HomeMy WebLinkAboutFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Volume 2 (Feb 2020)ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
County of Hawai‘i
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
FINAL
February 20
Pahala Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Preliminary Engineering
Report
Prepared for
County of Hawaii, Department of Environmental Management
June 2018
November 2019
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant
Preliminary Engineering Report
Prepared for
County of Hawaii, Department of Environmental Management
June 2018
November 2019
THIS WORK WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION.
April 30, 2020
Signature Expiration Date of the License
2261 Aupuni Street, Suite 201
Wailuku, Hawaii 96793
iii
Table of Contents
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .........................................................................................................................................vii
List of Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................................ix
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Existing System .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Report Contents ................................................................................................................. 1-1
2. Flow and Load Projections ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Service Area ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Flow Projections ................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.3 Influent Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 2-3
2.4 Influent Mass Loads .......................................................................................................... 2-3
2.5 Mass Loads to the Environment via Existing LCCs ............................................................ 2-4
3. Effluent Management Options and Regulatory Requirements .................................................... 3-1
3.1 Effluent Management Options ........................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Ocean Discharge .................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.2 Subsurface Disposal via Injection Wells .............................................................. 3-1
3.1.3 Water Recycling .................................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.4 Land Treatment .................................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.5 Drain Field ............................................................................................................ 3-3
3.1.6 Recommendation ................................................................................................. 3-3
3.2 Treatment Requirements ................................................................................................... 3-3
4. Wastewater Treatment Evaluations ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Preliminary Treatment ....................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Screening ............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 Influent Flow Measurement ................................................................................. 4-2
4.1.3 Influent Flow Sampling ......................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.4 Preliminary Design of Headworks ........................................................................ 4-2
4.1.5 Odor Control ......................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2 Aerated Lagoon Treatment System ................................................................................... 4-5
4.2.1 Aerated Lagoon Kinetics ...................................................................................... 4-5
4.2.2 Aeration in Lagoon Systems ................................................................................. 4-5
4.2.3 Aerated Lagoon Configuration ............................................................................. 4-7
4.2.4 Lagoon Liner ........................................................................................................ 4-8
4.2.5 Lagoon Cover ....................................................................................................... 4-9
4.2.6 Lagoon Sludge Management ............................................................................ 4-11
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Table of Contents
iv
4.3 Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland ........................................................................... 4-11
4.3.1 Denitrification in Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands ................................ 4-11
4.4 Disinfection ..................................................................................................................... 4-12
4.4.1 Calcium Hypochlorite ........................................................................................ 4-12
4.4.2 Ultraviolet Light (UV) Disinfection ...................................................................... 4-16
4.4.3 UV System Design Summary ............................................................................. 4-16
4.4.4 Cost Evaluation ................................................................................................. 4-17
4.4.5 Disinfection Recommendation .......................................................................... 4-17
4.5 Effluent Management ..................................................................................................... 4-18
4.5.1 Design ............................................................................................................... 4-18
4.6 Ancillary Systems ............................................................................................................ 4-20
4.6.1 Water ................................................................................................................. 4-20
4.6.2 Access Road ...................................................................................................... 4-20
4.6.3 Stormwater Management ................................................................................. 4-21
4.6.4 Pre-development Stormwater Conditions ......................................................... 4-21
4.6.5 Electrical Systems ............................................................................................. 4-26
4.6.6 Telemetry Systems ............................................................................................ 4-26
4.6.7 Operations Building ........................................................................................... 4-26
4.6.8 Site Fencing....................................................................................................... 4-26
4.6.9 Alternative Energy ............................................................................................. 4-26
5. Preliminary Design of Improvements ........................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Process Schematic ............................................................................................................ 5-1
5.3 Design Criteria ................................................................................................................... 5-4
5.4 Environmental Benefits ..................................................................................................... 5-6
5.5 Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................... 5-8
5.6 Future Expansion ............................................................................................................... 5-8
5.6.1 Full Buildout Flows ............................................................................................... 5-8
5.6.2 Improvements ...................................................................................................... 5-8
6. Implementation ............................................................................................................................ 6-1
7. Alternative Treatment Options Evaluation ................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Option Descriptions ........................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 Option 1: Aerated Lagoons/Constructed Wetland/Land Application .................. 7-1
7.1.2 Option 2: R-1 Treatment/Land Application .......................................................... 7-1
7.1.3 Option 3: R-1 Treatment/Seasonal Water Recycling .......................................... 7-2
7.1.4 Option 4: R-1 Treatment and Storage for 100% Water Recycling ....................... 7-4
7.1.5 Option 5: Maximum Practical Treatment ............................................................ 7-6
7.2 Cost Comparisons .............................................................................................................. 7-7
7.2.1 Capital Costs ........................................................................................................ 7-7
7.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs ...................................................................... 7-7
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Table of Contents
v
7.2.3 Recycled Water Sale Proceeds ............................................................................ 7-8
7.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs .................................................................................................... 7-8
7.3 Non-Economic Discussion ................................................................................................. 7-9
7.3.1 Labor Requirements ......................................................................................... 7-10
7.3.2 Operational Complexity ..................................................................................... 7-10
7.3.3 Energy Consumption ......................................................................................... 7-11
7.3.4 Sludge Management ......................................................................................... 7-11
7.4 Living Machine® ............................................................................................................. 7-11
7.5 Septic Tank Alternatives ................................................................................................. 7-12
7.5.1 Community Septic Tank .................................................................................... 7-12
7.5.2 Converting LCC to Seepage Pit.......................................................................... 7-12
7.5.3 Leachfield Disposal ........................................................................................... 7-13
7.5.4 Conversion to Individual Wastewater Systems ................................................. 7-13
7.5.5 Gray Water Systems/Composting Toilets ......................................................... 7-14
7.6 Package Plant ................................................................................................................. 7-14
8. Alternative Site Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Site Locations .................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 8-3
8.4 Criteria Weighting Factors .................................................................................................. 8-7
8.5 Raw Scores ........................................................................................................................ 8-8
8.6 Weighted Analysis .............................................................................................................. 8-9
8.7 Results ............................................................................................................................ 8-10
8.8 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 8-10
9. References ................................................................................................................................... 9-1
Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................. A-1
Collection System Plan ....................................................................................................B-1
Wastewater Flow Calculations ......................................................................................... C-1
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Table of Contents
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Pahala Existing Sewer Collection System and LCC Service Area ..................................... 1-2
Figure 2-1. Pahala WWTP Service Area .............................................................................................. 2-2
Figure 3-1. Irrigation Demand Assessment ........................................................................................ 3-2
Figure 4-1. In-Channel Cylindrical Screen .......................................................................................... 4-2
Figure 4-2. Headworks ....................................................................................................................... 4-3
Figure 4-3. Activated Carbon Scrubber (GAC) .................................................................................... 4-4
Figure 4-4. High Speed Floating Aerator ............................................................................................ 4-7
Figure 4-5. Normal Lagoon Configuration Schematic ........................................................................ 4-7
Figure 4-6. Floating HDPE Shade Balls ........................................................................................... 4-10
Figure 4-7. Floating shade balls with current and turbulence in reservoir. ..................................... 4-10
Figure 4-8. Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland Concept ........................................................... 4-11
Figure 4-9. Typical Calcium Hypochlorite Feed System ................................................................... 4-13
Figure 4-10. Chlorine Contact Tank Configuration .......................................................................... 4-15
Figure 4-11. Land Application System Schematic ........................................................................... 4-19
Figure 4-12. Existing Drainage System ........................................................................................... 4-22
Figure 4-13. Flood Insurance Rate Map .......................................................................................... 4-24
Figure 4-14. Operations Building Preliminary Floor Plan ................................................................ 4-28
Figure 5-1. Preliminary Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 5-2
Figure 5-2. Recommended Facility Process Schematic ..................................................................... 5-3
Figure 5-3. Environmental Benefits of Proposed Project ................................................................... 5-7
Figure 7-1. Option 1 Schematic Diagram ........................................................................................... 7-1
Figure 7-2. Option 2 Schematic Diagram ........................................................................................... 7-2
Figure 7-3. Option 3 Schematic Diagram ........................................................................................... 7-2
Figure 7-4. Irrigation Demand Assessment ........................................................................................ 7-3
Figure 7-5. Option 3 Recycled Water Demand Assessment ............................................................... 7-3
Figure 7-6. Comparison of Irrigation Demands at Pahala and Kealakehe ......................................... 7-4
Figure 7-7. Option 4 Schematic Diagram ........................................................................................... 7-5
Figure 7-8. Seasonal Storage Reservoir Analysis ............................................................................... 7-6
Figure 7-9. Option 5 Schematic Diagram ........................................................................................... 7-7
Figure 7-10. Life-Cycle Costs of Options............................................................................................. 7-9
Figure 7-11. Comparison of Electrical Energy Requirements.......................................................... 7-11
Figure 8-1. Pahala Site Alternatives ................................................................................................... 8-2
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Table of Contents
vii
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Pahala WWTP Flow Projections ......................................................................................... 2-3
Table 2-2. Summary of Assumed Influent Characteristics ................................................................. 2-3
Table 2-3. Projected Influent Mass Loads .......................................................................................... 2-3
Table 2-4. Mass Loads to the Environment via Existing LCCs ............................................................ 2-4
Table 3-1. Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Class AA Embayments ........................................... 3-1
Table 3-2. Applicable HAR 11-62 Land Disposal Requirements ........................................................ 3-3
Table 4-1. Normal Configuration Aeration and Mixing Requirements ................................................ 4-8
Table 4-2. Lagoon Shade Ball Cover Application Parameters ............................................................ 4-9
Table 4-3. Calcium Hypochlorite Summary ..................................................................................... 4-13
Table 4-4. Chlorine Demand............................................................................................................ 4-14
Table 4-5. Chlorine Contact Tank .................................................................................................... 4-14
Table 4-6. UV Disinfection Design Summary ................................................................................... 4-16
Table 4-7. Estimated Disinfection Costs ......................................................................................... 4-17
Table 4-8. Ultraviolet Disinfection – Advantages and Disadvantages ............................................ 4-17
Table 4-9. Potential Land Application System Tree Species ........................................................... 4-18
Table 4-10. Potential Water Demands ............................................................................................ 4-20
Table 5-1. Preliminary Design Criteria ................................................................................................ 5-4
Table 5-2. Environmental Benefits of Proposed Project..................................................................... 5-7
Table 5-3. Pahala WWTP Order of Magnitude Construction Cost Estimate ....................................... 5-8
Table 5-4. Pahala WWTP Full Buildout Flow Projections .................................................................... 5-8
Table 6-1. Implementation Schedule ................................................................................................. 6-1
Table 7-1. Summary of Capital Cost Estimates .................................................................................. 7-7
Table 7-2. Summary of O&M Cost Estimates ..................................................................................... 7-8
Table 7-3. Summary of Annual Recycled Water Sale Proceeds ......................................................... 7-8
Table 7-4. Summary of Life-Cycle Cost Estimates .............................................................................. 7-9
Table 7-5. Comparison of Operational Labor Requirements ........................................................... 7-10
Table 7-6. Comparison of Operator Certification Requirements per HAR 11-61 ............................ 7-10
Table 8-1. Environmental, Social and Cultural Criteria ...................................................................... 8-3
Table 8-2. Location and Site Characteristics ..................................................................................... 8-4
Table 8-3. Collection System and Service Area Criteria ..................................................................... 8-5
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Table of Contents
viii
Table 8-4. Land Use and Availability Criteria ...................................................................................... 8-6
Table 8-5. Relative Weighting Factors ................................................................................................ 8-7
Table 8-6. Alternatives Analysis – Raw Scores ................................................................................... 8-8
Table 8-7. Alternatives Analysis – Weighted Scoring ......................................................................... 8-9
Table 8-8. Alternative Site Ranking ................................................................................................. 8-10
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Table of Contents
ix
List of Abbreviations
AB aggregate base
AC asphalt concrete
BMP Best Management Practices
BOD5 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
CCH City and County of Honolulu
cfs cubic feet per second
COH County of Hawaii
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DNA deoxyribonucleic acid
DEM Department of Environmental Management
DOH Department of Health
ELLF end-of-lamp-life
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FOG fats, oils, and grease
ft3 cubic feet
FTE full-time equivalent
GAC granular activated carbon
gpm gallons per minute
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HAR Hawaii Administrative Rules
HDPE high density polyethylene
HELCO Hawaii Electric Light Company
hp horsepower
hp/Mgal horsepower per million gallons
hr hour
hp-hr horsepower-hour
L liter
lbs pounds
LCC large capacity cesspools
LPHO low pressure high output
MBR membrane bioreactor
Mg milligrams
Mgal million gallons
mm millimeter
MSL mean sea level
N nitrogen
NPV net present value
O&M Operation and Maintenance
P Phosphorus
Psi pounds per square inch
RNA ribonucleic acid
ROW right-of-way
scfm standard cubic feet
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SR slow rate
TSS total suspended solids
UIC Underground Injection Control
USEPA United States Environmental Protection
Agency
UV ultraviolet
WQV Water Quality Volume
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
1-1
Introduction
1.1 Background
The town of Pahala is located in the Kau district of the Island of Hawaii. According to the 2010
United States Census, the town population is approximately 1,350 persons.
The Pahala community was established as the result of the sugar operations of the C. Brewer
Company. A portion of the community is serviced by a sewer system that was privately built, owned,
and operated by the C. Brewer Company. The wastewater collected by the sewer system discharges
into large capacity “gang” cesspools. Many years after its establishment, the private sewer system
ownership was conveyed to the County of Hawaii (COH) Department of Environmental Management
(DEM).
In 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), promulgated regulations, 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 144.14, that require the elimination of large capacity “gang” cesspools
(LCCs). The County intends to construct a new sewer collection system located within public right-of-
way (ROW) and replace the existing LCCs with a wastewater treatment plant to address the
wastewater treatment and disposal needs of the Pahala community.
This report summarizes a proposed wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) needed in order to treat and
dispose of the wastewater flow that is currently discharged to the LCCs, plus additional sewer
connections. The report presents the existing and estimated future flows and loads to the treatment
plant, the proposed treatment processes, recommendation for the WWTP upgrades needed to meet
the future treatment needs, and an initial opinion of the cost to construct the improvements project.
1.2 Existing System
Figure 1-1 shows the collection system network and service areas for the LCCs. The collection
system is a network of gravity sewers that discharge to two existing LCCs. A detailed analysis of the
existing wastewater collection system was completed by others (M&E Pacific, December 2004). The
report concluded that the Pahala community existing sewer system consists of about 3,000 linear
feet of 6-inch diameter and 10,000 linear feet of 4-inch diameter pipelines. Residential laterals
connect to 4-inch sewers that discharge into 6-inch sewer mains, predominately found in private
property, which transmit wastewater to the LCCs. There are approximately 8 manholes in the sewer
system. There are no pump stations and the system is not designed to collect stormwater.
1.3 Report Contents
Section 2 presents flow and load projections for the new WWTP. Section 3 evaluates effluent
management options, and the treatment requirements for the preferred option. Section 4 presents
evaluations conducted to develop the preliminary design of the proposed WWTP, which is presented
in Section 5. An implementation plan is briefly presented in Section 6, followed by discussion of
other treatment options that were considered and evaluated. The report concludes with a site
selection consideration in Section 8.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 1
1-2
INSERT FIGURE
Figure 1-1. Pahala Existing Sewer Collection System and LCC Service Area
2-1
Flow and Load Projections
This section summarizes the flow and load projections for the new WWTP.
2.1 Service Area
Within the town of Pahala, there is an existing wastewater collection that services approximately 109
properties. The collection system is currently located within easements in private properties and is
treated and disposed through two LCCs. Figure 2-1 shows the service area for the new WWTP. The
Kau Community Development plan indicates that the sewer system may eventually be expanded to
service the entire community; however, the initial collection system and WWTP presented in this
report will service the properties currently connected to the LCCs or located adjacent to the new
collection system. Although this report does not include design for the full buildout service area, the
proposed WWTP has been designed to accommodate modifications within the proposed 14.9-acre
site for the anticipated future expansion of the service area.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 2
2-2
Figure 2-1. Pahala WWTP Service Area
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 2
2-3
2.2 Flow Projections
Wastewater flow projections were developed using the City and County of Honolulu’s (CCH) current
(2017) wastewater standards. Table 2-1 summarizes the flow projections.
Table 2-1. Pahala WWTP Flow Projections
Description Value Peaking Factor
Average dry weather flow 189,000 gallons per day 1.0
Peak day wet weather flow 662,000 gallons per day 3.5
Peak hour wet weather flow 630 gallons per minute 4.8
The WWTP will be designed to provide an average dry weather flow capacity of 190,000 gallons per
day.
2.3 Influent Characteristics
The properties within the existing service area are primarily residential, but do include several
commercial, apartment, and industrial zoned parcels. The wastewater characteristics of the WWTP
influent are assumed to be similar to typical domestic wastewater. Table 2-2 provides a summary of
the assumed influent characteristics.
Table 2-2. Summary of Assumed Influent Characteristics
Parameter Value
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 300 mg/L
Total suspended solids (TSS) 300 mg/L
Total nitrogen 40 mg/L
Total phosphorus 7 mg/L
2.4 Influent Mass Loads
Table 2-3 summarizes the projected loads to the WWTP, based on the proposed average dry weather
capacity of 190,000 gallons per day and the influent characteristics presented in Table 2-2.
Table 2-3. Projected Influent Mass Loads
Description Value
BOD5 480 lbs./day
TSS 480 lbs./day
Total nitrogen 60 lbs./day
Total phosphorus 10 lbs./day
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 2
2-4
2.5 Mass Loads to the Environment via Existing LCCs
Currently, 109 properties discharge without treatment to two LCCs, as shown in Figure 2-2. These
types of cesspools are a public health and environmental concern because of their likelihood of
releasing disease causing pathogens and other contaminants, such as nitrate, to groundwater. The
current annual mass loads to the environment via the existing LCCs based on the flow projections
and assumed wastewater characteristics presented above are summarized in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4. Mass Loads to the Environment via Existing LCCs
Parameter Annual Load
BOD5 174,000 lbs./year
TSS 174,000 lbs./year
Total N 23,000 lbs./year
Total P 4,000 lbs./year
3-1
Effluent Management Options and
Regulatory Requirements
Effluent management options are evaluated in this section, followed by an assessment of regulatory
requirements for the recommended effluent management system.
3.1 Effluent Management Options
Effluent management options are evaluated below.
3.1.1 Ocean Discharge
Ocean discharge of treated effluent is not considered a viable option for this small community due to
the long distance to the shoreline (approximately 3 miles), high cost to construct an outfall, stringent
receiving water quality standards, high receiving water monitoring cost due to the distance to Hilo
harbor, and difficulty and length of time required to secure the required permits.
The coastal waters in the Pahala area are classified as “AA” marine waters by DOH. HAR 11-54
does not allow zones of mixing in waters up to a distance of 300 meters (one thousand feet) off
shore if there is no defined reef area and if the depth is greater than 18 meters (ten fathoms). The
water quality criteria for nutrients for Class AA embayments are listed in Table 3-1. If a mixing zone
is not provided, then a WWTP discharging to the coastal waters would be required to treat water to
meet the applicable water quality criteria. Treatment to the specified levels is not feasible with
current technologies. Therefore, ocean discharge is not feasible.
Table 3-1. Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Class AA Embayments
Parameter Geometric mean not to exceed Not to exceed the given value
more than 10% of the time
Not to exceed the given value more
than 2% of the time
Total nitrogen 200 µg/L 350 µg/L 500 µg/L
Ammonia nitrogen 6 µg/L 13 µg/L 20 µg/L
Nitrate + nitrate nitrogen 8 µg/L 20 µg/L 35 µg/L
Total phosphorus 25 µg/L 50 µg/L 75 µg/L
3.1.2 Subsurface Disposal via Injection Wells
Per Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Title 11, Chapter 23, disposal to groundwater via an injection
well is not allowed mauka of the State of Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) Underground Injection
Control (UIC) line. Since the town of Pahala is located mauka of the UIC line, an injection well is not a
viable option.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 3
3-2
3.1.3 Water Recycling
An irrigation assessment was prepared to assess the viability of water recycling as the primary
effluent management system, assuming the recycled water would be used to irrigate macadamia nut
trees. Figure 3-1 is a summary of the assessment that shows there is typically no irrigation demand
for six months of the year due to high rainfall. In addition, the DOH requires that all water recycling
programs have a 100 percent backup disposal system in place to handle flow that does not meet
recycled water quality standards or when recycled water supply exceeds demand. Therefore, water
recycling is not a viable primary effluent management strategy for the community. However, water
recycling treatment, storage, and distribution systems could be added in the future.
Figure 3-1. Irrigation Demand Assessment
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECInches of WaterMonth
Precipitation Evapotranspiration Irrigation Requirement
3.1.4 Land Treatment
The USEPA defines land treatment as “the application of appropriately pre-treated municipal and
industrial wastewater to the land at a controlled rate in a designed and engineered setting. The
purpose of the activity is to obtain beneficial use of these materials, to improve environmental
quality, and to achieve treatment goals in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner”
(USEPA, September 2006).
Land treatment systems rely on soil and vegetation to achieve treatment objectives, rather than
energy-intensive mechanical equipment. As such, they are considered to be a form of “natural”
treatment (Crites, et. al., 2014).
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 3
3-3
Land treatment is not a new concept. “Land application of wastewater was the first ‘natural’
technology to be rediscovered (after passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972). In the 1840s in
England, it was recognized as avoiding water pollution as well as returning nutrients in wastewater
back to the land. In the 19th century it was the only acceptable method for waste treatment, but it
gradually slipped from use with the invention of modern devices” (Crites, et. al., 2014).
The soils at the proposed WWTP location are suitable for slow rate (SR) land treatment. SR land
treatment consists of irrigation of land and vegetation with effluent. Significant treatment is
provided as the water percolates through the soil. The vegetation uses the nutrients in the effluent
as fertilizer, and transpires a portion of the applied water.
3.1.5 Drain Field
A drain field (i.e., leach field) could potentially be constructed for subsurface disposal of treated
effluent. Preliminary assessment of the concept based on the site soil characteristics indicate
approximately 20,000 linear feet of drain field trench would be required to accommodate the
anticipated flow. It would be difficult to evenly distribute effluent throughout a drain field of this size.
In addition, DOH regulations require a redundant drain field for subsurface disposal systems, making
this option expensive to implement. This option is considered impractical for the community.
3.1.6 Recommendation
A slow rate land treatment system is recommended for effluent management for the community.
3.2 Treatment Requirements
The DOH regulates land treatment as “land disposal” per Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) 11-62.
Table 3-2 lists the applicable effluent requirements for land disposal applicable to the project that
were in effect at the time this report was prepared.
Table 3-2. Applicable HAR 11-62 Land Disposal Requirements
Description Value HAR Reference
BOD5 30 mg/L monthly average
60 mg/L peak 11-62-26
TSS 30 mg/L monthly average
60 mg/L peak 11-62-26
Disinfection Except for subsurface disposal systems, continuous disinfection of the treated effluent shall be provided 11-62-24
Setbacks Treatment units shall be not less than 25 feet from property lines nor less than 10 feet from any building 11-62-23.1
Public accessibility control 6-foot-high fence surrounding treatment units 11-62-08
4-1
Wastewater Treatment Evaluations
This section presents the evaluations conducted in development of the proposed WWTP.
4.1 Preliminary Treatment
The preliminary treatment system will include screening, influent flow measurement, and influent
sampling equipment.
4.1.1 Screening
Screening is recommended to protect the downstream system operations from large objects, debris,
and rags that can be present in wastewater. Aerated lagoon treatment systems require a minimum
of coarse screens to protect the aeration equipment. The industry trend is towards finer screening
systems that remove greater amounts of debris from the waste stream; screens with 6-millimeter
(mm) (¼-inch) openings are frequently used for activated sludge treatment systems. An aerated
lagoon treatment system can benefit from ¼-inch screening to reduce the amount of floatable debris
on the lagoon shoreline, creating a cleaner facility that is less attractive to birds. Since the Pahala
WWTP will not be continuously staffed, a screening process requiring minimal attention is desirable.
Furthermore, the screenings volume is expected to be small, subsequently screenings disposal is
expected to be infrequent; weekly at most. Therefore, the screenings must be washed of organic
debris to prevent the accumulation of nuisance odors and flies in the screenings barrel or bag
between screening disposal events.
4.1.1.1 In-channel cylindrical screen
We recommend an in-channel cylindrical screen for this installation. The in-channel cylindrical
screen combines screening, screenings washing, dewatering, compacting, and bagging/disposal
within a single unit. The screening portion consists of an inclined screen basket inserted into the
wastewater channel. The screening basket can consist of bars, perforated plates or sieves,
depending on the application and clear opening required. The controls can be set to allow a mat to
build up on the screening surface, allowing finer screening of the wastewater. Controlled by head
loss, a rake arm starts rotating within the screen basket, pushing the screenings off the rake and
into a perforated screenings hopper located at the screen’s central axis. A shafted auger along the
screen axis conveys the screenings from the hopper through an inclined tube, which dewaters and
compacts the screenings. The tube includes a perforated dewatering section. The discharged
screenings are about 40-percent dry, and can be discharged into a bin or directly into a bagging
system. Figure 4-1 illustrates the process. Manufacturers include Lakeside and Huber. The key
benefit to this system is the integrated screenings washing system, minimizing additional screenings
handling and odor potential.
For this installation, the headworks will include two in-channel cylindrical screens, one will be on-line
when the other is redundant, plus a bypass channel with manually cleaned bar rack.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-2
Figure 4-1. In-Channel Cylindrical Screen
4.1.2 Influent Flow Measurement
Influent flow measurement is recommended to allow assessment of flows and loads to the biological
treatment process, and to assess the biological treatment process performance. A Parshall flume
will be provided upstream of the screening system to continuously record influent flow rates.
Parshall flumes work well for influent measurement because the flume can operate in an open-
channel configuration, can accommodate wide ranges of flows, and is self-cleaning. A straight
approach length of at least 20 times the flume throat width will be provided upstream of the flume to
provide favorable hydraulic conditions.
4.1.3 Influent Flow Sampling
An automatic refrigerated composite sampler is recommended to allow influent composite samples
to be collected. Influent composite samples, when combined with influent flow measurement, can
be used to calculate influent mass loading rates to the WWTP to assess the treatment performance
and optimization of aeration rates in the biological treatment process. Periodic influent sampling is
also recommended to monitor for changes in the influent characteristics.
4.1.4 Preliminary Design of Headworks
Figure 4-2 shows a plan and section of the proposed headworks. Influent wastewater will enter the
upstream end of the headworks channel. Stop plates will be used to divert the flow to one of the two
the in-channel cylindrical screens, or to the manually-cleaned bar rack. The slide gates will be
designed to allow automatic overflow to the other channels in the event of mechanical screen
failure. The washed and compacted screenings will be deposited in a bag or 55-gallon drum for
periodic disposal. The Parshall flume and automatic refrigerated composite sampler will be located
upstream of the screens. The channels will be covered with fiberglass or aluminum plate to facilitate
foul air collection, which will be conveyed to an odor control unit. In addition, a free-standing roof
structure will be constructed over the headworks to protect the operators and equipment from rain
and sun.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-3
Figure 4-2. Headworks
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-4
4.1.5 Odor Control
A notorious location for foul odor is the headworks of a wastewater treatment plant. This odor is
caused by hydrogen sulfide (H2S), which is formed under anaerobic conditions of the wastewater
collection system. Due to H2S low solubility in wastewater, when there is an excessive concentration
of H2S in the wastewater or if there is turbulence, H2S gas escapes into the atmosphere. This
release produces the distinct rotten egg smell. In addition to H2S, there are other foul odorous
compounds that can be released from wastewater, such as ammonia, amines, diamines,
mercaptans, skatole, and organic sulfides.
Treatment of foul odors can be approached in two ways: preventing odors through liquid treatment
or controlling odors in the gas phase. While liquid treatment provides control of odors prior to their
release, gas phase treatment involves the collection and treatment of gases once they have been
released from wastewater. Treatment methods can be aimed at one type of odor, or can treat a
range of odors.
4.1.5.1 Granular Activated Carbon
A granular activated carbon (GAC) scrubber is recommended for the Pahala WWTP headworks. A
GAC scrubber passes odorous air through a bed of activated carbon, which adsorbs the odorous
constituents within the pore spaces of the carbon.
Chemical oxidation or reduction of some compounds can also occur. As pore spaces become
occupied, efficiency degrades, and the carbon must be replaced or regenerated. Carbon is most
effective on higher molecular weight molecules such as the organic sulfur compounds, which makes
it the technology of choice. Package GAC scrubbers are available for small headworks and vessels
can be situated vertically, horizontally, or radially to optimize footprints and reduce structure
elevation profiles. Figure 4-3 illustrates the process. The County currently operates GAC scrubbers
at other facilities, and purchases the GAC media in bulk to reduce costs.
Figure 4-3. Activated Carbon Scrubber (GAC)
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-5
4.2 Aerated Lagoon Treatment System
The biological wastewater treatment needs at the Pahala WWTP will be met by a series of aerated
lagoons. A floating cover will be installed on the last cell to reduce algae in the effluent. The
preliminary design of the aerated lagoon treatment system is developed in this section.
4.2.1 Aerated Lagoon Kinetics
The Pahala WWTP design is reliant on partial mix aerated lagoon environments to provide the
community’s wastewater treatment needs for the initial buildout condition. Partial mix aerated
lagoon kinetics are described below.
4.2.1.1 Partial mix model
Partial mix aerated lagoons are based on the concept of allowing solids to settle in lagoons while
providing only enough aeration and mixing to meet the oxygen requirements of the naturally
occurring micro-organisms in the system. The solids tend to settle in areas of the lagoon that are
subject to less mixing energy, where they anaerobically decompose. Infrequent sludge removal is
required to maintain sufficient lagoon treatment volume.
Removal of BOD5 in partial-mix aerated lagoons depends on the hydraulic detention time. The
design model for partial mixed ponds of equal size in series is (Crites, et. al., 2006):
nnktCo
Cn
)/(1[
1
Where Cn = effluent BOD5 concentration in cell n , mg/L
Co = influent BOD5 concentration, mg/L
k = partial-mix first-order reaction rate constant, day-1
t = total hydraulic residence time in the lagoon system, day
n = number of cells in the series
If the lagoons in a system are of unequal size, then the equation must be applied to each lagoon in
the series. The Ten-States Standards recommends using a value of 0.276 day-1 at 20 ºC for the
reaction rate constant (Great Lakes – Upper Mississippi River Board, 1997).
4.2.1.2 Mixing in Lagoon Systems
The energy required for mixing in aerated lagoon systems is generally provided by the aeration
system. For partial mix systems the aeration system is sized to provide enough oxygen to maintain
aerobic conditions and no more. For mechanical aeration systems energy input of at least 30
horsepower per million gallons (hp/Mgal) of lagoon volume is required to keep solids in suspension
(Rich, 1999).
4.2.2 Aeration in Lagoon Systems
Oxygen requirements in aerated lagoon systems are based on the organic loading entering the cell.
Supplying oxygen at a rate of 1.5 times the BOD5 mass entering the cell has been found to be
sufficient to treat the wastewater. The following equation is used to estimate the oxygen transfer
rate (Crites, et. al., 2006):
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-6
)20()025.1()(Tw
S
Lsw
a
C
CC
NN
Where N = Equivalent oxygen transfer to tap water at standard conditions (lbs/hr)
aN = Oxygen required to treat the wastewater (lbs/hr)
= (oxygen transfer in wastewater)/(oxygen transfer in tap water)
swC = PCss)( = oxygen saturation value of the waste, mg/L
= wastewater saturation value/tap water oxygen saturation value = 0.9
ssC = tap water oxygen saturation value at temperature Tw
P = ratio of barometric pressure at the site to barometric pressure at sea level
LC = minimum dissolved oxygen concentration to be maintained
SC = oxygen saturation value of tap water at 20ºC and 1 atm pressure
wT = wastewater temperature, ºC
Oxygen can be supplied to aerated lagoon systems using mechanical aerators or diffused aeration
systems. Mechanical aerators are commonly rated by the number of pounds of oxygen the units will
supply under standard conditions per horsepower-hour (lbs. O2/hp-hr). Diffused air requirements are
calculated using the following equation (Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998):
)1440)()()((2 air
oxygen
air OAOTE
WQ
Where airQ = Required air flow (ft3/min)
oxygenW = Oxygen requirements (lbs/day)
AOTE = Actual oxygen transfer efficiency, expressed as a fraction
O = Fractional percent of oxygen in air by weight (0.2315) 2
air = Specific weight of air (0.075 lbs/ft3 at 1 atmosphere and 20ºC
The oxygen transfer efficiency of a diffused air system is a function of the air bubble size and the
depth of the water column. Smaller air bubbles result in higher oxygen transfer efficiencies than
larger bubbles, as do diffusers that are set at deeper depths within the water column.
4.2.2.1 High speed floating aerators
High-speed floating aerators are commonly used for aerated lagoon systems. The units consist of a
motor and impeller attached to a float. The units are typically anchored to the lagoon shore using
cables. High-speed floating aerators are designed to pump water from the lagoon and spray it into
the air, allowing oxygen to diffuse into the water droplets. The high-speed floating aerators can be
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-7
outfitted with draft tubes to enhance deep water lagoon mixing or anti-erosion plates to ensure water
is drawn from the surface. Figure 4-4 shows a typical high-speed floating aerator.
Figure 4-4. High Speed Floating Aerator
Advantages of this system include low capital costs, relatively high oxygen transfer efficiency, good
mixing efficiency, and simple operation and maintenance. The chief disadvantage of the system is
the creation of aerosols as the lagoon water is sprayed into the air.
Manufacturers of this type of aerator include Aqua-Aerobics, Aerator Products and Europlec/Aeromix
Systems Inc.
High-speed floating aerators are recommended for the Pahala WWTP due to their relatively high
oxygen transfer efficiency, low capital cost, and simple operation and maintenance. High-speed
floating aerators are easy to remove from service, and can be easily moved between lagoons or cells,
if needed.
4.2.3 Aerated Lagoon Configuration
The normal operating condition for the Pahala WWTP will be to operate the four lagoon cells in series
as partial mix environments. Figure 4-5 is a schematic representation of the normal operating mode.
The fourth cell will be outfitted with a floating cover to preclude algae growth. Having four lagoons
will allow the County to take a lagoon out of service for maintenance.
Figure 4-5. Normal Lagoon Configuration Schematic
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-8
Table 4-1 summarizes the results of the aeration and mixing calculations for the normal operational
configuration treating the design average dry weather flow rate of 190,000 gallons per day.
Comparison of the minimum aerator requirements shown in Table 4-1 with the proposed aerator
layout shown in Figure 4-4 reveals that the aerator power supplied exceeds the minimum
requirements. An aerator control system will be provided that will intermittently turn the aerators on
and off in accordance with the operator settings to supply sufficient oxygen to the system.
Table 4-1. Normal Configuration Aeration and Mixing Requirements
Cell Volume
(gal)
Influent BOD5
(mg/L)
Effluent BOD5
(mg/L)
Minimum Aerator
Requirement (hp)
Mixing Density
(hp/Mgal)
1 80,000 300 139 27 34
2 80,000 139 64 13 16
3 80,000 64 30 6 7
4 80,000 30 <30 2 3
4.2.4 Lagoon Liner
Lagoon liners are required to prevent wastewater seepage into the ground. The liner will be exposed
to sunlight, so resistance to ultraviolet light (UV) degradation is a key factor in the selection of the
liner material, as is the compatibility of the material with typical domestic wastewater characteristics
and ease of liner maintenance. An 80-mil textured high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane
is recommend for this application.
Textured HDPE is known to have excellent UV resistance, good chemical resistance, and generally is
not affected by fats, oils, and grease (FOG). Maintenance of HDPE requires a specialty contractor
who can complete fusion weld repairs. Unlike smooth HDPE, textured HDPE presents minimal
slipping hazard to operations personnel. Furthermore, the anticipated useful service of an HDPE
liner in typical Hawaii municipal wastewater treatment conditions is 25 to 30 years.
Alternatively, the lagoons may be constructed of concrete.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-9
4.2.5 Lagoon Cover
In the normal operating mode, the final cell in the lagoon series will be covered in order to deprive
algae of sunlight. This will reduce the algae concentration, which can increase total suspended
solids (TSS) levels in the system effluent. The cover should float on the surface of the water, be UV
resistant, suitable for windy environments, and allow for rainwater to pass through the cover to
prevent ponding. A floating shade ball cover is proposed for this installation.
Floating shade balls covers have been used for decades in in the mining, water and wastewater
treatment industries. Figure 4-6 shows the design elements of a typical shade ball, and Figure 4-7
shows how shade balls provide cover on a reservoir. In addition to reducing algae growth, shade ball
covers deter waterfowl from storage ponds. The black, UV-stable HDPE resin has known to withstand
a range of challenging chemical and environmental conditions. Table 4-2 summarizes technical data
for the balls.
Table 4-2. Lagoon Shade Ball Cover Application Parameters
Requirement Description
Algae Control Balls – 90% shade coverage
Temperature 500C to 950C
Wind Resistance Balls ballasted with potable water tested in winds of 120 mph (category 3 hurricane)
Waterfowl Safety Waterfowl do not recognize ball-covered pond as a water body and will not nest on the unstable surface
Lifecycle/Warranty The shade balls are warrantied for 10 years, with an expected resin life of 25+years
Operations and Maintenance
Self-cleaning, self-levelling and require little to no maintenance
Balls will move out of the way of maintenance barge, and can be restrained with booms
Little installation effort required
Precipitation does not affect the cover
Sustainability
Resin is recyclable, paraben free and suitable for drinking water applications
Ballast is potable water
Resin can be made from recycled plastic
Environment
Balls have been installed in chemically harsh environments (mining industry), in drinking water reservoirs, and in tropical locations
Balls reduce algae formation and corresponding disinfectant byproducts in chlorination applications
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-10
Figure 4-6. Floating HDPE Shade Balls
Figure 4-7. Floating shade balls with current and turbulence in reservoir.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-11
4.2.6 Lagoon Sludge Management
Partial-mix aerated lagoons are designed to allow solids to settle to the bottom of the lagoon, forming
a sludge layer. The sludge slowly anaerobically digests in the bottom of the lagoon. The mechanical
aerators in the lagoon maintain an aerobic water cap at the surface of the lagoon that oxidizes any
odors that are released from the anaerobic sludge layer at the bottom of the lagoon. Sludge is
removed infrequently, typically every 15 to 30 years, when the sludge blanket thickness begins to
affect treatment performance or in conjunction with lagoon liner replacement. Aerated lagoon
operators typically monitor sludge blanket thicknesses semi-annually to assess sludge accumulation.
Sludge removal contractors are typically employed to dredge the solids, dewater, and haul to a
landfill for disposal. Sludge from aerated lagoons is typically not offensive when dewatered due to
the long residence time in the bottom of the lagoon.
Alternatively, the sludge can be recycled if a permitted land application site is available and the
sludge meets State and Federal requirements for land application or composted with green waste at
a permitted composting facility.
4.3 Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland
A subsurface flow constructed wetland is recommended to provide additional treatment and
polishing of the aerated lagoon effluent. It is anticipated that the aerated lagoon system will convert
ammonia that is present in the wastewater influent into nitrate via a process called nitrification. A
subsurface flow constructed wetland will remove this nitrogen from the wastewater via a process
called denitrification. Reduction of nitrogen loading through the constructed wetland will decrease
the area required for overland flow effluent management.
Subsurface flow wetlands consist of shallow lined basins that are filled with gravel media and
planted with emergent wetland vegetation. Water is introduced to the gravel media layer and flows
horizontally through the basin. The water level in the wetland is maintained below the gravel surface
at all times. Treatment occurs through physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms as the water
flows horizontally through the gravel media bed. Figure 4-8 is an illustration of the concept.
Figure 4-8. Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland Concept
4.3.1 Denitrification in Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands
Denitrification is a biological process whereby nitrate molecules are transformed into nitrogen gas
molecules by naturally-occurring bacteria. The denitrifying bacteria require five conditions for the
process to occur:
• A place to grow.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-12
• A source of nitrate.
• An anoxic (low-oxygen) environment.
• A source of carbon.
• Adequate water temperature.
The equation used to predict denitrification in subsurface flow constructed wetlands is shown below
(Crites, et.al., 2014). =exp()
where:
= effluent nitrate-nitrogen concentration (mg/L)
= influent nitrate-nitrogen concentration (mg/L)
= temperature-dependent rate constant = 1.00(1.15)() days-1 when T>1°C
= hydraulic residence time (days)
Subsurface flow constructed wetlands are capable of providing additional treatment benefits beyond
nitrogen reduction, such as removal of organic carbon, suspended solids, phosphorus, metals, trace
organics, and pathogens. The additional treatment benefits are not primary design parameters, but
should be considered as additional polishing treatment benefits that may be realized for the Pahala
WWTP.
