Keakealani-Lightner; Jiro Yamaguchi; William Akau; A. Kahikilani Akau; F. Coco Vredenburg-hind; Kenneth Francis Brown; E. Tita Ruddle-Spielman; and J.K. Spielman. In addition to discussions of the locations and use of trails, one of Malys interviewees described a traditional dryland planting area known as Makahonu located within a kipuka in the Kaniku flow in Waikoloa Ahupua'a in the vicinity of the current intersection of Waikoloa Road and Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, makai of the current project area. Agricultural activities (the cultivation of sweet potato, pumpkin, and sugarcane) continued at this location into the early twentieth century. The Maly and Maly (2002) study focused on an area of Waikoloa that is mauka of the current permit area, in the vicinity of Waiki'i and Ke'amoku. They conducted comprehensive archival -historical research as well as a series of oral -historical interviews with elder native Hawaiians and kama'dina residents of the greater region. Among other conclusions, they related that the pu'u (hills) on the landscape are significant and the names of many are still in common use, "pu'u such as Ahumoa, Po`opo`o, 'Iwa'iwa, Holoholoku, Pa, and Hinai, are integral to the storied landscape of Waikoloa ..." (Maly and Maly 2002:212). An area to the north and slightly makai of the current project area has been the subject of three previously completed cultural impact assessments related to the Villages of `Aina Le'a project. Helen Wong -Smith's (2007) conclusion in that study relates similarly to the current permit area: The cultural impacts to any locale in Hawaii are not always readily evident. What is assessed by Western eyes as "barren land" may be a rich resource to Hawaiians for harvesting material i.e. pili grass; spiritual aspects, i.e. the wind; or for the trails on which to travel. References to these cultural features have been found for the general Waikoloa, but not specific to the project area, Most cultural sites in this section of South Kohala occur between 40 and 280 ft. elevation, with the highest density near gullies and gulches, dropping off at 160 ft. (Wong -Smith 2007:21) In a follow-up study, Wong -Smith (2009) conducted focused research on a potential mauka/makai trail with the assistance of Sonny Keakealani (the son of Robert Keakealani Sr.). Together they identified a trail used b% cattle ranchers that extended from Pu'uwa'awa'a Ranch to Puako across the Villages of `Aina Le'a project area in Nd'aikiyloa Ahupua'a. This historic trail is well to the north of the current West Hawaii Concrete permit area. A third Cultural Impact Assessment for the `Aina Le'a development area was conducted by Haun et at. (2010) for a utility corridor at a similar elevation but quite different environment than the current permit area. Their study area was conducted of an area on an older lava flow with well-developed soil and dry stream beds. Based on archival research and a field inspection, their "study did not identify any culturally significant resources or any evidence that the project areas are currently being used for any traditional cultural practices." (Haun et al. 2010:19). One final study is worth mentioning here, a Section 106 study (Wolforth et al. 2005) conducted for the Saddle Road Extension Project, the corridor of which extends down from Highway 190 through Waik$loa Ahupua'a except in the vicinity of the West Hawaii Concrete Quarry where it bends to the south into Pu`uanahulu Ahupua'a to avoid the quarry and then back into Waikoloa then down to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. As part of the consultation for that project eighteen individuals were contacted. While substantial cultural information was shared about the general area, no cultural places or practices were identified to exist or have taken place in the portion of their study corridor that is in the vicinity of the quarry parcel (current permit area). Upon collective review of these prior cultural studies, a pattern that emerges is that two types of significant cultural resources are regularly referenced in the historical and oral -historical literature. One of these types of resources are landscape features referred to as pu'u (prominent hills) and the other are trails; both are highly traditionally valued and