4.4 Disinfection
Disinfection processes selectively kill pathogens or render them incapable of reproduction or harm to
humans. Disinfection at WWTPs is employed for the purposes of protection of public health,
reduction of organic matter, inorganics, nutrients, odor, aesthetics, and maintaining waste-
assimilative capacity of receiving water bodies. The protection of public health through the control of
disease-causing microorganisms is the primary reason for wastewater disinfection (WEF, 1996). As
the last barrier of protection from pathogenic organisms, disinfection at WWTPs is an important
process. To address disinfection, both a calcium hypochlorite system and a UV system were
evaluated.
4.4.1 Calcium Hypochlorite
Calcium hypochlorite is the most common solid form of hypochlorite used for disinfection. It can be
found as a powder, granules, pellets, or as tablets in concentrations up to 70 percent. Calcium
hypochlorite will degrade in strength at a rate of 3 to 5 percent per year. Once applied to the
wastewater, the chemistry is similar to that for sodium hypochlorite. Calcium hypochlorite
decomposes in an exothermic reaction if exposed to moisture.
The solid can be directly applied to wastewater at very small WWTPs. Figure 4-9 shows a typical
calcium hypochlorite feed system.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-13
Figure 4-9. Typical Calcium Hypochlorite Feed System
The advantages of using calcium hypochlorite for disinfection at small, remote WWTPs is that it is
available in concentrated form as powder, pellets, or tablets. This makes the transportation and
storage of disinfectant optimal for small WWTPs. Table 4-3 summaries calcium hypochlorite
characteristics.
Table 4-3. Calcium Hypochlorite Summary
Description Characteristic
Transported form Solid
Typical transported concentration 70%
Largest transported volume available 55 lb. pails
Decay Rate Decays 3-5% per year
pH N/A
Hazards Toxic if ingested (usually through dust or liquid form)
Storage constraints Must be stored in a cool, dry, dark place
Special equipment Tablet feeder
Particular issues Heats and combusts if not stored properly Scaling in pipes, Off gassing
4.4.1.1 Dose and Contact Time
The effectiveness of a chlorination system is highly dependent on the characteristics of the
wastewater, the initial mixing and contact time, and the chlorine dose used. For nitrified effluent, the
recommended dose is between 8 and 18 mg/L. The WWTP will discharge to a land application
system during normal flow and wet weather periods when the secondary effluent will be diluted by
precipitation falling onto the overland flow terraces. For planning purposes, a 10 mg/L dose was
assumed to be sufficient for the WWTP for most circumstances, but equipment will be sized to
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-14
provide chemical feed at a rate of up to 100 lbs./day, which will ensure an adequate chlorine dose
for peak wet weather discharge flows.
Table 4-4 lists the chlorine demand for various flow conditions.
Table 4-4. Chlorine Demand
Description Flow Chlorine Demand
Average dry weather flow 0.19 mgd 16 lbs./day
Peak day wet weather flow 0.662 mgd 55 lbs./day
The recommended minimum contact time for chlorination is 15 minutes (Ten States Standards
Wastewater, Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, 1997, Great Lakes – Upper
Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public health and Environmental Managers). The size
of the chlorine contact tank will need to accommodate a 15-minute contact time for the peak
discharge rate. For this application, the peak discharge rate will be equal to the peak day wet
weather flow, due to the flow equalization provided by the aerated lagoons. Table 4-5 summarizes
the contact tank dimensions, while Figure 4-10 shows a conceptual contact tank configuration.
Table 4-5. Chlorine Contact Tank
Description Value
Peak discharge rate 460 gpm
Minimum chlorine contact tank 15 minutes
Tank volume required 920 cubic feet
Channel water depth 5 feet
Channel width 3 feet
Tank channel total length 61 feet
Tank dimensions including channel walls 13 feet x 24 feet
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-15
Figure 4-10. Chlorine Contact Tank Configuration
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-16
4.4.2 Ultraviolet Light (UV) Disinfection
A common alternative to a chlorine disinfection is ultraviolet light (UV). Ultraviolet systems destroy
microorganisms by affecting their deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA) and impeding
their ability to reproduce. A UV disinfection system is comprised of lamps, a reactor, and control
panel. Wastewater can flow either parallel or perpendicular to the lamps in the reactor, while the
control box provides a starting voltage and maintains the continuous current needed. Currently,
most systems are equipped with an automated lamp cleaning system, to maintain lamp efficiency
levels.
A UV system’s effectiveness is dependent on the characteristics of the wastewater, the dose, and the
exposure time. In the case of UV radiation, the most important factor is the transmittance of the
water, which has a direct effect on the ability of UV light to penetrate through the liquid and reach
microorganisms present at the required intensity. Ideally, the discharge undergoing treatment
should not have a transmittance lower than 55 percent, with the intensity decreasing the farther the
microorganisms are from the lamp. The optimum wavelength to effectively inactivate
microorganisms is between 250 and 270 nanometer.
The main types of UV lamps used for wastewater disinfection are conventional low-pressure lamps,
low pressure high output (LPHO) lamps and medium pressure lamps. Several UV systems include
lamps with automated sleeve cleaning.
4.4.3 UV System Design Summary
A UV disinfection system requires a about the same size footprint as chlorine. Disinfection occurs as
the organism is exposed to the UV radiation as the water flows past the UV lightbulbs. The Trojan
UV3000+ system is used at numerous facilities across the US, including some treatment plants in
Hawaii. The estimated cost included in this report are based on an assumed UV transmittance of 65
percent. The amalgam lamp used with the UV3000+ system has an end-of-lamp-life factor (ELLF) of
0.98 indicating little loss in UV light output over the life of the lamp. This ELLF has been tested and
approved by the State of California and is also accepted by the State of Hawaii for reuse
applications. The system would use LPHO lamps with automatic sleeve cleaning. LPHO lamps are
energy efficient and the UV300+ system is furnished with automatic sleeve cleaning devices to
reduce labor requirements. Each UV lamp is enclosed in a quartz sleeve to separate it from the water
medium. Each lamp draws 254 watts at full output and is driven by electronic ballast. The
electronic ballast allows the lamps to be dimmed to conserve power based on a control signal from a
flow meter. The LPHO lamps will have a minimum life of 12,000 hours when operated in an
automatic mode and limited to a maximum of 4 on/off cycles per 24 hours. Table 4-6 summarizes
the size and design criteria for the UV system required to treat the WWTP discharge.
Table 4-6. UV Disinfection Design Summary
Description Value
Peak Hour Wet Weather Discharge 630 gpm
Minimum UV transmittance 65 percent
No. of UV channels 1
Design dose 35,000 µWs/cm2
Disinfection limit 30 e-coli per 100mL
Validation factors 0.98 end of lamp factor
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-17
4.4.4 Cost Evaluation
A summary of capital and life-cycle estimated costs for both chlorination and UV disinfection is
presented in Table 4-7 for comparison.
The capital costs include the materials and equipment costs, construction costs, electrical,
instrumentation and control, soft costs, and contingency. As shown in the table, the UV option incurs
higher capital costs. The life cycle costs look at the impact of the capital costs along with the annual
operations and maintenance costs, including power, materials, chemicals, and labor costs over the
next 30 years. The life-cycle costs for chlorination option appear to be about 78 percent of the UV
option.
Table 4-7. Estimated Disinfection Costs
Description Chlorination UV System
Capital Cost $200,000 $800,000
Annual Operations and Maintenance $15,000 $6,000
Life-cycle Cost (30-Year Net Present Value) $746,000 $947,000
4.4.4.1 Non-Economic Evaluation
Table 4-8 presents a summary of advantages and disadvantages of using an ultraviolet light for
disinfection.
Table 4-8. Ultraviolet Disinfection – Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages
Effective at inactivating most viruses, spores, and cysts Low dosage may not be effective on some pathogens and some organisms can repair and reverse the destructive
effects of UV
It’s a physical process, instead of chemical – it eliminated the need to transport, handle, store toxic or
corrosive chemicals
Turbidity and TSS in the wastewater can reduce UV disinfection effectiveness
No harmful residual compounds created that are toxic to humans or aquatic life Will likely require more call-outs by operators due to alarms caused by “dirty power”.
Shorter contact time (less than a minute) The relative intensity of equipment maintenance requirements, including staffing training and on-island avaliablity.
4.4.5 Disinfection Recommendation
A tablet chlorination system is the recommended disinfection option over the UV system for the
WWTP because it incurs lower capital and lifecycle costs. In addition, tablet chlorination will be
more-reliable than UV due to frequent “dirty power” conditions on the island. The County has elected
to install a UV system at the Pahala WWTP, to reduce the use of chemicals at the facility. An
uninterruptable power supply may be installed to address “dirty power” concerns.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-18
4.5 Effluent Management
For effluent management, a slow-rate land application system is proposed. The concept is to
intermittently apply wastewater to crops growing in permeable soils. As the applied water percolates
through the soil matrix or is taken up by the crop, it is treated by physical filtration and by biological
mechanisms. After an application period or wetting period, the surface can dry and oxygen can enter
the soil matrix, which aids aerobic biological treatment. The frequent wetting and drying also
maintains the infiltration rate through the soil surface and minimizes soil clogging. This method of
land application is an effective treatment process for BOD5, TSS, trace organics, phosphorus, metals
and pathogen removal. Furthermore, removal of nitrogen can be significant when system is
managed for that objective.
4.5.1 Design
The slow-rate system site consists of a net area of approximately 5.5 acres. The 5.5 acres will be
divided into 4 small groves of native trees, so that water application will be rotated to a different
grove each day. An additional small grove will be utilized as an emergency (overflow) or reserve
when surface or distribution system maintenance is conducted. By using one groove per day the
wet/dry cycle will be 1-day wetting and 3-days drying.
The groves will be planted with native Hawaiian trees. Trees grown within the land application area
will need to be water tolerant. Table 4-9 lists potential native tree species.
Table 4-9. Potential Land Application System Tree Species
Common Name Genus Species Salt
Tolerance Water Requirements Rubbish and
Maintenance Preferred Elevation
Milo Thespesia populnea Very Dry to Wet Moderate Low to Medium
Loulu Pritchardia hillebrandii Very Dry to Wet Low Low
Aalii Dodonaea viscosa Very Dry to Medium Low Low to High
Kou Cordia subcordata Very Dry to Wet Moderate Low
Golden Loulu Pritchardia arecina Moderate Dry to Wet Low Low to Medium
Wiliwili Erythrina sandwicensis Moderate Dry to Medium Moderate Low
The distribution system will consist of gated piping located on the surface. The piping will have slots
to allow the applied wastewater to uniformly be distributed over the grove surface. A perimeter
fence will be installed to limit access. Access roads will surround each grove. Figure 4-11 reflects
the proposed land application schematic.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-19
Figure 4-11. Land Application System Schematic
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-20
4.6 Ancillary Systems
4.6.1 Water
Potable water is not currently available at the site. The nearest potable water system is located
uphill in town. Table 4-10 provides an initial assessment of the potential water demands at the
WWTP. The water demands are either for process or potable uses. As shown in the table, the
process water demands are significantly greater than the potable demands.
Table 4-10. Potential Water Demands
Description Flow Rate Type Priority
Screenings washer 20 gpm for 10 min/hour
4,800 gpd Process Mandatory with screen
Hose bibs 10 gpm for 20 min/day
200 gpd Process Desirable to maintain facility
Emergency eye wash / shower 20 gal per use Potable Mandatory
Restroom 20 gpd Potable Recommended
To supply water to the WWTP, it is recommended to construct approximately 2,000 linear feet of pipe
from the intersection of Huapala Street and Maile Street to the site and install a 1-inch water meter
with 1 ½-inch backflow preventer.
A plant water system will be supplied by the County water meter. The on-site water system will be
split into two branches, one for process water and one for potable water. The potable water will
service the restroom and emergency eye wash/shower. A second backflow preventer will separate
the process water uses from the potable connections.
4.6.2 Access Road
All weather access will be required to operate and maintain the WWTP. Access to the site will be
provided by connection to Maile Street. A paved driveway apron is proposed at Maile Street and an
all-weather driveway will extend into the site and provide access to and around the various WWTP
infrastructure. Additionally, a turn-around area large enough to accommodate a fire truck will be
provided.
Access road pavement options include aggregate base (AB) gravel, asphalt concrete (AC), or
concrete. AB is the lowest cost option, but requires the most maintenance. AC pavement is not
recommended for steep (greater than 12 percent) grades. Concrete is the highest cost option, but is
the most durable and requires the least maintenance.
The recommended driveway pavement section is 2-inches of AC over 6-inches of aggregate base
course. For portions of the driveway that exceed 12 percent slope, a concrete pavement section is
recommended.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-21
4.6.3 Stormwater Management
The overall goal of stormwater management is to mitigate the adverse impact of new construction on
the environment. Stormwater management can generally be separated into two areas:
1. Stormwater Quantity: management of the quantity to prevent increased flows and
volumes leaving the site on the downstream watercourses.
2. Stormwater Quality: management of the quality of stormwater runoff to prevent
contaminants such as silt, trash, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and pesticides from
leaving the site through stormwater runoff.
4.6.4 Pre-development Stormwater Conditions
4.6.4.1 On-site
The majority of the proposed 42.5-acre site is currently utilized as macadamia nut orchards,
consisting of trees or unimproved agricultural roads. The parcel is bound on two sides by improved
county and state right-of-way and to the east by additional macadamia nut orchards.
The existing elevations range between 580 to 780 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and slopes in
the southerly direction at an average rate of 8 percent. The soils in this area are described as
Naalehu medial silty clay loam (NaC) by the Soils Conservation Service (SCS). These soils are
considered well drained with low runoff and slight erosion hazard.
On-site stormwater run-off generally sheet flows in a southerly direction to off-site swales along the
roadway frontages, Maile Street and Hawaiian Belt Road (also known as Mamalahoa Highway).
There is no known on-site drainage collection system, see Figure 4-12.
4.6.4.2 Off-site
Swales that run and collect along the roadway frontages of the property are conveyed through a box
culvert at the intersection of Maile Street and Hawaiian Belt Road and discharged makai. Similarly,
running along the north property line is an abandoned concrete flume, which was previously utilized
to discharge process water from the adjacent old sugar mill to agricultural land makai of Hawaiian
Belt Road. Figure 4-12 conceptualizes the existing drainage system.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-22
Figure 4-12. Existing Drainage System
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-23
4.6.4.3 Flood Hazards
The subject property flood zone is designated Zone X, area of minimal flood hazard corresponding to
areas outside of the five-hundred-year flood plain, as indicated on the current September 29, 2017
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community Panel No. 1551661800F. Zone X designations are
not subject to the requirements of the Standards of Floodways, Chapter 27, Section 22 of the Hawaii
County Code. See Figure 4-13 for the Flood Insurance Rate Map.
On April 16, 2018, the State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources Engineering
Division stated the responsibility for conducting research as to the flood hazard designation for the
project site lies with the project proponent. Also on April 16, 2018, the County of Hawai‘i
Department of Public Works confirmed that the proposed treatment and disposal project site at Site
7 is designated as Zone X on the FIRM and is outside the 500-year floodplain.
The WWTP site slopes from approximately north to south (mauka to makai) such that, during rain
events, surface flows pass through the existing orchard to the southern (makai) end where the flows
eventually drain through the culvert located at the Maile Street-
the areas below (makai) the highway. Most of the land surface area below the existing macadamia
nut orchard contains little to no vegetation to absorb or slow these flows. The gradient of the site
and surrounding area results in this natural pattern of surface flows which also existed when the
area was planted in sugar cane and is not considered flooding.
meetings held in December 2017 and October 2018, the State of Hawai‘i Department of
Transportation (DOT) Hawai‘i District office was contacted to discuss drainage at the treatment and
intersection. On February 20, 2019, the District office confirmed via telephone that the DOT owns
and maintains the culvert at the Maile Street intersection, and that they have no record of the
roadway being inundated by stormwater drainage during storm events.
Stormwater drainage flows generated from the existing orchard mauka of the treatment and
disposal facility project site will be directed around the perimeter of the site via diversion swales that
will convey flow back to the existing drainage pattern that flows to the existing culvert at Maile
Street. During heavy rain events, stormwater may temporarily back up behind the culvert. There
will be no changes to this culvert and the WWTP facilities will not be located within the area of the
culvert.
The on-site stormwater management system to collect runoff via grated inlets or swales, and flows
would be conveyed to on-site drainage detention systems, such as subsurface linear infiltration or
depressed detention basins. Landscape buffers with dirt berms would also be constructed around
most of the perimeter of the facility to act as secondary containment in the event of a large storm
event. The on-site stormwater management system would meet the requirements of Hawai‘i County
Code, Chapter 27, Section 20, which mandates drainage plans to accommodate runoff caused by
the facility for a 1-hour, 10-year storm event.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-24
Figure 4-13. Flood Insurance Rate Map
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-25
4.6.4.4 Stormwater Quantity
The increase in peak flow and runoff volume is a function of the increase in impervious areas
associated with the proposed improvements.
All exposed (not enclosed) treatment processes will be sized to include free-board depth to
accommodate the 24-hour, 100-year storm event. Thus, no stormwater runoff from these areas is
anticipated.
A drainage system will be designed to address stormwater surface run-off caused by impervious
portions of the WWTP development. Per the Hawaii County Code, Chapter 27, Section 20, the site
drainage plan shall accommodate the run-off caused by the proposed development, within the site
boundaries, for a one-hour, ten-year storm event. The pre-development runoff (10-year, 1-hour
storm) is approximately 23 cubic feet per second (cfs). The post-development runoff is
approximated at 24.5 cfs, which is a net increase of 1.5 cfs.
To ensure that there is no adverse impact on adjacent or downstream properties due to post-
development flows, an on-site drainage system will collect runoff via grated inlets or swales. These
flows will be conveyed to on-site drainage detention systems, such as subsurface linear infiltration or
depressed detention basins, to detain flows and volumes to their pre-development condition.
Furthermore, landscape buffers with dirt berms will be constructed around most of the perimeter of
the property acting as secondary containment in the event of a large storm event.
A complete analysis of the pre and post development drainage condition will be completed during
the design phase. The site drainage plan will be prepared to comply with sections 27-20(a) and (b)
and section 27-24, and shall include a storm water disposal system to contain run-off caused by the
proposed development, within the site boundaries, up to the expected one-hour, ten year storm
event as shown in the department of public works “Storm Drainage Standards”.” A geotechnical
engineering assessment of berm stability will be conducted during the design process for any berms
constructed to act as secondary containment in the event of a large storm event.
To meet the requirements of HCC, Chapter 27, Section 20 (f), the project site “shall not alter the
general drainage pattern above or below the development”. Thus, no increase in flow amount will
be directed to either of the culverts at the highway as a result of the site development. A drainage
study will be prepared during the design process to evaluate the improvements necessary to comply
with HCC requirements.
The wastewater treatment processes will be designed to accommodate the peak flows during wet
weather events, including precipitation that falls on the area occupied by the aerated lagoon
treatment system. Section 2 outlines the anticipated peak wastewater flows from the community,
based on the applicable flow standard. The aerated lagoons will be lined with high density
polyethylene liners or concrete to prevent water seepage through the bottom and sides of the
lagoons. The aerated lagoons will be designed with operational freeboard that will be available to
contain and to equalize lagoon flows during peak wet weather events. In addition, the slow-rate land
application groves will be designed to completely contain both peak effluent flows and precipitation
from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. This will be accomplished by constructing berms around the
land application tree groves. The tree groves will be designed in accordance with the EPA’s “Process
Design Manual, Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents”. Effluent will be applied at a
hydraulic loading rate that is a small percentage of the percolation rate of the soil, ensuring
sufficient capacity for assimilation of peak effluent flow rates and precipitation from the design
storm event.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-26
4.6.4.5 Stormwater Quality
The quality of stormwater leaving the site is also a concern. Stormwater quality degrades with
development and increased impervious surfaces, because various pollutants are introduced into the
stormwater runoff.
The first half-inch of runoff during a storm is referred to as the Water Quality Volume (WQV) or the
“first-flush” volume. This portion of the runoff from a storm contains measurably more suspended
solids plus other contaminants per cubic foot than would be expected in runoff occurring later in the
storm.
To mitigate the quality of runoff, the drainage system will incorporate permanent Best Management
Practices (BMP’s). Recommended permanent BMP include scheduled good-housekeeping, which
will reduce litter and other constituents from being washed into the storm drain system, and
detention basins and underground infiltration facilities that prevent the release of sediment and
other pollutants to downstream waterways or adjacent properties. A full assessment of all available
BMP’s to optimize water quality will be provided during design of the project.
4.6.5 Electrical Systems
It will be necessary to bring electrical power to the WWTP site. It is anticipated that Hawaii Electric
Light Company (HELCO) will bring overhead power lines to the site and supply 480-volt, 3 phase
power to the WWTP via a pole-mounted transformer to a service panel with a meter.
The floating surface aerators will consume the majority of the electricity supplied to the site. An
electrical room will house the electrical gear, plant control equipment and the chlorination system.
Exterior lighting at the site will be limited to manually switched lights at the entrance to the electrical
building and at the headworks area.
A standby power system will be provided in the form of a pad-mounted diesel generator and above-
ground fuel tank with capacity to support three consecutive days of operation. In addition, the
electrical service panel will be equipped with a manual transfer switch and generator receptacle to
allow connection of a trailer-mounted generator in the event of emergency generator failure during
an extended power outage.
4.6.6 Telemetry Systems
A land-line telephone telemetry system with auto-dialer will be provided to provide Hilo-based
operation staff of alarm conditions and key operational parameters at the WWTP. Additionally, a cell
phone will be available for backup.
4.6.7 Operations Building
An operations building will be constructed to include the electrical room, chlorinator generator room,
restroom, and maintenance/storage room, as shown in Figure 4-14.
4.6.8 Site Fencing
The entire WWTP site, including the treatment systems and the land application system, will be
fenced (6-foot high chain link) and posted to prevent public access.
4.6.9 Alternative Energy
The WWTP does not include utilizing alternative energy systems such as photovoltaic solar as a total
replacement for connecting to the HELCO grid due to:
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-27
the need for consistent power supply;
emergency backup power requirements;
up front capital cost;
full utilization of the 14.9-acre proposed site for the treatment and disposal facility;
objective to minimize the amount of land area removed from agricultural production; and
EPA-enforced project implementation schedule deadlines.
Partial augmentation of traditional power utilizing photovoltaic solar panel arrays on the headworks
and operations building rooftops will be further analyzed during the detailed design phase after
loads, demand patterns, and roof orientation are better understood. Additional alternative energy
systems can be added in the future if prioritized and funded by County Council, and the electrical
systems will be designed to accept additional alternative energy input. The capital cost for rooftop
photovoltaic solar is estimated to be approximately $13,000 per kW of peak capacity.
Methane gas is generated at wastewater treatment plants using a process called anaerobic
digestion. The proposed WWTP is too small for anaerobic digestion to be economical; the design
flow to the Pahala WWTP is 190,000 gallons per day, and anaerobic digestion is only economically
attractive for WWTPs that treat at least 5 to 10 million gallons per day. In addition, the anaerobic
digestion process requires primary clarifiers as part of the liquid treatment process, but primary
clarifiers tend to be odorous in tropical climates, due to the relatively high wastewater
temperatures. The proposed alternative relies on natural treatment systems that require relatively
low energy input.
Small-scale wind generation systems require a high level of maintenance attention due to the
mechanical systems required to convert wind energy into electricity, and is not appropriate for a
small, remote wastewater treatment facility.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 4
4-28
Figure 4-14. Operations Building Preliminary Floor Plan
5-1
Preliminary Design of
Improvements
The following is a summary of the preliminary design for the proposed Pahala WWTP.
5.1 Site Plan
The existing parcel is an active macadamia nut tree orchard. The prevailing grade is in the north to
south direction at 5 to 10 percent slope. Approximately 14.9 acres of the land will be cleared for the
construction of the proposed facility. Figure 5-1 presents a preliminary site plan for the WWTP.
5.2 Process Schematic
Figure 5-2 presents the recommended facilities process schematic.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 5
5-2
Figure 5-1. Preliminary Site Plan
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 5
5-3
Figure 5-2. Recommended Facility Process Schematic
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 5
5-4
5.3 Design Criteria
Table 5-1 provides preliminary design criteria.
Table 5-1. Preliminary Design Criteria
Description Value
Influent flows:
Average dry weather 190,000 gpd
Peak day wet weather 662,000 gpd
Peak hour wet weather 630 gpm
Influent characteristics
BOD5 300 mg/L
TSS 300 mg/L
Odor control – granular activated carbon
Airflow rate 500 cfm
H2S Inlet concentration 1-10 ppm
H2S removal efficiency 99%
Media type High-capacity carbon
Vessel diameter 3 feet
Vessel height 6 feet
Minimum carbon quantity 570 lbs
Minimum bed depth 3 feet
Fan motor 2 hp
Nominal inlet size 8 inches
Mechanical screens
Number of units 2
Type In-channel cylindrical
Screen opening size 0.25 inch (6 mm)
Maximum flow rate capacity Greater than 625 gpm each
Screening washing Integral
Screening compaction Integral
Screening wash water flow 20 gpm
Screening wash water pressure 50 psi
Bypass screen
Type Manually-cleaned bar rack
Bar spacing 1 inch
Rake Interlocking with bars
Screenings receptacle
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 5
5-5
Table 5-1. Preliminary Design Criteria continued
Type 55-gallon drum or bags
Screenings volume per million gallons treated 5 ft3/Mgal
Estimated screenings quantity 1 ft3/day
Disposal frequency 1/week
Influent flow metering
Type Parshall flume
Maximum flow capacity Greater than 630 gpm
Minimum straight upstream channel section 20 times the throat width
Influent flow sampling Refrigerated automatic composite sampler
Lagoon cells
Number of cells 4
Maximum lagoon temperature 25ºC
Minimum lagoon temperature 20ºC
Freeboard 3 feet
Working water depth 15 feet
Allowance for sludge 3 feet
Total water depth 18 feet
Side slope 3(H) : 1(V)
Working volume of lagoon 1 to 3 0.80 Mgal
Working volume of lagoon 4 1.60 Mgal
Aerators
Type Floating mechanical surface aerators
Cell 1 aerators 30 hp (2 at 15 hp)
Cell 2 aerator 15 hp
Cell 3 aerator 10 hp
Cell 4 aerator 5 hp aspirator style, floating ball cover for algae control
Constructed Wetland
Water temperature 25 degrees C
Aerated lagoon effluent nitrate-N concentration 19 mg/l
Aerated lagoon effluent ammonia-N concentration 1 mg/l
Constructed wetland effluent total N concentration 15.3 mg/l
Total constructed wetland surface area 0.25 acres
Flow path length 50 feet
Hydraulic application width 200 feet
Media depth 24 inches
Media type Medium gravel, D10 = ¾ inch
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 5
5-6
Table 5-1. Preliminary Design Criteria continued
Media porosity 38 percent
Percolation prevention system 60 mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner
Vegetation Native Hawaiian reeds and/or rushes, species to be determined
Disinfection system
Type UV
Form Calcium hypochlorite tablets
Design chlorine dose 10 mg/L
Chlorine contact time 15 minutes minimum
Effluent flow metering
Type Magnetic
Effluent sampler
Type Refrigerated automatic composite
Effluent quality
BOD5 Less than 30 mg/L monthly average
Less than 60 mg/L peak
TSS Less than 30 mg/L monthly average
Less than 60 mg/L peak
Effluent management system
Type Slow-rate land application groves
Number 4
Minimum depth 5 feet
Design percolation rate 0.0095 inches per minute
Design application rate 8 percent of percolation rate
Distribution system Gated pipe
Stormwater containment 100-year, 24-hour storm event
Vegetation Native Hawaiian trees
Stormwater site management 10-year, 1-hour storm
5.4 Environmental Benefits
A well-designed and managed land treatment system limits wastewater application to rates to
minimize adverse impact to groundwater quality. The deep percolate from the SR land treatment
system is expected to contain less than 1 mg/L of BOD5 and TSS. While the State of Hawaii has not
adopted formal groundwater quality standards, the drinking water standard for nitrate (10 mg/L as
N) in the annual average deep percolate below the land treatment system was used as a
performance target to design the land treatment site. Phosphorus adsorption is excellent in SR land
treatment systems, and 99 percent or greater phosphorus removal is anticipated. Table 5-2
compares the current loads to the environment via the LCCs and the loads to the environment after
the proposed project is implemented via the deep percolate from the land treatment system. Figure
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 5
5-7
5-3 provides a graphical representation of the environmental benefits of the proposed project
compared to the status quo.
Table 5-2. Environmental Benefits of Proposed Project
Parameter Current Annual Load to
Environment via LCCs
Annual Load to Environment
via Proposed Land Treatment
System Deep Percolate
Reduction
BOD5 174,000 lbs./year 600 lbs./year >99%
TSS 174,000 lbs./year 600 lbs./year >99%
Nitrogen 23,000 lbs./year 4,100 lbs./year 83%
Phosphorus 4,000 lbs./year 40 lbs./year >99%
Figure 5-3. Environmental Benefits of Proposed Project
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 5
5-8
5.5 Cost Estimates
An order of magnitude probable construction is summarized in Table 5-3. The estimate includes a
25 percent estimating contingency. The detailed cost estimate is included as Appendix A.
Table 5-3. Pahala WWTP Order of Magnitude Construction Cost Estimate
Description Estimated Construction Cost
Electrical and instrumentation $1,976,000
Headworks $906,000
Odor Control $412,000
Lagoons $2,222,000
Constructed Wetland $611,000
Land Application $925,000
On-site improvements $6,325,000
Off-site improvements $1,223,000
Total Estimated Construction Cost $14,600,000
5.6 Future Expansion
5.6.1 Full Buildout Flows
Full buildout wastewater flow projections were developed using the Draft Ka’u Community
Development Plan (March 2015) and the CCH’s current (2017) wastewater standards. Table 5-4
summarizes the projected full buildout flows for the community, and Figure 2-1 shows the WWTP full
buildout service area.
Table 5-4. Pahala WWTP Full Buildout Flow Projections
Description Value Peaking Factor
Average dry weather flow 360,000 gallons per day 1.0
Peak day wet weather flow 1,260,000 gallons per day 3.5
Peak hour wet weather flow 1,200 gallons per minute 4.8
5.6.2 Improvements
To accommodate the flow increase anticipated from the full buildout of the Pahala wastewater
collection system, the WWTP will require facility upgrades. The recommended upgrades include
headworks and odor control expansion within the 14.9-acre site.
Additionally, the lagoon system will require modifications. Lagoon 1 will be converted to a complete
mix aerated lagoon environment to accommodate wastewater treatment needs. In a complete mix
aerated lagoon, sufficient mixing energy is provided to maintain the lagoon solids in suspension
always. A completely mixed aerated lagoon system performs as an activated sludge process without
solids recycle. The higher mixing energy, as compared to a partial mix lagoon, creates greater
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 5
5-9
opportunity for contact between the naturally-occurring micro-organisms in the lagoon and dissolved
organic matter. As a result, complete mix lagoons provide greater levels of treatment within a
smaller volume than partial mix lagoons. However, facilities must be provided downstream of
complete mixed lagoons to allow removal of settleable solids from the water column. To provide a
place for solids settling, lagoons 2 through 4 will continue to act as partial mix aerated lagoons
downstream of the complete mix lagoon 1. Lagoon 4 will require no aeration and will continue to be
covered to deprive algae of sunlight and allow suspended solids to settle out of the system effluent.
Utilizing this lagoon system approach, the Pahala WWTP will require modifications at full buildout
flows, but is not anticipated to expand beyond the initial build 14.9 acres.
6-1
Implementation
Table 6-1 provides the implementation schedule for the WWTP. The LCCs will be closed following
connection of the existing sewer system to the WWTP.
Table 6-1. Implementation Schedule
Description Milestone
Complete design of WWTP September 18, 2019
Complete construction of WWTP May 20, 2021
Connect existing collection system to WWTP June 30, 2021
7-1
Alternative Treatment Options
Evaluation
Several other treatment alternatives were considered for the Pahala WWTP, as summarized below.
7.1 Option Descriptions
7.1.1 Option 1: Aerated Lagoons/Constructed Wetland/Land Application
Option 1 consists of an aerated lagoon treatment system with a constructed wetland and
disinfection, followed by land application for effluent management, as described previously
throughout this report. Figure 7-1 is a schematic diagram for Option 1.
Figure 7-1. Option 1 Schematic Diagram
7.1.2 Option 2: R-1 Treatment/Land Application
Option 2 consists of constructing a membrane bioreactor (MBR) or an activated sludge treatment
process followed by cloth media filtration, followed by UV disinfection, to produce recycled water that
meets DOH R-1 recycled water criteria. R-1 recycled water is effluent that has undergone oxidation,
filtration, and disinfection. R-1 is considered the highest grade of recycled water and can be used for
irrigation of golf courses, parks, schools, and all types of agricultural crops. The R-1 treatment
system would be followed by land application as per Option 1. Figure 7-2 is a schematic diagram for
Option 2.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-2
Figure 7-2. Option 2 Schematic Diagram
7.1.3 Option 3: R-1 Treatment/Seasonal Water Recycling
Option 3 consists of a treatment system similar to Option 2 to produce R-1 recycled water. The
recycled water would be used to irrigate nearby macadamia nut orchards. Figure 7-3 provides a
schematic diagram of Option 3.
Figure 7-3. Option 3 Schematic Diagram
A water recycling analysis was prepared to assess the potential seasonal demand for recycled water
produced by the WWTP. Figure 7-4 is an irrigation demand assessment for the Pahala area based
on published climate data. The graph shows precipitation, estimated evapotranspiration, and the
irrigation demand for each month of the year. As shown in the figure, irrigation is typically needed
from April through September, reaching a peak demand in June. The graph shows that no irrigation
is typically needed between October and March, because precipitation exceeds evaporation during
those months.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-3
Figure 7-4. Irrigation Demand Assessment
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECInches of WaterMonth
Precipitation Evapotranspiration Irrigation Requirement
The potential demand for recycled water produced by the Pahala WWTP was assessed, as shown in
Figure 7-5. The WWTP could potentially provide irrigation water for approximately 62 acres, based
on the peak month irrigation demand in June. During June, all the recycled water produced by the
WWTP would be used on the 62 acres. During all other months the supply of recycled water will
typically exceed the demand, and the excess water would be land applied on the WWTP property as
per the previous alternatives.
Figure 7-5. Option 3 Recycled Water Demand Assessment
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMillion GallonsMonth
Recycled Water Use Effluent Disposal
The Pahala climate makes it possible to only recycle only about 25 percent of the annual flow in this
scenario, due to the long wet season and relatively low evapotranspiration rate during the dry
season. This is in stark contrast to the Kailua-Kona area on the leeward side of the island, where the
climate will allow approximately 88 percent of the recycled water produced at the Kealakehe WWTP
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-4
throughout the year to be recycled. Figure 7-6 provides a comparison of the irrigation demand in
Pahala with the irrigation demand at Kealakehe.
Figure 7-6. Comparison of Irrigation Demands at Pahala and Kealakehe
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECUnit Irrigation Demand (gpd/acre)Month
Kealakehe (Parks and Golf Course)Pahala (Macadamia Nuts)
7.1.4 Option 4: R-1 Treatment and Storage for 100% Water Recycling
Option 4 adds a seasonal storage reservoir, as shown schematically in Figure 7-7.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-5
Figure 7-7. Option 4 Schematic Diagram
Implementation of a seasonal storage reservoir would make it possible to recycle 100 percent of the
R-1 water produced by the Pahala WWTP in a typical year. The seasonal storage reservoir would
make it possible to save recycled water produced during the wet season for use during the dry
season. An annual water balance was prepared to assess the seasonal storage reservoir needs for
the Pahala WWTP. Figure 7-8 provides a summary of the evaluation, and shows recycled water
supply, use, and storage throughout a typical year. As shown in the graph, peak storage of
approximately 40 million gallons (Mgal) would occur during April, and by August the storage reservoir
would be dry and ready for another wet season. Under this scenario it would be possible to irrigate
approximately 253 acres of macadamia nut trees. The lined, 20-foot-deep storage reservoir would
have a water surface area of approximately 7 acres.
Storage of recycled water is not without its challenges. Recycled water contains nutrients that allow
algae to grow. The algae can cause odors if stagnant water conditions are allowed to develop.
Recycled water that is stored in open reservoirs must often be re-treated to improve the water quality
characteristics. Recycled water reservoirs can be equipped with mixers to prevent stagnant water
conditions, and/or be equipped with floating covers to block the sunlight that fosters algal growth.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-6
Figure 7-8. Seasonal Storage Reservoir Analysis
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMillion GallonsRecycled Water Supply Recycled Water Use Storage Volume
Implementation of a seasonal storage reservoir and recycling program would not eliminate the need
for a land application system at the WWTP, as described previously. HAR 11-62 requires a disposal
system for all recycled water system, to provide a means for disposal of water that does not meet R-
1 standards or disposal of excess water should the seasonal storage reservoir capacity be exceeded
during an exceptionally wet year.
7.1.5 Option 5: Maximum Practical Treatment
Option 5 consist of implementing advanced wastewater treatment processes that represent
maximum practical treatment. The option is illustrated schematically in Figure 7-9. The process
treatment train consists of a 5-stage Bardenpho activated sludge treatment process, followed by
chemical addition and denitrifying filters to reliably reduce total nitrogen to less than 4 mg/L and
total phosphorus to less than 0.1 mg/L. The treatment processes would be followed by a
disinfection process to create R-1 recycled water. The recycled water produced would be used to
irrigate macadamia nut trees as per Option 3. A seasonal storage reservoir could also be
implemented at additional cost. A land application system would be required as per the previous
Options.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-7
Figure 7-9. Option 5 Schematic Diagram
7.2 Cost Comparisons
Planning-level cost estimates were prepared for the five options, as described below.
7.2.1 Capital Costs
Table 7-1 summarizes the capital costs associated with the options described above. Additional
detail can be found in Appendix A. The capital costs shown in the table do not include costs
associated with collection system improvements or closure of the existing LCCs.
Table 7-1. Summary of Capital Cost Estimates
Option Name Estimated Capital Cost
1 Aerated lagoons/constructed wetland/land application $14.6 million
2 R-1 treatment/land application $18.4 million
3 R-1 treatment/seasonal water recycling $20.2 million
4 R-1 treatment and storage for 100% water recycling $30.4 million
5 Maximum practical treatment $26.0 million
Comparison of options 1 and 2 shows that providing R-1 treatment instead of the aerated lagoon
and wetland natural treatment system will increase the capital cost by approximately $3.8 million.
Option 3 shows that addition of water recycling to reuse approximately 25 percent of the annual flow
would add an additional $1.8 million in capital costs. Option 4 shows that constructing a seasonal
storage reservoir to recycle 100 percent of the flow would add an additional $10 million in capital
costs. Comparison of options 3 and 5 shows that providing maximum practical treatment instead of
normal R-1 treatment would add $5.8 million in capital costs.
7.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs include labor, electricity, chemicals, spare parts, sludge
management, and other costs required to operate and maintain the facility. Table 7-2 provides a
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-8
summary of the O&M cost estimates developed for the options. Additional details can be found in
Appendix A.
Table 7-2. Summary of O&M Cost Estimates
Option Name Estimated Annual O&M Cost
1 Aerated lagoons/constructed wetland/land application $236,000
2 R-1 treatment/land application $1,052,000
3 R-1 treatment/seasonal water recycling $1,055,000
4 R-1 treatment and storage for 100% water recycling $1,063,000
5 Maximum practical treatment $1,421,000
As shown in the table, option 1 incurs significantly lower O&M costs than the other options. The
significant cost differential is due to the simple aerated lagoon natural treatment system that
requires less labor, electricity, chemical, and maintenance that the other options.
7.2.3 Recycled Water Sale Proceeds
Options 3, 4, and 5 will produce a marketable product in the form of R-1 recycled water that could be
sold to users for irrigation purposes. The value of recycled water is a function of the value of the
water that it replaces. In general, recycled water is sold to users at a fraction of the price of the
water that is being replaced to provide a financial incentive to use the product. The typical recycled
water price is 25 percent to 90 percent of the water it replaces.
The Pahala WWTP will be located at elevation 750 feet MSL. The cost to pump groundwater from
the basal lens to the ground surface at the WWTP is approximately $1,078 per million gallons. Table
7-3 provides a summary of a recycled water sales assessment of each option, assuming the recycled
water is sold for 90 percent of the cost of the irrigation water it would replace. Additional detail is
provided in Appendix A.
Table 7-3. Summary of Annual Recycled Water Sale Proceeds
Option Name Annual Volume Recycled
(Mgal)
Maximum Annual
Sales Proceeds
1 Aerated lagoons/constructed wetland/land application 0 $0
2 R-1 treatment/land application 0 $0
3 R-1 treatment/seasonal water recycling 17 $17,000
4 R-1 treatment and storage for 100% water recycling 70 $68,000
5 Maximum practical treatment 17 $17,000
7.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs
Life-cycle costs represent the total costs to the community to construct and operate the wastewater
treatment system over a 30-year period. The life-cycle cost evaluation includes capital and O&M
costs, and recycled water sales proceeds as described above. In addition, equipment replacement
allowances are included after 20-years of operation. The life-cycle cost evaluation includes an
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-9
inflationary factor to account for long-term changes in the value of money. The life-cycle costs are
expressed as the Net Present Value (NPV). The NPV represents the amount of money that the
County would need to set aside now in an interest-bearing account to cover all of the costs over the
defined life-cycle. Table 7-4 provide a summary of the life-cycle cost evaluation. Additional detail
can be found in Appendix A.
Table 7-4. Summary of Life-Cycle Cost Estimates
Option Name Estimated Life-Cycle Cost
1 Aerated lagoons/constructed wetland/land application $21.2 million
2 R-1 treatment/land application $43.0 million
3 R-1 treatment/seasonal water recycling $44.5 million
4 R-1 treatment and storage for 100% water recycling $54.0 million
5 Maximum practical treatment $59.0 million
As shown in the table, option 1 incurs the lowest life-cycle costs, and the other options would all
incur over double to nearly triple the cost over the 30-year life-cycle. The life-cycle cost estimates are
shown graphically in Figure 7-10. The operating costs shown in the figure include benefits (i.e., cost
reductions) from recycled water sales where applicable.
Figure 7-10. Life-Cycle Costs of Options
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 530-Year Life-Cycle Cost ($ million)Option
Capital Costs Operating Costs
As shown in the graph, the operating cost differential between option 1 and the other options is the
leading contributor to the lower life-cycle cost of option 1. The major operating cost differences are
discussed below.
7.3 Non-Economic Discussion
The options are discussed on a non-economic basis below.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-10
7.3.1 Labor Requirements
The Pahala WWTP will be operated by the COH DEM, Wastewater Division that is based in Hilo. The
Hilo-based WWTP operators will regularly visit to facility to check the system status, make
operational adjustments, and draw samples for required laboratory testing. In addition,
maintenance personnel will visit the WWTP as needed to conduct equipment and electrical system
repairs.
A major difference between option 1 and the other options is the frequency of routine operator visits
required, and the number of personnel routinely required. Option 1 will require a single operator to
normally visit the site once per week. The other options will require daily operator visits to conduct
sampling that is required for R-1 compliance. In addition, options 2 through 5 consist of mechanical
treatment technology that required more operator attention than option 1. Table 7-5 compares the
operational labor differences for the options, as expressed as full-time equivalents (FTEs).
Table 7-5. Comparison of Operational Labor Requirements
Option Name Estimated Operational Labor
Requirement (FTEs)
1 Aerated lagoons/constructed wetland/land application 0.3
2 R-1 treatment/land application 3.7
3 R-1 treatment/seasonal water recycling 3.7
4 R-1 treatment and storage for 100% water recycling 3.7
5 Maximum practical treatment 5.6
7.3.2 Operational Complexity
HAR 11-61 establishes operator certification requirements for WWTPs. The DOH requires that
certified operators operate municipal WWTPs. The larger and/or more complex the wastewater
treatment process, the higher grade of operator required at the facility. Options 1 through 5 were
evaluated for operator certification requirements based on the criteria established in HAR 11-61.
Table 7-6 summarizes the results of the evaluation. As shown in the table, option 1 would require a
Grade I operator, while the other options would require a Grade IV operator (the highest grade). The
higher requirements for options 2 through 5 are due to the complexity of the treatment processes
compared to option 1. In general, the County has difficulty attracting and retaining Grade IV
operators.
Table 7-6. Comparison of Operator Certification Requirements per HAR 11-61
Option Name Operator Certification Level Requirement
1 Aerated lagoons/constructed wetland/land application I
2 R-1 treatment/land application IV
3 R-1 treatment/seasonal water recycling IV
4 R-1 treatment and storage for 100% water recycling IV
5 Maximum practical treatment IV
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-11
7.3.3 Energy Consumption
Figure 7-11 provides a comparison of the electrical energy requirements of the five options. As
shown in the graph, option 1 will require significantly less electrical energy to operate, due to the use
of natural treatment systems (aerated lagoons) instead of mechanical treatment processes that
require more aeration and process pumping.
Figure 7-11. Comparison of Electrical Energy Requirements
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1 2 3 4 5Electricity Requirement (kWh/year)Option
7.3.4 Sludge Management
Sludge management for Option 1 is significantly different than the other options. The partial-mix
aerated lagoon treatment system allows wastewater solids to accumulate at the bottom of the
lagoon, forming a sludge blanket that slowly anaerobically digests. Sludge removal is infrequent,
typically on the order once every 15 to 20 years. The resulting solids are well-digested and
inoffensive due to the long retention time in the lagoons.
Options 2 through 5 would require an aerobic digester to stabilize and store waste solids from the
activated sludge treatment process. The solids would need to be dewatered and trucked to a landfill
on a weekly basis.
7.4 Living Machine®
Living Machine® technology was suggested during community outreach meetings. Living Machine®
is a proprietary technology by Worrell Water Technologies that incorporates aerated tanks planted
with vegetation to provide an attractive wastewater treatment process. In colder climates the
aerated tanks are housed in a greenhouse for protection. In addition, subsurface flow wetlands with
continuous and/or batch flow can be included in the process to provide desired treatment.
The Living Machine® technology has been implemented in “green” buildings like the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission building, the Port of Portland Headquarters, and others. Review of the
company’s website did not reveal any municipal projects completed on the scale of what would be
needed for Pahala. Therefore, the technology is considered to be not feasible.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-12
It should be noted that the proposed non-proprietary treatment system (aerated lagoons and
subsurface flow wetland) uses essentially the same natural treatment processes as the Living
Machine®, but on a municipal scale.
7.5 Septic Tank Alternatives
A previous assessment recommended installation of a community septic tank and repurposing one
of the existing LCCs to serve as a seepage pit (SSFM, July 2007), in accordance with Alternative 1
proposed to the community by the County in 2004 (County of Hawaii, November 5, 2004). This and
other options that have been raised during the community outreach process that incorporate septic
tank technology are discussed below.
7.5.1 Community Septic Tank
The effectiveness of a septic tank is directly related to the amount of hydraulic detention time
provided by the tank volume. The previous study (SSFM, July 2007) suggested a 24-hour detention
time would be adequate. Applying the current flow projections for the project indicate a 190,000-
gallon tank would be appropriate if this criterion is used. However, for large community septic tanks
it has been found that longer detention times are needed to optimize treatment performance, avoid
the need for frequent septage pumping, and to account for peak flow rates that are developed by
community wastewater collection systems. Applying appropriate design criteria (Crites and
Tchobanoglous, 1998), to the project results in the need for an 800,000-gallon tank, which would
require pumping on a 3-year interval. The area required for an appropriately-sized community septic
tank would be approximately ¼ acre.
The use of a community septic tank would require the DOH to issue a variance to HAR 11-62, which
requires WWTPs with design capacities greater than 100,000 gallons per day to produce effluent
containing less than 30 mg/L of both BOD5 and TSS – septic tanks are not able to produce effluent
of this quality. A secondary treatment process is needed to comply with the effluent quality
requirements contained in the DOH regulations. The County would need to reapply for the variance
every 5-years, and if not renewed then secondary treatment would need to be provided.
Additionally, odors from a community septic tank present a significant concern. A septic tank is an
anaerobic treatment process that produces hydrogen sulfide, reduced sulfur compounds, and other
odorous gases. Odors emanating from septic tanks at individual residences are typically dispersed
to the atmosphere throughout the community via the household plumbing roof vents. A community
septic tank would concentrate the community’s emissions to a single point source that would require
foul air collection and treatment to avoid nuisance odor conditions. A dual-stage scrubber capable of
treating approximately 3,600 cubic feet per minute of foul air would be required to avoid nuisance
odor conditions. The dual-stage scrubber would consist of a biotrickling filter, followed by a granular
activated scrubber.
7.5.2 Converting LCC to Seepage Pit
A previous study (SSFM, July 2007) suggested that the existing LCC located on the County-owned
parcel TMK 9-6-002:024 could be converted to a seepage pit that would be regulated by DOH as an
injection well. HAR 11-23-07 allows injection wells located mauka of the UIC line that were in
existence prior to July 6, 1984 to continue to operate. However, the flow to the wells cannot
increase, nor can a new well be constructed. Therefore, the earlier plan to convert the existing LCC
to a seepage pit is not feasible for the following reasons:
Closing LCC No. 2 that is located on private property would not be allowed, as it would
increase the flow to LCC No. 1 (converted to a seepage pit that is regulated as an injection
well) that is located on County property.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-13
The capacity, structure, and condition of the existing LCC No. 1 is not known. The LCC could
either be a lava tube or a large conventional cesspool. A geotechnical investigation
conducted on the site to depths of 30 to 35 feet did not reveal the presence of lava tubes
(Masa Fujioka & Associates, January 9, 2007), therefore it is likely a large conventional
cesspool. The County attempted to determine the structure and condition of the LCC via
closed circuit TV inspection, but could not ascertain either due to technological limitations. It
is not known if the LCC could accommodate the flow from the existing service area if LCC No.
2 is closed.
HAR 11-62-25 requires new and proposed effluent disposal systems to have a backup
disposal system capable of handling the peak flow. A second seepage pit cannot be
constructed to comply with the regulatory requirement because the site is located mauka of
the UIC line. If the existing seepage pit were to fail then a replacement cannot be
constructed.
The Kau Community Development Plan requires the County to provide for eventual
construction of sewers throughout the community. Providing sewers for the entire
community will increase wastewater flows considerably, as presented in Section 5.
Increasing flow to the existing LCC (converted to a seepage pit) would not be allowed.
Therefore, the use of the existing LCC as a disposal system could prevent the County from
providing the community’s desired future wastewater needs.
For these reasons, converting the existing LCC to a seepage pit is considered to be not feasible.
7.5.3 Leachfield Disposal
Leachfields are effluent disposal systems consisting of buried gravel-filled absorption trenches.
Significant treatment occurs as septic tank effluent percolates through the soil surrounding the
leachfield trenches. Leachfields are an integral part of residential septic systems, and DOH has
established trench design criteria applicable to both residential and municipal-scale leachfields. In
particular, HAR 11-62-34 requires trenches to be sized based on bottom area only. Application of
the DOH criteria to the project yields a need for at least 30 acres of land to satisfy DOH hydraulic
loading rate and redundancy requirements. Achieving even distribution of effluent over a leachfield
of this size would be challenging at best. Therefore, leachfield disposal for the project is considered
to be not feasible.
7.5.4 Conversion to Individual Wastewater Systems
The concept of a community wastewater system could be abandoned and all houses be required to
construct individual wastewater systems comprised of a septic tank and leachfield. However, many
of the lots in the community are small (less than 10,000 square feet) and significantly improved,
making the feasibility of constructing individual wastewater systems on every lot uncertain. HAR 11-
62-34 allows construction of seepage pits where there is insufficient land area to install absorption
trenches (i.e., a leachfield), but prohibits construction in soils having percolation rates slower than
10 minutes per inch or where rapid percolation through such soils may result in contamination of
water-bearing formations. The soils in the community are classified as Puueo-Naalehu complex, 3 to
10 percent slopes in the National Resource Conservation Service soil survey. This soil type consists
of approximately 18 inches of extremely cobbly medial silt loam over cobbles and bedrock. This soil
profile is too thin for conventional soil absorption trenches, so residents with sufficient space would
be required to import fill soil to create elevated mound systems in accordance with HAR 11-62-34 to
achieve adequate soil depth. Residents without sufficient space could potentially install seepage
pits if suitable subsurface geology could be located. However, previous subsurface investigations in
the community (Masa Fujioka & Associates, January 9, 2007, and Geolabs-Hawaii, September 23,
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 7
7-14
1998) revealed extremely permeable clinker layers and numerous lava tubes, both of which would
not meet HAR 11-62-34 requirements for seepage pits. For these reasons, conversion to individual
wastewater systems is considered to be not feasible.
7.5.5 Gray Water Systems/Composting Toilets
The DOH has published guidelines for the reuse of gray water (DOH, June 22, 2009). The DOH
defines black water as wastewater discharged from toilets and urinals and kitchen sinks. Gray
water is defined as wastewater discharged from showers and bathtubs, lavatories, wastewater that
has not contacted toilet waste, sinks not used for food preparation.
Composting toilets are a type of dry toilet that treats human excreta by a biological process called
composting. The process leads to the decomposition of organic matter and turns the human
excreta into a compost-like material but does not destroy all pathogens. Composting toilets do not
require a connection to a septic tank or sewer system (Wikipedia).
The combination of a gray water system and composting toilet cannot replace an individual
wastewater system or a sewer connection, because black water from the kitchen sink in a residence
requires either an individual wastewater system or sewer connection.
7.6 Package Plant
Package plants are commercially-available prefabricated wastewater treatment plants. Package
plants are commonly used for small WWTPs with capacity requirements less than 250,000 gallons
per day. Package plants are generally based on the extended aeration activated sludge process.
Use of a package plant in lieu of aerated lagoons at Pahala could potentially save some capital cost
but would require daily visits by WWTP operators to monitor and adjust the process, and to waste
sludge. In addition, weekly or bi-weekly sludge dewatering and disposal would be required. The
results of an economic analysis of a package plant alternative for Pahala are:
Capital cost: $12.6 million
Annual O&M cost: $1.1 million
Life-cycle cost: $37 million.
Comparison of these values to the results shown in Tables 7-1, 7-2, and 7-4 show that a package
plant at Pahala would incur significantly higher life-cycle costs compared to the recommended
aerated lagoon approach.
8-1
Alternative Site Evaluation
Nine sites were evaluated as potential locations for the Pahala WWTP. Each site was assessed for
twenty-one criteria, in four broad categories: environmental, social and cultural; location and site;
land use and availability; and collection system and service area.
8.1 Methodology
The site evaluation was performed according to the following process:
1. Potential sites for the Pahala WWTP were initially identified by the Department of
Environmental Management. Additional sites were identified based on feedback from the
Pahala community obtained during Community Outreach meetings that took place in
December 2017.
2. Four general categories and twenty-one criteria were established and defined for the
analysis.
3. Six “fatal flaw” conditions were identified. Sites with a fatal flaw were eliminated from
further consideration.
4. Relative weighting factors were established for each category and criteria.
5. Sites were mapped using GIS. Data such as soil type, location of subsurface and surface
water, topography, zoning and prevailing wind direction were determined.
6. Each site was evaluated and scored for the twenty-one criteria.
7. A weighted ranking was determined for each site, based on the weighting factors established
in Step 4.
8. A preferred site was identified, based on the weighted high score.
8.2 Site Locations
Ownership, location, and proximity to the existing LCCs for all siting alternatives considered is
illustrated in Figure 8-1.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 8
8-2
Figure 8-1. Pahala Site Alternatives
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 8
8-3
8.3 Criteria
The criteria used for the analysis are presented for each of four categories in Tables 8-1, 8-2, 8-3
and 8-4. A score was assigned to each criterion based on definitions included in the tables. A score
of five represents a preferred or positive condition, and a score of one a less preferred or negative
condition. A score of zero indicates a fatal flaw; six fatal flaw conditions were identified during the
analysis are identified in the corresponding table.
Table 8-1 outlines the environmental, social, and cultural criteria considered in the analysis.
Table 8-1. Environmental, Social and Cultural Criteria
Criteria Scoring and Definitions
5 4 3 2 1 0 = Fatal Flaw
Presence of or proximity to
archaeological/cultural sites
No known or
suspected sites
Confirmed or
suspected sites and mitigatable
No information
available
Suspected sites
and mitigation ability unknown
Confirmed sites
and mitigation ability unknown
Confirmed sites
and unmitigatable
Proximity of treatment
units to existing occupied buildings
More than 1000
ft. from any occupied building
Between 50 and
1000 ft. from non-school building
Between 50 and
1000 ft. of school
Less than 50 ft
from any occupied building
Prevailing wind direction Site is downwind
of most of the community
Site is central Site is upwind of
most of the community
Biology Endangered or
threatened species not present
Presence of
endangered or threatened species unknown
Endangered or
threatened species known to be present
Endangered or
threatened species known to be present and unmitigatable
Visual impact Natural visual mitigation (hill, berm,
vegetation, remoteness) exists
Visible location, mitigatable with trees or other
engineered buffers
Visible location, unmitigatable
Contamination from prior land use
No suspected
industry-related contamination issues
Presence of
contamination unknown
Suspected or
confirmed contamination issues
Previously disturbed or developed Yes Partial No previous development or disturbance
The circumstance where a cultural or historical site is known to exist within the treatment facility
footprint and mitigation to relocate, protect, or preserve that site is not possible, was identified as a
fatal flaw condition.
From an environmental perspective, the presence of endangered or threatened species was
considered negative. A site previously disturbed or developed was viewed as positive, unless
contamination from a previous land use was suspected.
Considerations specific to social impact include proximity to occupied buildings (including
residences, school, commercial establishments and others), prevailing wind direction, and visual
impact.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 8
8-4
Table 8-2 outlines the location and site characteristics considered in the analysis.
Table 8-2. Location and Site Characteristics
Criteria Scoring and Definitions
5 4 3 2 1 0 = Fatal Flaw
Parcel size More than 14.9 acres Less than 14.9 acres
Soils type Good soil and in sufficient amounts in area of parcel useable for disposal
Good soil but over limited area and disposal modification required
Marginal soil in area of parcel useable for disposal
No soil in area of parcel useable for disposal
Topography Gentle slopes (less than 8%) Moderate slopes (8% - 18%) or localized high/low points
Steep slopes (18% - 20%) Extreme slopes (greater than 20%)
Proximity to water well Outside of both 1000 ft. radius and upgradient
influence zone of any well
Outside of 1000 ft. but suspected within
upgradient influence zone of non-potable well
Within 1000 ft. or within upgradient
influence zone of non-potable well
Within 1000 ft. or within upgradient influence zone of potable well
Presence of lava tubes None Possible or
unknown
Known
Proximity to surface water, intermittent stream or
coast line
Treatment and disposal more
than 500 ft. away
Treatment and disposal
between 50 to 500 ft.
Treatment and disposal less
than 50 ft. away
Flood control / drainage No risk of flooding Flood risk unknown Prone to flooding or within flood
zone
Vehicle access Vehicle access currently exists Existing easement, but
new road or significant road upgrades required in or via
county/private right if way
Existing easement, but
new road or significant road upgrades required in or via
state right-of-way
No current vehicle access or
easement, access legally restricted, or significant
obstruction to access
Power and potable water
availability
Utilities currently
available at property line and within 400 ft. of site, no new easement required, no
known significant obstructions (i.e. - culverts,
streams, cultural sites)
Utilities
available within 400 yds. of property or unknown
Potable water
and/or power not currently available within 400 yds. of property and/or significant
obstruction to utility construction
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 8
8-5
Three fatal flaw conditions were identified for the location and site characteristics category in Table
8-2:
Sites less than 14.9 acres in size, which is the least amount of land needed for treatment,
disposal, and future growth.
Average slopes greater than 20 percent, which significantly increase the cost of construction
and limit design options.
Location within a 1000-foot radius surrounding a potable water well, which is prohibited by
HAR 11-62 for the protection of drinking water in the State of Hawaii.
Table 8-3 outlines the collection system and service area characteristics considered in the analysis.
Table 8-3. Collection System and Service Area Criteria
Criteria Scoring and Definitions
5 4 3 2 1
Distance from LCC collection area Parcel is adjacent to existing LCC or less than 0.25 miles away
Parcel is 0.25-0.5 mile away from existing LCC
Parcel is 0.5-1.0 miles away from existing LCC
Parcel is 1.0 – 1.5 miles away from existing LCC
Parcel is more than 1.5 miles away from existing LCC
Gravity flow possible or pumping required Gravity flow possible Pumping required for wastewater transmission from
collection area to site
Number of properties newly
accessible
Commercial areas
become accessible
Additional
individual residential properties become accessible outside of LCC service area
No additional
properties become accessible
A site location requiring large transmission distances of more than two miles are less preferable due
to both initial capital cost and future operations and maintenance requirements. Similarly, sites
where wastewater can flow via gravity from the collection area are preferable to those requiring a
pump station.
Newly accessible refers to properties within the service area that are not currently connected to the
LCC, but will become accessible to the County-owned sewer system when the collection lines are
relocated into the roadways fronting the property. Hawaii County Code requires connection of these
properties once the new collection system is constructed, and their individual wastewater systems
(cesspools or septic tanks) properly removed from service. All individual cesspools in the State of
Hawaii must be converted or closed by the year 2050.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 8
8-6
Table 8-4 outlines the land use and availability characteristics considered in the analysis.
Table 8-4. Land Use and Availability Criteria
Criteria Scoring and Definitions
5 4 3 2 1
Current zoning and land use WWTP currently permitted in zoning without Special Permit
WWTP possible onsite Special Permit required
WWTP not recommended on site
Land availability Owner willing and able to sell or land currently
government (state, county) owned
Subdivision required or friendly condemnation
required
Difficult or lengthy approval process expected or owner
willingness to sell unknown
Owner unwilling to sell or unfriendly condemnation of
land required (private corporate owner)
Owner unwilling to sell or unfriendly condemnation
required (private family owner)
Although public facilities are permitted in any zoning in the County of Hawaii, construction of a
wastewater treatment facility requires a Special Permit within some zones. No fatal flaws were
identified for the land use and availability category.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 8
8-7
8.4 Criteria Weighting Factors
To consider the relative importance to the categories and criteria, each was assigned a weighting
factor for the analysis. Weighting allows for appropriate consideration of all factors - both the
technical and non-technical - associated with siting. Relative weighting is summarized in Table 8-5.
Table 8-5. Relative Weighting Factors
Category Category Weight Criteria Criteria Weight
Environmental, social and cultural 35% Presence of and/or proximity to archaeological/cultural sites 25%
Proximity of treatment units to existing occupied buildings 25%
Prevailing wind direction 25%
Biology 10%
Visual impact 5%
Contamination from prior land use 5%
Previously disturbed or developed 5%
100%
Location and site characteristics 35% Parcel size 25%
Soils type 25%
Topography 15%
Proximity to water well 10%
Presence of lava tubes 8%
Proximity to surface water, intermittent stream or coast line 6%
Flood control / drainage 5%
Existing vehicle access 3%
Power and potable water availability 3%
100%
Collection system and service area 20% Distance from LCC collection area 50%
Gravity flow possible or pumping required 30%
Number of properties newly accessible 20%
100%
Land use and availability 10% Current ownership 55%
Current zoning and land use 45%
100%
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 8
8-8
8.5 Raw Scores
For the nine sites identified in Figure 8-1, raw scores were assigned for each of the twenty-one
criteria according to the definitions in Section 8.3. The results are presented in Table 8-6.
Table 8-6. Alternatives Analysis – Raw Scores
Category Criteria Site Raw Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Environmental, social and cultural
Presence of and/or proximity to archaeological/cultural sites 5 1 2 3 3 3 4 3 3
Proximity of treatment units to existing occupied buildings 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Prevailing wind direction 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Biology 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Visual impact 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 3
Contamination from prior land use 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3
Previously disturbed or developed 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 5
Location and site characteristics
Parcel size a 0 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5
Soils type 5 1 1 3 5 1 5 5 5
Topography 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 3 5
Proximity to water well b 0 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5
Presence of lava tubes 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Proximity to surface water, intermittent stream or coast line 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 5
Flood control / drainage 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3
Existing vehicle access 5 5 2 2 2 5 5 5 2
Power and potable water availability 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 1
Collection system and service area
Distance from LCC collection area 5 5 4 3 3 2 5 4 3
Gravity flow possible or pumping required 5 5 5 5 1 1 5 5 5
Number of properties newly accessible 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Land use and availability Current zoning and land use 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Current ownership 5 5 3 3 5 5 4 4 4
Raw score totals (maximum possible = 105) FF 75 FF 72 72 72 85 79 79
a Fatal flaw condition for Sites 1 and 3.
b Fatal flaw condition for Site 1.
As indicated in Table 8-6, fatal flaw conditions were identified for Site 1 (due to both parcel size and
proximity to a drinking water well) and Site 3 (due to parcel size). These two sites were removed
from further analysis.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 8
8-9
8.6 Weighted Analysis
The weighted analysis is presented in Table 8-7.
Table 8-7. Alternatives Analysis – Weighted Scoring
Category Criteria Site Weighted Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Environmental, social and cultural
Presence of and/or proximity to archaeological/cultural sites 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75
Proximity of treatment units to existing occupied buildings 0.75 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Prevailing wind direction 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Biology 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Visual impact 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15
Contamination from prior land use 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Previously disturbed or developed 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.25
Location and site characteristics
Parcel size a 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Soils type 0.25 0.75 1.25 0.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Topography 0.75 0.75 0.45 0.75 0.45 0.45 0.75
Proximity to water well b 0.50 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Presence of lava tubes 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Proximity to surface water, intermittent stream or coast line 0.30 0.30 0.18 0.30 0.30 0.18 0.30
Flood control / drainage 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.15
Existing vehicle access 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.06
Power and potable water availability 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.03
Collection system and service area
Distance from LCC collection area 2.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 2.50 2.00 1.50
Gravity flow possible or pumping required 1.50 1.50 0.30 0.30 1.50 1.50 1.50
Number of properties newly accessible 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Land use and availability
Current zoning and land use 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35
Current ownership 2.75 1.65 2.75 2.75 2.20 2.20 2.20
Overall weighted totals (maximum possible = 5) FF 3.61 FF 3.76 3.76 3.46 4.33 4.06 4.10
a Fatal flaw condition for Sites 1 and 3.
b Fatal flaw condition for Site 1.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report Section 8
8-10
8.7 Results
The results of the analysis are presented in Table 8-8. Two sites were identified as having fatal flaws
and the remaining seven were ranked in accordance with the overall weighted score.
Table 8-8. Alternative Site Ranking
Rank Site
1 7
2 9
3 8
4 5
5 4
6 2
7 6
FF 1
FF 3
The top three sites for the Pahala WWTP are:
1. Site 7 (TMK 9-6-002:18)
2. Site 9 (TMK 9-6-002:49)
3. Site 8 (TMK 9-6-002:21)
Site 7 is preferred to the second and third ranked sites for the following reasons:
A preliminary Archaeological Inventory Survey has been performed for Site 7, indicating no
unmitigable cultural sites on the property.
Site 8 is bisected by an intermittent stream bed, and a steep gulch borders the property to
the west.
Site 7 is closer to the existing collection area than both Site 8 and Site 9.
Power and potable water are more readily available to Site 7. Site 9 will require the utilities
to cross the highway.
8.8 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, Site 7 (TMK 9-6-002:18) was selected as the preferred location for the
Pahala WWTP.
9-1
References
CH2MHILL. Kau High School and Pahala Elementary School Connection to County Sewer. July 2017.
County of Hawaii. Letter to Community Homeowners, signed by Mayor Harry Kim. November 5, 2004.
Crites, Ron, and George Tchobanoglous. Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems. WCB McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Crites, Ronald W., E. Joe Middlebrooks, Robert K. Bastian, and Sherwood C. Reed. “Natural Wastewater Treatment
Systems, Second Edition”. CRC Press, 2014.
Crites, Ronald W., E. Joe Middlebrooks, Sherwood C. Reed. Natural Wastewater Treatment Systems. CRC Taylor & Francis, 2006.
Crites, Ronald W., Sherwood C. Reed, and Robert K. Bastian. “Land Treatment Systems for Municipal and Industrial
Wastes”. McGraw-Hill, 2000.
Department of Planning, County of Hawaii. Kau Community Development Plan. October 2017.
Department of Wastewater Management, City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii. Design Standards of the Department of Wastewater Management, Volume 1 and 2. July 2017.
Great Lakes – Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers.
Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities. 1997.
Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Title 11, Department of Health Administrative Rules.
Masa Fujioka & Associates. Letter Report, Probing for Large Cavities (Lava Tubes), Naalehu and Pahala Large
Capacity Cesspool Sewerage System. January 9, 2007.
M&E Pacific, Inc. Kau Sewer System Evaluation, Kau, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii. December 2004.
Reed, Sherwood C., Ronald W. Crites, E. Joe Middlebrooks. Natural Systems for Waste Management and Treatment. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1995.
Rich, Linvil G. High Performance Aerated Lagoon Systems. American Academy of Environmental Engineers, 1999.
SSFM International, Inc. Final Preliminary Engineering Report for Naalehu and Pahala Large Capacity Cesspool
Conversion Projects, July 2007.
USEPA. “Process Design Manual, Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents”. EPA/625/R-06/016. September 2006.
Water Environment Federation. Wastewater Disinfection, Manual of Practice FD-10. Water Environment Federation,
1996.
Water Pollution Control Federation. Aeration, Manual of Practice FD-13. 1988.
White, George Clifford, Handbook of Chlorination and Alternative Disinfectants, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York,
1999.
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report
A-1
Cost Estimates
County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management
Pahala WWTP
Preliminary Design - Order of Magnitude Construction Cost
Total Estimated Construction Cost 14,600,000$
$14,600,000.00TOTAL ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CONSTRUCTION COST
Subtotal
Total
OptionTotalNo.TreatmentDisposalRecyclingLagoons R-1 Limit of TT Disposal Reservoir Diurnal Tank R-1 Pumps R-1 Pipelines($M)1 Aerated lagoons/wetland/disinfection Land application None10.83.814.62 MBR (R-1)Land application None14.63.818.43 MBR (R-1)Land application Seasonal (25% of total annual flow)14.63.80.8 0.5 0.520.24 MBR (R-1)Land application Annual storage reservoir (100% of flow)14.63.86.1 3.5 1.0 1.530.45 Limit of treatment technologyLand application Seasonal (25% of total annual flow)20.43.80.8 0.5 0.526.0No.TreatmentDisposalRecyclingLabor Electricity Chemicals Maintenance Sludge Mgmt Total1 Aerated lagoons/wetland/disinfection Land application None$42,000 $118,000 $12,000 $54,000 $10,000 $236,0002 MBR (R-1)Land application None$582,000 $345,000 $10,000 $73,000 $42,000 $1,052,0003 MBR (R-1)Land application Seasonal (25% of total annual flow)$582,000 $348,000 $10,000 $73,000 $42,000 $1,055,0004 MBR (R-1)Land application Annual storage reservoir (100% of flow) $582,000 $356,000 $10,000 $73,000 $42,000 $1,063,0005 Limit of treatment technologyLand application Seasonal (25% of total annual flow)$874,000 $348,000 $35,000 $102,000 $62,000 $1,421,000No.TreatmentDisposalRecyclingHigh Price Low Price1 Aerated lagoons/wetland/disinfection Land application None$0 $02 MBR (R-1)Land application None$0 $03 MBR (R-1)Land application Seasonal (25% of total annual flow)$17,000 $9,0004 MBR (R-1)Land application Annual storage reservoir (100% of flow) $68,000 $38,0005 Limit of treatment technologyLand application Seasonal (25% of total annual flow)$17,000 $9,000EquipmentNo.TreatmentDisposalRecyclingReplacement1 Aerated lagoons/wetland/disinfection Land application None$2,693,0002 MBR (R-1)Land application None$3,653,0003 MBR (R-1)Land application Seasonal (25% of total annual flow) $3,653,0004 MBR (R-1)Land application Annual storage reservoir (100% of flow) $3,653,0005 Limit of treatment technologyLand application Seasonal (25% of total annual flow) $5,097,000Annual Recycled Water SalesEquipment Replacement at 20-YearsAnnual R-1 Water SalesCapital Cost ($M)County of Hawaii Department of Environmental ManagementPahala WWTPOptions Assessment Cost SummaryAnnual O&M Costs ($)Capital CostsAnnual O&M CostsA-4
Common Capital Inputs
Current ENRCCI:10870
Area markup factor:30%
Contingency factor:20%
Project soft costs factor:25%
Lagoon-Wetland Treatment
Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Extension
Clear and grub 8 AC $15,000 $120,000
BMPs 8 AC $13,000 $104,000
Earthwork 9,500 CY $25 $237,500
Sewer extension 700 LF $160 $112,000
Headworks 1 EA $500,000 $500,000
Lagoons 1 LS $1,800,000 $1,800,000
Wetlands 1 LS $350,000 $350,000
Chlorine contact tank 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Chlorine feed system 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Operations building 1,500 SF $500 $750,000
Generator and tank 1 LS $250,000 $250,000
Fencing 1,500 LF $100 $150,000
Paving 15,000 SY $55 $825,000
Water line extension 1,500 LF $160 $240,000
Yard piping 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Miscellaneous site work 1 LS 100,000 $100,000
HELCO power 1 LS 50,000 $50,000
Hawaiian Telcom 1 LS 20,000 $20,000
Archeological monitoring 8 AC 2,500 $20,000
Visual buffer trees and irrigation 10 EA 2,500 $25,000
Subtotal $5,983,500
Electrical and instrumentation 20% $1,196,700
Total construction $7,180,200
Contingency $1,436,040
Total construction $8,616,240
Project soft costs $2,154,060
Total project cost:$10.770 million
Land Application
Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Extension
Clear and grub 6 AC $15,000 $82,500
BMPs 6 AC $13,000 $71,500
Earthwork 33,500 CY $25 $837,500
Fencing 1,700 LF $100 $170,000
Paving 23,000 SY $30 $690,000
Yard piping 3,500 LF $160 $560,000
Planting 6 AC 10,000 $60,000
Effluent flow meter and sampler 1 LS 50,000 $50,000
Archeological monitoring 6 AC 2,500 $15,000
Subtotal $2,536,500
Electrical and instrumentation 0%$0
Total construction $2,536,500
Contingency $507,300
Total construction $3,043,800
Project soft costs $760,950
Total project cost:$3.805 million
County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management
Pahala WWTP
Preliminary Options Assessment - Capital Costs
A-5
R-1 Treatment
Capacity:0.19 mgd
Mainland cost at current ENRCCI:$39.44 /gpd from R-1 WWRF capital regression. y=24.003*(x^-0.299)
Local construction cost:$51.27 /gpd
Construction estimate:$9.7 million
Contingency:$1.9 million
Total construction cost:$11.7 million
Project soft costs:$2.9 million
Total project cost:$14.6 million
Limit of Treatment Technology
ENRCCI of estimate:8952
10 mgd WWTP cost:$13.80 /gpd
10 mgd WWTP cost at current ENRCCI:$16.76 /gpd
Local 10 mgd WWTP cost:$21.78 /gpd
Small flow escalation:$71.54 /gpd y=43.47x^-0.3 Per WERF analysis. BNR + advanced nutrient removal
Construction estimate:$13.6 million
Contingency:$2.7 million
Total construction cost:$16.3 million
Project soft costs:$4.1 million
Total project cost:$20.4 million
Seasonal Storage Reservoir
Volume:124 ac-ft
Mainland construction cost:$25,000 /ac-ft
Subtotal:$3.1 million
Local construction cost:$4.0 million
Contingency:$0.8 million
Total construction cost:$4.8 million
Project soft costs:$1.2 million
Total project cost:$6.1 million
Diurnal R-1 Tank - Seasonal Program
Volume:0.19 mgal 1 peak day
Local construction cost:$3.00 /gallon
Subtotal:$0.6 million
Contingency:$0.1 million
Total construction cost:$0.7 million
Project soft costs:$0.1 million
Total project cost:$0.8 million
Diurnal R-1 Tank - Reservoir Program
Volume:0.77 mgal 1 peak day
Local construction cost:$3.00 /gallon
Subtotal:$2.3 million
Contingency:$0.5 million
Total construction cost:$2.8 million
Project soft costs:$0.69 million
Total project cost:$3.5 million
A-6
R-1 Delivery Pumps - Seasonal Program
Peak day flow 0.19 mgal
Delivery time:8 hours
Pumping capacity:396 gpm
Mainland construction cost @ ENRCCI 4500:$100,000
Current mainland construction cost:$242,000
Local construction cost:$315,000
Contingency:$63,000
Total construction cost:$378,000
Project soft costs:$94,500
Total project cost:$0.5 million
R-1 Delivery Pumps - Reservoir Storage
Peak day flow 0.77 mgal
Delivery time:8 hours
Pumping capacity:1604 gpm
Mainland construction cost @ ENRCCI 4500:$200,000
Current mainland construction cost:$483,000
Local construction cost:$628,000
Contingency:$125,600
Total construction cost:$753,600
Project soft costs:$188,400
Total project cost:$1.0 million
R-1 Pipelines - Seasonal Program
Peak delivery rate:396 gpm
Pipeline diameter:6 inches
Hawaii construction cost:$25 /in-ft
Estimated length:2000 feet
Local construction cost:$300,000
Contingency:$60,000
Total construction cost:$360,000
Project soft costs:$90,000
Total project cost:$0.5 million
R-1 Pipelines - Reservoir Storage
Peak delivery rate:1604 gpm
Pipeline diameter:10 inches
Hawaii construction cost:$25 /in-ft
Estimated length:4000 feet
Local construction cost:$1,000,000
Contingency:$200,000
Total construction cost:$1,200,000
Project soft costs:$300,000
Total project cost:$1.5 million
A-7
Common O&M Inputs
Labor cost:$100 /hr (loaded)
FTE effective labor:1,560 hours/year
Chlorine tab cost:$4 /lb
Alum cost:$2 /lb
Electricity cost:$0.35 /kWh
Maintenance cost:2%/year of equipment capital
Sludge management cost:$1,500 /dry ton, dewatering, hauling, tip fee
Average flow:0.19 mgd
Lagoon Treatment/Wetlands/Disinfection
Labor
Normal requirement:1 visit/week
Operators/visit:1
Time per visit:8 hours/visit
Weekly labor hours:8 hours/week
Annual labor hours:416 hours/year
FTEs:0.3 FTEs
Annual labor cost:$41,600 /yr
Electricity
Load Equiv hp Percent kWhr/mo $/month
Aerators 50 100%26,845 $9,396
Screens 2 10%107 $38
Chlorine pumps 0.5 30%81 $28
Effluent pumps 2 100%1,074 $376
Totals $9,837
Annual power cost:$118,049
Annual power consumption:337283 kWh/yr
Chemicals
Chlorine dose:5 mg/L
Daily use:8 lbs/d
Annual use:2892 lbs/d
Annual cost:$11,568 /yr
Maintenance
Equipment cost:$2,692,575 (assume 25% of capital cost)
Annual maintenance:$53,852 /yr
Sludge Management
Production rate:0.1 dry tons/mgal
Annual production:6.935 /dry tons
Sludge management cost:$10,403 /year (deferred for 20 years)
R-1 Treatment
Labor
Normal requirement:7 visits/week
Operators/visit:2
Time per visit:8 hours/visit
Weekly labor hours:112 hours/week
Annual labor hours:5824 hours/year
FTEs:3.7 FTEs
Annual labor cost:$582,400
O&M Costs
County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management
Pahala WWTP
Preliminary Options Assessment
A-8
Electricity
Daily power use:2,700 kWh/d
Annual power use:985,500 kWh/yr
Annual power cost:$344,925 /yr
Chemicals
Annual chemical cost:$10,000
Maintenance
Equipment cost:$3,652,973 (assume 25% of capital cost)
Annual maintenance:$73,059 /yr
Sludge Management
Sludge production:0.4 dry tons/mgal
Annual production:28 /dry tons
Sludge management cost:$41,610 /year
Limit of Treatment Technology
Labor
Normal requirement:7 visits/week
Operators/visit:3
Time per visit:8 hours/visit
Weekly labor hours:168 hours/week
Annual labor hours:8736 hours/year
FTEs:5.6 FTEs
Annual labor cost:$873,600
Electricity
Daily power use:2,700 kWh/d
Annual power use:985,500 kWh/yr
Annual power cost:$344,925 /yr
Chemicals
Alum dose 30 mg/L
Alum use:48 lbs/d
Alum cost:$34,703 /yr
Maintenance
Equipment cost:$5,097,397 (assume 25% of capital cost)
Annual maintenance:$101,948 /yr
Sludge Management
Sludge production:0.6 dry tons/mgal
Annual production:42 /dry tons
Sludge management cost:$62,415 /year
Seasonal Water Recycling (25%)
Load Equiv hp Percent kWhr/mo $/month
R-1 delivery pumps 5 25%671 $235
Totals $235
Annual power cost:$2,819
Annual power consumption:8054 kWh/yr
Annual Water Recycling (100%)
Load Equiv hp Percent kWhr/mo $/month
R-1 delivery pumps 5 100%2,685 $940
Totals $940
Annual power cost:$11,275
Annual power consumption:32214 kWh/yr
A-9
Avoided Cost of Pumping Irrigation Water
Assume pumping from basal lens
Elevation at WWTP:750 feet MSL
Flow rate:1000 gpm
2.2 cfs
Pump efficiency:85%
Motor efficiency:90%
Power cost:$0.35 /kWh
BHP:223 hp
Motor draw:185 kW
Unit volume:1 mgal
Time to pump unit vol: 16.7 hours
Power to pump unit vol: 3080 kWh
Cost to pump unit vol: $1,078
Recycled Water Pricing
High price:90%of avoided cost
Low price:50%of avoided cost
Recycled Water Sales
High price:$970 /mgal
Low price:$539 /mgal
Seasonal Recycling Sales
Annual reuse volume:17 mgal
High price sales:$16,661 /year
Low price sales:$9,256 /year
100% Recycling Sales
Annual reuse volume:70 mgal
High price sales:$67,987 /year
Low price sales:$37,770 /year
County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management
Pahala WWTP
R-1 Sales Assessment
A-10
County of Hawaii, DEMPahala WWTP Options AssessmentAlternatives Net Present Value AnalysisAgency: County of Hawaii, DEMSensitivity Adjustments (%)ResultsProject/Problem: Pahala WWTP Options AssessmentRiskPremiumBenefitsCapital CostsOtherCostsCapital Cost30-yearNPVBenefit overStatus QuoAlternative 1Lagoons / wetlands/ disinfection / land application$14,600,000($21,196,947)Alternative 2R-1 treatment / land application$18,400,000($42,993,152) ($21,796,205)Alternative 3R-1 treatment / seasonal recycling (25%)$20,200,000($44,496,467) ($23,299,520)Alternative 4R-1 treatment / annual storage res (100%)$30,400,000($53,785,222) ($32,588,276)Alternative 5Limit of treatment technology / 25% recycle$26,000,000($58,961,593) ($37,764,647)Alternative 6Alternative 7Alternative 8Alternative 9Alternative 10Alternative 11Alternative 12Year of analysis: 2017Note: "Status quo" refers toEscalation rate: 3.20% Alternative 1Discount rate: 5.50%Make entries in yellow cells onlyAll entries in dollarsAll entries in thousands of dollarsSelect one A-11
No.Treatment Disposal Recycling
1 Aerated lagoons/disinfection Land application None
2 MBR (R-1)Land application None
3 MBR (R-1)Land application Seasonal (25% of total annual flow)
4 MBR (R-1)Land application Annual storage reservoir (100% of flow)
5 Limit of treatment technology Land application Seasonal (25% of total annual flow)
Criteria per HAR 11-61 1 2 3 4 5
Population served 1 1 1 1 1
Design average flow 1 1 1 1 1
Effluent discharge 2 2 6 6 6
Variation on raw wastes 0 0 0 0 0
Pretreatment 5 10 10 10 10
Primary treatment 0 0 0 0 0
Secondary treatment 8 15 15 15 20
Advanced waste treatment 0 12 12 12 22
Additional treatment processes 7 7 7 7 7
Solids handling 0 19 19 19 19
Disinfection 5 10 10 10 10
Laboratory control bacteriological 0 0 0 0 0
Laboratory control chemical/physical 0 0 0 0 0
Total points 29 77 81 81 96
WWTP Classification per 11-61 I IV IV IV IV
Option
County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management
Pahala WWTP
Preliminary Options Assessment
Operator Requirement Evaluation
A-12
Seasonal Recycling with DisposalAverage flow:0.19 mgdIrrigated acreage:62acresWW FlowDisposalMonthDays (mgal) (gpd/ac) (mgal) (mgal)Jan31 5.9 0 0.0 5.9Feb28 5.3 0 0.0 5.3Mar31 5.9 0 0.0 5.9Apr30 5.7 644 1.2 4.5May31 5.9 2,244 4.3 1.6Jun30 5.7 3,043 5.7 0.0Jul31 5.9 1,348 2.6 3.3Aug31 5.9 1,452 2.8 3.1Sep30 5.7 334 0.6 5.1Oct31 5.9 0 0.0 5.9Nov30 5.7 0 0.0 5.7Dec31 5.9 0 0.0 5.9Totals365 69.3517 52Recycling efficiency:25%Recycling with Annual Storage ReservoirAverage flow:0.19 mgdIrrigated acreage:253acresReservoir surface area:6.4acresReservoir pan coefficient:0.7Reservoir StorageWW FlowWW inPan EvapDelta StorageWater DepthMonthDays (mgal) (gpd/ac) (mgal) (mgal) (inches) (mgal) (inches) Inches (mgal) (mgal) (mgal) (ac-ft) (feet)Jan31 5.9 0 0.0 5.9 5.98 1.0 4.55 3.2 0.66.4 28.1 86.3 13.5Feb28 5.3 0 0.0 5.3 3.77 0.7 4.54 3.2 0.65.4 33.5 102.9 16.1Mar31 5.9 0 0.0 5.9 5.45 0.9 4.97 3.5 0.66.2 39.8 122.0 19.1Apr30 5.7 644 4.9 0.8 3.23 0.6 5.4 3.8 0.70.7 40.5 124.2 19.4May31 5.9 2244 17.6 -11.7 1.94 0.3 5.6 3.9 0.7 -12.1 28.4 87.3 13.6Jun30 5.7 3043 23.1 -17.4 1.56 0.3 5.94 4.2 0.7 -17.8 10.6 32.55.1Jul31 5.9 1348 10.6 -4.7 3.27 0.6 6.37 4.5 0.8 -4.9 5.7 17.52.7Aug31 5.9 1452 11.4 -5.5 3.08 0.5 6.23 4.4 0.8 -5.7 0.00.00.0Sep30 5.7 334 2.5 3.2 3.6 0.6 5.55 3.9 0.73.1 3.19.61.5Oct31 5.9 0 0.0 5.9 3.98 0.7 5.05 3.5 0.66.0 9.1 27.94.4Nov30 5.7 0 0.0 5.7 6.7 1.2 4.49 3.1 0.56.3 15.4 47.37.4Dec31 5.9 0 0.0 5.9 5.82 1.0 4.62 3.2 0.66.3 21.7 66.7 10.4Totals365 69.357048.4 8.4 63.37.70.0Recycling efficiency:101%Max Volume: 40 Mgal124 ac ftPeak demand: 23.1 mgal/mo0.77 mgdCounty of Hawaii Department of Environmental ManagementPahala WWTPWater Recycling AssessmentsIrrig DemandIrrig DemandPrecipitation inEvap outCumulative StorageA-13
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report
B-1
Collection System Plan
Memorandum Pahala Collection System Description June 20, 2018 Page 2
2. PROJECT PHASING
The project will be implemented in two phases to expedite the LCC closure. The collection system
phasing is indicated on Figure 2 and 3.