culturally significant. Pu`u not only mark the traditional landscape, but these natural features are almost always named and storied places with ancestral associations; while the network of trails on the traditional landscape provides a connection of both place and people. Numerous putt and trails are identified within Waikoloa, but none are within or in the proximity of the subject permit area. Given the culture -historical background presented above, along with the summarized results of prior archaeological and oral -historical studies in the general Waikoloa area, and combined with the twenty year history of intensive land use within the permit area, it is the finding of the current analysis that there are no specific valued natural and cultural resources within the current project area; and there has been no evidence identified of traditional and customary cultural practices having been exercised, nor have any such practices been documented as taking place in the past within this project area. F2-161 West Hawaii Concrete Waik6loa Quarry — Ka Pa -akai Discussion References Cited Barrera, W., Jr. 1971 Archaeological Excavations and Survey at Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii. Departmental Report Series 71-10. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Barre, D. 1983 Report 2: Notes on the Lands of Vti'aimea and Kawaihae. IN Clark and Kirch (editors) Archaeological Investigation of the Mudlane-Waimea-Kalk aihae Road Corridor, Island of Hawaii, pp. 25-38. Prepared for State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Beckwith, M. 1976 Hawaiian Mythology. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Bergin, B. 2004 Loral to the Land: The Legendary Parker Ranch, 750-1930. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Brundage, L. 1971 Alfred W. Carter Hativai'i's Dean of Cattlemen and Notes on Hawaiian Livestock. Privately printed, Kamuela, Hawaii. Cartwright, B. 1933 Some Allis of the Migratory Period. Bishop .'Museum Occasional Papers, 10(7). Honolulu. Cordy, R. 1994 A Regional Synthesis of Hamakua District, Hawaii Island. Historic Preservation Division, DLNR, State of Hawaii. Damon, E. 1927 Father Bond of Kohala. The Friend, Honolulu. Doyle, E. 1953 Alakua Laiana: The Story of Lorenzo Lyons. Compiled from the manuscript journals, 1832-1886. Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin. Ellis, W. 1969 Polvnesian Researches, Hawaii. Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc., 1831. Reprint. 2004 Journal of iYilliam Ellis, A Narrative of an 1823 Tour Through Hawaii. Mutual Publishing. Escott, G. 2008 Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) and Supporting Functions for Former Waikoloa Maneuver Area, Hawaii on Portions (1,320.063 acres) of the Former Waikoloa `Maneuver :area, Lalamilo and 'buli Ahupua'a, South Kohala District, Hawaii [TMK: (3)-6-2-001:050, 051, 065; AND (3)-6-6-02:031, 032, 034, 035, 39-43]. SCS Project Number 970-1. Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District: Honolulu. Fornander, A. 1996 Ancient History ofthe Hawaiian People. Mutual Publishing, Australia. Gotay, T., and R. Rechtman 2015 Haun, A., D. Henry, and K. McGuire 2003 Archaeological Inventory Survey DHHL Residential Development at Laldmilo (TMK: 3-6-6-01:10, 54 & 77 and 3-6-6-04:12-17). South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. Haun & Associates, Report 116-071203, Keaau, Hawaii. Prepared for PBR Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii. 19 F2-162 West Hawaii Concrete Waik6loa Ouarrti - Ka Pa'akai Discussion Haun, A., S. Kaiiihiwa, and D. Henry 2010 Archaeological Assessment Portions of TMK: (3) 6-8-01:37 and (3) 6-8-02:19 Land of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. Haun and Associates Report 714-012610. Prepared for D W 'Aina Le'a Development, Waikoloa, Hawaii. Haun, A., S. Kailihiwa; and D. Henry 2010 Second Addendum to Cultural Impact Assessment DW `Aina Le'a Development, Land of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. Haun and Associates Report 712-0126910. Prepared for D W 'Aina Le'a Development, Waikoloa, Hawaii. Hawkins, R. 2011 A Pacific Industi,v: The History of Pineapple Canning in Hawaii. London: I.B. Tarus & Co. Judd, B. 1932 "Early Days of Waimea, Hawaii" Fortieth Annual Report of the Hawaiian Historical Society for the year 1831 with papers read at the annual meeting February 29, 1932. Kamakau, S. 1964 Ka Po'e Kahiko: The People of Old. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 51. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1976 The Works of the People of Old, Na Kana a ka Po'e Kahiko. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 61. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1991 Tales and Traditions of the People of Old, Na Mo'olelu a ka Poe Kahiko. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hurvaii. The Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu (Revised Edition). Kelly, M., and B. Nakamura 1981 A Progress Report on Background History of the Mudlane-Waimea-Kawaihae Road Corridor. IN Me Mudlane-Waimea- Kawaihae Archaeological Project: Interim Report, P. Kirch and B. Clause, eds., pp. 26-56. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kuykendall, R., and A. Day 1976 Hawaii: A Histooy; From Polynesian Kingdom to American Statehood. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice - Hall, Inc. Maly, K. 1999 A'd Ala Hele Ma Kai O Kohala Hema. Kumu Pono Associates Report HiAla-17K (043099). Prepared for Nd Ala Hele Program State Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Hilo. Maly, K, and Maly, O. 2002 He Wahi Mo'olelo No Ka Aina A Me d 'Ghana O ffaiki'i Ala 11'aik6loa (Kalana O Waimea, Kohala), A Me Ka Aina Mauna: A Collection of Traditions and Historical Accounts of the Lands and Families of Waiki'i at Waik6loa (Waimea Region, South Kohala), and the Mountain Lands, Island of Hawaii (TMK Overview Sheet 6-7-01). Kumu Pono Associates Report HiWaikii6l- 111202. Prepared for Waiki'i Ranch Homeowner's Association, Kamuela, Hawaii. McEldowney, H. 1983 A Description of Major Vegetation Patterns in the Waimea-Kawaihae Region During the Early Historic Period. IN Clark, J., and P. Kirch (1983). Menzies, A. 1920 Hawaii Nei, 138 fears Ago. Edited by William F. Wilson. Honolulu: The New Freedom Press. 10 F2-163 West Hawaii Concrete Waikiiloa Quarry - Ka Pa'akai Discussion Oliver, D. 1961 The Pacific Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pukui M. and S. filbert 1986 Hawaiian Dictionary. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Rechtman, R., and U. Prasad 2006 An Archaeological and Cultural Assessment Survey of Pu'u Ne'ene'e Ranch (TMKs: 3-6-4- 01:051,053, 156, 157, 158, 159), Pu'ukapu Ahupua'a, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii. Rechtman Consulting Report RC -0399. Prepared for Ken Russell, Kukulu Pono Construction LLC. Kamuela, Hawaii. Rosendahl, P. 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK 6-8-01:22, Land of Waikoloa, South Kohala District, Island of Hawai'i. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Report 2017-072000. Prepared for White Sand Beach LP, Tinguely Development, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Schilt, R., and A. Sinoto 1980 Limited Phase I Archaeological Survey of Mahukona Properties, North Kohala, Island of Hawai'i. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Prepared for Belt, Collins and Associates. Schmitt, R. 1977 Historical Statistics of Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Tomonari-Tuggle, M. 1988 North Kohala: Perception of a Changing Community. A Cultural Resource Management Study. Prepared for Division of State Parks, Outdoor Recreation, and Historic Sites, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii. Wilkes, C. 1845 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1838 1842, Under the Command vf'C. Wilkes, U.S.N., Volume 4. Philadelphia: I.oa and Blanchard. Wolforth, T. 2000 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of Approximately 15 Acres for a Proposed Quarry and Related Activity at Parker Ranch Within Waikoloa Ahupua'a, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii (TMK: 6-8-01:001). Scientific Consultant Services, Inc., Report 216-1, Honolulu, Hawai'i. Prepared for William L. Moore Planning, Hilo and Parker Ranch, Waimea. Wolforth, T., G. Escott, and L. McGerty 2005 Inventory Survey for the Saddle Road Extension: Investigations into Resource Extraction in the Middle Elevations of Waikoloa Ahupua'a in Kohala and Pu'uanahulu Ahupua'a in Kona [TMK 6- 7-01:3; 6-8-01:5 and 27; 6-8-02:13, 14, and 15, and 7-1-03:1]. SCS Report 173.2 prepared for DMT Consultant Engineers. Wong Smith, H. 2007 Cultural Impact Assessment for Villages of 'Aina Le'a. Prepared for Bridge 'Rina Le'a, LLC. 2009 Addendum to Cultural Impact Assessment DW 'Aina Le'a Development, LLC, Waikoloa, Hawai'i Island, TMK Nos. 6-8-01:25, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40. Prepared for D W 'Aina Le'a LLC. F2-164 West Hawaii Concrete Waik6loa Quarn, — Ka Pa'akai Discussion Figure 1. Goggle EarthTM satellite image showing location of the project area outlined in red. n rI o Is A _ .