Phase 1 consists of the portions of the collection system required to divert wastewater from the LCCs
to the proposed WWTP. To accomplish this as quickly as possible, the existing collection system will
be intercepted before entering the LCCs and diverted into the new Phase 1 collection system. There
will be a portion of the sewer within an existing roadway (Pikake St. extension) on private property
owned by Edmund Olsen. The County will obtain an easement for the approximately 350 linear feet
of sewer within this private road. The LCC closures will be part of the Phase 1 work.
Phase 2 will consist of the necessary sewers and pumps needed to de-commission the aging plantation
collection system and construct a municipal sewer system that meets current County standards. The
plantation system crosses through private properties and under some residences, making the system
difficult to access for maintenance. This phase will place the new sewers mostly within the County
right-of-way for ease of access and connect the individual properties impacted by the LCC closures to
these sewers. There will be an 1,100 linear feet portion of the sewer that follows the existing
plantation sewer route within an industrial area between Ilima and Maile Streets. The property at
TMK 9-6-005:036 is owned by Edmund Olsen and leased to M L Macadamia Orchards. The County
will obtain an easement within this area to maintain the sewer.
3. TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS
Pahala slopes down at about 6-percent from the northwest to the southeast, from an elevation of 1000
ft above mean sea level (MSL) to 800 ft MSL over a distance of 3,500 feet. A topographic map of the
area is provided in Figure 4. Available information on soil condition indicates shallow soils in the
residential areas over basalt. Soils as shallow as 12” are reported in some areas. The soil cover
appears to get deeper in the downhill direction.
Several roads in Pahala roughly follow contour lines to maintain level or appropriately sloped grades
for vehicles. This is the case for Hinano Street and Pikake Street. This results in houses on the
downhill side of the roads to be several feet below the road surface while uphill houses are several
feet above the road surface. The laterals coming from downhill dwellings would result in a deep
gravity sewer in these areas. If it is not feasible to construct deep sewers in these streets due to
unavoidable subsurface conditions or unreasonably deep pipes and manholes, an alternative such as
individual pump stations or different sewering method may be needed. A more detailed discussion of
the areas requiring pumps is presented in the next section.
Memorandum Pahala Collection System Description June 20, 2018 Page 3
4. PUMP STATIONS
The design of the collection system will minimize the use of pump stations as much as possible. This
will serve to enhance reliability and minimize operation and maintenance costs. There is one property
currently connected to the sewer system that will require a pump station. The Methodist preschool
located at TMK 9-6-015:033 is located on the downhill side of Huapala Street, approximately 20 feet
below the elevation of the street. It would not be practical to lower the sewer to this extent to service
this property.
There are also four properties on the downhill side of Hinano Street that are connected to the sewer
system that may require pumps. The intent of the design is to lower the sewer on Hinano Street to
service these properties by gravity; however, the subsurface conditions will have to be verified before
a final determination can be made.
There are also several newly accessible properties on Pikake Street that require pumps if the sewer is
not constructed deep. Based on what has been reported of subsurface conditions at the Kau High
School, it is suspected that the sewer on Pikake Street would not be able to be set low enough to serve
these properties; therefore, the assumption is most of the newly accessible properties east of Pikake
Street will require pumps.
5. PIPE SIZING
Sewer pipe sizing is based on the flow estimates provided by B&C and a best guess of how the entire
community will be eventually serviced. It is assumed that the sewer on Maile Street will eventually
convey the flow from the entire community. It is also anticipated that the sewer on Pikake Street will
eventually have other sewers feeding into them from surrounding areas. Similarly, for the sewers to
be constructed in Phase 2, there will be surrounding areas eventually feeding into the sewers on
Puahala/Kamani Streets. It is assumed future sewers would not be feeding into Huapala Street. It is
assumed the areas northeast of Huapala Street can be served by the sewers system to the east;
therefore, the sewer is not up-sized for future flows. A summary of the estimated pipe sizes and
lengths is presented in Table 1.
Memorandum Pahala Collection System Description June 20, 2018 Page 4
Table 1: Approximate Pipe Size and Lengths
Location Start End Size Length
Phase 1
Waterline Pikake St Pikake WWTP 6 2200
SL A Maile St (deep to normal) Huapala WWTP 16 1730
SL C1 Pikake St Ph 1 Ohia Maile 14 780
Phase 2
SL B1 Ilima St Huapala Ilima 8 335
SL B2 Huapala St Hinano Pikake 8 410
SL C2 Pikake St Pakalana Ohia 14 1569
SL D Puahala St & Kamani St Pakalana Pikake 12 1150
SL E Hinano St (deep) Hapu Huapala 8 700
SL F Hala St End Hinano 8 250
SL G Huapala St Pakalana Ilima 8 1650
SL H Ilima St End Huapala 8 1750
SL I Easement thru Olson Land Ilima Maile 12 875
Pipe material will be AWWA C900 PVC for corrosion resistance. Although this application is for
gravity service, the thick wall C900 pressure pipe is preferred for durability in service and during
installation.
6. COST
The 0% cost estimates for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are based on recent bid tabs. Costs from a recent
project were much higher than originally anticipated. Phase 1 using recent bid cost is approximately
$4 million. Phase 2 using the same basis is $9 million. These costs will be refined further as the
design is develop.
")
") MAILE ST HAWAII BELT RD PIKAKE ST
KAMANI
S
T
KO
A
L
I
S
T
HUA
P
A
L
A
S
T
PAKAL
A
N
A
S
T
OHIA
S
T
LOWER
MAOULA
RD
ILI
M
A
S
T
MEYER RD
PUMELI ST KOKIO
ST
HINANO
S
T
KEAHI ST PUAHALA ST
HO
L
E
I
S
T
PAAUAU ST ILIAU ST
KAUMAHANAST
P
AA
UAUPL WOOD VALLEY RD
HAU ST HALA ST HAPU ST
Document Path: \\bcmaufp01\projects\Projects\Hawaii, County of (HI)\150440 COH Pahala WWTP\030_PER\GIS\Pahala Boarders.mxd User Name: llam LEGEND
Existing Condition to Large Capacity Cesspool (LCC)
Initial Build Condition to WWTP
Proposed Pahala WWTP Site
"Existing Large Capacity Cesspool )
Pahala Future County Sewer System
Ka'u High & Pahala Elementary School
Ka' u
Hospital
Proposed Pahala WWTP Site ±
2,000 1,000
Feet
0
Existing Large Capacity
Cesspool (LCC 1)
Existing Large Capacity
Cesspool (LCC 2)
TMK 9-6-017:038 will not
connect to system
Sewer w/in Easements
Properties Req. Pump
Properties That Can Be
Connected by Deep Sewer
or Pump
Sewer w/in Temp. Easements to Close
LCCs Before Collection System Completed
NOTE: Deep sewers may not be acceptable pending
results of geotechnical investigation and cultural studies
LEGEND
JOB NO: 150440 PAHALA WWTP SERVICE AREA
SCALE: AS SHOWN PAHALA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FIGURE2-1
Easement
Intercept existing sewer
(temporary easement)
Intercept existing sewers
Figure 2
Collection System Phase 1
Phase 1 Sewers (Purple)
H
A
PU
S
T
HALA ST LEHUA ST
WOODVAL
LEYRD
HOLEI
S
T
LII T HAU ST
PAAUAUPL
KAUMAHAN
A
S
T
KOKIO ST LI IAU ST
IA ST PIKAKE ST PUAHALA ST
KAMANI
S
T
HUAPAL
A
S
T
HINANOST KEAHI ST PAAUAUST KOALIST
PUMELI
S
T
MAILE ST PAKALANA ST HAWAII BELT RD
396022049
396021004
396021003
396014052
396005017
396012002 396012999 396012028
396005059 396005061 396012001
396005057
396005053
396005003
396005060
396012010 396005045
396018050 396018048396018049 396018051
396018052 396018046396018047
396018045
396019001 396018053
396018054
396018039 396012012 396019002 396018041 396018040396005001 396018043 396018055
396018044 396018042 396018038 396019003 396018037
396019007 396018056 396018057 396018058 396018036 396019008 396019013 396018030 396018009 396019009 396019006 396019004 396018031 396018032 396018035 396018059 396019014 396019012
396019011396019010 396019005 396019015 396019017 396019016 396018011 396022042 396018060 396018034
396018999 396018033 396018012 396022041 396018010 396022043
396019018 396019999 396018013 396018027 396018026 396020015 396019019 396020016 396018029 396022040 396020063 396020061 396020058 396018014 396019020 396020064 396020060 396018025 396020062 396019021 396020065 396020059 396022044 396020014 396018015 396022039
396020066 396020057 396020017 !( 396018028 396018024 396022023 396019022 396022038 396022058 396018016 396022045 396021016 396020046 396018023 !396020013 ( 396021015 396020047 396020048
396020049 396020050 396018004
396021014
396020052 !( 396020018 396020051 396020053396020054 396020055396020056 396020012 396018003 396018022
396018017 396022037 396022024 396022057
396018018 396022036
396021013 396020045
396021012 396021017
!!396020019 396020011 396022035 ( ( 396018002 396018019
396022025 396022022 396022046
396022026 396022021 396022999 396022047
396021011
396021032
396021010
396021018 396020044 396020999 !396020020 (
396021019
396020040396020039 396020043 396020042396020041 396020038 396020036 396020037 !396020034 396020021 (
!396020010 396018021 ( 396018001
396022034 396022048 396022027 396022020 396022013
396018020 396022033 396022028
396021020 396020035 !396020009 ( 396022019 396022014
396021021 396020033 !( 396020022
396021009 !396020008 (
396022032 396022029 396022015 396022012
396022018
396022030 396022016 396022011
396021008 396021999 !( 396020023 396021022 396017041
396020032 !396020007 396022017 ( 396017003 396017038 396022031 396017040 396022010
396021007 396021023 396020031
396021006 396021024
396021025 396020030
396020024 !396020006 396017037 ( 396022009
396017039 396017042
!396020025 ( 396022008 396022005 396022003
396021005 !!( 396020026 396020004 (
!396020005 ( 396017043 396017033 396022006
396021026 396017002 396017034 396022007
396005039 !( 396020027 !396020003 ( 396017044 396022054
396017035
396021027 396017036 !396020002 396017031 (
396021028 !396017001 396020028 396017030 396020001 ( 396017006 396017007 396017008
396021002 396005008 396017009 396017010396017011
396017032 396017045
396017012
396022001
396021029
396021001 396016036
396021030 !(
396017013
396017014
396017015
396017029
396017016
396017028
396017027 396017024 396017026
396017025
396014071
396016046 396016033 396021031 !396016038 396017017 ( 396016032 396017018 396017022 396014067 396016034 396016003 396017999 396014066 !( 396016037 396016045
396017019 396014072 396014065
396016028 396016029396016030 396016031 396016001 396017020 !(
396014053
396014064 396016044 !(
!( 396014063 396016035
396014062
396014054
396016999 OH 396016002
396014061 396016043 !( 396016004
!(
396014055 396014060 396016027 396016018 396016017
!( 396014051 396014056
!( 396014059
!( !( 396014058
396014050 396014057 396015030
396015029 396016042 396015028 396016019
!( 396014049
!( 396014048
!(
396014047 396015031
396015027
396016016
396023042 396023044
!(
!(
396015026 !( 396015022 396015023 !(
396016026
396015025 396016015 396016005
!( !( 396015013 396015014 396014046
396014070 !( 396014045
396015012
396014017 !( 396015011
396015015 !( 396015016 396016013 !( LCC 2 !( !( 396015024 !396015021 ( Z |396016020
396016041 !( 396016025
396023041
396016014 396016006 396023040
396015017 !(
!( 396014018 396014044 !( 396015010 396015018
396014069
396014016 MAS!( 396014019
!( 396014020
396014043 !( 396014042
396015019
396016024 396023039 !396016039 396016007 396015020 ( 396016040 !(
396015009 !( !( 396015001 !( 396016012 396016023 396016008
396016022 396023045
!( 396023038 396023032 396023031
396014015 !(
396014041 !( 396014021 !!(( 396015008 396015006 396015002 396014040
396014014 !( 396014022 !( 396015003 396023037
396014013 !(
396014039 396014023 !( !( 396014024 396014038 !( !(
396016009 396023030
396015004 !(
396014012 !( 396014025 396014037 !( 396015007 396023036 396023027
396014011 396014026 !( !( 396014036 !( 396015005 !( 396016010 !( 396023029
396014010
396014009
!( !( 396014027
396014008
!( !( 396014028
396014035 !( 396016011 396014034 !! 396015999 396015033 396023026 396023007
!( !( 396014007
396014029 396014033 396023028
!( !( 396023025 396014030
396014006
396014005
!( !( 396014031 396015032 396005044
396014004 !( !( 396005049 396014003 !( 396014999 !! 396002056
!( !( 396014032 !! 396023024
396023033
396023010
396005009 396014002 !( 396023023 !( 396014001
396023011
396023012396023013 !! 396023022
396015034
396023014
( !396023015396023016396023021 396023017
396023035
396005036 396023020 396023019 396023018 !!
!!
396002025
396023034
396015035
!!
396002016
396005054 Legend
|lehu-Pahala LCCs Z Naa
!! Naalehu-Pahala Sewer Manholes
Naalehu-Pahala Sewer Lines
Elec Permits Pahala "Cancelled" (1)
Elec Permits Pahala "Complete" (4)
Plumbing Permits Pahala "Cancelled" (1)
Plumbing Permits Pahala "Complete" (93)
Plumbing Permits Pahala "No Record" (4)
Parcels Services Status
( !Connected (1)
!Assumed Connec ion )
( t (100
D Not Connected (0)
PERMIT STATUS µ Electrical (Transfer Switch & Pump) and Plumbing
Feet
0 100 200 400 600 800 Pahala Oct. 05, 2016
!!
396002999 396002024
|Z LCC 1 396002047
396002001
396023999
396002002
396002048
396002043
396005052
396005051 396002999
396005026
396002044
396002018
396002021
396002028
396002015
396017046
396022050
396022051
396022052
396022053
396023043
396022002
396022004
396022055
396022056
396023001
396023002
396023003
396023004
396023005
396023006
396005046
396023999
396017023
396023008
396023009
396017021
Easements
Deep sewers
Figure 3
Collection System Phase 2
Phase 2 Sewers (Green)
H
A
PU
S
T
HALA ST LEHUA ST
WOODVAL
LEYRD
HOLEI
S
T
LII T HAU ST
PAAUAUPL
KAUMAHAN
A
S
T
KOKIO ST LI IAU ST
IA ST PIKAKE ST PUAHALA ST
KAMANI
S
T
HUAPAL
A
S
T
HINANOST KEAHI ST PAAUAUST KOALIST
PUMELI
S
T
MAILE ST PAKALANA ST HAWAII BELT RD
396022049
396021004
396021003
396014052
396005017
396012002 396012999 396012028
396005059 396005061 396012001
396005057
396005053
396005003
396005060
396012010 396005045
396018050 396018048396018049 396018051
396018052 396018046396018047
396018045
396019001 396018053
396018054
396018039 396012012 396019002 396018041 396018040396005001 396018043 396018055
396018044 396018042 396018038 396019003 396018037
396019007 396018056 396018057 396018058 396018036 396019008 396019013 396018030 396018009 396019009 396019006 396019004 396018031 396018032 396018035 396018059 396019014 396019012
396019011396019010 396019005 396019015 396019017 396019016 396018011 396022042 396018060 396018034
396018999 396018033 396018012 396022041 396018010 396022043
396019018 396019999 396018013 396018027 396018026 396020015 396019019 396020016 396018029 396022040 396020063 396020061 396020058 396018014 396019020 396020064 396020060 396018025 396020062 396019021 396020065 396020059 396022044 396020014 396018015 396022039
396020066 396020057 396020017 !( 396018028 396018024 396022023 396019022 396022038 396022058 396018016 396022045 396021016 396020046 396018023 396020013 !( 396021015 396020047 396020048
396020049 396020050 396018004
396021014
396020018 396020051 396020053396020054
396020052 !( 396020055396020056 396020012 396018003 396018022
396018017 396022037 396022024 396022057
396018018 396022036
396021013 396020045
396021012 396021017
( !396020019 396020011 396022035 !( 396018002 396018019
396022025 396022022 396022046
396022026 396022021 396022999 396022047
396021011
396021032
396021010
396021018 396020044 396020999 396020020 !(
396021019
396020040396020039 396020043 396020042396020041 396020038 396020036 396020037 396020034 396020021 !(
396020010 !396018021 ( 396018001
396022034 396022048 396022027 396022020 396022013
396018020 396022033 396022028
396021020 396020035 396020009 !( 396022019 396022014
396021021 396020022 396020033 !(
396021009
396020008 !(
396022032 396022029 396022015 396022012
396022018
396022030 396022016 396022011
396021008 396021999 !( 396020023 396021022 396017041
396020032 396020007 396022017 !( 396017003 396017038 396022031 396017040 396022010
396021007 396021023 396020031
396021006 396021024
396021025 396020030
396020024 396020006 396017037 !( 396022009
396017039 396017042
396020025 !( 396022008 396022005 396022003
396021005 396020026 396020004 ( !!(
396020005 !( 396017043 396017033 396022006
396021026 396017002 396017034 396022007
396005039 !( 396020027 396020003 !( 396017044 396022054
396017035
396021027 396017036 396020002 396017031 !(
396021028 396020028 396017030 396020001 !396017001 ( 396017006 396017007 396017008
396021002 396005008 396017009 396017010396017011
396017032 396017045
396017012
396022001
396021029
396021001 396016036
396021030 !(
396017013
396017014
396017015
396017029
396017016
396017028
396017027 396017024 396017026
396017025
396014071
396016046 396016033 396021031 !396016038 396017017 ( 396016032 396017018 396017022 396014067 396016034 396016003 396017999 396014066 !( 396016037 396016045
396017019 396014072 396014065
396016028 396016029396016030 396016031 396016001 396017020 !(
396014053
396014064 396016044 !(
!( 396014063 396016035
396014062
396014054
396016999 OH 396016002
396014061 396016043 !( 396016004
!(
396014055 396014060 396016027 396016018 396016017
!( 396014051 396014056
!( 396014059
!( !( 396014058
396014050 396014057 396015030
396015029 396016042 396015028 396016019
!( 396014049
!( 396014048
!(
396014047 396015031
396015027
396016016
396023042 396023044
!(
!(
396015026 !( 396015022 396015023 !(
396016026
396015025 396016015 396016005
!( !( 396015013 396015014 396014046
396014070 !( 396014045
396015012
396014017 !( 396015011
396015015 !( 396015016 396016013 !( LCC 2 !( !( 396015024 396015021 !( Z |396016020
396016041 !( 396016025
396023041
396016014 396016006 396023040
396015017 !(
!( 396014018 396014044 !( 396015010 396015018
396014069
396014016 MAS!( 396014019
!( 396014020
396014043 !( 396014042
396015019
396016024 396023039 !396016039 396016007 396015020 ( 396016040 !(
396015009 !( !( 396015001 !( 396016012 396016023 396016008
396016022 396023045
!( 396023038 396023032 396023031
396014015 !(
396014041 !( 396014021 (( !!396015008 396015006 396015002 396014040
396014014 !( 396014022 !( 396015003 396023037
396014013 !(
396014039 396014023 !( !( 396014024 396014038 !( !(
396016009 396023030
396015004 !(
396014012 !( 396014025 396014037 !( 396015007 396023036 396023027
396014011 396014026 !( !( 396014036 !( 396015005 !( 396016010 !( 396023029
396014010
396014009
!( !( 396014027
396014008
!( !( 396014028
396014035 !( 396016011 396014034 !! 396015999 396015033 396023026 396023007
!( !( 396014007
396014029 396014033 396023028
!( !( 396023025 396014030
396014006
396014005
!( !( 396014031 396015032 396005044
396014004 !( !( 396005049 396014003 !( 396014999 !! 396002056
!( !( 396014032 !! 396023024
396023033
396023010
396005009 396014002 !( 396023023 !( 396014001
396023011
396023012396023013 !! 396023022
396015034
396023014
( !396023015396023016396023021 396023017
396023035
396005036 396023020 396023019 396023018 !!
!!
396002025
396023034
396015035
!!
396002016
396005054 Legend
|lehu-Pahala LCCs Z Naa
!! Naalehu-Pahala Sewer Manholes
Naalehu-Pahala Sewer Lines
Elec Permits Pahala "Cancelled" (1)
Elec Permits Pahala "Complete" (4)
Plumbing Permits Pahala "Cancelled" (1)
Plumbing Permits Pahala "Complete" (93)
Plumbing Permits Pahala "No Record" (4)
Parcels Services Status
( !Connected (1)
!Assumed Connec ion )
( t (100
D Not Connected (0)
PERMIT STATUS µ Electrical (Transfer Switch & Pump) and Plumbing
Feet
0 100 200 400 600 800 Pahala Oct. 05, 2016
!!
396002999 396002024
|Z LCC 1 396002047
396002001
396023999
396002002
396002048
396002043
396005052
396005051 396002999
396005026
396002044
396002018
396002021
396002028
396002015
396017046
396022050
396022051
396022052
396022053
396023043
396022002
396022004
396022055
396022056
396023001
396023002
396023003
396023004
396023005
396023006
396005046
396023999
396017023
396023008
396023009
396017021
Approx Scale: 1” = 1500 feet
Figure 4
Topographic Map
Cost Estimate Pahala Phase 1, Option B Connect Brewer Collection System to WWTP, Olson Easements, Minimal Plans for Future Connections QTY UM MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT UNIT COST TOTAL GENERAL Mobilization 1 LS $ 220,000.00 220,000.00 $ Traffic Control 1 LS 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ Staging Area 1 LS 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ BMPs, Erosion Control 1 LS 65,000.00 $ 65,000.00 $ Archaeological Monitoring 260 day 2.00 $ 880.00 $ 5.00 $ 887.00 $ 230,620.00 $ Job Shack and Supplies 24 mo 250.00 $ $ 10,000.00 250.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 252,000.00 $ Temp Utilities 24 mo 3,000.00 $ 72,000.00 $ Demobilization 1 LS 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ WATER DISTRIBUTION Trenching 916.67 cy $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 $ 618,750.00 $ Haul Exc Material 916.67 cy $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 18,819.17 $ Bedding 306.00 cy 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 26,625.06 $ Backfill 610.67 cy 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 $ 29,562.53 $ Haul to Job Site 916.67 cy $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 18,819.24 $ 6" DI Pipe 2200 lf 40.66 $ 25.19 $ 3.80 $ 69.65 $ 153,230.00 $ Fittings 1200 lb 6.19 $ 2.20 $ 0.33 $ 8.72 $ 10,464.00 $ Valves, ARVs 4 ea 3,065.25 $ 2,882.30 $ 436.51 $ 6,384.06 $ 25,536.24 $ Temp Trench Patch 5500 sf 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 16.00 $ 88,000.00 $ SEWERLINE A Trenching 1174.69 cy $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 $ 792,916.67 $ Haul Exc Material 1174.69 cy $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 24,116.41 $ Bedding 500.00 cy 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 43,505.00 $ Backfill 674.69 cy 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 $ 32,661.81 $ Haul to Job Site 1174.69 cy $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 24,116.41 $ 16" PVC Pipe 1730 lf 28.60 $ 6.47 $ 1.47 $ 36.54 $ 63,214.20 $ Manhole 7 ea 12,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 178,500.00 $ Temp Trench Patch 5800 sf 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 16.00 $ 92,800.00 $
Intercept Exist Sewers 3 ea $ 1,200.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 3,400.00 $ 10,200.00 SEWERLINE C1 Trenching 686.11 cy $ $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 $ 463,125.00 Haul Exc Material 686.11 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 14,085.86 Bedding 198.25 cy $ 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 17,249.73 Backfill 487.86 cy $ 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 $ 23,617.36 Haul to Job Site 686.11 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 14,085.86 14" PVC Pipe 780 lf $ 21.00 $ 4.85 $ 1.11 $ 26.96 $ 21,028.80 Manhole 3 ea $ 12,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 76,500.00 Temp Trench Patch 2470 sf $ 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 16.00 $ 39,520.00 Intercept Exist Sewers 1 ea $ 1,800.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 LCC 1 CLOSURE Clearing and grubbing 300 sq ft $ $ 5.50 $ 1.50 $ 7.00 $ 2,100.00 Excavation 130.00 cy $ $ 23.00 $ 9.60 $ 32.60 $ 4,238.00 Clean LCC 24.00 hr $ $ 300.00 $ 90.00 $ 390.00 $ 9,360.00 LCC Residue Disposal 3000.00 gal $ $ 6.00 $ 0.75 $ 6.75 $ 20,250.00 Fill (3B) 90.00 cy $ 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 7,830.90 Geotextile Barrier 300.00 sq ft $ 10.00 $ 25.00 $ 5.00 $ 40.00 $ 12,000.00 Backfill 130 cy $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 40.41 $ 5,253.30 Haul to Job Site 90 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 1,847.70 Cut and Plug Piping 1 ea $ 70.00 $ 160.00 $ 20.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 Final Completion Report 1 ea $ $ 4,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 4,100.00 $ 4,100.00 Landscaping 300 sf $ 1.75 $ 2.50 $ 1.00 $ 5.25 $ 1,575.00 LCC 2 CLOSURE Clearing and grubbing 300 sq ft $ $ 5.50 $ 1.50 $ 7.00 $ 2,100.00 Excavation 130.00 cy $ $ 23.00 $ 9.60 $ 32.60 $ 4,238.00 Clean LCC 8.00 hr $ $ 300.00 $ 90.00 $ 390.00 $ 3,120.00 LCC Residue Disposal 500.00 gal $ $ 6.00 $ 0.75 $ 6.75 $ 3,375.00 Top Slab (12" thk) 8.33 cy $ 750.00 $ 225.00 $ 12.00 $ 987.00 $ 8,221.71 Backfill 130 cy $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 40.41 $ 5,253.30 Cut and Plug Piping 2 ea $ 70.00 $ 160.00 $ 20.00 $ 250.00 $ 500.00
Final Completion Report 1 ea $ $ 4,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 4,100.00 4,100.00 $ Landscaping 300 sf $ 1.75 $ 2.50 $ 1.00 $ 5.25 1,575.00 $ SITE RESTORATION Remove Temp Trench Patch 13770 sf $ $ 2.50 $ 1.65 $ 4.15 57,145.50 $ Haul Exc Material 255.00 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 5,235.15 $ Subbase & Base Course 255.00 cy $ 50.00 $ 100.00 $ 35.00 $ 185.00 47,175.00 $ AC Pavement 1530 sy $ 30.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 38.00 58,140.00 $ SUBTOTAL $ 4,118,652.91
Cost Estimate Pahala Phase 2, Option B Connect Brewer Properties to New Sewer System, Olson Easements Use Deep Sewers on Hinano St, Olson Easements, Minimal Plans for Future Connections QTY UM MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT UNIT COST TOTAL GENERAL Mobilization 1 LS $ 220,000.00 220,000.00 $ Traffic Control 1 LS 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ Staging Area 1 LS 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ BMPs, Erosion Control 1 LS 65,000.00 $ 65,000.00 $ Archaeological Monitoring 260 day 2.00 $ 880.00 $ 5.00 $ 887.00 $ 230,620.00 $ Job Shack and Supplies 24 mo 250.00 $ $ 10,000.00 250.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 252,000.00 $ Temp Utilities 24 mo 3,000.00 $ 72,000.00 $ Demobilization 1 LS 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ SEWERLINE B1 Trenching 248.98 cy $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 $ 168,058.33 $ Haul Exc Material 248.98 cy $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 5,111.46 $ Bedding 56.00 cy 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 4,872.56 $ Backfill 192.98 cy 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 $ 9,341.93 $ Haul to Job Site 248.98 cy $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 5,111.46 $ 8" PVC Pipe 335 lf 21.00 $ 4.85 $ 1.11 $ 26.96 $ 9,031.60 $ Manhole 2 ea 12,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 51,000.00 $ Temp Trench Patch 894 sf 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 16.00 $ 14,304.00 $ SEWERLINE B2 Trenching 263.21 cy $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 $ 177,666.67 $ Haul Exc Material 263.21 cy $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 5,403.70 $ Bedding 68.00 cy 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 5,916.68 $ Backfill 195.21 cy 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 $ 9,450.11 $ Haul to Job Site 263.21 cy $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 5,403.70 $ 8" PVC Pipe 410 lf 21.00 $ 4.85 $ 1.11 $ 26.96 $ 11,053.60 $ Manhole 2 ea 12,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 51,000.00 $ Temp Trench Patch 1094 sf 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 16.00 $ 17,504.00 $
SEWERLINE C2 Trenching 1380.14 cy $ $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 $ 931,593.75 Haul Exc Material 1380.14 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 28,334.25 Bedding 307.00 cy $ 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 26,712.07 Backfill 1073.14 cy $ 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 $ 51,950.65 Haul to Job Site 1380.14 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 28,334.25 14" PVC Pipe 1569.00 lf $ 21.00 $ 4.85 $ 1.11 $ 26.96 $ 42,300.24 Manhole 6 ea $ 12,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 153,000.00 Temp Trench Patch 4968.5 sf $ 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 16.00 $ 79,496.00 SEWERLINE D Trenching 702.78 cy $ $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 $ 474,375.00 Haul Exc Material 702.78 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 14,428.03 Bedding 256.00 cy $ 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 22,274.56 Backfill 446.78 cy $ 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 $ 21,628.51 Haul to Job Site 702.78 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 14,428.03 12" PVC Pipe 1150.00 lf $ 21.00 $ 4.85 $ 1.11 $ 26.96 $ 31,004.00 Manhole 4 ea $ 12,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 102,000.00 Temp Trench Patch 3450 sf $ 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 16.00 $ 55,200.00 SEWERLINE E Trenching 1035.31 cy $ $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 $ 698,833.33 Haul Exc Material 1035.31 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 21,254.89 Bedding 115.23 cy $ 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 10,026.16 Backfill 920.08 cy $ 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 $ 44,541.01 Haul to Job Site 1035.31 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 21,254.89 8" PVC Pipe 700.00 lf $ 9.70 $ 2.91 $ 0.66 $ 13.27 $ 9,289.00 Manhole 2 ea $ 12,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 51,000.00 Temp Trench Patch 1867 sf $ 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 16.00 $ 29,872.00 SEWERLINE F Trenching 234.57 cy $ $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 $ 158,333.33 Haul Exc Material 234.57 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 4,815.68
Bedding 41.15 cy $ 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 3,580.46 Backfill 193.42 cy $ 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 $ 9,363.36 Haul to Job Site 234.57 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 4,815.68 8" PVC Pipe 250.00 lf $ 9.70 $ 2.91 $ 0.66 $ 13.27 $ 3,317.50 Manhole 1 ea $ 12,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 25,500.00 Temp Trench Patch 792 sf $ 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 16.00 $ 12,672.00 SEWERLINE G Trenching 1140.74 cy $ $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 $ 770,000.00 Haul Exc Material 1140.74 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 23,419.41 Bedding 322.53 cy $ 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 28,063.34 Backfill 818.21 cy $ 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 $ 39,609.58 Haul to Job Site 1140.74 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 23,419.41 8" PVC Pipe 1650.00 lf $ 9.70 $ 2.91 $ 0.66 $ 13.27 $ 21,895.50 Manhole 6 ea $ 12,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 153,000.00 Temp Trench Patch 4400 sf $ 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 16.00 $ 70,400.00 SEWERLINE H Trenching 755.56 cy $ $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 $ 510,000.00 Haul Exc Material 755.56 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 15,511.56 Bedding 224.00 cy $ 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 19,490.24 Backfill 531.56 cy $ 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 $ 25,732.60 Haul to Job Site 755.56 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 15,511.56 8" PVC Pipe 1360.00 lf $ 9.70 $ 2.91 $ 0.66 $ 13.27 $ 18,047.20 Manhole 6 ea $ 12,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 153,000.00 Temp Trench Patch 3627 sf $ 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 16.00 $ 58,032.00 SEWERLINE I Trenching 607.10 cy $ $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 $ 409,791.67 Haul Exc Material 607.10 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 12,463.74 Bedding 195.00 cy $ 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 $ 16,966.95 Backfill 412.10 cy $ 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 $ 19,949.70 Haul to Job Site 607.10 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 $ 12,463.74 12" PVC Pipe 875.00 lf $ 9.70 $ 2.91 $ 0.66 $ 13.27 $ 11,611.25
Manhole 5 ea $ 12,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25,500.00 127,500.00 $ Temp Trench Patch 2625 sf $ 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 16.00 42,000.00 $ INSTALL PUMP STATION AT PRESCHOOL Excavation 235 cy $ $ 500.00 $ 175.00 $ 675.00 158,625.00 $ Haul Exc Material 235 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 4,824.55 $ Bedding 23.00 cy $ 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 2,001.23 $ Backfill 12.00 cy $ 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 580.92 $ Pump Housing 1.00 ea $ 8,000.00 $ 6,400.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 17,900.00 17,900.00 $ Pumps 2.00 ea $ 900.00 $ 280.00 $ 85.00 $ 1,265.00 2,530.00 $ Electrical 1.00 ls $ 3,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 11,700.00 11,700.00 $ LATERAL CONNECTIONS Trenching (18" cover, no rock) 1157.00 cy $ $ 23.00 $ 9.60 $ 32.60 37,718.20 $ Haul Exc Material 1157.00 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 23,753.21 $ Bedding 694.00 cy $ 46.60 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 87.01 60,384.94 $ Backfill 463.00 cy $ 8.00 $ 28.56 $ 11.85 $ 48.41 22,413.83 $ Haul to Job Site 694.00 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 14,247.82 $ 4" Lateral, house to street 8325 lf $ 5.62 $ 75.00 $ 2.00 $ 82.62 687,811.50 $ Connect 6" Laterals 111 ea $ 1,800.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 4,000.00 444,000.00 $ SITE RESTORATION Remove Temp Trench Patch 23717.5 sf $ $ 2.50 $ 1.65 $ 4.15 98,427.63 $ Haul Exc Material 439.21 cy $ $ 13.00 $ 7.53 $ 20.53 9,017.04 $ Subbase & Base Course 439.21 cy $ 50.00 $ 100.00 $ 35.00 $ 185.00 81,254.40 $ AC Pavement 2635.278 sy $ 30.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 38.00 100,140.56 $ SUBTOTAL $ 9,035,588.69
Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Engineering Report
C-1
Wastewater Flow Calculations
Avgerage Daily Dry Weather FlowPeak Wet Weather FlowAverage Dry Weather Flow Peak day wet weather flow (peaking factor = 3.5)Peak hour wet weather flow (peaking factor = 4.8)BOD5TSSNPPersons Total Area Dwellings LotsComments/Assumptionsgpdgpdgpdgpd gpm lbs/year lbs/day lbs/year lbs/day lbs/year lbs/day lbs/yearacresExisting Condition45,780 248,183 50,000 175,000 167 45,675 45,675 6,090 1,066 CCH WW STDS 2017Initial Condition 138,165 796,146 140,000 490,000 467 127,890 350 127,890 350 17,052 50 2,984 10 1,564 178 293 177 • Without loading of applicable Industrial Lots• 1 dwelling/RS• Agricultural lots will have IWS and not contribute • 2010 census shows population at 1356Initial Buildout 189,130 900,300 190,000 661,955 630 173,565 480 173,565 480 23,142 60 4,050 10 2,007 178 293 177 • With loading of Industrial Lots, assuming 800 gal/acreFull Buildout 359,380 1,814,258 360,000 1,260,000 1,200 328,860 900 328,860 43,848 7,673 3,699 335 636 488 Influent BOD5 TSSNPmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/l300300407Assumes that waste characteristics are based on section 43.3, Vol 2, 0.2LBS/cap-dayPahala WWTP Flows 2017 STDS.Design FlowsCalculated FlowsStatus Quo - Envirnomental LoadingsService Area SummaryP:\Projects\Hawaii, County of (HI)\150440 COH Pahala WWTP\030_PER\01 WW flow calcs\170818_Pahala WWTP Flows_2017170818_Pahala WWTP Flows_20171
Dwelling SchoolPahala WWTPWW per capita (gpd)7025Dry I/IWet I/IProject 150440Population Initial w/o industrial1 dwelling/RS1564Above GWT (gpcd) / (gad)51250****2010 census shows population at 13562017 WWDS353000QUANTITY OF WASTEWATER: Per CCH WWTP Stds 1993, chpt 20.per Vol 2:average ww flow rate during 24-hour period is the highest instantaneous wastewater flow rate during prolonged period of wet weather178 293 1,564 83,425 2.5 208,563 54,740 138,165 532,843 796,146 LOT COUNTnotesTMKArea (sqft)Acreage (Tax Acres)LUODwellingsCapitaAvg Flow (gpd)Max Flow FactorMax Flow (gpd)Dry I/I (gpd)Design Avg Flow (gpd)(avg WW flow + dry i/i)akaAverage dry weather flowWet I/I (gpd)Design Peak Flow (gpd)(max WW flow + dry i/I + wet i/i)akaPeak Wet weather flow1*assumed Neighborhood Business 40 Capita per acre39601603441395.0680.9503CV-10 -3826602.56650133039902850.910830.923960160357657.8480.1758CV-10 -74902.51225245735527.41997.4339601700116339.3560.3751CV-7.5 -1510502.5262552515751125.34275.343960150345140.080.118ML-20 -02.500035435453960050492888.0280.0663ML-20 -02.5000198.9198.9639601503244953.921.032ML-20 -02.50003096309602.5000007Google earth image: lot looks semi developed with possible farm facility.396005036110424625.35- ---------*assume neighborhood business55212312.675ML-20 -02.50003802538025*assumed 1 dwelling per lot441698.410.14RS-10 142802.57001404203042031260*used RS-10 assumptions, since open defined by adjacent land use110424.62.535Open 142802.570014042076058445839600202417859.60.41MG-1a002.5000123012309 *assumed apartment 2.8 per dwelling 39601700288078.322.022RM-1.5 59 165115502.5288755775173256066407161039601700322899.4920.5257RM-1.5 15 4229402.57350147044101577.110397.11139601703826806.8240.6154RM-1.5 18 5035002.58750175052501846.212346.21239600504421505.5720.4937ROAD ---------1339602103112736.9440.2924RS-10 142802.5700140420877.21717.21439601503358021.921.332RS-10 142802.5700140420399648361539601406911961.5760.2746RS-10 142802.5700140420823.81663.81639601407013290.1560.3051RS-10 142802.5700140420915.31755.31739601407115002.0640.3444RS-10 142802.57001404201033.21873.21839601407216452.6120.3777RS-10 142802.57001404201133.11973.11939602100113629.9240.3129RS-10 142802.5700140420938.71778.72039602003113673.4840.3139RS-15 142802.5700140420941.71781.72139602003213381.6320.3072RS-15 142802.5700140420921.61761.62239601405314440.140.3315RS-15 142802.5700140420994.51834.52339601405414440.140.3315RS-15 142802.5700140420994.51834.52439601405514440.140.3315RS-15 142802.5700140420994.51834.52539601405613128.9840.3014RS-15 142802.5700140420904.21744.22639601405712462.5160.2861RS-15 142802.5700140420858.31698.32739601405816896.9240.3879RS-15 142802.57001404201163.72003.72839601405912000.780.2755RS-15 142802.5700140420826.51666.52939601406012000.780.2755RS-15 142802.5700140420826.51666.53039601406110497.960.241RS-15 142802.570014042072315633139601406210497.960.241RS-15 142802.570014042072315633239601406310497.960.241RS-15 142802.570014042072315633339601406410497.960.241RS-15 142802.570014042072315633439601406510497.960.241RS-15 142802.57001404207231563353960200339822.780.2255RS-15 142802.5700140420676.51516.53639602003411007.6120.2527RS-15 142802.5700140420758.11598.137396016036174240.4RS-15 142802.5700140420120020403839601603913142.0520.3017RS-15 142802.5700140420905.11745.13939601604028775.7360.6606RS-15 142802.57001404201981.82821.84039601604127264.2040.6259RS-15 142802.57001404201877.72717.74139601604227887.1120.6402RS-15 142802.57001404201920.62760.64239601604318700.3080.4293RS-15 142802.57001404201287.92127.9AVERAGE DAILY PER LAND USE:Neighborhood Business: 40 capita per acreGeneral Industry 100 capita per acre - NOT INCLUDEDSchool: 25 gal/capita/dayInstitution: 200 gal/capita/dayAgricultural: assume IWSAVERAGE DAILY PER CAPITA FLOW:Average Daily Flow: 80 gal/day/capitaResidential SF occupancy: 4 capita/dwelling *per Craig assume Residential lots are 1 dwelling/lot ONLY Apartment MF occupancy: 2.8 capita/dwellingPahala WWTPInitial Flows
4339601604418526.0680.4253RS-15 142802.57001404201275.92115.94439601604515672.8880.3598RS-15 142802.57001404201079.41919.44539601604610990.1880.2523RS-15 142802.5700140420756.91596.94639601501811412.720.262RS-15 142802.57001404207861626473960150198738.1360.2006RS-15 142802.5700140420601.81441.84839601502014170.0680.3253RS-15 142802.5700140420975.91815.94939601502115437.6640.3544RS-15 142802.57001404201063.21903.25039601502212540.9240.2879RS-15 142802.5700140420863.71703.75139601601132683.0680.7503RS-15 142802.57001404202250.93090.9523960150119740.0160.2236RS-15 142802.5700140420670.81510.8533960150129835.8480.2258RS-15 142802.5700140420677.41517.4543960150137984.5480.1833RS-15 142802.5700140420549.91389.9553960150149543.9960.2191RS-15 142802.5700140420657.31497.3563960150159892.4760.2271RS-15 142802.5700140420681.31521.3573960150169892.4760.2271RS-15 142802.5700140420681.31521.35839601500927943.740.6415RS-15 142802.57001404201924.52764.55939601500512066.120.277RS-15 142802.570014042083116716039601500615089.1840.3464RS-15 142802.57001404201039.21879.2613960150077239.6720.1662RS-15 142802.5700140420498.61338.66239601500824685.4520.5667RS-15 142802.57001404201700.12540.16339602005814936.7240.3429RS-15 142802.57001404201028.71868.76439601501712802.2840.2939RS-15 142802.5700140420881.71721.76539602003010419.5520.2392RS-15 142802.5700140420717.61557.666396015003130680.3RS-15 142802.570014042090017406739601500411173.140.2565RS-15 142802.5700140420769.51609.56839602005612806.640.294RS-15 142802.570014042088217226939602005710737.540.2465RS-15 142802.5700140420739.51579.57039601602314971.5720.3437RS-15 142802.57001404201031.11871.17139601602416565.8680.3803RS-15 142802.57001404201140.91980.97239601602515341.8320.3522RS-15 142802.57001404201056.61896.67339601602619946.1240.4579RS-15 142802.57001404201373.72213.77439601602716404.6960.3766RS-15 142802.57001404201129.81969.875396002056149018.763.421RS-15 142802.57001404201026311103763960020162906279.6466.719Multiple-------72656.9911.667975RS-10 142802.57001404205003.9255843.92572656.9911.667975RS-15 142802.57001404205003.9255843.925**assume Ag utilizes IWS. No connection to municipal sewer1307825.83830.02355A-1a 3002.500090070.6590070.65145313.9823.33595A-20a 302.500010007.8510007.851307825.83830.02355MG-1a02.500090070.6590070.657739601502314143.9320.3247RS-15 142802.5700140420974.11814.17839601502410641.7080.2443RS-15 142802.5700140420732.91572.97939601502516679.1240.3829RS-15 142802.57001404201148.71988.78039601502615180.660.3485RS-15 142802.57001404201045.51885.58139601502712802.2840.2939RS-15 142802.5700140420881.71721.78239601502812283.920.282RS-15 142802.570014042084616868339601502913886.9280.3188RS-15 142802.5700140420956.41796.48439601503011804.760.271RS-15 142802.570014042081316538539601503112236.0040.2809RS-15 142802.5700140420842.71682.78639601406610497.960.241RS-15 142802.570014042072315638739601406712754.3680.2928RS-15 142802.5700140420878.41718.48839601500110619.9280.2438RS-15 142802.5700140420731.41571.4893960150029888.120.227RS-15 142802.570014042068115219039601501011800.4040.2709RS-15 142802.5700140420812.71652.79139601404812462.5160.2861RS-15 142802.5700140420858.31698.39239601404913128.9840.3014RS-15 142802.5700140420904.21744.29339601405014440.140.3315RS-15 142802.5700140420994.51834.59439601405114440.140.3315RS-15 142802.5700140420994.51834.59539601405213385.9880.3073RS-15 142802.5700140420921.91761.92.50000095*used School Assumptions based on CH2MHill (502 students and 77 staff)3960050081172896.5626.926RS-15 1 579144752.536187.5202653474080778137230.596*Park/ball field next to Ka'u School; assume its contribution is accounted for in school, since calculations provided annotate both TMKs396005039280613.526.442RS-1001932619326973960140206930.3960.1591RS-7.5 142802.5700140420477.31317.3983960140217187.40.165RS-7.5 142802.57001404204951335993960140227204.8240.1654RS-7.5 142802.5700140420496.21336.21003960140237196.1120.1652RS-7.5 142802.5700140420495.61335.61013960140247082.8560.1626RS-7.5 142802.5700140420487.81327.81023960140257287.5880.1673RS-7.5 142802.5700140420501.91341.91033960140267169.9760.1646RS-7.5 142802.5700140420493.81333.81043960140027540.2360.1731RS-7.5 142802.5700140420519.31359.31053960140037758.0360.1781RS-7.5 142802.5700140420534.31374.31063960140047832.0880.1798RS-7.5 142802.5700140420539.41379.41073960140057683.9840.1764RS-7.5 142802.5700140420529.21369.21083960140067727.5440.1774RS-7.5 142802.5700140420532.21372.210939601800113303.2240.3054RS-7.5 142802.5700140420916.21756.211039601800211356.0920.2607RS-7.5 142802.5700140420782.11622.111139601800311996.4240.2754RS-7.5 142802.5700140420826.21666.211239601800410785.4560.2476RS-7.5 142802.5700140420742.81582.8
11339601802814244.120.327RS-7.5 142802.5700140420981182111439601802912519.1440.2874RS-7.5 142802.5700140420862.21702.21153960140017466.1840.1714RS-7.5 142802.5700140420514.21354.21163960140277161.2640.1644RS-7.5 142802.5700140420493.21333.21173960140287287.5880.1673RS-7.5 142802.5700140420501.91341.91183960140297335.5040.1684RS-7.5 142802.5700140420505.21345.21193960140307148.1960.1641RS-7.5 142802.5700140420492.31332.31203960140317082.8560.1626RS-7.5 142802.5700140420487.81327.81213960140327034.940.1615RS-7.5 142802.5700140420484.51324.51223960140336865.0560.1576RS-7.5 142802.5700140420472.81312.81233960140346886.8360.1581RS-7.5 142802.5700140420474.31314.31243960140357087.2120.1627RS-7.5 142802.5700140420488.11328.11253960140367291.9440.1674RS-7.5 142802.5700140420502.21342.21263960140377291.9440.1674RS-7.5 142802.5700140420502.21342.21273960140387222.2480.1658RS-7.5 142802.5700140420497.41337.41283960140397222.2480.1658RS-7.5 142802.5700140420497.41337.41293960140407257.0960.1666RS-7.5 142802.5700140420499.81339.81303960200148842.680.203RS-7.5 142802.570014042060914491313960200159740.0160.2236RS-7.5 142802.5700140420670.81510.813239602001610794.1680.2478RS-7.5 142802.5700140420743.41583.41333960200179618.0480.2208RS-7.5 142802.5700140420662.41502.41343960200189648.540.2215RS-7.5 142802.5700140420664.51504.51353960200196747.4440.1549RS-7.5 142802.5700140420464.71304.71363960200206512.220.1495RS-7.5 142802.5700140420448.51288.51373960200217008.8040.1609RS-7.5 142802.5700140420482.71322.71383960200226529.6440.1499RS-7.5 142802.5700140420449.71289.71393960200237230.960.166RS-7.5 142802.570014042049813381403960200107400.8440.1699RS-7.5 142802.5700140420509.71349.71413960200117235.3160.1661RS-7.5 142802.5700140420498.31338.31423960200127305.0120.1677RS-7.5 142802.5700140420503.11343.11433960200137113.3480.1633RS-7.5 142802.5700140420489.91329.91443960140077583.7960.1741RS-7.5 142802.5700140420522.31362.31453960140087832.0880.1798RS-7.5 142802.5700140420539.41379.41463960140097801.5960.1791RS-7.5 142802.5700140420537.31377.31473960140107832.0880.1798RS-7.5 142802.5700140420539.41379.41483960140117801.5960.1791RS-7.5 142802.5700140420537.31377.31493960140127901.7840.1814RS-7.5 142802.5700140420544.21384.215039601401310903.0680.2503RS-7.5 142802.5700140420750.91590.91513960140149382.8240.2154RS-7.5 142802.5700140420646.21486.21523960140159792.2880.2248RS-7.5 142802.5700140420674.41514.41533960140168302.5360.1906RS-7.5 142802.5700140420571.81411.815439601401713429.5480.3083RS-7.5 142802.5700140420924.91764.91553960140187008.8040.1609RS-7.5 142802.5700140420482.71322.71563960140196799.7160.1561RS-7.5 142802.5700140420468.31308.31573960200246808.4280.1563RS-7.5 142802.5700140420468.91308.91583960200256934.7520.1592RS-7.5 142802.5700140420477.61317.61593960200268790.4080.2018RS-7.5 142802.5700140420605.41445.41603960200278903.6640.2044RS-7.5 142802.5700140420613.21453.21613960200289056.1240.2079RS-7.5 142802.5700140420623.71463.71623960200018306.8920.1907RS-7.5 142802.5700140420572.11412.11633960200047845.1560.1801RS-7.5 142802.5700140420540.31380.31643960200057784.1720.1787RS-7.5 142802.5700140420536.11376.11653960200067792.8840.1789RS-7.5 142802.5700140420536.71376.71663960200038084.7360.1856RS-7.5 142802.5700140420556.81396.81673960140437291.9440.1674RS-7.5 142802.5700140420502.21342.21683960140447318.080.168RS-7.5 142802.5700140420504134416939601404510798.5240.2479RS-7.5 142802.5700140420743.71583.717039601404610606.860.2435RS-7.5 142802.5700140420730.51570.517139601404712763.080.293RS-7.5 142802.570014042087917191723960140417322.4360.1681RS-7.5 142802.5700140420504.31344.31733960140427291.9440.1674RS-7.5 142802.5700140420502.21342.21743960200028015.040.184RS-7.5 142802.570014042055213921753960200077701.4080.1768RS-7.5 142802.5700140420530.41370.41763960200087487.9640.1719RS-7.5 142802.5700140420515.71355.71773960200097548.9480.1733RS-7.5 142802.5700140420519.91359.9
Dwelling SchoolPahala WWTPWW per capita (gpd)7025Dry I/IWet I/IProject 150440Population Initialw/industrial @ 40capita/ac1 dwelling/RS2007Above GWT (gpcd) / (gad)512502017 WWDS353000QUANTITY OF WASTEWATER: Per CCH WWTP Stds 1993, chpt 20.per Vol 2:average ww flow rate during 24-hour period is the highest instantaneous wastewater flow rate during prolonged period of wet weather178 293 2,007 118,885 2.50 297,212 70,245 189,130 532,843 900,300 LOT COUNTnotesTMKArea (sqft)Acreage (Tax Acres)LUODwellingsCapitaAvg Flow (gpd)Max Flow FactorMax Flow (gpd)Dry I/I (gpd)Design Avg Flow (gpd)(avg WW flow + dry i/i)akaAverage dry weather flowWet I/I (gpd)Design Peak Flow (gpd)(max WW flow + dry i/I + wet i/i)akaPeak Wet weather flow1*assumed Neighborhood Business 40 Capita per acre39601603441395.0680.9503CV-10-3826602.56650133039902850.910830.923960160357657.8480.1758CV-10-74902.51225245735527.41997.4339601700116339.3560.3751CV-7.5-1510502.5262552515751125.34275.343960150345140.080.118ML-20-194.42.523635129.435462553960050492888.0280.0663ML-20-153.042.5132.63588.04198.9366.5639601503244953.921.032ML-20-10825.62.520643501175.63096551002.5000007Google earth image: lot looks semi developed with possible farm facility.396005036110424625.35----------55212312.675ML-20127101402.5253504445145853802567820*assumed 1 dwelling per lot441698.410.14RS-10142802.57001404203042031260*used RS-10 assumptions, since open defined by adjacent land use110424.62.535Open142802.570014042076058445839600202417859.60.41MG-1a43282.5820140468123021909*assumed apartment 2.8 per dwelling39601700288078.322.022RM-1.559165115502.5288755775173256066407161039601700322899.4920.5257RM-1.5154229402.57350147044101577.110397.11139601703826806.8240.6154RM-1.5185035002.58750175052501846.212346.21139600504421505.5720.4937ROAD---------1239602103112736.9440.2924RS-10142802.5700140420877.21717.21339601503358021.921.332RS-10142802.5700140420399648361439601406911961.5760.2746RS-10142802.5700140420823.81663.81539601407013290.1560.3051RS-10142802.5700140420915.31755.31639601407115002.0640.3444RS-10142802.57001404201033.21873.21739601407216452.6120.3777RS-10142802.57001404201133.11973.11839602100113629.9240.3129RS-10142802.5700140420938.71778.71939602003113673.4840.3139RS-15142802.5700140420941.71781.72039602003213381.6320.3072RS-15142802.5700140420921.61761.62139601405314440.140.3315RS-15142802.5700140420994.51834.5AVERAGE DAILY PER CAPITA FLOW:Average Daily Flow: 80 gal/day/capitaResidential SF occupancy: 4 capita/dwellingApartment MF occupancy: 2.8 capita/dwellingAVERAGE DAILY PER LAND USE:Neighborhood Business: 40 capita per acreSchool: 25 gal/capita/dayAgricultural: assume IWSSmall and Decentralized WW Management Systems, Critespage 170, Commerical Areas of Unknown Use: 800 gal/acreTable 4-3, Hospital, bed : 165 gcd, employee: 10 gcdPahala WWTPInitial Buildout FlowsInitial Buildout WWTP flow1 OF 4
2239601405414440.140.3315RS-15142802.5700140420994.51834.52339601405514440.140.3315RS-15142802.5700140420994.51834.52439601405613128.9840.3014RS-15142802.5700140420904.21744.22539601405712462.5160.2861RS-15142802.5700140420858.31698.32639601405816896.9240.3879RS-15142802.57001404201163.72003.72739601405912000.780.2755RS-15142802.5700140420826.51666.52839601406012000.780.2755RS-15142802.5700140420826.51666.52939601406110497.960.241RS-15142802.570014042072315633039601406210497.960.241RS-15142802.570014042072315633139601406310497.960.241RS-15142802.570014042072315633239601406410497.960.241RS-15142802.570014042072315633339601406510497.960.241RS-15142802.57001404207231563343960200339822.780.2255RS-15142802.5700140420676.51516.53539602003411007.6120.2527RS-15142802.5700140420758.11598.136396016036174240.4RS-15142802.5700140420120020403739601603913142.0520.3017RS-15142802.5700140420905.11745.13839601604028775.7360.6606RS-15142802.57001404201981.82821.83939601604127264.2040.6259RS-15142802.57001404201877.72717.74039601604227887.1120.6402RS-15142802.57001404201920.62760.64139601604318700.3080.4293RS-15142802.57001404201287.92127.94239601604418526.0680.4253RS-15142802.57001404201275.92115.94339601604515672.8880.3598RS-15142802.57001404201079.41919.44439601604610990.1880.2523RS-15142802.5700140420756.91596.94539601501811412.720.262RS-15142802.57001404207861626463960150198738.1360.2006RS-15142802.5700140420601.81441.84739601502014170.0680.3253RS-15142802.5700140420975.91815.94839601502115437.6640.3544RS-15142802.57001404201063.21903.24939601502212540.9240.2879RS-15142802.5700140420863.71703.75039601601132683.0680.7503RS-15142802.57001404202250.93090.9513960150119740.0160.2236RS-15142802.5700140420670.81510.8523960150129835.8480.2258RS-15142802.5700140420677.41517.4533960150137984.5480.1833RS-15142802.5700140420549.91389.9543960150149543.9960.2191RS-15142802.5700140420657.31497.3553960150159892.4760.2271RS-15142802.5700140420681.31521.3563960150169892.4760.2271RS-15142802.5700140420681.31521.35739601500927943.740.6415RS-15142802.57001404201924.52764.55839601500512066.120.277RS-15142802.570014042083116715939601500615089.1840.3464RS-15142802.57001404201039.21879.2603960150077239.6720.1662RS-15142802.5700140420498.61338.66139601500824685.4520.5667RS-15142802.57001404201700.12540.16239602005814936.7240.3429RS-15142802.57001404201028.71868.76339601501712802.2840.2939RS-15142802.5700140420881.71721.76439602003010419.5520.2392RS-15142802.5700140420717.61557.665396015003130680.3RS-15142802.570014042090017406639601500411173.140.2565RS-15142802.5700140420769.51609.56739602005612806.640.294RS-15142802.570014042088217226839602005710737.540.2465RS-15142802.5700140420739.51579.56939601602314971.5720.3437RS-15142802.57001404201031.11871.17039601602416565.8680.3803RS-15142802.57001404201140.91980.97139601602515341.8320.3522RS-15142802.57001404201056.61896.67239601602619946.1240.4579RS-15142802.57001404201373.72213.77339601602716404.6960.3766RS-15142802.57001404201129.81969.874396002056149018.763.421RS-15142802.57001404201026311103753960020162906279.6466.719Multiple-------72656.9911.667975RS-10142802.57001404205003.925 5843.92572656.9911.667975RS-15142802.57001404205003.925 5843.925**assume Ag utilizes IWS. No connection to municipal sewer1307825.83830.02355A-1a3002.500090070.65 90070.65145313.9823.33595A-20a302.500010007.85 10007.851307825.83830.02355MG-1a-300 24018.842.560047.11050034518.8490070.65 160617.757639601502314143.9320.3247RS-15142802.5700140420974.11814.17739601502410641.7080.2443RS-15142802.5700140420732.91572.97839601502516679.1240.3829RS-15142802.57001404201148.71988.77939601502615180.660.3485RS-15142802.57001404201045.51885.58039601502712802.2840.2939RS-15142802.5700140420881.71721.78139601502812283.920.282RS-15142802.570014042084616868239601502913886.9280.3188RS-15142802.5700140420956.41796.48339601503011804.760.271RS-15142802.570014042081316538439601503112236.0040.2809RS-15142802.5700140420842.71682.78539601406610497.960.241RS-15142802.570014042072315638639601406712754.3680.2928RS-15142802.5700140420878.41718.48739601500110619.9280.2438RS-15142802.5700140420731.41571.4883960150029888.120.227RS-15142802.570014042068115218939601501011800.4040.2709RS-15142802.5700140420812.71652.7Initial Buildout WWTP flow2 OF 4
9039601404812462.5160.2861RS-15142802.5700140420858.31698.39139601404913128.9840.3014RS-15142802.5700140420904.21744.29239601405014440.140.3315RS-15142802.5700140420994.51834.59339601405114440.140.3315RS-15142802.5700140420994.51834.59439601405213385.9880.3073RS-15142802.5700140420921.91761.92.50000095*used School Assumptions based on CH2MHill (502 students and 77 staff)3960050081172896.5626.926RS-151579144752.536187.5202653474080778137230.596*Park/ball field next to Ka'u School; assume its contribution is accounted for in school, since calculations provided annotate both TMKs396005039280613.526.442RS-1001932619326973960140206930.3960.1591RS-7.5142802.5700140420477.31317.3983960140217187.40.165RS-7.5142802.57001404204951335993960140227204.8240.1654RS-7.5142802.5700140420496.21336.21003960140237196.1120.1652RS-7.5142802.5700140420495.61335.61013960140247082.8560.1626RS-7.5142802.5700140420487.81327.81023960140257287.5880.1673RS-7.5142802.5700140420501.91341.91033960140267169.9760.1646RS-7.5142802.5700140420493.81333.81043960140027540.2360.1731RS-7.5142802.5700140420519.31359.31053960140037758.0360.1781RS-7.5142802.5700140420534.31374.31063960140047832.0880.1798RS-7.5142802.5700140420539.41379.41073960140057683.9840.1764RS-7.5142802.5700140420529.21369.21083960140067727.5440.1774RS-7.5142802.5700140420532.21372.210939601800113303.2240.3054RS-7.5142802.5700140420916.21756.211039601800211356.0920.2607RS-7.5142802.5700140420782.11622.111139601800311996.4240.2754RS-7.5142802.5700140420826.21666.211239601800410785.4560.2476RS-7.5142802.5700140420742.81582.811339601802814244.120.327RS-7.5142802.5700140420981182111439601802912519.1440.2874RS-7.5142802.5700140420862.21702.21153960140017466.1840.1714RS-7.5142802.5700140420514.21354.21163960140277161.2640.1644RS-7.5142802.5700140420493.21333.21173960140287287.5880.1673RS-7.5142802.5700140420501.91341.91183960140297335.5040.1684RS-7.5142802.5700140420505.21345.21193960140307148.1960.1641RS-7.5142802.5700140420492.31332.31203960140317082.8560.1626RS-7.5142802.5700140420487.81327.81213960140327034.940.1615RS-7.5142802.5700140420484.51324.51223960140336865.0560.1576RS-7.5142802.5700140420472.81312.81233960140346886.8360.1581RS-7.5142802.5700140420474.31314.31243960140357087.2120.1627RS-7.5142802.5700140420488.11328.11253960140367291.9440.1674RS-7.5142802.5700140420502.21342.21263960140377291.9440.1674RS-7.5142802.5700140420502.21342.21273960140387222.2480.1658RS-7.5142802.5700140420497.41337.41283960140397222.2480.1658RS-7.5142802.5700140420497.41337.41293960140407257.0960.1666RS-7.5142802.5700140420499.81339.81303960200148842.680.203RS-7.5142802.570014042060914491313960200159740.0160.2236RS-7.5142802.5700140420670.81510.813239602001610794.1680.2478RS-7.5142802.5700140420743.41583.41333960200179618.0480.2208RS-7.5142802.5700140420662.41502.41343960200189648.540.2215RS-7.5142802.5700140420664.51504.51353960200196747.4440.1549RS-7.5142802.5700140420464.71304.71363960200206512.220.1495RS-7.5142802.5700140420448.51288.51373960200217008.8040.1609RS-7.5142802.5700140420482.71322.71383960200226529.6440.1499RS-7.5142802.5700140420449.71289.71393960200237230.960.166RS-7.5142802.570014042049813381403960200107400.8440.1699RS-7.5142802.5700140420509.71349.71413960200117235.3160.1661RS-7.5142802.5700140420498.31338.31423960200127305.0120.1677RS-7.5142802.5700140420503.11343.11433960200137113.3480.1633RS-7.5142802.5700140420489.91329.91443960140077583.7960.1741RS-7.5142802.5700140420522.31362.31453960140087832.0880.1798RS-7.5142802.5700140420539.41379.41463960140097801.5960.1791RS-7.5142802.5700140420537.31377.31473960140107832.0880.1798RS-7.5142802.5700140420539.41379.41483960140117801.5960.1791RS-7.5142802.5700140420537.31377.31493960140127901.7840.1814RS-7.5142802.5700140420544.21384.215039601401310903.0680.2503RS-7.5142802.5700140420750.91590.91513960140149382.8240.2154RS-7.5142802.5700140420646.21486.21523960140159792.2880.2248RS-7.5142802.5700140420674.41514.41533960140168302.5360.1906RS-7.5142802.5700140420571.81411.815439601401713429.5480.3083RS-7.5142802.5700140420924.91764.91553960140187008.8040.1609RS-7.5142802.5700140420482.71322.71563960140196799.7160.1561RS-7.5142802.5700140420468.31308.31573960200246808.4280.1563RS-7.5142802.5700140420468.91308.9Initial Buildout WWTP flow3 OF 4
1583960200256934.7520.1592RS-7.5142802.5700140420477.61317.61593960200268790.4080.2018RS-7.5142802.5700140420605.41445.41603960200278903.6640.2044RS-7.5142802.5700140420613.21453.21613960200289056.1240.2079RS-7.5142802.5700140420623.71463.71623960200018306.8920.1907RS-7.5142802.5700140420572.11412.11633960200047845.1560.1801RS-7.5142802.5700140420540.31380.31643960200057784.1720.1787RS-7.5142802.5700140420536.11376.11653960200067792.8840.1789RS-7.5142802.5700140420536.71376.71663960200038084.7360.1856RS-7.5142802.5700140420556.81396.81673960140437291.9440.1674RS-7.5142802.5700140420502.21342.21683960140447318.080.168RS-7.5142802.5700140420504134416939601404510798.5240.2479RS-7.5142802.5700140420743.71583.717039601404610606.860.2435RS-7.5142802.5700140420730.51570.517139601404712763.080.293RS-7.5142802.570014042087917191723960140417322.4360.1681RS-7.5142802.5700140420504.31344.31733960140427291.9440.1674RS-7.5142802.5700140420502.21342.21743960200028015.040.184RS-7.5142802.570014042055213921753960200077701.4080.1768RS-7.5142802.5700140420530.41370.41763960200087487.9640.1719RS-7.5142802.5700140420515.71355.71773960200097548.9480.1733RS-7.5142802.5700140420519.91359.9Initial Buildout WWTP flow4 OF 4
Dwelling SchoolPahala WWTPWW per capita (gpd)7025Dry I/IWet I/IProject 150440Population Initial2007Above GWT (gpcd) / (gad)51250Population Full36992017 WWDS353000w/industrial @ 40capita/ac1 dwelling/RSQUANTITY OF WASTEWATER: Per CCH WWTP Stds 1993, chpt 20.per Vol 2:average ww flow rate during 24-hour period is the highest instantaneous wastewater flow rate during prolonged period of wet weather335 636 3,699 229,915 2.5 574,787 129,465 359,380 1,110,006 1,814,258 LOT COUNTnotesTMKArea (sqft)Acreage (Tax Acres)LUODwellingsCapitaAvg Flow (gpd)Max Flow FactorMax Flow (gpd)Dry I/I (gpd)Design Avg Flow (gpd)(avg WW flow + dry i/i)akaAverage dry weather flowWet I/I (gpd)Design Peak Flow (gpd)(max WW flow + dry i/I + wet i/i)akaPeak Wet weather flow1396002044 658670.7615.121A-1a002.500045363453632396002043 195845.764.496A-1a002.500013488134883396023035 90879.2282.0863A-1a002.50006258.96258.92.5000004396005054 972433.4422.324Multiple2.50006697266972*assumed 1 dweling486216.7211.162A-20a002.50003348633486486216.7211.162RS-10142802.570014042033486343262.5000005*assumed Neighborhood Business 40 Capita per acre396016033 23513.6880.5398CV-10-2215402.5385077023101619.46239.46396016037 17267.1840.3964CV-10-1611202.5280056016801189.24549.27396016038 14300.7480.3283CV-10-139102.522754551365984.93714.98396016032 32665.6440.7499CV-10-3021002.55250105031502249.78549.79396016003 30605.2560.7026CV-10-2819602.5490098029402107.87987.810396017006 10114.6320.2322CV-7.5-96302.51575315945696.62586.611396017007 9809.7120.2252CV-7.5-96302.51575315945675.62565.612396017008 9483.0120.2177CV-7.5-96302.51575315945653.12543.113396017009 9705.1680.2228CV-7.5-96302.51575315945668.42558.42.50000014396021032 8150.0760.1871ROAD02.5000561.3561.32.500000152.500000162.8capita/dwelling396017036 14779.9080.3393RM-1.5102819602.5490098029401017.96897.917396017037 62491.1761.4346RM-1.54211882602.5206504130123904303.829083.82.50000018396023019 11338.6680.2603RS-10142802.5700140420780.91620.919396023020 15272.1360.3506RS-10142802.57001404201051.81891.820396023021 11377.8720.2612RS-10142802.5700140420783.61623.621*Obtain Ka'u Hospital Patient and Staff Infoassume 25 beds , 212 396023043 250121.525.742RS-10*2560002.5150008756875172263310121231802.5795074201060001537022396021009 11721.9960.2691RS-10142802.5700140420807.31647.323396021011 16496.1720.3787RS-10142802.57001404201136.11976.124396021022 11282.040.259RS-10142802.57001404207771617Pahala WWTPFull Buildout FlowsAVERAGE DAILY PER LAND USE:Neighborhood Business: 40 capita per acreGeneral Industry 100 capita per acreSchool: 25 gal/capita/dayInstitution: 200 gal/capita/dayAVERAGE DAILY PER CAPITA FLOW:Average Daily Flow: 80 gal/day/capitaResidential SF occupancy: 4 capita/dwellingApartment MF occupancy: 2.8 capita/dwellingSmall and Decentralized WW Management Systems, Critespage 170, Commerical Areas of Unknown Use: 800 gal/acreTable 4-3, Hospital, bed : 240 gcd, employee: 15 gcdFull Flow WWTP flow1 OF 8
25396021023 11299.4640.2594RS-10142802.5700140420778.21618.226396023022 10005.7320.2297RS-10142802.5700140420689.11529.127396023023 10502.3160.2411RS-10142802.5700140420723.31563.328396023024 12148.8840.2789RS-10142802.5700140420836.71676.729396023025 12493.0080.2868RS-10142802.5700140420860.41700.430396023026 12418.9560.2851RS-10142802.5700140420855.31695.331396023027 13063.6440.2999RS-10142802.5700140420899.71739.732396023028 11112.1560.2551RS-10142802.5700140420765.31605.333396023029 11020.680.253RS-10142802.5700140420759159934396023030 10532.8080.2418RS-10142802.5700140420725.41565.435396023031 10532.8080.2418RS-10142802.5700140420725.41565.436396023032 15324.4080.3518RS-10142802.57001404201055.41895.437396021010 12645.4680.2903RS-10142802.5700140420870.91710.938*Can be subdivided in the future396023044 227339.645.219RS-10142802.5700140420156571649739396021030 10798.5240.2479RS-10142802.5700140420743.71583.741396023001 10384.7040.2384RS-10142802.5700140420715.21555.242396023002 10005.7320.2297RS-10142802.5700140420689.11529.143396023003 10005.7320.2297RS-10142802.5700140420689.11529.144396023004 10005.7320.2297RS-10142802.5700140420689.11529.145396023005 10005.7320.2297RS-10142802.5700140420689.11529.146396023006 10005.7320.2297RS-10142802.5700140420689.11529.147396021024 10389.060.2385RS-10142802.5700140420715.51555.548396021025 10389.060.2385RS-10142802.5700140420715.51555.549396021026 10389.060.2385RS-10142802.5700140420715.51555.550396021027 12824.0640.2944RS-10142802.5700140420883.21723.251396021028 10833.3720.2487RS-10142802.5700140420746.11586.152396021029 10798.5240.2479RS-10142802.5700140420743.71583.753396021012 11769.9120.2702RS-10142802.5700140420810.61650.654396021013 11251.5480.2583RS-10142802.5700140420774.91614.955396021014 11251.5480.2583RS-10142802.5700140420774.91614.956396021015 11251.5480.2583RS-10142802.5700140420774.91614.957396021016 11251.5480.2583RS-10142802.5700140420774.91614.958396021017 10328.0760.2371RS-10142802.5700140420711.31551.359396021018 10328.0760.2371RS-10142802.5700140420711.31551.360396021019 10328.0760.2371RS-10142802.5700140420711.31551.361396021020 10328.0760.2371RS-10142802.5700140420711.31551.362396021021 10341.1440.2374RS-10142802.5700140420712.21552.263396021002 12000.780.2755RS-10142802.5700140420826.51666.564396021003 12000.780.2755RS-10142802.5700140420826.51666.565396021004 12083.5440.2774RS-10142802.5700140420832.21672.266396021005 14387.8680.3303RS-10142802.5700140420990.91830.967396021006 12423.3120.2852RS-10142802.5700140420855.61695.668396021007 12519.1440.2874RS-10142802.5700140420862.21702.269396021008 11600.0280.2663RS-10142802.5700140420798.91638.970*Church396023045 100632.3122.3102RS-10142802.57001404206930.67770.671396023007 10001.3760.2296RS-10142802.5700140420688.81528.872396023008 10001.3760.2296RS-10142802.5700140420688.81528.873396023009 10328.0760.2371RS-10142802.5700140420711.31551.374396023010 10367.280.238RS-10142802.5700140420714155475396023011 10001.3760.2296RS-10142802.5700140420688.81528.876396023012 10001.3760.2296RS-10142802.5700140420688.81528.877396023013 10166.9040.2334RS-10142802.5700140420700.21540.278396023014 10206.1080.2343RS-10142802.5700140420702.91542.979396023015 10933.560.251RS-10142802.5700140420753159380396023016 11586.960.266RS-10142802.5700140420798163881396023017 13220.460.3035RS-10142802.5700140420910.51750.582396023018 10097.2080.2318RS-10142802.5700140420695.41535.42.50000083396023034 572779.15213.1492Multiple02.500039447.639447.6286389.5766.5746RS-10142802.570014042019723.820563.8286389.5766.5746A-1a002.500019723.819723.82.50000084396020035 12858.9120.2952RS-15142802.5700140420885.61725.685396020036 13320.6480.3058RS-15142802.5700140420917.41757.486396020037 10123.3440.2324RS-15142802.5700140420697.21537.287396020038 10123.3440.2324RS-15142802.5700140420697.21537.288396020039 10123.3440.2324RS-15142802.5700140420697.21537.289396020040 10123.3440.2324RS-15142802.5700140420697.21537.290396020041 10123.3440.2324RS-15142802.5700140420697.21537.291396020042 9905.5440.2274RS-15142802.5700140420682.21522.292396020043 13538.4480.3108RS-15142802.5700140420932.41772.4Full Flow WWTP flow2 OF 8
93396019012 11848.320.272RS-15142802.5700140420816165694396019013 11922.3720.2737RS-15142802.5700140420821.11661.195396019014 11970.2880.2748RS-15142802.5700140420824.41664.496396019015 12305.70.2825RS-15142802.5700140420847.51687.597396019016 12493.0080.2868RS-15142802.5700140420860.41700.498396019017 12519.1440.2874RS-15142802.5700140420862.21702.299396016005 20399.1480.4683RS-15142802.57001404201404.92244.9100396016006 17402.220.3995RS-15142802.57001404201198.52038.5101396016007 13477.4640.3094RS-15142802.5700140420928.21768.2102396016008 14644.8720.3362RS-15142802.57001404201008.61848.6103396016009 11613.0960.2666RS-15142802.5700140420799.81639.8104396016010 12357.9720.2837RS-15142802.5700140420851.11691.1105396019001 15912.4680.3653RS-15142802.57001404201095.91935.9106396019002 17484.9840.4014RS-15142802.57001404201204.22044.2107396019003 17698.4280.4063RS-15142802.57001404201218.92058.9108396019004 13359.8520.3067RS-15142802.5700140420920.11760.1109396019005 11190.5640.2569RS-15142802.5700140420770.71610.7110396019006 11190.5640.2569RS-15142802.5700140420770.71610.7111396020044 15672.8880.3598RS-15142802.57001404201079.41919.4112396020045 15141.4560.3476RS-15142802.57001404201042.81882.8113396020046 13294.5120.3052RS-15142802.5700140420915.61755.6114396020047 10271.4480.2358RS-15142802.5700140420707.41547.4115396020048 9983.9520.2292RS-15142802.5700140420687.61527.6116396020049 10497.960.241RS-15142802.57001404207231563117396019007 19780.5960.4541RS-15142802.57001404201362.32202.3118396019008 16605.0720.3812RS-15142802.57001404201143.61983.6119396019009 14653.5840.3364RS-15142802.57001404201009.21849.2120396019010 13150.7640.3019RS-15142802.5700140420905.71745.7121396019011 12501.720.287RS-15142802.57001404208611701122396016031 11752.4880.2698RS-15142802.5700140420809.41649.4123396020050 11356.0920.2607RS-15142802.5700140420782.11622.1124396020051 11486.7720.2637RS-15142802.5700140420791.11631.1125396016004 57412.081.318RS-15142802.570014042039544794126396023036 17302.0320.3972RS-15142802.57001404201191.62031.6127396023037 15002.0640.3444RS-15142802.57001404201033.21873.2128396023038 15002.0640.3444RS-15142802.57001404201033.21873.2129396023039 15002.0640.3444RS-15142802.57001404201033.21873.2130396023040 15002.0640.3444RS-15142802.57001404201033.21873.2131396023041 14740.7040.3384RS-15142802.57001404201015.21855.2132396023042 18138.3840.4164RS-15142802.57001404201249.22089.2133396019018 12532.2120.2877RS-15142802.5700140420863.11703.1134396019019 11251.5480.2583RS-15142802.5700140420774.91614.9135396019020 11251.5480.2583RS-15142802.5700140420774.91614.9136396019021 11251.5480.2583RS-15142802.5700140420774.91614.9137396019022 11308.1760.2596RS-15142802.5700140420778.81618.8138396016029 11774.2680.2703RS-15142802.5700140420810.91650.9139396016030 11721.9960.2691RS-15142802.5700140420807.31647.3140396016002 12614.9760.2896RS-15142802.5700140420868.81708.8141396020059 12928.6080.2968RS-15142802.5700140420890.41730.4142396020060 12532.2120.2877RS-15142802.5700140420863.11703.1143396020061 12135.8160.2786RS-15142802.5700140420835.81675.8144396016001 12445.0920.2857RS-15142802.5700140420857.11697.1145396016012 11268.9720.2587RS-15142802.5700140420776.11616.1146396016013 18508.6440.4249RS-15142802.57001404201274.72114.7147396016014 14932.3680.3428RS-15142802.57001404201028.41868.4148396016015 15559.6320.3572RS-15142802.57001404201071.61911.6149396016016 15681.60.36RS-15142802.570014042010801920150396020055 12026.9160.2761RS-15142802.5700140420828.31668.3151396016017 13381.6320.3072RS-15142802.5700140420921.61761.6152396016018 12161.9520.2792RS-15142802.5700140420837.61677.6153396016019 10402.1280.2388RS-15142802.5700140420716.41556.4154396016020 9866.340.2265RS-15142802.5700140420679.51519.5155396016022 11077.3080.2543RS-15142802.5700140420762.91602.9156396016028 13817.2320.3172RS-15142802.5700140420951.61791.6157396020062 11421.4320.2622RS-15142802.5700140420786.61626.6158396020063 11586.960.266RS-15142802.57001404207981638159396020064 10728.8280.2463RS-15142802.5700140420738.91578.9160396020065 10240.9560.2351RS-15142802.5700140420705.31545.3161396020066 10445.6880.2398RS-15142802.5700140420719.41559.4162396020052 11621.8080.2668RS-15142802.5700140420800.41640.4163396020053 11756.8440.2699RS-15142802.5700140420809.71649.7164396020054 11891.880.273RS-15142802.57001404208191659Full Flow WWTP flow3 OF 8