=i' Pn Jtit.r Figure 2. Portion of 1923 1iSGS. Pu'u Hinai quadrangle showing the project area within Kaniku Lava Flow. 12 West Hawaii Concrete Waikaloa Quarry — Ka Pa `akad Discussion ti, i I. G 1,' . . F2-165 i jo x IPP, naair I1ti-AhOli sit � s' � -'' , t"6�fIrIN cIi1�1F �7fi 3 s ._ � ' Figure 3. Registered Map No. 574 showing Waikoloa. the kalana of Waimea and the approximate location of the current study area (prepared by Kaelemakule, n.d. ). 13 F2-166 West Hawaii Concrete Waik6loa Quarry J Ka Pa'ukui Discussion 7 c a WAIMEA E 6�D7"R KORA LA I Approximate location P 4 �I „, A v of current study area a ". T x X o x A Figure 4. Hawaii Registered Map No. 712 showing the kalana of Waimea and associated ahupira'rr ca. 1866 with approximate location of the current study area. 14 Si go N H uoissnosiG W.P. Od ON - �jiuno eoiQl!P,M MZ03UO-) !!U,%',uH lsWi West Hawaii Concrete WaikOloa Quirry — Ka Pa'akai Discussion Section 1 7Co(ala Sea Coast from Lae Vpol-u, Yojala to Kapalaoa viffarge `1\,ona tn�h�b>t, t and country back a Iyab•ta s:atron a l ai ll yOG'L �rP.11[ - � '• 1 � to Mauna Xea t: rcnl Tr. if �Jy � � t0 • rofa a nwe`� vt•4 brutfi - � "F�u �1'�mt `' I ,t��, • _ "' ++fir .�(l�' _;�;,�.0�*�w'� y�,:;y c.�r •- �, r�.r '��i4arrn. .. - d I��amuku tm7......................... _-•..-._--••- •_. rfircp ss¢3e F2-168 9:ahara :p irOt1N i� a,3 ^` larurwoGne •�I qzA� rtagon 1i<J1d�.mdbAy ..eG �(y�j }lutAaia �,•� C{ayr Srteep Ndrj• ,• �''. ■ftaftun t S e •• t rlwhryr Figure 6. Emerson sketch map of South Kohala coast ca/ 1882 (from Escott 2008.43). 16 9ior+ara pians F2-169 West Hawaii Concrete Waikbloa Quarry — Ka Pa -akai Discussitm Figure 7. Portion of Tax Map (3) 6-5-001 showing archaeological preserve adjacent to current project area. 17 F2-170 Nest H-.maii C'oncrele R aikolo:l Quarn — K6 P(r'CIA-ni DkCLISSik n Figure 8. Google Earth image of study area showing network of access roads and quarried areas. 18 APPENDIX F3 Waste -to -energy plan intrigues: Company's future facility could lighten county's garbage load Published August 25, 2016 - 12:05am Twee "mit By NANCY COOK LAUER West Hawaii Today After decades of trying to get a handle on the island's growing garbage problems, county officials are taking a wait-and-see approach to a private company's plan to step into the breach. BioEnergy Hawaii LLC plans to lease just less than 15 acres at the West Hawaii Concrete Quarry in Waikoloa to build an estimated $50 million waste separation and aerobic digestion facility that will produce methane and other gases, with byproducts to include soil amendments and fertilizer. A smaller, closed thermal gasification unit will generate electricity, under the plan. The 200 -ton -per -day facility could divert as much as 70 percent of its municipal solid waste from the West Hawaii landfill at Puuanahulu, sending 30 percent to the landfill as residual waste. It could be expanded to 400 tons per day, under the plan. The West Hawaii landfill currently accepts about 300 tons of commercial and residential waste per day, and the soon -to -be -closed Hilo landfill accepts about 200 tons per day. The waste separation and aerobic digestion facility is designed to be flexible, to grow as the county's need grows, BioEnergy Vice President Clint Knox said Wednesday. "Our whole strategy, we know the county is limited on whatthey can do, so we're willing to work within those limitations," Knox said. The methane will power garbage trucks operated by Pacific Waste Inc., a sister company. Pacific Waste hauls about 80 percent of the commercial waste on the west side of the Big Island. F3-2 The project is scheduled to come online sometime in 2019, aboutthe same time the county's $10.6 million green waste composting facility should be operational. That projectwill