165396005059 1698.840.039RS-7.5142802.5700140420117957166396022031 9604.980.2205RS-7.5142802.5700140420661.51501.5167396018043 10680.9120.2452RS-7.5142802.5700140420735.61575.6168396018044 9740.0160.2236RS-7.5142802.5700140420670.81510.8169396022012 10232.2440.2349RS-7.5142802.5700140420704.71544.7170396022013 9522.2160.2186RS-7.5142802.5700140420655.81495.8171396018052 12070.4760.2771RS-7.5142802.5700140420831.31671.3172396018053 12484.2960.2866RS-7.5142802.5700140420859.81699.8173396018054 13098.4920.3007RS-7.5142802.5700140420902.11742.1174396018059 12292.6320.2822RS-7.5142802.5700140420846.61686.6175396018060 435.60.01RS-7.5142802.570014042030870176396022021 9600.6240.2204RS-7.5142802.5700140420661.21501.2177396022022 10053.6480.2308RS-7.5142802.5700140420692.41532.4178396022023 8877.5280.2038RS-7.5142802.5700140420611.41451.4179396018046 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8180396018047 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8181396018048 10315.0080.2368RS-7.5142802.5700140420710.41550.4182396018049 10615.5720.2437RS-7.5142802.5700140420731.11571.1183396022014 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8184396017040 9600.6240.2204RS-7.5142802.5700140420661.21501.2185396017041 9600.6240.2204RS-7.5142802.5700140420661.21501.2186396017042 9513.5040.2184RS-7.5142802.5700140420655.21495.2187396017043 9535.2840.2189RS-7.5142802.5700140420656.71496.7188396017044 9186.8040.2109RS-7.5142802.5700140420632.71472.7189396017045 19758.8160.4536RS-7.5142802.57001404201360.82200.8190396017046 10663.4880.2448RS-7.5142802.5700140420734.41574.4191396018009 32155.9920.7382RS-7.5142802.57001404202214.63054.6192396018011 10323.720.237RS-7.5142802.57001404207111551193396018012 9779.220.2245RS-7.5142802.5700140420673.51513.5194396018013 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8195396018014 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8196396018015 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8197396018016 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8198396018017 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8199396018018 10598.1480.2433RS-7.5142802.5700140420729.91569.9200396018019 11194.920.257RS-7.5142802.57001404207711611201396018020 11029.3920.2532RS-7.5142802.5700140420759.61599.6202396018021 10545.8760.2421RS-7.5142802.5700140420726.31566.3203396018022 10850.7960.2491RS-7.5142802.5700140420747.31587.3204396018023 11482.4160.2636RS-7.5142802.5700140420790.81630.8205396018024 10724.4720.2462RS-7.5142802.5700140420738.61578.6206396018025 10014.4440.2299RS-7.5142802.5700140420689.71529.7207396018026 10088.4960.2316RS-7.5142802.5700140420694.81534.8208396018027 11290.7520.2592RS-7.5142802.5700140420777.61617.6209396018030 9870.6960.2266RS-7.5142802.5700140420679.81519.8210396018031 11068.5960.2541RS-7.5142802.5700140420762.31602.3211396018032 12166.3080.2793RS-7.5142802.5700140420837.91677.9212396018033 9025.6320.2072RS-7.5142802.5700140420621.61461.6213396022045 10380.3480.2383RS-7.5142802.5700140420714.91554.9214396017031 13677.840.314RS-7.5142802.57001404209421782215396017032 14370.4440.3299RS-7.5142802.5700140420989.71829.7216396017026 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8217396017027 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8218396017028 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8219396017029 9726.9480.2233RS-7.5142802.5700140420669.91509.9220396017030 10550.2320.2422RS-7.5142802.5700140420726.61566.6221396022016 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8222396022017 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8223396022018 9600.6240.2204RS-7.5142802.5700140420661.21501.2224396022019 9600.6240.2204RS-7.5142802.5700140420661.21501.2225396022020 9600.6240.2204RS-7.5142802.5700140420661.21501.2226396022038 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8227396022039 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8228396018055 10829.0160.2486RS-7.5142802.5700140420745.81585.8229396018056 9622.4040.2209RS-7.5142802.5700140420662.71502.7230396018057 9718.2360.2231RS-7.5142802.5700140420669.31509.3231396018058 13229.1720.3037RS-7.5142802.5700140420911.11751.1232396022010 9021.2760.2071RS-7.5142802.5700140420621.31461.3233396022015 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8234396017033 9587.5560.2201RS-7.5142802.5700140420660.31500.3235396017034 9600.6240.2204RS-7.5142802.5700140420661.21501.2236396017035 12140.1720.2787RS-7.5142802.5700140420836.11676.1Full Flow WWTP flow4 OF 8
237396017039 10384.7040.2384RS-7.5142802.5700140420715.21555.2238396018034 9713.880.223RS-7.5142802.57001404206691509239396018035 9273.9240.2129RS-7.5142802.5700140420638.71478.7240396018036 9404.6040.2159RS-7.5142802.5700140420647.71487.7241396018037 11186.2080.2568RS-7.5142802.5700140420770.41610.4242396018038 12188.0880.2798RS-7.5142802.5700140420839.41679.4243396018039 12641.1120.2902RS-7.5142802.5700140420870.61710.6244396018040 12540.9240.2879RS-7.5142802.5700140420863.71703.7245396018041 12236.0040.2809RS-7.5142802.5700140420842.71682.7246396005058 50355.361.156RS-7.5142802.570014042034684308247396005046 37200.240.854RS-7.5142802.570014042025623402248396018042 11299.4640.2594RS-7.5142802.5700140420778.21618.2249396022011 9021.2760.2071RS-7.5142802.5700140420621.31461.3250396022030 9239.0760.2121RS-7.5142802.5700140420636.31476.3251396018045 9517.860.2185RS-7.5142802.5700140420655.51495.5252396022049 11726.3520.2692RS-7.5142802.5700140420807.61647.6253396022050 16422.120.377RS-7.5142802.570014042011311971254396022051 16504.8840.3789RS-7.5142802.57001404201136.71976.7255396022052 13943.5560.3201RS-7.5142802.5700140420960.31800.3256396022053 14035.0320.3222RS-7.5142802.5700140420966.61806.6257396022054 12188.0880.2798RS-7.5142802.5700140420839.41679.4258396022055 10323.720.237RS-7.5142802.57001404207111551259396022056 10423.9080.2393RS-7.5142802.5700140420717.91557.9260396022057 6912.9720.1587RS-7.5142802.5700140420476.11316.1261396022024 9239.0760.2121RS-7.5142802.5700140420636.31476.3262396022025 9239.0760.2121RS-7.5142802.5700140420636.31476.3263396022026 9239.0760.2121RS-7.5142802.5700140420636.31476.3264396022027 9239.0760.2121RS-7.5142802.5700140420636.31476.3265396022028 9239.0760.2121RS-7.5142802.5700140420636.31476.3266396022029 9239.0760.2121RS-7.5142802.5700140420636.31476.3267396022032 9426.3840.2164RS-7.5142802.5700140420649.21489.2268396022048 10432.620.2395RS-7.5142802.5700140420718.51558.5269396005045 134426.163.086RS-7.5142802.5700140420925810098270396022035 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8271396022036 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8272396022037 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8273396018050 12074.8320.2772RS-7.5142802.5700140420831.61671.6274396018051 11761.20.27RS-7.5142802.57001404208101650275396022040 9840.2040.2259RS-7.5142802.5700140420677.71517.7276396022041 9456.8760.2171RS-7.5142802.5700140420651.31491.3277396022042 12135.8160.2786RS-7.5142802.5700140420835.81675.8278396022043 11482.4160.2636RS-7.5142802.5700140420790.81630.8279396022044 9774.8640.2244RS-7.5142802.5700140420673.21513.2280396022046 13634.280.313RS-7.5142802.57001404209391779281396022047 12819.7080.2943RS-7.5142802.5700140420882.91722.9282396022033 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8283396022034 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8284396017010 11983.3560.2751RS-7.5142802.5700140420825.31665.3285396017011 11730.7080.2693RS-7.5142802.5700140420807.91647.9286396017012 11125.2240.2554RS-7.5142802.5700140420766.21606.2287396017019 12270.8520.2817RS-7.5142802.5700140420845.11685.1288396017020 13385.9880.3073RS-7.5142802.5700140420921.91761.9289396017021 15537.8520.3567RS-7.5142802.57001404201070.11910.1290396017022 21740.7960.4991RS-7.5142802.57001404201497.32337.3291396017023 19031.3640.4369RS-7.5142802.57001404201310.72150.7292396017024 13011.3720.2987RS-7.5142802.5700140420896.11736.1293396017025 9901.1880.2273RS-7.5142802.5700140420681.91521.9294396022001 10598.1480.2433RS-7.5142802.5700140420729.91569.9295396022002 12667.2480.2908RS-7.5142802.5700140420872.41712.4296396022003 10023.1560.2301RS-7.5142802.5700140420690.31530.3297396022004 10606.860.2435RS-7.5142802.5700140420730.51570.5298396022005 9374.1120.2152RS-7.5142802.5700140420645.61485.6299396022006 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8300396022007 8999.4960.2066RS-7.5142802.5700140420619.81459.8301396022008 9021.2760.2071RS-7.5142802.5700140420621.31461.3302396022009 9021.2760.2071RS-7.5142802.5700140420621.31461.3303396017013 10450.0440.2399RS-7.5142802.5700140420719.71559.7304396017014 10097.2080.2318RS-7.5142802.5700140420695.41535.4305396017015 10066.7160.2311RS-7.5142802.5700140420693.31533.3306396017016 10358.5680.2378RS-7.5142802.5700140420713.41553.4307396017017 10972.7640.2519RS-7.5142802.5700140420755.71595.7308396017018 12693.3840.2914RS-7.5142802.5700140420874.21714.2Full Flow WWTP flow5 OF 8
309396022058 1224.0360.0281RS-7.5142802.570014042084.3924.3310*assumed Neighborhood Business 40 Capita per acre396016034 41395.0680.9503 CV-10-3826602.56650133039902850.910830.93110396016035 7657.8480.1758 CV-10-74902.51225245735527.41997.43120396017001 16339.3560.3751 CV-7.5-1510502.5262552515751125.34275.33130396015034 5140.080.118 ML-20-194.42.523635129.43546253140396005049 2888.0280.0663 ML-20-153.042.5132.63588.04198.9366.53150396015032 44953.921.032 ML-20-10825.62.520643501175.630965510316000000002.500000317Google earth image: lot looks semi developed with possible farm facility.396005036 110424625.35 ----2.5-----00 55212312.675 ML-200127101402.5253504445145853802567820*assumed 1 dwelling per lot0 441698.410.14 RS-10142802.57001404203042031260318*used RS-10 assumptions, since open defined by adjacent land use0 110424.62.535 Open142802.5700140420760584450396002024 17859.60.41 MG-1a043282.582014046812302190319*assumed apartment 2.8 per dwelling396017002 88078.322.022 RM-1.559165115502.5288755775173256066407163200396017003 22899.4920.5257 RM-1.5154229402.57350147044101577.110397.13210396017038 26806.8240.6154 RM-1.5185035002.58750175052501846.212346.2000000002.5000003220396005044 21505.5720.4937 ROAD---2.5000000002.5000003230396021031 12736.9440.2924 RS-10142802.5700140420877.21717.23240396015033 58021.921.332 RS-10142802.5700140420399648363250396014069 11961.5760.2746 RS-10142802.5700140420823.81663.83260396014070 13290.1560.3051 RS-10142802.5700140420915.31755.33270396014071 15002.0640.3444 RS-10142802.57001404201033.21873.23280396014072 16452.6120.3777 RS-10142802.57001404201133.11973.13290396021001 13629.9240.3129 RS-10142802.5700140420938.71778.73300396020031 13673.4840.3139 RS-15142802.5700140420941.71781.73310396020032 13381.6320.3072 RS-15142802.5700140420921.61761.63320396014053 14440.140.3315 RS-15142802.5700140420994.51834.53330396014054 14440.140.3315 RS-15142802.5700140420994.51834.53340396014055 14440.140.3315 RS-15142802.5700140420994.51834.53350396014056 13128.9840.3014 RS-15142802.5700140420904.21744.23360396014057 12462.5160.2861 RS-15142802.5700140420858.31698.33370396014058 16896.9240.3879 RS-15142802.57001404201163.72003.73380396014059 12000.780.2755 RS-15142802.5700140420826.51666.53390396014060 12000.780.2755 RS-15142802.5700140420826.51666.53400396014061 10497.960.241 RS-15142802.570014042072315633410396014062 10497.960.241 RS-15142802.570014042072315633420396014063 10497.960.241 RS-15142802.570014042072315633430396014064 10497.960.241 RS-15142802.570014042072315633440396014065 10497.960.241 RS-15142802.570014042072315633450396020033 9822.780.2255 RS-15142802.5700140420676.51516.53460396020034 11007.6120.2527 RS-15142802.5700140420758.11598.13470396016036 174240.4 RS-15142802.5700140420120020403480396016039 13142.0520.3017 RS-15142802.5700140420905.11745.13490396016040 28775.7360.6606 RS-15142802.57001404201981.82821.83500396016041 27264.2040.6259 RS-15142802.57001404201877.72717.73510396016042 27887.1120.6402 RS-15142802.57001404201920.62760.63520396016043 18700.3080.4293 RS-15142802.57001404201287.92127.93530396016044 18526.0680.4253 RS-15142802.57001404201275.92115.93540396016045 15672.8880.3598 RS-15142802.57001404201079.41919.43550396016046 10990.1880.2523 RS-15142802.5700140420756.91596.93560396015018 11412.720.262 RS-15142802.570014042078616263570396015019 8738.1360.2006 RS-15142802.5700140420601.81441.83580396015020 14170.0680.3253 RS-15142802.5700140420975.91815.93590396015021 15437.6640.3544 RS-15142802.57001404201063.21903.23600396015022 12540.9240.2879 RS-15142802.5700140420863.71703.73610396016011 32683.0680.7503 RS-15142802.57001404202250.93090.93620396015011 9740.0160.2236 RS-15142802.5700140420670.81510.83630396015012 9835.8480.2258 RS-15142802.5700140420677.41517.43640396015013 7984.5480.1833 RS-15142802.5700140420549.91389.93650396015014 9543.9960.2191 RS-15142802.5700140420657.31497.33660396015015 9892.4760.2271 RS-15142802.5700140420681.31521.33670396015016 9892.4760.2271 RS-15142802.5700140420681.31521.3Initial FlowFull Flow WWTP flow6 OF 8
3680396015009 27943.740.6415 RS-15142802.57001404201924.52764.53690396015005 12066.120.277 RS-15142802.570014042083116713700396015006 15089.1840.3464 RS-15142802.57001404201039.21879.23710396015007 7239.6720.1662 RS-15142802.5700140420498.61338.63720396015008 24685.4520.5667 RS-15142802.57001404201700.12540.13730396020058 14936.7240.3429 RS-15142802.57001404201028.71868.73740396015017 12802.2840.2939 RS-15142802.5700140420881.71721.73750396020030 10419.5520.2392 RS-15142802.5700140420717.61557.63760396015003 130680.3 RS-15142802.570014042090017403770396015004 11173.140.2565 RS-15142802.5700140420769.51609.53780396020056 12806.640.294 RS-15142802.570014042088217223790396020057 10737.540.2465 RS-15142802.5700140420739.51579.53800396016023 14971.5720.3437 RS-15142802.57001404201031.11871.13810396016024 16565.8680.3803 RS-15142802.57001404201140.91980.93820396016025 15341.8320.3522 RS-15142802.57001404201056.61896.63830396016026 19946.1240.4579 RS-15142802.57001404201373.72213.73840396016027 16404.6960.3766 RS-15142802.57001404201129.81969.83850396002056 149018.763.421 RS-15142802.57001404201026311103000000002.5000003860396002016 2906279.6466.719 Multiple00 -2.5-----00 72656.9911.667975 RS-10142802.57001404205003.9255843.92500 72656.9911.667975 RS-15142802.57001404205003.9255843.925**assume Ag utilizes IWS. No connection to municipal sewer0 1307825.83830.02355 A-1a30002.500090070.6590070.6500 145313.9823.33595 A-20a3002.500010007.8510007.8500 1307825.83830.02355 MG-1a-30024018.842.560047.11050034518.8490070.65160617.75000000002.5000003870396015023 14143.9320.3247 RS-15142802.5700140420974.11814.13880396015024 10641.7080.2443 RS-15142802.5700140420732.91572.93890396015025 16679.1240.3829 RS-15142802.57001404201148.71988.73900396015026 15180.660.3485 RS-15142802.57001404201045.51885.53910396015027 12802.2840.2939 RS-15142802.5700140420881.71721.73920396015028 12283.920.282 RS-15142802.570014042084616863930396015029 13886.9280.3188 RS-15142802.5700140420956.41796.43940396015030 11804.760.271 RS-15142802.570014042081316533950396015031 12236.0040.2809 RS-15142802.5700140420842.71682.73960396014066 10497.960.241 RS-15142802.570014042072315633970396014067 12754.3680.2928 RS-15142802.5700140420878.41718.43980396015001 10619.9280.2438 RS-15142802.5700140420731.41571.43990396015002 9888.120.227 RS-15142802.570014042068115214000396015010 11800.4040.2709 RS-15142802.5700140420812.71652.74010396014048 12462.5160.2861 RS-15142802.5700140420858.31698.34020396014049 13128.9840.3014 RS-15142802.5700140420904.21744.24030396014050 14440.140.3315 RS-15142802.5700140420994.51834.54040396014051 14440.140.3315 RS-15142802.5700140420994.51834.54050396014052 13385.9880.3073 RS-15142802.5700140420921.91761.9000000002.500000406*used School Assumptions based on CH2MHill (502 students and 77 staff)396005008 1172896.5626.926 RS-151579144752.536187.5202653474080778137230.5407*Park/ball field next to Ka'u School; assume its contribution is accounted for in school, since calculations provided annotate both TMKs396005039 280613.526.442 RS-100002.50001932619326000000002.5000004080396014020 6930.3960.1591 RS-7.5142802.5700140420477.31317.34090396014021 7187.40.165 RS-7.5142802.570014042049513354100396014022 7204.8240.1654 RS-7.5142802.5700140420496.21336.24110396014023 7196.1120.1652 RS-7.5142802.5700140420495.61335.64120396014024 7082.8560.1626 RS-7.5142802.5700140420487.81327.84130396014025 7287.5880.1673 RS-7.5142802.5700140420501.91341.94140396014026 7169.9760.1646 RS-7.5142802.5700140420493.81333.84150396014002 7540.2360.1731 RS-7.5142802.5700140420519.31359.34160396014003 7758.0360.1781 RS-7.5142802.5700140420534.31374.34170396014004 7832.0880.1798 RS-7.5142802.5700140420539.41379.44180396014005 7683.9840.1764 RS-7.5142802.5700140420529.21369.24190396014006 7727.5440.1774 RS-7.5142802.5700140420532.21372.24200396018001 13303.2240.3054 RS-7.5142802.5700140420916.21756.24210396018002 11356.0920.2607 RS-7.5142802.5700140420782.11622.14220396018003 11996.4240.2754 RS-7.5142802.5700140420826.21666.24230396018004 10785.4560.2476 RS-7.5142802.5700140420742.81582.8Full Flow WWTP flow7 OF 8
4240396018028 14244.120.327 RS-7.5142802.570014042098118214250396018029 12519.1440.2874 RS-7.5142802.5700140420862.21702.24260396014001 7466.1840.1714 RS-7.5142802.5700140420514.21354.24270396014027 7161.2640.1644 RS-7.5142802.5700140420493.21333.24280396014028 7287.5880.1673 RS-7.5142802.5700140420501.91341.94290396014029 7335.5040.1684 RS-7.5142802.5700140420505.21345.24300396014030 7148.1960.1641 RS-7.5142802.5700140420492.31332.34310396014031 7082.8560.1626 RS-7.5142802.5700140420487.81327.84320396014032 7034.940.1615 RS-7.5142802.5700140420484.51324.54330396014033 6865.0560.1576 RS-7.5142802.5700140420472.81312.84340396014034 6886.8360.1581 RS-7.5142802.5700140420474.31314.34350396014035 7087.2120.1627 RS-7.5142802.5700140420488.11328.14360396014036 7291.9440.1674 RS-7.5142802.5700140420502.21342.24370396014037 7291.9440.1674 RS-7.5142802.5700140420502.21342.24380396014038 7222.2480.1658 RS-7.5142802.5700140420497.41337.44390396014039 7222.2480.1658 RS-7.5142802.5700140420497.41337.44400396014040 7257.0960.1666 RS-7.5142802.5700140420499.81339.84410396020014 8842.680.203 RS-7.5142802.570014042060914494420396020015 9740.0160.2236 RS-7.5142802.5700140420670.81510.84430396020016 10794.1680.2478 RS-7.5142802.5700140420743.41583.44440396020017 9618.0480.2208 RS-7.5142802.5700140420662.41502.44450396020018 9648.540.2215 RS-7.5142802.5700140420664.51504.54460396020019 6747.4440.1549 RS-7.5142802.5700140420464.71304.74470396020020 6512.220.1495 RS-7.5142802.5700140420448.51288.54480396020021 7008.8040.1609 RS-7.5142802.5700140420482.71322.74490396020022 6529.6440.1499 RS-7.5142802.5700140420449.71289.74500396020023 7230.960.166 RS-7.5142802.570014042049813384510396020010 7400.8440.1699 RS-7.5142802.5700140420509.71349.74520396020011 7235.3160.1661 RS-7.5142802.5700140420498.31338.34530396020012 7305.0120.1677 RS-7.5142802.5700140420503.11343.14540396020013 7113.3480.1633 RS-7.5142802.5700140420489.91329.94550396014007 7583.7960.1741 RS-7.5142802.5700140420522.31362.34560396014008 7832.0880.1798 RS-7.5142802.5700140420539.41379.44570396014009 7801.5960.1791 RS-7.5142802.5700140420537.31377.34580396014010 7832.0880.1798 RS-7.5142802.5700140420539.41379.44590396014011 7801.5960.1791 RS-7.5142802.5700140420537.31377.34600396014012 7901.7840.1814 RS-7.5142802.5700140420544.21384.24610396014013 10903.0680.2503 RS-7.5142802.5700140420750.91590.94620396014014 9382.8240.2154 RS-7.5142802.5700140420646.21486.24630396014015 9792.2880.2248 RS-7.5142802.5700140420674.41514.44640396014016 8302.5360.1906 RS-7.5142802.5700140420571.81411.84650396014017 13429.5480.3083 RS-7.5142802.5700140420924.91764.94660396014018 7008.8040.1609 RS-7.5142802.5700140420482.71322.74670396014019 6799.7160.1561 RS-7.5142802.5700140420468.31308.34680396020024 6808.4280.1563 RS-7.5142802.5700140420468.91308.94690396020025 6934.7520.1592 RS-7.5142802.5700140420477.61317.64700396020026 8790.4080.2018 RS-7.5142802.5700140420605.41445.44710396020027 8903.6640.2044 RS-7.5142802.5700140420613.21453.24720396020028 9056.1240.2079 RS-7.5142802.5700140420623.71463.74730396020001 8306.8920.1907 RS-7.5142802.5700140420572.11412.14740396020004 7845.1560.1801 RS-7.5142802.5700140420540.31380.34750396020005 7784.1720.1787 RS-7.5142802.5700140420536.11376.14760396020006 7792.8840.1789 RS-7.5142802.5700140420536.71376.74770396020003 8084.7360.1856 RS-7.5142802.5700140420556.81396.84780396014043 7291.9440.1674 RS-7.5142802.5700140420502.21342.24790396014044 7318.080.168 RS-7.5142802.570014042050413444800396014045 10798.5240.2479 RS-7.5142802.5700140420743.71583.74810396014046 10606.860.2435 RS-7.5142802.5700140420730.51570.54820396014047 12763.080.293 RS-7.5142802.570014042087917194830396014041 7322.4360.1681 RS-7.5142802.5700140420504.31344.34840396014042 7291.9440.1674 RS-7.5142802.5700140420502.21342.24850396020002 8015.040.184 RS-7.5142802.570014042055213924860396020007 7701.4080.1768 RS-7.5142802.5700140420530.41370.44870396020008 7487.9640.1719 RS-7.5142802.5700140420515.71355.74880396020009 7548.9480.1733 RS-7.5142802.5700140420519.91359.9Full Flow WWTP flow8 OF 8
AECOS
Biologicalsurveyfor theP halaCommunity
LargeCapacity Cesspool Closure Project on lot
TMK:9 6 002:018,Ka‘District,Hawai iIsland
AECOS,
AECOS
Biologicalsurveyfor theP halaCommunity
LargeCapacity Cesspool Closure Project on lot
TMK:9 6 002:018,Ka‘District,Hawai iIsland
Draft AECOS
Macadamia integrifolia
AECOS
AECOS
Megathyrsus maximus
Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai‘i
Hawai‘i’s Ferns and Fern Allies
A Tropical Garden Flora
AECOS
AOU Check List of North American Birds
Lasiurus cinereus
semotus ‘pe‘ape‘a
Synedrella
nodiflora
Grevelia
robustaMelaleuca quinquenervia
AECOS
‘uhaloa Waltheria indica
koali ‘awa Ipomoeaindica
Nephrolepismultiflora
Pityrogrammacalomelanos
Araucariacolumnaris
Amaranthusspinosus
Carissamacrocarpa
Neriumoleander
Scheffleraactinophylla
Ageratumconyzoides mailehohono
AECOS
Bidenspilosa ki
Calyptocarpusvialis
Conyzabonariensis
Crassocephalumcrepidioides
Cyanthilliumcinereum
Lactucaserriola
Synedrella nodiflora
Anrederacordifolia
Lepidiumvirginicum
Cleome gynandra
Ipomoeaindica koali‘awa Ind
Ipomoeaobscura
Merremiatuberosa
Momordica charantia
Euphorbia heterophylla kaliko
Euphorbia hirta
Ricinuscommunis
Acaciaconfusa koa
Leucaenaleucocephala koahaole
Macroptiliumatropurpureum
Neonotonia wightii
Leonotisnepetifolia
Abutilongrandifolium
Malvastrumcoromandelianum
Sidarhombifolia
AECOS
Sidaspinosa
Waltheriaindica ‘uhaloa Ind
Ficusmicrocarpa
Melaleucaquinquenervia
Syzygiumcumini
Rivinahumilis
Grevillea robusta
Macadamiaintegrifolia
Spermacoceassurgens
Commelina benghalensis honohono
Cyperusgracilis
Axonopuscompressus
Cenchruspurpureus
Chlorisbarbata
Digiteria sp.
Eleusine indica
Megathyrsusmaximus
Setariaverticillata
Ind
AECOS
Cardinalis cardinalis
Zosterops japonicus Ceithagra mozambica
Leiothrix lutea
ST RA
AECOS
ST RA
ST
RA
Susscrofa
AECOS
‘uhaloakoali ‘awa
Justicia betonica
Araucaria columnaris
Pterodroma sandwichensis Puffinus newelli
AECOS
e
Mus musculus domesticus Rattus rattus
Rattus norvegicus Rattus exulans hawaiiensis
AECOS
Evolution,Ecology,Conservation,and Management of Hawaiian Birds:A
Vanishing Avifauna.Studies in Avian Biology No.22
Check list of North American Birds
Check listofNorth American Birds TheAuk
AECOS
.The Auk,
The
Auk,
TheAuk,
TheAuk,
TheAuk
TheAuk
TheAuk
TheAuk
TheAuk
TheAuk
AECOS
TheAuk
TheAuk
The Auk,Ornithological
Advances
TheAuk,Ornithological Advances
The Auk,
OrnithologicalAdvances
The Auk,Ornithological Advances
The Auk,
OrnithologicalAdvances
ColonialWaterbirds
Colonial
Waterbirds
AECOS
Puffinus auricularis newelli The Auk,
Elepaio
in:
Evolution,Ecology,Conservation,and
Management of Hawaiian Birds:A Vanishing Avifauna
Bishop MuseumTech.Rept
Hawai`i’s Ferns and Fern Allies
AECOS
ColonialWaterbirds
The Auk
Pterodroma
phaeopygia In:
A Tropical Garden Flora.Plants Cultivated
in the Hawaiian Islands and other Tropical Places.
‘Elepaio
WildlifeSoc.Bull
.
AECOS
Manual of the Flowering
Plants of Hawai‘i:Volume I and II
Supplement to the Manual of the flowering plants of
Hawai‘i In:
Subject:Phala Large Capacity Cesspool (LCC)Replacement Project;P hala,Ka‘
District,Hawai‘i (01EPIF00 2018 TA 0275)–Request for Concurrence
not likely to adversely affect
Lasiurus cinereus semotus Buteo solitariusBranta
sandvicensis Pterodroma sandwichensis
Oceanodroma castro Puffinus newelli Himantopus
mexicanus knudseni Fulica alai
Araucaria columnaris
Monachus schauinslandi
Seabirds
Potential impacts to Hawaiian Petrel, Band-rumped Storm-Petrel, and Newell's Shearwater from the construction and operation of the project include potential adverse effects resulting from nighttime lighting at the facility. Outdoor, nighttime lighting during construction and operation of the facility could result in seabird disorientation, fallout, and injury or mortality.
To avoid adverse impacts to seabirds during the construction period, the construction contract will include a blanket statement prohibiting construction activities after dark. To avoid impacts to seabirds during the operation of the facility, the proposed facility includes use of a down-shielded light exterior fixture mounted below the roof overhang. The light fixture near the headworks will also be down-shielded. The exterior lights will be used at night only in the event of an emergency that requires an immediate response. All fixtures will meet requirements for outdoor lighting as set forth in Hawai'i Code Chapter 14 (General Welfare).
Summary
The FWS has identified eight federally-listed threatened and endangered species which have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project area. The impact avoidance and minimization measures described above have been specifically developed for the project in consultation with FWS. EPA has reviewed and concurred with the analysis conducted and proposed measures. Therefore, on behalf of EPA and the County, we respectfully request concurrence from the FWS that the project is not likely to adversely affect the eight federally-listed threatened and endangered species which have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project area.
We greatly appreciate your input during this consultation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (703) 615-4371 or by email at patrick.goodwin@erg.com.
Sincerely,
Patrick Goodwin Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
5 of 5 December 21, 2018
Figure 1 – Project Location Map
Figure 1. Project Location Map (Site 7)
Figure 2. Preliminary Site Plan for New Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Facility at Site 7
Pre-consultation Letter to FWS, March 15, 2018
WILSON OKAMOTO CORP ORATIO N
INNOVATORS• PLANNERS• ENGINEERS
10349-01 March 15, 2018
Ms. Mary Abrams, Field Supervisor U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Ala Moana Boulevard Room 3-122, Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850
Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment, Pre-Assessment Consultation; Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement Pa'au'au, Ka'u, Hawai'i Request for Comment
Dear Ms. Abrams:
Wilson Okamoto Corporation is preparing a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the County ofHawai'i Department of Environmental Management Piihala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement, Pii'au'au, Ka'u, Hawai'i project. The Piihala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement project will be funded by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Special Appropriation Grant and by the State of Hawaii Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program. A project summary sheet and location map are enclosed for your information.
As part of the Draft EA pre-assessment consultation process, we are soliciting comments you may have on the proposed Piihala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement project. Please submit your comments to:
Wilson Okamoto Corporation 1907 South Beretania Street, Suite 400 Honolulu, Hawaii 96826 Attn: Earl Matsukawa, AICP
We would appreciate your comments by April 16, 2018. If you have any questions, please call me at 808.946.2277 or fax to 808.946.2253.
Enclosures cc: D.Beck, DEM (w/o encl.)K. Rao, EPA (w/o encl.)C.Lekven, PE, BC (w/o encl.)
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 • Honolulu, Hawaii • 96826 • (808) 946-2277
PROJECT SUMMARY
Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Closure
Pa'au'au, Ka'u, Island of Hawai'i
1.Introduction
Tax Map Key: 9-6-002:018
The community of Pahala is located about 52 miles southeast of Hilo, in the Ka'u District, Island of
Hawai'i. Pahala is located west (mauka) of Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 11) about 3.8 miles
from the shoreline with most of the community lying between 980 feet mean sea level (msl) on the
western end and approximately BOO feet msl on the eastern end. See Figure 1. The Pahala
community had its start in 1876 with establishment of the Hawaiian Agricultural Company to develop
the sugar industry in Hawai'i. For the next 120 years or so, Pahala was a major sugar producing area.
However, by the early 1990s there was a major downturn in the sugar market. Thus, beginning in
1994, the sugar mill in the town was shut down and dismantled. By 1996, the Ka'u Sugar Company,
the successor to the Hawaiian Agricultural Company, closed and, subsequently, the sugar cane fields
were cleared and the lands now grow macadamia nut and coffee trees. The population in Pahala was
approximately 1,405 persons in 2016, the most current estimate.
Founded in 1826, C. Brewer was both the oldest company in Hawai'i and a major developer of the
sugar industry in Paha la. For about the last 60 years, approximately 50 percent of the residential
units in Pahala have been serviced by a wastewater collection and disposal system constructed,
operated and maintained by C. Brewer. The collection system consisted of sewer lines, some of
which were located in the streets and others routed in the backyards of private parcels. The disposal
system consisted of two large capacity cesspools (LCCs) within the community.
In 1998, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations (40 CFR 144.14) requiring
the elimination or closure of all large capacity cesspools used for wastewater disposal by April 5,
2005. In 2003, C. Brewer requested assistance from the County to close their LCCs. Subsequently,
the County held a community meeting to present sewer system replacement alternatives. Voting took
place by mail to choose the preferred sewer improvement alternative, resulting in 87 percent of
returned ballots in favor of installing a new sewer collection, treatment and disposal system to be
operated and maintained by the County.
In 2006, in anticipation of its dissolution, C. Brewer requested the County construct and maintain a
new community sewer system. The County subsequently agreed by way of a County Council
Resolution, to enter into a formal agreement to assume ownership of the C. Brewer constructed
collection system and the two LCCs by April 30, 2010 and to construct and maintain a new community
sewer system. As part of the County's agreement, C. Brewer agreed to install laterals to certain of the
residential properties.
In 2007, the County proposed a new collection system and a wastewater treatment system, consisting
of large capacity septic tanks and converting the existing LCCs into seepage pits for disposal of the
treated effluent. In 2008, the combination of the LCCs being in poor and failing condition and the poor
results from soil percolation tests influenced the County to consider acquiring a larger land area to
construct a secondary treatment system. Such a system could allow a higher level of wastewater
treatment and disposal, as well as accommodate existing Pahala properties not currently served by
the LCC system in addition to expanding the system to accommodate possible community growth.
2.Project Description
The County of Hawai'i. Department of Environmental Management (DEM) is proposing to construct
wastewater system improvements to replace the current system servicing Pahala, now owned by the
County. The wastewater system improvements would allow the County to comply with EPA
PROJECT SUMMARY
Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Closure
Pa'au'au, Ka'u, Island of Hawal'i
Tax Map Key: 9-6-002:018
regulations requiring closure of the LCCs and to construct a system meeting current State of Hawai'i
Department of Health (DOH) and DEM design guidelines for the collection, treatment and disposal of
the treated effluent. The Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Closure project improvements
would consist of a new wastewater collection system located within the public right-of-way and a
treatment and disposal system located on a currently privately-owned parcel (TMK: 9-6-002: 018)
which will be acquired by the County. The Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Closure
project would be funded by an EPA Special Appropriation Grant and by the State of Hawai'i Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program.
The wastewater collection system would be located within 7 public streets; Maile Street; 'llima Street;
Huapala Street; HTnano Street; Hala Street; all located in the southern portion of the community and
Puahala Street; and PTkake Street located on the eastern end. These streets serve the residential
areas and have two travel lanes with unpaved shoulders and no improved sidewalks. The collection
system would consist of approximately 11,000 linear feet of gravity flow piping ranging from 8 to 12
inches in diameter. The collection system is not anticipated to include pump stations, nor will the
system collect stormwater runoff. The number of manholes in the system will be determined during
the detail design phase. The County's sewer standards show the trenches for sewer lines would
require at least 4 feet of cover from the top of the pipe to grade and 12 inches of cushion material on
both sides of the line and 6 inches below the line. Therefore, the typical sewer trenches will be 3 feet
wide and at least 6 feet deep.
The treatment and disposal system would be a land-based system located southeast of the developed
community and would be designed to treat flows of approximately 190,000 gallons per day. The EPA
defines land treatment as "the application of appropriately pre-treated municipal and industrial
wastewater to the land at a controlled rate in a designed and engineered setting. The purpose of
the activity is to obtain beneficial use of these materials, to improve environmental quality, and to
achieve treatment goals in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner".
The proposed treatment and disposal system would occupy about 14 acres and consist of a
headworks with screens to remove debris and an odor control unit, four lined aerated lagoons of
about 0.3 acres each, an operations building with adjacent disinfection system to remove pathogens,
a subsurface flow constructed polishing wetland to remove nitrogen and four slow rate (SR) land
treatment basins which will be surrounded by berms on all four sides. SR land treatment involves
irrigation of land and vegetation with the treated effluent. Significant additional treatment is
provided as the water percolates through the soil. The vegetation uptakes the nutrients in the
effluent as fertilizer, and transpires a portion of the applied water. A security fence will be
constructed along the perimeter of the site.
3.Anticipated Impacts
Project impacts would be primarily related to construction of the trenches for placement of the
collection system lines and construction of the land-based treatment and disposal system. These
activities would create dust and noise while work occurs in the streets and in the area of the land
treatment and disposal system, which will include removal of existing macadamia nut trees within the
14 acre project site. As the collection system is constructed, the streets will be restored for vehicle
travel. Upon completion of the treatment and disposal facilities, the project will operate without the
need for DEM employees to be on-site. Weekly monitoring visits will be sufficient to insure routine
proper operation, and a telemetry system will alert DEM employees of abnormal conditions to allow
timely response when they occur.
Island of Hawaii
Legend
Collection System
Disposal and Treatment Site
FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
PAHALA COMMUNITY LARGE CAPACITY CESSPOOL CLOSURE PROJECTCOUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGMENT
1 inch = 2,000 feet.