collect green waste islandwide and turn it into compostthatwill be sold to consumers The public will still be able to get free mulch under that plan. The county signed a contract in April with Hawaiian Earth Recycling, a subsidiary of the county's current mulch contractor, Hawaiian Earth Products. Environmental Management Director Bobby Jean Leithead Todd said Wednesday she's neutral on the BioEnergy project. On the one hand, she said, it could help divert more waste from the county's landfills. With the Hilo landfill having an estimated lifespan of 36 months, the county's working on closing it. It plans to truck garbage from East Hawaii to the Puuanahulu landfill. The trucks will return to Hilo with West Hawaii's green waste to be composted at the new facility. But on the other hand, Leithead Todd is concerned the BioEnergy Hawaii project could reduce the amount of green waste coming back to Hilo, requiring the garbage trucks to come back empty and possibly reducing the efficiency of the composting operation. The Hilo landfill has reached a level where the county recently told contractors that truckloads of construction waste larger than a certain size now must be trucked to the West Hawaii landfill for disposal. Leithead Todd acknowledged to the Environmental Management Commission that could mean an increase in construction prices on the east side of the island. "A lot of this is very difficult to predict," Leithead Todd said about the many components that have to fit into place. BioEnergy's facility entrance will be located 2.7 miles east of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Waikoloa Road, with the facility itself 1 mile in along a dedicated roadway. That puts it 3 miles overland to the nearest development in Waikoloa Village, 3 miles from the Puuanahulu landfill and 4 miles from the Waikoloa Beach hotels. The facility will emit no gas or smoke, and won't be able to be seen from the roadways, the coast or the hotels, said planning consultant David Robichaux of North Shore Consultants in Honolulu. "It's a zero -cost projectto the county," Robichaux said. "BioEnergy Hawaii is doing this with their own money." Hawaii County twice solicited and then abandoned waste -to -energy incineration projects. Both times — once in former Mayor and now Mayor -elect Harry Kim's administration and once in current Mayor Billy Kenoi's administration —the cost became too prohibitive for taxpayers to shoulder. The county apparently doesn't produce enough garbage to make the big garbage -burning facilities cost-effective. But new technologies are making smaller garbage digesting units affordable. The estimated $50 million BioEnergy Hawaii project includes backing from eBay founder Pierre Omidyar's investment company Ulupono Initiative and other private equity with support from a $100 million special purpose revenue bond issued by the state. County Planning Director Duane Kanuha anticipates a finding of no significant impact for the project The public has until Sept. 22 to comment about the project by mail or email. Send comments via the mail to the county Planning Department, attention Jeff Darrow, Aupuni Center, 101 Pauahi St., Suite 3, Hilo, HI 96720, with copies to applicant BioEnergy Hawaii, attention Clint Knox, Leed AP, Vice President, 74-5610 Alapa St., Kailua-Kona, HI 96740, and consultant North Shore Consultants LLC, attention David Robichaux, 2091 Round Top Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822. For those who want to email comments, the addresses are Jeff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov, Clint@komarinvestments.com androbichaud001 @hawaii.rr.com, respectively. The 170 -page draft environmental assessment can be found athttp://oegc.doh.hawaii.gov/Shared%20Documents/EA and_EIS_Online_Library/.... Email Nancy Cook Lauer at ncook-lauer@westhawaiitoday.com. M Gmail Task Force Meeting Questions 1 message APPENDIX F4 hipsis 808 <hipsis808@gmaii.com> Joy Gold <joy@joygoldunlimited.com> Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:04 PM To: "CM Daniel Paleka(daniel.paleka@hawaiicounty.gov)"<daniel. pal eka@hawaiicounty. gov> Cc: Shandanell Yoshioka <Shan.Yoshioka@hawaiicounty.gov>, hipsis 808 <hipsis808@gmail.com>, "Dexter Yamada (dy@kyd-inc.com)" <dy@kyd-inc.com> Aloha Council Member Paleka, On behalf of Dexter Yamada, KYD, Inc, thank you for convening the first Task Force meeting, and thank you for the invitation to ask you questions. KYD has begun work on the matrix of six solutions. However, it is difficult to move forward because of missing information. Response to these questions and how the responses will be integrated into the Sept 12, 2016 Task Force Meeting is appreciated. 1. What is meant by environmentally friendly products? Is this for only compostable products or can a product going into WTE and is regenerated into liquefied gas or electricity not counted and why not? In these cases, it will not go into the ocean. 2. Why is the Task Force discussion allowed to focus on ban of EPS foam or Bill 140? At the last Council hearing, Margaret Wille agreed that she would not focus on the ban. Both Ms Wille and you have said that the ban of EPS product would not be the focus but a part of the overall discussion about packaging waste management. 3. What is the timeline for the County's composting facility ability to accept food waste? A verbal, July 2018, is not sufficient. Where are the documents that substantiate the facility, its permits for green waste and food waste? This is important because acceptance of food -waste is the driver to ban foam products. It's been said that post -consumer use compostable products with food scraps are acceptable whereas food scraps on non-compostable containers will need to be sorted out and that is an added expense. However, the County's Business Resource Center report "Polystyrene Ban Research: Implications for Local Businesses and Consumers (pg2, last paragraph) says that "All food service ware, including compostable varieties, will continue to go into the municipal garbage stream where they will not biodegrade due to the landfill environment which requires blocking water and air ---two elements required for composting " 4. Why is WTE discounted without any discussion at the Task Force? The recent BioEnergy Hawaii Draft Environmental Assessment and Hawaii Tribune Herald article, which were uploaded to Shared Documents, underscores the need to understand how BioEnergy Hawaii, Hu Honua and the County's composting facility will affect landfill diversion, demand for trash and what kind of trash to feed into these facilities, what are the outputs, the market for return on investment of products and long-term sustainability of these facilities. This lifts the Task Force discussion to look at the current, big picture of solid waste management rather than the continued discussion of banning PS foam products. 5. What are the health and sanitation issues for the return of used food service containers, compostable or noncompostable, to the compost facility? How can we increase food establishments acceptance of customer's reusable food containers for coffee, takeout, left -overs? Peter Oshiro, DOH Sanitation Branch would be the appropriate person to respond to these questions. F4-2 John DeFries had said that he and his staff are available to provide requested information. Please request him to report back on: - Expanded Producer Responsibility for packaging so we can better understand what is being discussed. How does that work when the majority of products are imported to Hawaii and are not produced in Hawaii or Hawaii Island? Take a walk through Costco, KTA or any retail store and see the packaging, cardboard, plastic wraps, styrofoam packaging for electronics, glass, paper etc. Does the consumer bring back the discarded packaging to the retailers? Will the retailers pay a fee and to whom? How does this affect the national or international producer of such packaging? What will that money be used for? - Germany's Green Dot program to better understand what is being discussed. What parts of the Green Dot program are suggested for Hawaii Island? What are the infrastructure or system needs that must be in place for it to work effectively here? Thank you, Joy Gold ******************************************* Joy Gold Unlimited 1136 Union Mall, Ste. 403 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Phone: 808-526-3770 Mobile: 808-368-1146 Email: joy@joygoldunlimited.com www.joygoldunlimited.com "Working with you to achieve your organization's mission and public policy goals" CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.