¯
0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
0 500250Meters Mam alah oa Hig hway
ProjectLocation
CollectionSystem
Disposal andTreatment Site
Hilo
Pahala
Kailua-Kona
HonokaaWaiaka Source:State OP &ESR I
Pre-consultation Comments from FWS, April 23, 2018
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, Hawaii 96850
In Reply Refer To:
01EPIF00-2018-TA-0275 April 23, 2018
Mr. Earl Matsukawa, AICP Project Manager Wilson Okamoto Corporation 1907 South Beretania Street, Suite 400
Honolulu, HI 96826
Subject: Comments for the Draft Environmental Assessment for the County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement, Paauau, Kau, Island and County of Hawaii
Dear Mr. Matsukawa: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received your correspondence on April 9, 2018, requesting technical assistance in the preparation for the Draft Environmental Assessment for the
County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool (LCC) Replacement in Paauau, Kau, (TMK: 9-6-002: 018). The Service offers the following comments to assist you in your planning process so that impacts to trust resources can be avoided through site preparation, construction, and operation. Our comments are provided under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16
U.S.C 1531 et seq.). The County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management (DEM) is proposing to construct wastewater system improvements to replace the current system servicing Pahala, now owned by the County. The wastewater system improvements would allow the County to comply
with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations requiring closure of the LCC’s and to construct a system meeting current State of Hawaii Department of Health and DEM design guidelines for the collection, treatment, and disposal of the treated effluent. The Pahala Community LCC closure project improvements would consists of a new wastewater collection system located within the public right-of-way and a treatment and disposal system located on a
currently privately-owned parcel which would be acquired by the County. The Pahala LCC closure project would be funded by the EPA Special Appropriation Grant and by the State of Hawaii Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program. Based on information you provided and pertinent information in our files, including data
compiled by the Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping Project, eight (8) listed species that have the potential to either be in or fly through the vicinity of the project area: The federally endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius), Nene
Mr. Earl Matsukawa 2
Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis)), Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), Band-rumped storm-petrel (Oceanodroma castro), the threatened Newell’s shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli), Hawaiian stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), and the Hawaiian coot, (Fulica alai).
Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Hawaiian hoary bat The Hawaiian hoary bat roosts in both exotic and native woody vegetation across all islands and will leave young unattended in trees and shrubs when they forage. If trees or shrubs 15 feet or
taller are cleared during the pupping season, there is a risk that young bats could inadvertently be
harmed or killed since they are too young to fly or may not move away. Additionally, Hawaiian hoary bats forage for insects from as low as three feet to higher than 500 feet above the ground and can become entangled in barbed wire used for fencing.
To avoid and minimize impacts to the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat we recommend
incorporating the following applicable measures into your project description:
Do not disturb, remove, or trim woody plants greater than 15 feet tall during the bat
birthing and pup rearing season (June 1 through September 15).
Do not use barbed wire for fencing. Hawaiian hawk The Hawaiian hawk is known to occur across a broad range of forest habitats throughout the
Island of Hawaii. Loud, irregular and unpredictable activities, such as using heavy equipment or building a structure, near an endangered Hawaiian hawk nest may cause nest failure. Harassment of Hawaiian hawk nesting sites can alter feeding and breeding patterns or result in nest or chick abandonment. Nest disturbance can also increase exposure of chicks and juveniles
to inclement weather or predators.
To avoid and minimize impacts to Hawaiian hawks we recommend you consider incorporating the following applicable measures into your project description:
If work must be conducted during the March 1 through September 30 Hawaiian hawk breeding season, have a biologist familiar with the species conduct a nest search of the project footprint and surrounding areas immediately prior to the start of construction activities. o Pre-disturbance surveys for Hawaiian hawks are only valid for 14 days. If
disturbance for the specific location does not occur within 14 days of the survey, conduct another survey.
No clearing of vegetation or construction activities within 1,600 feet of any active Hawaiian hawk nest during the breeding season until the young have fledged.
Regardless of the time of year, no trimming or cutting trees containing a hawk nest, as nests may be re-used during consecutive breeding seasons. Nene Nene are found on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, and Kauai predominately, with a small
population on Oahu. They are observed in a variety of habitats, but prefer open areas, such as
Mr. Earl Matsukawa 3
pastures, golf courses, wetlands, natural grasslands and shrublands, and lava flows. Threats to the species include introduced mammalian and avian predators, wind facilities, and vehicle strikes. To avoid and minimize potential project impacts to Nene we recommend incorporating the
following applicable measures into your project description:
Do not approach, feed, or disturb Nene.
If Nene are observed loafing or foraging within the project area during the Nene breeding
season (September through April), have a biologist familiar with the nesting behavior of Nene survey for nests in and around the project area prior to the resumption of any work. Repeat surveys after any subsequent delay of work of three or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest).
o Cease all work immediately and contact the Service for further guidance if a
nest is discovered within a radius of 150 feet of proposed work, or a previously undiscovered nest is found within said radius after work begins.
In areas where Nene are known to be present, post and implement reduced speed limits, and inform project personnel and contractors about the presence of endangered species
on-site. Hawaiian petrel, Band-rumped storm-petrel, and Newell’s shearwater Hawaiian seabirds may traverse the project area at night during the breeding, nesting and fledging seasons (March 1 to December 15). Outdoor lighting could result in seabird
disorientation, fallout, and injury or mortality. Seabirds are attracted to lights and after circling the lights they may become exhausted and collide with nearby wires, buildings, or other structures or they may land on the ground. Downed seabirds are subject to increased mortality due to collision with automobiles, starvation, and predation by dogs, cats, and other predators. Young birds (fledglings) traversing the project area between September 15 and December 15, in
their first flights from their mountain nests to the sea, are particularly vulnerable. To avoid and minimize potential project impacts to seabirds we recommend you incorporate the following applicable measures into your project description:
Fully shield all outdoor lights so the bulb can only be seen from below bulb height and only use when necessary.
Install automatic motion sensor switches and controls on all outdoor lights or turn off
lights when human activity is not occurring in the lighted area.
Avoid nighttime construction during the seabird fledging period, September 15 through December 15. Hawaiian stilt and Hawaiian coot Listed Hawaiian waterbirds are found in fresh and brackish-water marshes and natural or man-made ponds. Hawaiian stilts may also be found wherever ephemeral or persistent standing water may occur. Threats to these species include non-native predators, habitat loss, and habitat degradation.
Based on the project details provided, our information suggests that your project may result in
standing water or the creation of open water, thus attracting Hawaiian waterbirds to the site. In particular, the Hawaiian stilt is known to nest in sub-optimal locations (e.g. any ponding water),
Mr. Earl Matsukawa 4
if water is present. Hawaiian waterbirds attracted to sub-optimal habitat may suffer adverse impacts, such as predation and reduced reproductive success, and thus the project may create an attractive nuisance. Therefore, we recommend you work with our office during project planning so that we may assist you in developing measures to avoid impacts to listed species (e.g.,
fencing, vegetation control, predator management).
To avoid and minimize potential project impacts to Hawaiian waterbirds we recommend you incorporate the following applicable measures into your project description:
In areas where waterbirds are known to be present, post and implement reduced speed limits, and inform project personnel and contractors about the presence of endangered species on-site.
If water resources are located within or adjacent to the project site, incorporate applicable
best management practices regarding work in aquatic environments into the project design.
Have a biological monitor that is familiar with the species’ biology conduct Hawaiian waterbird nest surveys where appropriate habitat occurs within the vicinity of the
proposed project site prior to project initiation. Repeat surveys again within 3 days of project initiation and after any subsequent delay of work of 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). If a nest or active brood is found: o Contact the Service within 48 hours for further guidance. o Establish and maintain a 100-foot buffer around all active nests and/or broods
until the chicks have fledged. Do not conduct potentially disruptive activities or habitat alteration within this buffer. Have a biological monitor that is familiar with the species’ biology present on the project site during all construction or earth moving activities until the chicks fledge to ensure that Hawaiian
waterbirds and nests are not adversely impacted. Invasive Species To avoid and minimize the risk of the road construction introducing harmful invasive pests including coqui, ants, and weeds into the project sites, we recommend the following measures be
implemented by project contractors:
Vehicles, machinery, and equipment must be thoroughly pressure washed and visibly free of mud, dirt, plant debris, frogs and frog eggs, insects and other debris. A hot water wash is preferred. Areas of particular concern include bumpers, grills, hood compartments,
areas under the battery, wheel wells, undercarriage, cabs, and truck beds.
The interior and exterior of vehicles, machinery, and equipment must be free of rubbish and food. The interiors of vehicles and the cabs of machinery must be vacuumed clean. Floor mats will be sanitized with a solution of >70% isopropyl alcohol or a freshly mixed
10% bleach solution.
All work vehicles, machinery, and equipment may be subject to inspection.
Any vehicles, machinery, and equipment that do not pass inspection will be turned away.
Staging areas must be kept free of invasive pests.
Minimize Spread of Rapid Ohia Death Rapid Ohia Death (ROD), a newly identified disease, has killed large numbers of mature ohia trees (Metrosideros polymorpha) in forests and residential areas of Hawaii Island. The disease is
Mr. Earl Matsukawa 5
caused by a vascular wilt fungus (Ceratocystis fimbriata). Crowns of an affected tree turn yellowish or brown within days to weeks and dead leaves typically remain on branches for some time. All ages of ohia trees can be affected and can have symptoms of browning of branches or leaves. As of early 2017 the disease has been confirmed in all districts except North and South
Kohala. Additional information on ROD can be found at:
http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/forestry/downloads/ROD-trifold-03.2016.pdf and http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/forestry/disease/ohia_wilt.html.
The following avoidance and minimization measures should be followed for projects working in
ohia forests or at sites with ohia trees on Hawaii Island: 1) A survey of the proposed project site should be conducted within two weeks prior to any tree cutting to determine if there are any infected ohia trees. If infected ohia are suspected
at the site, the following agencies should be contacted for further guidance.
a. Service – please contact the name at the bottom of this letter. b. Dr. J.B. Friday, University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service, 808-969-8254 or jbfriday@hawaii.edu c. Dr. Flint Hughes, USDA Forest Service, 808-854-2617, fhughes@fs.fed.us
d. Dr. Lisa Keith, USDA Agriculture Research Service,
808-959-4357, Lisa.Keith@ars.usda.gov 2) Both prior to cutting ohia and after the project is complete: a. Tools used for cutting infected ohia trees should be cleaned with a 70 percent
rubbing alcohol solution. A freshly prepared 10 percent solution of chlorine
bleach and water can be used as long as tools are oiled afterwards, as chlorine bleach will corrode metal tools. Chainsaw blades should be brushed clean, sprayed with cleaning solution, and run briefly to lubricate the chain. b. Vehicles used off-road in infected forest areas should be thoroughly cleaned. The
tires and undercarriage of the vehicle should be cleaned with detergent if they
have travelled from an area with ROD or travelled off-road. Use a pressure washer with soap to clean all soil off of the tires and vehicle undercarriage. c. Shoes and clothing used in infected forests should also be cleaned. Shoes should be decontaminated by dipping the soles in 70 percent rubbing alcohol to kill the
ROD fungus. Other gear can be sprayed with the same cleaning solutions.
Clothing can be washed in hot water and detergent. d. Wood of affected ohia trees should not be transported to other areas of Hawaii Island or interisland. All cut wood should be left on-site to avoid spreading the disease. The pathogen may remain viable for over a year in dead wood. The
Hawaii Department of Agriculture has passed a quarantine rule that prohibits
interisland movement, except by permit, of all ohia plant or plant parts. If this project should receive federal funding, federal permit, or any federal authorization, it will require a Section 7 consultation with the Service. The Service only conducts Section 7
consultations with the federal action agency or their designated representative.
Mr. Earl Matsukawa 6
Thank you for participating with us in the protection of our endangered species. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this consultation, please contact Eldridge Naboa, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 808-284-0037, e-mail: eldridge_naboa@fws.gov. When referring to this project, please include this reference number: 01EPIF00-2018-TA-0275.
Sincerely,
Jodi Charrier Acting Island Team Leader Maui Nui and Hawaii Island
~D S%UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
~:,,.,REGIONIX
~_____75 Hawthorne Street\~/San Francisco,CA 941 05-3901LPRO~
JUN 072010
Jodi Charrier
Acting Island Team Leader
Maui Nui and Hawaii Island
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office
300 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu,Hawaii 96850
SUBJECT:Designation of Non-Federal Representative under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (Reference:O1EPIFOO-2018-TA-0275)
Dear Ms.Charrier:
The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 (EPA)awarded a Special Appropriation
Act Project (SAAP)grant to the County of Hawaii for the Pahala Community Large Capacity
Cesspool (LCC)Replacement Project.This project triggers the application of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)and numerous Federal cross-cutting authorities including the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Pursuant to 50 C.F.R.§402.08,a Federal agency may designate a non-Federal representative to
conduct informal consultation or prepare a biological assessment by giving notice to the Director
of such designation.In accordance with 50 C.F.R. §402.08,EPA hereby designates Eastern
Research Group,Inc.(ERG)to act on EPA’s behalf when initiating the ESA consultation process
and prepare a biological assessment if needed in connection with the Pahala Community LCC
Replacement Project.Effective immediately,ERG may consult with the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS)to initiate the informal consultation process under Section 7 of the ESA,with
responsibilities described herein.
EPA requires,through grant provisions for federally-assisted SAAP projects, that grant
recipients implement such measures as are ultimately determined necessary or appropriate during
the ESA Section 7 consultation process to avoid adverse effects to listed species or adverse
modification of designated or proposed critical habitat.However,EPA will continue to be
ultimately responsible for compliance with the Section 7 requirements of the ESA and will
remain responsible for participating in the consultation process if:
•there is disagreement between relevant parties regarding the scope of the area of potential
effects,identification of endangered species or habitats, or evaluation of effects;or,
Printed on 100%Postconsumer Recycled Paper Process Chlorine Free.
••there is an objection from consulting parties or the public regarding findings or
determinations oi the implementation of agreed provisions
If you have any questions,please contact Kate Rao,Drinking Water Protection Section,at (415)
972-3533 or via email at rao.ka~e~.oy.
~erely,
Mike Montgomery
Assistant Director,Water Division
cc:
William Kurcharski,County of Hawaii
Dora Beck,County of Hawaii
2
Biological Survey Report, August 16, 2018
AECOS
Biologicalsurveyfor theP halaCommunity
LargeCapacity Cesspool Closure Project on lot
TMK:9 6 002:018,Ka‘District,Hawai iIsland
AECOS,
AECOS
Biologicalsurveyfor theP halaCommunity
LargeCapacity Cesspool Closure Project on lot
TMK:9 6 002:018,Ka‘District,Hawai iIsland
Draft AECOS
Macadamia integrifolia
AECOS
AECOS
Megathyrsus maximus
Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai‘i
Hawai‘i’s Ferns and Fern Allies
A Tropical Garden Flora
AECOS
AOU Check List of North American Birds
Lasiurus cinereus
semotus ‘pe‘ape‘a
Synedrella
nodiflora
Grevelia
robustaMelaleuca quinquenervia
AECOS
‘uhaloa Waltheria indica
koali ‘awa Ipomoeaindica
Nephrolepismultiflora
Pityrogrammacalomelanos
Araucariacolumnaris
Amaranthusspinosus
Carissamacrocarpa
Neriumoleander
Scheffleraactinophylla
Ageratumconyzoides mailehohono
AECOS
Bidenspilosa ki
Calyptocarpusvialis
Conyzabonariensis
Crassocephalumcrepidioides
Cyanthilliumcinereum
Lactucaserriola
Synedrella nodiflora
Anrederacordifolia
Lepidiumvirginicum
Cleome gynandra
Ipomoeaindica koali‘awa Ind
Ipomoeaobscura
Merremiatuberosa
Momordica charantia
Euphorbia heterophylla kaliko
Euphorbia hirta
Ricinuscommunis
Acaciaconfusa koa
Leucaenaleucocephala koahaole
Macroptiliumatropurpureum
Neonotonia wightii
Leonotisnepetifolia
Abutilongrandifolium
Malvastrum coromandelianum
Sidarhombifolia
AECOS
Sidaspinosa
Waltheriaindica ‘uhaloa Ind
Ficusmicrocarpa
Melaleucaquinquenervia
Syzygiumcumini
Rivinahumilis
Grevillea robusta
Macadamiaintegrifolia
Spermacoceassurgens
Commelina benghalensis honohono
Cyperusgracilis
Axonopuscompressus
Cenchruspurpureus
Chlorisbarbata
Digiteria sp.
Eleusine indica
Megathyrsusmaximus
Setariaverticillata
Ind
AECOS
Cardinalis cardinalis
Zosterops japonicus Ceithagra mozambica
Leiothrix lutea
ST RA
AECOS
ST RA
ST
RA
Susscrofa
AECOS
‘uhaloakoali ‘awa
Justicia betonica
Araucaria columnaris
Pterodroma sandwichensis Puffinus newelli
AECOS
e
Mus musculus domesticus Rattus rattus
Rattus norvegicus Rattus exulans hawaiiensis
AECOS
Evolution,Ecology,Conservation,and Management of Hawaiian Birds:A
Vanishing Avifauna.Studies in Avian Biology No.22
Check list of North American Birds
Check listofNorth American Birds TheAuk
AECOS
.The Auk,
The
Auk,
TheAuk,
TheAuk,
TheAuk
TheAuk
TheAuk
TheAuk
TheAuk
TheAuk
AECOS
TheAuk
TheAuk
The Auk,Ornithological
Advances
TheAuk,Ornithological Advances
The Auk,
OrnithologicalAdvances
The Auk,Ornithological Advances
The Auk,
OrnithologicalAdvances
ColonialWaterbir ds
Colonial
Waterbirds
AECOS
Puffinus auricularis newelli The Auk,
Elepaio
in:
Evolution,Ecology,Conservation,and
Management of Hawaiian Birds:A Vanishing Avifauna
Bishop MuseumTech.Rept
Hawai`i’s Ferns and Fern Allies
AECOS
ColonialWaterbirds
The Auk
Pterodroma
phaeopygia In:
A Tropical Garden Flora.Plants Cultivated
in the Hawaiian Islands and other Tropical Places.
‘Elepaio
WildlifeSoc.Bull
.
AECOS
Manual of the Flowering
Plants of Hawai‘i:Volume I and II
Supplement to the Manual of the flowering plants of
Hawai‘i In:
Summary of Biological Survey Report, August 20, 2018
WILSON OKAMOTO CO RP O RATIO N
INNOVATORS· PLANNERS· ENGINEERS
10349-01 August 20, 2018
Ms. Jodi Charrier, Acting Team Leader Maui Nui and Hawaii Island Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior 300 Ala Moana Boulevard Room 3-122, Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850
Attention:
Subject:
Eldridge Naboa, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Draft Environmental Assessment, Pre-Assessment Consultation;
Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement Pa'au'au, Ka'ii Ka'u, Hawai'i Response to Comment (0lEPIF00-2018-TA-0275)
Dear Ms. Charrier:
Thank you for your April 23, 2018 comment letter (0lEPIF00-2018-TA-0275) and the April 10, 2018 e-mail message from Eldridge Naboa regarding the County of Hawai'i Department of Environmental Management Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement project. As stated in the Project Summary, the Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement
project would be funded by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Special Appropriation
Grant and by the State of Hawai'i Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CSRF) loan program. As such, we understand consultation will need to be conducted by a federal agency or by a designated non-federal representative.
On June 7, 2018, EPA Region 9 Water Division, designated Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG)
as the non-federal representative for undertaking the consultation for this project.
As part of the Draft EA, in August 2018, botanical and biological field studies were undertaken along the streets and adjacent areas of wastewater collection system and at the 14.9-acre wastewater treatment and disposal facility project site. The results of the field surveys showed
the collection system will be installed along already paved roadways within Pahala. They also
revealed that vegetation is located entirely within yards and consist of ornamental plants.
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 • Honolulu, Hawaii • 96826 • (808) 946-2277
10349-01 Letter to Ms. Jodi Charrier, Acting Team Leader Page2 August 20, 2018
The field survey showed 52 species of vascular plants: 2 ferns, one gymnosperm, and 49 species of angiosperms (flowering plants). Only two species ( 4%) are regarded as native to the Hawaiian Islands and both are indigenous (native, but also distributed elsewhere in the Pacific). Being widely distributed indigenous species, neither is listed as threatened or endangered or of any special concern.
The avian survey recorded a total of 175 individual birds of 13 species, representing nine separate families during station counts. Avian diversity and densities were very low, in keeping with the current usage of the site as a mature macadamia nut orchard, with minimal ground cover and few weedy or shrubby species. All of the species recorded during the course of the survey are established alien species. No native avian species were recorded during the course of this survey.
The field survey report indicated that, although not detected during the survey, the endemic Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis) and Newell's Shearwater (Pujfinus newelli) have been recorded over-flying the general area between April and the end of November each year. The petrel is listed as endangered, and the shearwater as threatened under both federal and State of Hawai'i endangered species statutes.
No species of plants or animals currently proposed for listing or listed under either the federal or State ofHawai'i endangered species statutes were recorded by the survey.
The Draft EA, will include a discussion of the avoidance and minimization measures as set forth in your April 23, 2108 letter.
We appreciate your participation in the Draft EA process.
Vice President, Director Planning
cc: D. Beck, DEM K.Rao, EPAB.Rosen, ERGC.Lekven, PE, BC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office
In Reply Refer To:
0lEPIF00-2018-TA-0275 0lEPIF00-2019-1-0153
Mr. Patrick Goodwin Environmental Scientist
14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, Virginia 20151-1102
300 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, Hawaii 96850
February 15, 2019
Subject: Informal Consultation for the Pahala Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement Project; Pahala, Kau District, Island and County of Hawaii
Dear Mr. Patrick Goodwin:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received your correspondence on December 28, 2018, requesting our concurrence with your determination that the proposed Pahala Large
Capacity Cesspool Replacement Project, may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius), Hawaiian goose (Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis), Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), Band-rumped Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma castro), Hawaiian Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), and Hawaiian Coot (Fulica alai), and the threatened
Newell's Shearwater (Puffinus newelli). This response is in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.).
Project Description
The proposed project is located in Pahala, Kau District, Hawaii. Funding for this project is
provided by a Special Appropriation Grant from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a loan from the State of Hawaii Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The project involves replacing two large-capacity cesspools (LCCs) with a new County-owned wastewater collection system to be constructed primarily within the existing public right-of-way; a treatment and disposal system that will occupy a 14.9-acre site that is currently a privately
owned macadamia nut plantation; and closure of the two LCCs.
The proposed project is located in the community of Pahala, a former sugar farming and processing operation, in the Kau District, Island of Hawaii. In 1999, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA promulgated regulations (40 CFR 144.14) requiring the elimination
or closure of all LCCs by April 2005. In 2010, the C. Brewer Company transferred the ownership and operation of the LCCs to the County, which is bringing these wastewater systems into compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Mr. Patrick Goodwin 2
Once the new system is in place, the County will close and abandon the existing LCCs. This system includes some lines located in the backyards of residential lots and some within public streets; therefore, abandoning the lines in place will minimize impacts related to their excavation and removal. The cut ends of the abandoned laterals to the collection system will
be plugged with concrete to prevent unauthorized use of the old system and to avoid the need
to maintain an unused underground hydraulic conduit. The two LCCs will also be abandoned and closed; the specific closure methods have not yet been determined but will be consistent with the requirements set forth in Hawaii Administrative Rules §11-23-19.
Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Hawaiian hoary bat The Hawaiian hoary bat roosts in both exotic and native woody vegetation across all islands and will leave young unattended in trees and shrubs when they forage. If trees or shrubs 15 feet (ft)
or taller are cleared during the pupping season, there is a risk that young bats could inadvertently
be harmed or killed since they are too young to fly or may not move away. Additionally, Hawaiian hoary bats forage for insects from as low as three feet to higher than 500 ft above the ground and can become entangled in barbed wire used for fencing.
To avoid and minimize impacts to the Hawaiian hoary bat, the project:
•Will not disturb, remove, or trim woody plants greater than 15 ft tall during the batbirthing and pup rearing season (June 1 through September 15).•Will not use barbed wire for fencing.
Hawaiian hawk The Hawaiian hawk is known to occur across a broad range of forest habitats throughout the Island of Hawaii. Loud, irregular and unpredictable activities, such as using heavy equipment or
building a structure, near an endangered Hawaiian hawk nest may cause nest failure. Harassment of Hawaiian hawk nesting sites can alter feeding and breeding patterns or result in nest or chick abandonment. Nest disturbance can also increase exposure of chicks and juveniles to inclement weather or predators.
To avoid and minimize impacts to Hawaiian hawks, the project:
•If work must be conducted during the March 1 through September 30 Hawaiian hawkbreeding season, a biologist familiar with the species will conduct a nest search of the
project footprint and surrounding areas immediately prior to the start of construction
activities.
o Pre-disturbance surveys for Hawaiian hawks are only valid for 14 days. Ifdisturbance for the specific location does not occur within 14 days of the survey,another survey will be conducted.•Will not clear vegetation or conduct construction activities within 1,600 ft of any active
Hawaiian hawk nest during the breeding season until the young have fledged.•Regardless of the time of year, no trimming or cutting trees containing a hawk nest willoccur, as nests may be re-used during consecutive breeding seasons.
Mr. Patrick Goodwin 3
Hawaiian goose Hawaiian goose are found on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, and Kauai predominately, with a small population on Oahu. They are observed in a variety of habitats, but prefer open areas, such as pastures, golf courses, wetlands, natural grasslands and shrub lands, and lava flows.
Threats to the species include introduced mammalian and avian predators, wind facilities, and
vehicle strikes.
To avoid and minimize impacts to the Hawaiian goose, the project:
•Will not approach, feed, or disturb Hawaiian goose.•If Hawaiian goose are observed loafing or foraging within the project area during thebreeding season (September through April), a biologist familiar with the nesting behaviorwill survey for nests in and around the project area prior to the resumption of any work.
Surveys will be repeated after any subsequent delay of work of three or more days
( during which the birds may attempt to nest).o All work will cease immediately and the Service will be contacted for furtherguidance if a nest is discovered within a radius of 150 ft of proposed work, ora previously undiscovered nest is found within said radius after work begins.•In areas where Hawaiian goose are known to be present, the project will post andimplement reduced speed limits, and inform project personnel and contractors about thepresence of endangered species on-site.
Hawaiian petrel, Band-rumped storm-petrel, and Newell's shearwater
Hawaiian seabirds may traverse the project area at night during the breeding, nesting and fledging seasons (March 1 to December 15). Outdoor lighting could result in seabird disorientation, fallout, and injury or mortality. Seabirds are attracted to lights and after circling the lights they may become exhausted and collide with nearby wires, buildings, or other
structures or they may land on the ground. Downed seabirds are subject to increased mortality
due to collision with automobiles, starvation, and predation by dogs, cats, and other predators. Young birds (fledglings) traversing the project area between September 15 and December 15, in their first flights from their mountain nests to the sea, are particularly vulnerable.
To avoid and minimize potential project impacts to seabirds, the project:
•Will fully shield all outdoor lights so the bulb can only be seen from below bulb heightand only use when necessary.•Will install automatic motion sensor switches and controls on all outdoor lights or tumoff lights when human activity is not occurring in the lighted area.•Will avoid nighttime construction during the seabird fledging period, September 15through December 15.
Hawaiian stilt and Hawaiian coot Listed Hawaiian waterbirds are found in fresh and brackish-water marshes and natural or manmade ponds. Hawaiian stilts may also be found wherever ephemeral or persistent standing water may occur. Threats to these species include non-native predators, habitat loss, and habitat degradation.
Mr. Patrick Goodwin 4
Based on the project details provided, our information suggests that your project may result in standing water or the creation of open water, thus attracting Hawaiian waterbirds to the site. In particular, the Hawaiian stilt is known to nest in sub-optimal locations (e.g. any ponding water), if water is present. Hawaiian waterbirds attracted to sub-optimal habitat may suffer adverse impacts, such as predation and reduced reproductive success, and thus the project may create an
attractive nuisance. Therefore, we recommend you work with our office during project planning so that we may assist you in developing measures to avoid impacts to listed species ( e.g., fencing, vegetation control, predator management).
To avoid and minimize potential impacts to waterbirds, the project:
•To discourage waterbird use of the facility, the subsurface-flow-constructed wetland willnot have areas of open water; asphalt rather than gravel will be used to provide accessaround the lagoons; the lagoons will be lined with a high density polyethylyne liner,
rather than with substrate that would support vegetation growth; shade balls will be usedin the largest lagoon to discourage algal growth; and the lagoons will be bordered bygroves rather than bare land.•The security fence around the perimeter of the treatment and disposal facility will
exclude larger non-native mammalian predators.•In areas where waterbirds are known to be present, the project will post and implementreduced speed limits, and inform project personnel and contractors about the presence ofendangered species on-site.•If water resources are located within or adjacent to the project site, the project willincorporate applicable best management practices regarding work in aquaticenvironments into the project design.•A biological monitor that is familiar with the species' biology will conduct waterbird nest
surveys where appropriate habitat occurs within the vicinity of the proposed project site
prior to project initiation. Surveys will be repeated again within 3 days of projectinitiation and after any subsequent delay of work of 3 or more days ( during which thebirds may attempt to nest). If a nest or active brood is found:o The Service will be contacted within 48 hours for further guidance.
o Will establish and maintain a 100-ft buffer around all active nests and/or
broods until the chicks/ducklings have fledged. Will not conduct potentiallydisruptive activities or habitat alteration within this buffer.•A biological monitor that is familiar with the species' biology will be present on the
project site during all construction or earth moving activities until the chicks/ducklings
fledge to ensure that waterbirds and nests are not adversely impacted.
Minimize Spread of Rapid Ohia Death Rapid Ohia Death (ROD), a newly identified disease, has killed large numbers of mature ohia trees (Metrosideros polymorpha) in forests and residential areas of Hawaii Island. The disease is
caused by a vascular wilt fungus (Ceratocystis fimbriata). Crowns of an affected tree tum
yellowish or brown within days to weeks and dead leaves typically remain on branches for some time. All ages of ohia trees can be affected and can have symptoms of browning of branches or leaves. As of early 2017 the disease has been confirmed in all districts except North and South Kohala. Additional information on ROD can be found at:
Mr. Patrick Goodwin
http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/forestry/downloads/ROD-trifold-03.2016.pdf and http:/ /www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/forestry /disease/ohia _ wilt.html.
5
The following avoidance and minimization measures should be followed for projects working in
ohia forests or at sites with ohia trees on Hawaii Island:
1)A survey of the proposed project site should be conducted within two weeks prior to anytree cutting to determine if there are any infected ohia trees. If infected ohia are suspectedat the site, the following agencies should be contacted for further guidance.
a.Service -please contact the name at the bottom of this letter.
b. Dr. J.B. Friday, University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service,808-969-8254 or jbfriday@hawaii.educ.Dr. Flint Hughes, USDA Forest Service, 808-854-2617, flrnghes@fs.fed.usd.Dr. Lisa Keith, USDA Agriculture Research Service,808-959-4357, Lisa.Keith@ars.usda.gov
2)Both prior to cutting ohia and after the project is complete:a.Tools used for cutting infected ohia trees should be cleaned with a 70 percentrubbing alcohol solution. A freshly prepared 10 percent solution of chlorine
bleach and water can be used as long as tools are oiled afterwards, as chlorine
bleach will corrode metal tools. Chainsaw blades should be brushed clean,sprayed with cleaning solution, and run briefly to lubricate the chain.b.Vehicles used off-road in infected forest areas should be thoroughly cleaned. Thetires and undercarriage of the vehicle should be cleaned with detergent if they
have travelled from an area with ROD or travelled off-road. Use a pressure
washer with soap to clean all soil off of the tires and vehicle undercarriage.c.Shoes and clothing used in infected forests should also be cleaned. Shoes shouldbe decontaminated by dipping the soles in 70 percent rubbing alcohol to kill theROD fungus. Other gear can be sprayed with the same cleaning solutions.
Clothing can be washed in hot water and detergent.
d.Wood of affected ohia trees should not be transported to other areas of HawaiiIsland or interisland. All cut wood should be left on-site to avoid spreading thedisease. The pathogen may remain viable for over a year in dead wood. TheHawaii Department of Agriculture has passed a quarantine rule that prohibits
interisland movement, except by permit, of all ohia plant or plant parts.
Mr. Patrick Goodwin 6
The Service has analyzed potential impacts to listed species due to the implementation of your project. Based on the includsion of the avoidance and minimization measures listed above, the Service anticipates that any potential impacts will be discountable or insignificant and therefore we concur that the Pahala Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, Hawaiian Hawk, Hawaiian goose,
Hawaiian Petrel, Band-rumped Storm-Petrel, Hawaiian Stilt, and Hawaiian Coot, and the threatened Newell's Shearwater.
Thank you for participating with us in the protection of our endangered species. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this consultation, please contact Eldridge Naboa, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 808-284-0037, e-mail: eldridge naboa@fws.gov. When referring to this
project, please include this reference number: 0JEPIF00-2019-1-0153.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed JODI by JODI
CHARRIER CHARRIER Date:2019.02.15
15:06:51 -1 0'00' Jodi Charrier
Acting Island Team Leader
Maui Nui and Hawaii Island
Mr. Patrick Goodwin 7
BIOSECURTY PROTOCOLS -HAW All ISLAND (JULY 2018)
The following biosecurity protocol (based on National Park Service, State of Hawaii, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Geological Survey, and the DOI Office of Native Hawaiian Relations
guidance) should be followed when operating on Hawaii Island to prevent the introduction of
harmful invasive species including frogs, ants, weeds, and fungi into local natural areas ( e.g., Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, State of Hawaii "Natural Areas") and areas with native habitat (habitat that is primarily composed of native vegetation), other islands in Hawaiian archipelago, or the U.S. mainland. The protocol also
includes suggestions for keeping field staff safe from certain invasive species.
1.All work vehicles, machinery, and equipment should be cleaned, inspected by its user,
and found free of mud, dirt, debris and invasive species prior to entry into the natural
areas or native habitat.a.Vehicles, machinery, and equipment must be thoroughly pressure washed in a designatedcleaning area and visibly free of mud, dirt, plant debris, insects, frogs (including frog eggs) and
other vertebrate species such as rats, mice and non-vegetative debris. A hot water wash ispreferred. Areas of particular concern include bumpers, grills, hood compartments, areas underthe battery, wheel wells, undercarriage, cabs, and truck beds (truck beds with accumulatedmaterial (intentionally placed or fallen from trees) are prime sites for hitchhikers).
b.The interior and exterior of vehicles, machinery, and equipment must be free of rubbish andfood. The interiors of vehicles and the cabs of machinery must be vacuumed clean. Floor matsshall be sanitized with a solution of >70% isopropyl alcohol or a freshly mixed 10% bleachsolution.
c.Any machinery, vehicles, equipment, or other supplies found to be infested with ants (or otherinvasive species) must not enter natural areas or native habitat. Treatment is the responsibility ofthe equipment or vehicle owner and operator.
2.Little Fire Ants -All work vehicles, machinery, and equipment should be inspected forinvasive ants prior to entering the natural areas or native habitat.a.A visual inspection for little fire ants should be conducted prior to entry into natural areas ornative habitat.
b.Hygiene is paramount but even the cleanest vehicle can pick up a little fire ant. Place
MaxForce Complete Brand Granular Insect Bait (1.0% Hydramethylnon;http://littlefireants.com/Maxforce%20Complete.pdf) into refillable tamper resistant bait stations.An example of a commercially available refillable tamper resistant bait station is the Ant CafePro (https://www.antcafe.com/). Place a bait station (or stations) in vehicle. Note larger vehicles,such as trucks, may require multiple stations. Monitor bait stations frequently ( every week at a
minimum) and replace bait as needed. If the station does not have a sticker to identify thecontents, apply a sticker listing contents to the station.
c.Any machinery, vehicles, equipment, or other supplies found to be infested with ants (or otherinvasive species) must not enter natural areas or native habitat until it is sanitized and re-tested
following a resting period. Infested vehicles must be sanitized following recommendations bythe Hawaii Ant Lab (http://www.littlefireants.com/) or other ant control expert and in accordance
Mr. Patrick Goodwin 8
with all State and Federal laws. Treatment is the responsibility of the equipment or vehicle owner.
d.Gravel, building materials, or other equipment such as portable buildings should be baitedusing MaxForce Complete Brand Granular Insect Bait (1.0% Hydramethylnon;
http://littlefireants.com/Maxforce%20Complete.pdf) or AmdroPro (0. 73% Hydramethylnon;http:/ /littlefireants.com/ Amdro%20Pro.pdt) following label guidance.
e.Storage areas that hold field tools, especially tents, tarps, and clothing should be baited using
MaxForce Complete Brand Granular Insect Bait (1.0% Hydramethylnon;
http://littlefireants.com/Maxforce%20Complete.pdf) or AmdroPro (0.73% Hydramethylnon;
http://littlefireants.com/ Amdro%20Pro.pdt) following label guidance.
3.Base yards and staging areas inside and outside areas must be kept free of invasivespecies.a.Base yards and staging areas should be inspected at least weekly for invasive species and any
found invasive removed immediately. Pay particular attention to where vehicles are parkedovernight, keeping areas within 10-meters of vehicles free of debris. Parking on pavement andnot under trees, while not always practical is best.
b.Project vehicles or equipment stored outside of a base yard or staging area, such as a private
residence, should be kept in a pest free area.
4. All cutting tools must be sanitized to prevent the Rapid Ohia Death (ROD) fungus.a.A void wounding ohia trees and roots with mowers, chainsaws, weed eaters, and other tools.Cut only the minimum amount of trees and branches as approved for the project.
b.All cutting tools, including machetes, chainsaws, and loppers must be sanitized to removevisible dirt and other contaminants prior to entry into natural areas or areas with native habitat,and when moving to a new project area within the native habitat area. Tools may be sanitizedusing a solution of>70% isopropyl alcohol or a freshly mixed 10% bleach solution. One minute
after sanitizing, you may apply an oil based lubricant to chainsaw chains or other metallic partsto prevent corrosion.
c.Only dedicated tools and chainsaws should be used to sample known or suspected RODinfected trees.
d. Vehicles, machinery, and equipment must be cleaned as described in (1) above.
5.Imported firewood, logs, and ohia parts:a.Ohia firewood, ohia logs, and ohia parts should not be transported.
6.For individuals working in the field:a.Before going into the field, visually inspect and clean your clothes, boots, pack, radioharness, tools and other personal gear and equipment, for seeds, soil, plant parts, insects, andother debris. A small brush is handy for cleaning boots, equipment and gear. Soles of shoes
should be sanitized using a solution of >70% isopropyl alcohol or a freshly mixed 10% bleachsolution.
Mr. Patrick Goodwin 9
b.Immediately before leaving the field, visually inspect and clean your clothes, boots, pack,radio harness, tools, and other personnel gear and equipment, for seeds, soil, plant parts, insects,and other debris. Soles of shoes should be sanitized using a solution of >70% isopropyl alcoholor a freshly mixed 10% bleach solution.
c.Little fire ants nest in trees. If you are under a tree and that tree is bumped or somehowstressed, the threat response of the ants is to fall from the leaves and sting the person under thetree. If you are subject to an ant attack, do not panic. The ants are extremely small but their stingsare painful so make sure you remove all ants from your body and clothing. The stings cause inch
long welts that are itchy and painful, and can last for weeks. Treat stings as you would other
insect stings. In some persons stings can produce life threatening reactions. Stockingantihistamine in the first aid kit is a reasonable precaution.
d.Rat Lungworm disease is caused by a parasite that can infect humans who consume raw or
undercooked infected snails or slugs or consume raw produce that contains a small infected snail
or slug. Infection is rare but can be serious. Symptoms can include severe headache, neckstiffness, low grade fever, nausea, and vomiting anywhere from 1-6 weeks after exposure. Thedisease is not spread person to person. Anyone who handles snails or slugs should wear glovesand/or wash hands. Eating unwashed produce is discouraged.
Harry Kim
Mayor
Wilfred M. Okabe
Managing Director
William A. Kucharski
Director
Diane A. Noda
Deputy Director
<tlnunflJ nf ~afuai'i
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
345 KekOanao'a Street, Suite 41 · Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
Ph: (808) 961-8083 · Fax: {808) 961-8086
Email: cohdem@hawaiicounty.gov
March 11, 2019
Dr. Alan S. Downer, SHPD Administrator
Department of Land and Natural Resources
State Historic Preservation Division
601 Kam6kila Boulevard, Suite 555
Kapolei, Hawai'i 96707
Re: Draft Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Pahala Wastewater Treatment
Plant and Sewer System Project, Hionamoa, Palima, and Pa'au'au 1 and 2
Ahupua'a, Ka'u District, Hawai'i Island
TMKs: (3) 9-6-002:016 por. and 018 por., 9-6-005:036 por. and 044, and
County of Hawai'i Right-of-Ways (Bautista et al. 2019)
Submitted for HRS 6E-8 Review
Dear Dr. Downer:
The County of Hawai'i Department of Environmental Management is submitting the attached
Draft Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) for the Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant and
Sewer System Project, Hionamoa, Palima, and Pa'au'au 1 and 2 Ahupua'a, Ka'Q District, Hawai'i
Island, TM Ks: (3) 9-6-002:016 por. and 018 por., 9-6-005:036 por. and 044, and County of
Hawai'i Right-of-Ways {Bautista et al. 2019) for SHPD review, along with a 6E submittal filing fee
form and check. These materials are additional submittals associated with existing Log No.
2018.000722.
The County of Hawai'i contracted Brown and Caldwell and its sub-consultants, Wilson Okamoto
Corporation and Cultural Surveys of Hawai'i Inc., to prepare the attached AIS and has
authorized them to coordinate directly with SHPD for processing and review and to address
associated SHPD comments for this submittal.
The project's point of contact at the County of Hawai'i Department of Environmental
Management is:
County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
Dr. Alan S. Downer, SHPD Administrator
March 11, 2019
Page 2
William A. Kucharski, Director
345 Kekuanaoa Street, Suite 41
Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
Phone: (808) 961-8083
Email: william.kucharski@hawaiicounty.gov
The project's point of contact at the County of Hawai'i Department of Environmental
Management's Wastewater Division is:
Dora Beck, Wastewater Division Chief
108 Railroad Avenue
Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
Phone: (808) 961-8513
Email: dora.beck@hawaiicounty.gov
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Craig Lekven with Brown and Caldwell
at (808) 442-3301. You may also reach him by email at CLekven@brwncald.com.
Sincerely,
!/4t(:~L,
William A. Kucharski
Director
WK:mef
Encs: Submittal Form
Draft AIS
Check for Filing Fee
cc: Diane Noda, DEM Deputy Director
Dora Beck, DEM-WWD Chief
Craig Lekven, P.E., Brown and Caldwell
John Sakaguchi, Wilson Okamoto Corporation
10349-01 March 11, 2019
WILSON OKAMOTO CO RP O RA TIO N
INNOVATORS· PLANNERS· ENGINEERS
Dr. Alan S. Downer, SHPD Administrator
DLNR-State Historic Preservation Division Kakuhihewa Building, Suite 555 601 Kamokila Boulevard Kapolei, Hawai'i 96707
Attention:
Subject:
Dear Dr. Downer:
Dr. Susan Lebo, Archaeology Branch Chief
Draft Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Paha/a WastewaterTreatment Plant and Sewer System Project, Hionamoa, Palima, and Pa 'au 'au I and 2 Ahupua 'a, Ka 'ft District, Hawai 'i Island, TMKs: {3 J 9-6-002:016 por. and OJ 8 por., 9-6-005:036 por. and 044, and County ofHawai 'i Right-of-Ways (Bautista et al. 2019) submitted for HRS 6E-8 review
We are submitting the following:
1)One ( 1) cardstock copy of the Draft Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Paha/aWastewater Treatment Plant and Sewer System Project, prepared by Cultural Surveys
Hawaii, March 2019;2)Filing fee check of $450.00 payable to: Hawaii Historic Preservation Special Fund; and3)Two (2) copies of the 6E filing fee form.
An electronic document link and related information has been sent to
DLNR.Intake.SHPD@hawaii.gov. If you have any questions, please call me at 808-946-2277.
Sincere! ,
� Vice President, Director of Planning
cc: W.Kucharski, COH DEMD.Beck, COH WWDS.Mendonca, COH WWD
K.Roa, EPA
C.Levken; BC; W. Folk; CSH
Enclosures
1907 5. Beretania Street, Suite 400 • Honolulu, Hawaii• 96826 • (808) 946-2277
DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING 601 KAMOKILA BLVD, STE 555 KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707
SUZANNE D. CASE CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
ROBERT K. MASUDA FIRST DEPUTY
JEFFREY T. PEARSON, P.E. DEPUTY DIRECTOR - WATER
AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATE PARKS
HRS 6E Submittal Filing Fees All submittals must have the appropriate filing fee in accordance with HAR §13-275-4 or HAR §13-284-4. All contact fields below must be complete and accurate.
Landowner:
(if privately-owned historic property on Hawaii Register, HRS §6E-10)
Agency:
Contact Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
Title of Report/Plan:
Ahupua‘a: District: Island:
TMK(s):
Contract Firm:
(firm who completed the work on behalf of the agency) Contact Name: Phone: Email:
Check if Report/Plan is a re-submittal (no fee) Check if Field Inspection Report requested by SHPD (no fee) _____ Check if Final Report (no fee)
$0 Archaeological Monitoring Report, no resources reported
$25 Archaeological Monitoring Plan $25 Burial Disinterment Report $25 Request from Agency for Determination Letter per HAR §13-275 $50 Archaeological Assessment (AIS with negative findings) $50 Osteological Analysis Report $100 Archaeological Monitoring Report, resources reported
$150 Archaeological Inventory Survey Plan, Archaeological Data Recovery Plan, or Preservation Plan $250 Burial Treatment Plan (BTP)
$450 Archaeological, Architectural, or Ethnographic Survey Report $450 Archaeological Data Recovery Report Fee Total: Make check payable to “Hawaii Historic Preservation Special Fund”
For Office Use Only:
rev. 11/9/2017
Date Received: Payment Method: Cash Amount $
Log No.: Check No. Amount $
Receipt Issued: Money Order Amount $
O‘ahu Office P.O. Box 1114 Kailua, Hawai‘i 96734 Ph.: (808) 262-9972 Fax: (808) 262-4950
www.culturalsurveys.com
i Office 399 Hualani St. #124 Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Ph.: (808) 965-6478 Fax: (808) 965-6582
Draft
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the
, P P Ahupua‘a,
-6-
9-6-
-of-
, , B.A., Hallett Kailua, Hawai‘i HIONA ) 2019
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Management Summary
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
i
Archaeological Inventory Survey
Plant and Sewer System Project, Hionamoa2 , TMKs: [3] 9 -6--6-, and Coun -of-Ways (Bautista et al. )
Date March 9
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. (CSH) Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
CSH under archaeological s - -07, issued
Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) §-
Uni
rivate (Kamehameha Schools, Olson Trust)
County of Hawai‘i
EPA (EPA Grant XP--6); State Revolving Fund
miles . The Hionamoa2 the
and Pa hala U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-quadrangle.
ollection system is located on county -(TMK: [3] 9-6-)
Kamehameha Schools and under lease to Royal Hawaiian Orchards.
Area of Potential
Acreage
57.7 acres ( hectares) hala Town, rea is a 29.3-acre () area within the APE.
A.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Management Summary
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
ii
The APE includes the following: -acre WWTP) site, within -related staging, including for the collection
2. -foot (ft) long by 25 -ft wide utility MK: [3] 9-6-utilities to the WWTP;
3.
the 22- -ft wide travel surface of select county streets; Sewer line easements of similar width (22-) through TMKs: [3] 9-6-005:036 and lection lines to the hala WWTP site;
5. (located in TMKs: [3] 9-6-
002:9-6---ft) long --ft) wide corridor along the line easement in TMK: [3] 9-6- between ; and
6. Numerous single-family residential/other with
ed/rehabilitated by the County.
roject a –-
6-
located along the county streets selected for new sewer collection lines (Item 6).
This AIS ederal and
legislation. f ederal (EPA) funding, this ederal
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). As a county both ounty
landsalso subject to Hawai‘i State environmental and Hawai‘i Revised Statutes [HRS] -§-
archaeological inventory survey
(AIS) investigation fulfills the requirements of HAR §-276 and the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeology and Historic
PreservationNational Register of Historic Places (National Register) and Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places (Hawai‘i Register) eligibility
recommendations for any
- ounty agencies and
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Management Summary
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
iii
interested Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) and community .
Pacif
-acre TMK: [3] 9-6-
conducted
The area at t
t in this corner . No surface archaeological
features were documented by
artifacts, including a single discoidal hammerstone and fragmental
. recommended cons
avoid the lava tube located in the southeastern corner of TMK: [3] 9-6-
-
275-3 B)
CSH on 22 Feba
following:
round disturbance, with subsurface testing;
-6-
ateral installations along the csubsurface testing but should be evaluated for any relation to a
designation.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Management Summary
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
iv
The items outlined above, and a more detailed summary of the subsurface testing schema, we ounty formal written
; additional materials were
subsequently B). a §6E-
C).
CSH on
of ().
CSH archaeologists Olivier
conducted f , –, and -days to
C Section NHPAcommunity, agency, and Native Hawaiian Organizations has been
current investigation will be utilized in these ongoing efforts. To date,
significance area.
State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) #s 50-0-69- is the historic Wood Valley Road/Coastal Road corridor, and SIHP # 50--69- is the historic Volcano Road corridor. They are both assessed as significant under Criterion d for yielding
within the
ies only maintain integrity of location of the old corridor.
SIHP # s - and - are assessed as significant under Criterion -275-6 for the information they have yielded about the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
(SIHP # 50--69-) and Volcano Road (SIHP # 50--69-)
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Management Summary
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
v
--275-
#s 50--69- and -within
of location as all of the constructed elements of the original Wood Valley/Coastal road and Volcano road are no longer evident today.
archaeological monitoring during construction for identification and/or
-0-69-
a lava tube system (SIHP # 50--69-27570) with some cultural modifications beneath Pahala town;
--69-07522), a National Register-
---Register-
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
vi
............................................................................................................ i
Section 1 ............................................................................................................. 1
ground ....................................................................................................................... ............................................... Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 9 Environment............................................................................................................... 9 .................................................................................................................
Section 2 .................................................................................................................. 13
Field Methods .............................................................................................................................. vey ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................... Research Methods ........................................................................................................................ Consultation Methods ..................................................................................................................
Section 3 ........................................................................................... 15
........................................................................................ .............................................................................................................
Historic Period ............................................................................................................ ......................................................................................... - ................................................................................................................ ..................................................................................................................................... 25 e ....................................................................................................... 29 Previous Archaeological Research .............................................................................................. 33 .......................................................................................... 33 National Register- .................................................... ............................................................................ ............................................................................................................ ground Summary and Predictive Model ..............................................................................
Section 4 .............................................................................................. 42
...................................................................................................... Subsurface Testing Results .......................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................... 60 ...................................................................................................... 60 ...................................................................................................... 60 ...................................................................................................... 60 ...................................................................................................... 60
......................................................................................................
Section 5 ............................................................................. 74
SIHP # 50--69- ............................................................................................................... SIHP # 50--69- ............................................................................................................... 77
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
vii
Section 6 Si .............................................. 78
Significance Assessments under HRS §6E .................................................................................. .............................................
Section 7 ............................................................................... 80
Section 8 ............................................... 81
Project Effect ...............................................................................................................................
Mitigation Recommendations ......................................................................................................
Section 9 .................................................................................................... 82
..................................................................................... 86
................................................ 88
................................................................................... 102
...................................................................................... 104
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
viii
-showing the
...................................................................................................2 -6-(Haw ..............................................................................................3 Figure 3. TMK: [3] 9-6-
.......................................................................................................................
.............................................5
................................6 -
through TMK: [3] 9-6- ............................................................7
Figure 7. Overlay of Soil Survey of the State of Hawaii .................................... --Government Tracts, railroad ...............................................................................................................................20
.............................23
.......................................................
......................26
.........................................................................................................................27 -
vicinity ............................................................................................................................... - ...........................................................30
...............................
...........................................32 -ject area ....................................35
-
locations of sites documented in .........................................................................................................................36 nd site locations (Escott .............................................................................................................................
--
(Esc ...................................................................39
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
..........................................................................................
Figu-6-
............................ -6-
........................................................................
northern end of the easement in TMK: [3] 9-6-005:036; view to northwest ..................... Figure 25. Photo showing the location where the easement in TMK: [3] 9-6-Ilima Street culvert is beneath the grass to the left of the road; view to southwest ....................
.....................................................................................................
view to northwest ............................................................................................................... Fi
northwest ............................................................................................................................
....... ................
to northeast .........................................................................................................................
Figure 32. Photo
visible to the right; view to north .......................................................................................50 Figure 33. Photo ...........................................................................50
.
.........................................................
between the trees; view to southwest .................................................................................52
mauka boundary of the .................................52
..................................................53
bisecting the macadamia orchard; view to southwest ........................................................53
within TMK: [3] 9-6- .............................................................55
makai
sewer easement within TMK: [3] 9-6- ..........................................55
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
..................................................................................................................................56
...............................57
est .....................................
...............................................................................59 . ................................................... southwest sidewall .........................................................62
.63
...........................................................63 ........................................................... .......65 ..................................................65
.........................................................66
67 Figure 57. Photo of TE 5 southwest sidewall; view to south.........................................................67 ......................................................... 69
Figure 60. Photo of TE 6 southeast sidewall; view to southeast ...................................................69
..........................................................70 72 Figure 63. Photo of TE 7 south sidewall; view to southeast ..........................................................72 ..........................................................73
-minute
roadways ............................................................................................................................75 - .........................76
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
..................................
..........................................................................................59 ..........................................................................................62 .......................................................................................... ..........................................................................................66
..........................................................................................
Table 7. TE 6 ..........................................................................................70 TE 7 ..........................................................................................73 ................................................................
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Introduction
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Section 1
At the request of
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc.
(CSH) has archaeological inventory survey r (AISR) for the Treatment Plant and Sewer -6-002:-6-t-of-Ways. area is located within a larger Area of
Potential Effect (APE)
Pahala U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute t quadrangle (Figure ), s (Figure 2 and Figure 3), and a Figure ).
The
collection system is located on c
-(TMK: [3] 9-6-near the
intersection.
lot in the southeastern corner outside the limits of
APE .
7 acres (2 hala Tarea is a 29.3- hectares) area within the APE (Figure 5).
A. The APE includes the following:
--related
be located (Figure 6); 2. -foot (ft) long by 25-
located entirely within TMK: [3] 9-6-
other utilities to the WWTP (see Figure 6); 3. - -ft wide travel surface of select county streets; Sewer line easements of similar width (22--6-005:036 and
5. -6-9-6-----ft) wide corridor line easement in TMK: [3] 9-6-
6. Numerous single-family residential/some
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Introduction
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
2
Figure . -wing the
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Introduction
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
3
Figure 2. [3] 9 -6-05 showing the (Hawai‘i TMK Service )
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Introduction
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa i
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure 3. TMK: [3] 9-6-02 showing the Service
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Introduction
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
5
Figure )
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Introduction
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
6
Figure 5
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Introduction
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
7
Figure 6. Preliminary -acre TMK: [3] 9-6-client)
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Introduction
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
–5 9-6-. It also does not include the numerous
ounty streets selected for new sewer collection lines (Item 6).
-inch diameter lines with the others
, the sewer laterals connecting the
eventually connect, the owners
nd Hawai‘i State
Act (NHPA) and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). As a county
Revised Statutes [HRS] §-Hawai‘i Administrative Rules [HAR] -275,
In consultation with the ), this AIS investigation
-276 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Archaeology and Historic PreservationNational Register of Historic Places (National Register) and Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places (Hawai‘i Register) eligibility recommendations for any cultural
- consultation with
such as State and County agencies and interested Native Hawaiian Organizations
Pacif-acre TMK: [3] 9-6-
tment of Environmental
Management ()
outside the
int to avoid the lava tube located in the southeastern corner of TMK: [3] 9-6-
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Introduction
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
9
-275-3 . The Cleghorn
the following:
with subsurface testing;
-6-ateral installations along the c would not require subsurface testing but should be evaluated for any relation to a
The items outlined above, and a more detailed summary of the subsurface testing schema, were ; additional materials were subsequently
in a §6E- .
equirements (.
1.3.1
is situated –305 m (590– ft) above
mean sea own vicinity receives an annual average rainfall of 52 inches
ve is located makai
Vegetation within the sts of a macadamia (Macadamia integrifolia) orchard with N (Araucaria heterophylla) The terrain in
and areas of grasses residential yards line the sides of the County roadways own.
(hills, cinder cones)
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Introduction
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
of soils from the Waiaha and Naalehu series (Figure 7). The northern half
and the southeastern corner is Waiaha silt loam, 2 - (NaC) and - (see Figure 7).
Waiaha soils are described as
shallow, well-drained silt loams that formed in volcanic ash. These soils are nearly
bermudagrass. . .
-
Naalehu soils are described as
well-drained silty clay loams that formed in volcanic ash. These soils are nearly
1.3.2
State Inventory of Historic Places [SIHP] # 50---), to the north by additiona
mauka-makai ect area. An
used to access the orchard. An earthen ditch is situated between this road and Maile Street,
designed to channel run-
ing a row of trees forming additional wind-
Kamani Street, and Puahala Street (see Figure
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Introduction
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure 7. Overlay of Soil Survey of the State of Hawaii (Sato
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Introduction
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
side of Maile Street ou
-6-00 eastern section of ‘Ilima Street at TMK: [3] 9-6-005:036. The
/Though this ov
southeast into TMK: [3] 9-6-sewer line runs through the macadamia nut orchard,
in TMK [3] 9-6-
-TMK [3] 9-6-
own was designated SIHP # 50--69-
listed has never been evaluated for eligibility for listing on these registers. CSH was unable to locate any SIHP # -07362.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Methods
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Section 2
inventory survey under
-5-
2 by CSH and on -
- In general,
area, GPS data collection, and
subsurface testing.
2.1.1
-
2- .
e determination of its boundary was based
-made features.
2.1.2
the AIS
culturally modified lava tubes. on consultation with SH The subsurf consisted of
–
to avoid trees, roots, and irrigation lines. In general, the seven linear trenches measured 5 m (20 ft) long and m (3.2 ft), and
any inclusions, such as cultural material and/or d other general observations. W ere to be carefully
No studies were unnecessary.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Methods
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
the
Archives
Archives
he CSH library were also consulted. In addition, database (Waihona ‘Aina 2000).
the
cultural resources
C
and Native Hawaiian Organizations has been initiated and is ongoing bThe results of the current investigation will be utilized in these ongoing efforts. No historic
(Criterion earea.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 und Research
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Section 3
3.1.1
over 600,000 acres and nearly 30 sea). The , including (from west to east) Hionamoa, and 2 -
was not found.
Traditional accounts concerning the area -Contact settlement in the vicinity. -era settlement that formed around a of cultivation hala tree (Pandanus
tectorius).
this inland regions for agriculture: Handy and Handy kula ) lands country in the Hawaiian Islands
Given its geological and climatic ity, i
bilities of the (chiefly class), and
of the treatment meted out to those
was called The Weir
Ruling Chiefs of Hawai‘iunification of the island of Hawai‘i under ‘Umi-a-
I-mai--lani was the chief of Ka-u. He was blind, but noted for his strength and
. . . ‘Umi-a--mai--lani. . . After I-mai--lani became blind the fight between him and ‘Umi continued . . . After I-mai---u became ‘Umi-a-–
other districts through generations on
descendants –65).
At times, ed a triumvirate under a single ruler. However, such unions were subject to change
that of Puna:
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 und Research
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Ka-lani-belonged to their father, Ka-lani-nui-‘i-a-mamao, and [his brother] Ka-lani--
au-
inheritors.
. . . a great battle was fought [between Ka-lani--lani-. . . Ka-lani-w
-lani--‘u and Puna, for he was a native of Ka-‘u. There were the birth sands of –77]
-
ruling ali‘i
The chief Ka-lani-
3.1.2
described the :
some dreadful convulsion. The ground is every where covered with cinders and
When [Mr. Bligh] landed, he found no stream -water,
describing found a different scene in areas that received more rainfall. Menzies writes of
a fine -a-heulu.
re fell some showers of rain
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 und Research
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
laid out and managed their ground and the neatness with which they cultivated their
A stream of water which fell from the mountain through the middle of it was ingeniously branched off on each side to flood and fertilize the most distant fields –
This abundance was not isolated; continuing on his way east through the ahupua‘a
9 miles southwest
many of which
having little or no shelter, yet they bore fruit tolerably well. ]
ecorded his
southwest of the
cottages, even to the summits of the hills.
A fine stream of fresh water, the first we had seen on the island, ran along the centre
site side,
beautiful valley: the mountain taro, bordered by sugar-cane and bananas, was e sides of the hills, and seemed to
–
ahupua‘a for the ali‘i and his journal
between the habitation areas. These
well-ere
accessible to each other and to the resources of land and sea.
miss
within a few months boasted of 900 converts. The following year
area) by schooner where he found,
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 und Research
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
The shore was lined with hundreds of natives as our little boat neared the shore.. . . Then
. . . two strong men, tattooed from head to foot, came in bearing a huge whole hog,
e melons, bananas, and sugar cane, and little gourds filled with
the Candlenut tree, Aleutris moluccana26:90]
settlement shift was occurring from coastal to inland reg
censuses, -nineteenth
century document changes to the district brought about by natural forces and
an account describing the devastating effects of a drought and fire that had occurred three years earlier:
-
re the remains of
ali‘i to the
ahupua‘a:
had reached an elevation
. . . t, and might
Behind this noble series of hills, timber abounds. So that there is to be found every
fifteen
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 und Research
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
-
3.1.3 the Kuleana Act
In the mid-nineteenth century, during the time of Kamehameha III, a series of legal and
-to the akua (godchiefs.
Following the enactment of a series of new laws from the mid--
d the
ali‘i and their konohiki kuleana (commoners) –
from the claimant and witnesses. A Royal Patent (RP), which quit-
(lots), such as an award with agricultural land in one ahupua‘a and a house lot in another.
Ali‘i
Many ali‘i -third
However, a Figure ) shows ,950 acres in Hionamoa awarded to the
.
Waihona ‘Aina (2000) indicates Moses Keawe claimed five area wo of the five lots were awarded. located in 2, roject area along the -Volcano (. d acres in Hionamoa, located
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa,
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
20
Figure . Moaula-- area in relation to roads, trails, and the
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
-Road. Both of the awarded were h ouse lots. The three
fields.
was also awarded in 2. This award the -
land use. No kuleana
-
alo
. Soeh that Grant 03533,
mauka Kau-Figure ) in relation to the Figure , is listed on Waihona ina (2000) as being located in
-Figure
3.1.4 - to Late
tivity
-mile-ented
nced sometime after the middle of the century when Princess
Ka‘a
ensive
growing:
-f the mills
pulu, a soft, flossy, yellow wool on the base of tree-Cibotium pulu
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
22
pulu trade:
The effect—
might secure comfort to themselves and families, but the actual result is the reverse.
Consequently
their homes are almost in reality deserted, ground uncultivated. [
astated by the forces of nature. A
n a tidal wave that destroyed coa 2.5 miles nt
pali .
Hutchinson established the
commercially than either wheat or pulu, sugar cultivation bea
rict.
-
Figure 9) shows th Mill located just
lands indicated as , as well as
No roads or trails are indicated. (Figure )
Figure
found. Figure
mauka, joining and continuing northeast above
makai
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
23
Figure 9.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa d 2
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure .
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa d 2
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
25
time
3.1.5
Figure
Figure also illustrates the mauka (in
road own i mauka-makai
andFigure Figure ); -Volc
Figure . A trail
, of this trail remains within the town vicinity, which has ltered by agricultural and residential
Presumably this limited railroad was used to carry cut cane to the mill from some of the nearby fields. More cane at the time.
Railway ment continued, with the establishment of lines running
fields (Figure
Figure
better detail, including the narrow-
. includes additional rows of structures along roadways and around the mill, as well as the locations l to the southeast of the town. The route of the major roadw own, labeled
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa d 2
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
26
Figure .
ost office, and areas of different land use
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
27
Figure
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure . -
vicinity
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
29
thrunning just makai Figure ) shows this new route and the
of the
twentieth century the residential side-installation of the
The an (Figure )
Hand drawn annotations indicate some land uses in the area dating to the
the WWTP site the also crosses through a rectangular area labeled rea and a fence
-ga
disturbance to or dismantling of the former railroad route by the mid-twentieth century in the area crossed by the easement. The O
Figure ) indicate
cultivated in sugarcane at this time; instead, these former cane fields were being readied for f the macadamia orchard that is now fully matured.
3.1.6
-located 5 miles southwest and/or travelling between Hilo and Kailua-Kona.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
30
Figure -
own
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
32
Figure .
T own
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
33
3.2.1
Table and shown in Figure .
,
along and u Figure --section just mauka Belt .
sides of the stream; no archaeological features were documented,
recommended.
, Haun and Associates conducted an archaeological assessment (no finds AIS) for an
Figure ). The 5.256-
turbance from agricultural and
documented, and
, Haun and Associates conducted an AIS
Figure ). The study confirmed
to the latter half of the nineteenth century. One newly SIHP # --m-long section of a historic irrigation flume associated with the former sugar (Figure ). No traditional sites were identified,
In 2006,
-sq-ft -6- 2006; see Figure ). Prior disturbance associated with commercial agriculture were noted. No archaeological features were observed.
tate-wide )
, schools, including KHPES (Hammatt and Shideler 2006; see Figure vicinity and noted that the school
is listed on the HRHP
# -07522; see Figure ). Hammatt and Shideler (2006:27) recommended on-site archaeological
Figure
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Table . Previous a rchaeological studies in the rea
Location (SIHP # 50-10-69****)
Archaeological reconnaissance au Stream between y (Rouand Wood Valley Rd,
No materials identified
Archaeological
inventory survey (recorded as an archaeological assessment)
-6--6--6--6-02
materials identified
Haun and Archaeological inventory survey P lima and PTMK s: [3] 9-6-00-6-
00
documented: SIHP # - historic irrigation flume
associated with sugarcane
cultivation
Jourdane 2006
Archaeological inventory survey (recorded as an archaeological assessment)
P lima and P9–6– materials identified
Hammatt and
Shideler 2006 and field
-6-
-5-009:006,
Noted listing of KHPES on the
HRHP; on-site archaeological
monitoring recommended
on et
Archaeological
monitoring Elementary School, TMK s: [3] 9-6- 039
Noted listing of KHPES on the
HRHP; one other historic SIHP # -27570, lava tube
Archaeological inventory survey Elementary School, TMK: [3] 9-6- -27570 (lava tube system),
documenting three new features; documented one new historic -era burial (SIHP # -SIHP # -27570 lava tube
Cleghorn
Archaeological
a, TMK:
[3] 9-6- artifacts and a lava tube within
recommended
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
35
Figure . Pa hala USGS 7.5-uadrangles showing
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
36
Figure . Pa hala USGS 7.5-minute tuadrangles showing
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
37
--69-27570
The location of SIHP # -27570 is shown on Figure .
-e Figure ). The SIHP # -27570 und within the tube and
designated SIHP # 50--69-Figure ). This burial is located away from the limits of
bes the lava tube system as follows:
Figure ]. The southern branch does not contain archaeological sites. Sites 27570 and
The western branch includes two tubes that are
western branch, roughly 35.0 meters in from the stor Figure 20].
of the western tube system. The floor of the northern
-
noted SIHP # --
archaeological of TMK: [3] 9-6-addressing an earlier and larger version of the Figure ).
Figure ). These artifacts included a single traditional hammerstone and fragmental historic glass and ceramics. Royal Hawaiian Orchards rocessing lant and
ic
:7 ).
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure .
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
39
Figure 20. --27570 lava t
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
-
have been evaluated as eligible for listing on the h
3.3.1
APE (see Figure ), i (SIHP # 50--69-07522). SIHP # -
-
of significance as Criteria A (education/social history value) and C (architecture value). This
3.3.2
SIHP # 50---
roadway is loc Figure ).
Under was evaluated as eligible for inclusion on the National Register under Criteria A ce in and information about that has its roots in antiquity.
ed for listing
Register or National Register.
dynamic rren wasteland, its abundant and varied -
where water and other resources were more abundant.
In the first 50 years after Contact,
u a handful of kuleana claims in the -scale farming. The vast the William Pitt
; this award ove . A number of inclu northern .
-
own.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
vicinity with the The majority of the
-Contact land use, ts such as cane flumes have been documented in the area . . A lava tube system (SIHP # -27570) has been
documented to the north and ; the lava tube contains a historic to modern
- . The school ols (SIHP # -07522). T--- has been evaluated as eligible for inclusion on the NRHP but has not been nominated. The current
not encroach on any , the
.
Given the continued agricultural and -Contact sites are no -era
Subsurface historic features related to sugar cultivation the - -Contact archaeological features, including human burials.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Section 4
inventory survey under --–. This -
and the subsurface testin.
-(SIHP #s 50--69--) were documente Figure ; see Section 5 for full site
-Contact features or lava tubes were encountered ea.
wi -5 m
the density of the vegetation. Ground visibility was very good throughout most of the
began along the easement located within TMK: [3] 9-6-005:036. This
n, ed area located along the southern
side of the roadway used to acce (Figure 22). Th
overgrown with California grass. The easement crosses the roadway, entering the former sugar along a dirt driveway between two large, old maintenance buildings that are still in use (Figure 23)a. North of these structures is
and
located along the
makai side of Ilima Street (Figure ). An earthen storm s along the makai side of Ilima Street s scattered modern household trash (Figure 25).
within TMK: [3] 9-6-005:036, the survey continued along
various residential , including and Ilima Street (Figure 26 through Figure 29). These streets consist of one-to-two-lane These . A four-way
s
(Figure 30)these residential streets ct area are of variable age but are commonly -and-corrugated metal roofing. Slight
for runoff; these drainages are also outside the
(Figure ); this culvert
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure 22-6-
Figure 23-6-
outside the area; view to northwest
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure . Photo showing the forested area between the maintenance yard and Ilima Street at the northern end of the easement in TMK: [3] 9-6-005:036; view to northwest
Figure 25. Photo showing the location where the easement in TMK: [3] 9-6-Ilima Street (frame right); the Street culvert is beneath the grass to the left of the road; view to southwest
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure 26. Photo note linear drainage in grassy lawn on left side of view to southeast
Figure 27drainage
view to northwest
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure northwest
Figure 29 north
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure 30P uahala streets; view to northwest
Figure
to northeast
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
diverts runoff into the channel located along the makai side of Ilima Street (see Figure 25).
lined with commercial establishments in addition to
residences.
(SIHP # -, Wood Valley Road/Coastal Road; see Figure and Section ). A commercial drugstore, (Figure 32). terminus at Maile Street is technically a located within TMK: [3] 9-6-
ection includes turn lanes (Figure 33)
Trust. On the western side of this intersection are the , -era buildings (see Figure 33). Within the grassy yard fronting these buildings is an old Corliss steam engine once used by the sugar mill. These structures and the
The -mile ower Moaula Road intersection (Figure and Figure 35). Research has t (SIHP # -, V olcano
Road; see Figure and Section 5.2). Along the makai side of Maile Street in this area are an old
ion house (which has been subsequently used as a store) and visible remnants of the mill and theater; all these features are located Along the mauka side of Maile Street in this area are a Hawaiian Telcom building (see Figure )area
No remnants of the old
From the vicinity of the Maile Street MK: [3] 9-6-Closest to Maile Street the easement briefly crosses overgrown in California grass and
other weeds, before entering the macadamia orchard.
to t te. The orchard contains linear rows of mature trees watered via surface irrigation lines (Figure 36). Fallen macadamia nuts, leaf litter, and relatively few small st Signs of surface water runoff were observed throughout the orchard. mauka
(Figure 37).
Road edge and down the center of the orchard (Figure and Figure 39), and bulldozer blade scars hroughout the orchard. uring the
macadamia nuts off the ground; t
materials around.
A few scattered glass and ceramics were observed in the vicinity (TE) 2 location in the northern-site; testing at this location did not uncover any subsurface cultural materials (see Section ). The nature and density of the fragmental cultural materials observed on the surface within the
macadamia orchard were not significant
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
50
Figure 32. Photo toward the Kamani Street intersection; commercial center is visible to the right; view to north
Figure 33. ile Street; Hawaiian Telcom building ; view to southwest
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure
Figure 35
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
52
Figure 36 between the trees; view to southwest
Figure 37
forms the mauka boundary of
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
53
Figure . Photo showing the margin of the macadamia orchard at the southeastern corner of the
Figure 39 bisecting the macadamia orchard; view to southwest
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
were
h
associated sewer easement in TMK: [3] 9-6-cleared from an area just below Maile Street; the areas surrounding the cleared easement are fallow the maintained easement,
allowing for relocation of a sewer manhole (Figure )
makai surface; a low dirt mound is believed to indicate its location (Figure ). No remnants of the old
Subsurface testing was conducted within the , to determine the nature of the sediments and the for subsurface archaeological features including but not limited to culturally modified lava tubes. This
area is a mature macadamia nut orchard. mechanical
seven test trenches
Figure and Figure . An archaeologist s , which was
sed during
n, which is consistent with from sugarcane cultivation and the
follow.
Tram generally revealed two distinct natural sedimentary layers
, rich silty loam A horizon silty
clay loam B horizon. These findings are consistent with the sediment in Figure 7 land usewas in TE ers. Here, the two natural sediment layers are
ee Figure .
4.2.1
in the northern corner of the
of the (see Figure and Figure ).
Figure shows out long surface (cmbs) through two layers of natural Waiaha series sediment (Strata I and III) and Figure through Figure
and Table 2). No charcoal or cultural materials were observed within .
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
55
Figure within TMK: [3] 9-6-
Figure . makai terminus of sewer easement within TMK: [3] 9-6-
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
56
Figure . owing the location s of the seven within the of the through TE 7
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
57
Figure within the of the through TE 7) ( overlay added)
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure
Figure . north
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
59
Figure . Profile of TE west sidewall
Table 2.
Depth
I 0–72 A horizon; 7.5YR 2.5/3, v , fine, granular structure; dry, loose, consistence; slightly
sediment origin; clear , smooth lower boundary; roots
common; no
II 72– Ash; , light gray; ash; structureless (single-grain); dry, loose, no
cementation consistence; non-wavy lower boundary; few roots; no charcoal or cultural material ; ash
III –230 B h moderate, medium, structure; dry, cementation consistence; slightly stic; terrigenous sediment lower boundary; few roots; no cultural material
; natural Waiaha series sediment
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
60
4.2.2
-central secti
Figure
and Figure ). Figure TE 2 cmbs through two layers of natural Waiaha series sediment (Strata I and II) and terminated at (Figure , Figure , and Table 3
highly fragmental historic materials on the ground surface in the TE 2 locale (see Section ), n o
cultural materials were observed within TE 2.
4.2.3
Figure and Figure ). Figure 50
through two layers of natural Waiaha series sediment (Strata I and II) Figure , Figure 52, and Table ). No cultural materials were observed within TE 3.
4.2.4
Test
Figure and Figure ). Figure 53 shows cmbs through two layers of natural Waiaha series sediment (Strata I and II)
(Figure , Figure 55, and Table 5
4.2.5
Figure and Figure ). Figure 56
cmbs through
two layers of natural Waiaha series sediment (Strata I and II) (Figure 57, Figure , and Table 6). No cultural materials were observed within TE 5.
4.2.6 6)
(see Figure and Figure
). Figure 59
two layers of natural Naalehu series sediment (Strata I and II) (Figure 60, Figure , and Table 7). No cultural materials were observed within TE 6.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure . Photo of TE 2
Figure . Photo of TE 2 southwest sidewall; view to north east
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
62
Figure southwest sidewall
Table 3.
Depth
I 0– A hgranular structure; dry, loose, consistence; slightly
sediment origin; diffuse, smooth lower boundary;
roots sediment
II – B h moderate, medium,
smooth
series sediment
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
63
Figure 50. Photo of TE 3
Figure . Photo of TE 3 west sidewall; view to northeast
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure 52
Table . TE 3
Depth
I 0– A horizon; 7.5YR 2.5
diffuse, smooth lower boundary;
sediment
II – B horizon, Natural moderate,
smooth
c
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
65
Figure 53.
Figure . west sidewall; view to northwest
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
66
Figure 55west sidewall
Table 5
Depth
I 0–60 A horizon
sediment origin; clear, smooth lower boundary; roots common; no
t
II 60– B horizon silty clay loam; moderate, medium,
lower boundary, terminated at bedr
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
67
Figure 56. Photo of TE 5
Figure 57. Photo of TE 5 southwest sidewall; view to south
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Figure . Str sidewall
Table 6. TE 5
Depth
I 0–95 A horizon; , fine,
ies sediment
II 95– B horizon, Natural moderate,
smooth
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
69
Figure 59. Photo of TE 6
Figure 60. Photo of TE 6 southeast sidewall; view to southeast
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
70
Figure
Table 7. TE 6 s d
Depth
I 0–70 A horizon;
sediment origin; clear, smooth lower boundary; roots common; no cultural material
II 70– B horizon, Natural ; moderate,
sediment origin;
smooth
; natural Naalehu series sediment
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
4.2.7
on
(see Figure and Figure ). Figure
62
two layers of natural Naalehu series sediment (Strata I and II) (Figure 63, Figure , and Table ). No cultural materials were observed within TE 7 .
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
72
Figure 62. Photo of TE 7
Figure 63. Photo of TE 7 south sidewall; view to southeast
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
73
Figure
Table . TE 7 s d
Depth
I 0–90 A horizon
sediment origin; clear, smooth lower boundary; roots common; no
II 90– B horizon silty clay loam; moderate, medium, cementation
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HINAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Section 5
Two -era road alignments) were identified within the during this AIS. They are summarized in Table 9 and t Figure .
Table 9. Sites identified within rea
SIHP # (50-10-69) Function
- Road alignment (Volcano Road)
- Road alignment (Wood Valley Road/Coastal Road)
SIHP # 50-10-69-31088
Road (Wood Valley Road/Coastal Road)
-
[3] 9-6-005:999 (county right-of-way)
None
SIHP # 50--69- --mile) section of the historic Wood Valley
Road/Coastal Road alignment located within (see Figure ). The section
of this alignment with Street on the west and (see Figure ). Construction of the modern Maile Street roadways, which are 5--33 ft) wide, has
ions of the former Wood Valley
Road/Coastal Road roadway (see Figure 32 through Figure 35).
coastal route from east own, where it merged with the original
(see Figure , Figure , Figure , Figure 65, and Figure 66). With the
construction of the new Volcano Road (SIHP # -the Wood Valley Road/Coastal Road (see Section 5.2), and the central SIHP # - (see Figure 65). Abo own the route is still called Wood Valley Road, but it is
les to the northeast and not as a
SIHP - (Wood Valley Road/Coastal Road) is a from the l –. -275-6, SIHP # -
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HINAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
75
Figure 65. Portions of the Wood Valley, Pahala, Punaluu, and Naalehu USGS 7.5 -minute s in relation to historic
roadways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HINAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
76
Figure 66. Portions of the and Punaluu USGS 7.5-s in relation to historic roadways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HINAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
77
SIHP # 50-10-69-31089
Road alignment (Volcano Road)
-
[3] 9-6-005:999 (county right-of-way)
None
SIHP # 50--69- --mile) section of the historic Volcano Road ee Figure ). The section of this alignment within
- alignment.
Figure 65). former Volcano Road roadway (see Figure 33 through Figure 35).
the similarly named route located more mauka Figure , Figure , Figure 65, and Figure 66). With the construction of the ---ment became
(see Figure )
the Belt Road Figure ) does not label the route at all.
SIHP - (Volcano Road) is a -
-275-6, SIHP # - is assessed as significant under Criterion d for the
tation routnineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Significance Assessments
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Section 6
SIHP #s 50--69--, historic-era Section under HRS §6E, while Section 6.2 Hawai‘i Register eligibility determinations.
Under HRS §6E-275-
he following
significance criteria:
a
b
c Embody the distinctive characteristics of a t
d
e
beliefs, events or oral accounts—o the history and cultural identity.
The segments of SIHP #s --
today. While the corridors remain active roadways, they no longer function as the
residential and commercial use, and the route names themselves have also changed. Pursuant to -275-6, SIHP # s - and - are assessed as significant under Criterion d for the
information they have yielded about
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Nationa
Re--
integrity as described in Section above, and meet one or more of the following broad
significance criteria:
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Significance Assessments
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
79
A That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
B
C
sent a significant and distinguishable entity
As discussed in Section , none of the constructed elements of the subject original SIHP #s -- roadways are evident today, and these s of the historic ies their ; see
).
Hawai‘i island. Therefore, SIHP #s - and - are evaluated as not eligible for inclusion on the National Register or Hawai‘i Register.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HINAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Section 7
area was coverof dense vegetation, access and visibility were good during the survey. has been agricultural and residential/town he own and but these
remnants are all located outside the
ved on the ground surface within the by
gram of subsurface testing was
generally revealed two nts are consistent with
ity at f
encountered during the testing.
- and -istoric -era road corridors
- or -
roadways are evident today, and their location.
the historic corridors nor change their characteristics.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 Project Effect and Mitigation Recommendations
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Section 8
regar
the segments of the Wood Valley/Coastal Road (SIHP # 50--69-) and Volcano Road
(SIHP # 50--69---275- In
No mitigation commitments are recommended for ts 50--69- or - s of these ies only maintain integrity of location as all the constructed elements of the original Wood
Valley/Coastal road and Volcano road are no longer evident today.
While , archaeological monitoring during . This is based on the being SIHP # 50--69-07362), as
a lava tube system (SIHP # 50--69-27570) with some cultural modifications beneath Pahala town;
--69-07522), a National
Register-
----eligible historic
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 References Cited
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Section 9
. Science Management, Inc., Honolulu.
Chinen, Jon J.
nd Division of 1848. University of Hawaii Press,
Honolulu.
. .
-of-Way (and Portions of Adjacent Parcels) for the
(3) 8-1--1--1-
Island of Hawai‘i
Cleghorn, Paul L.
-6-
. Glenwood Publishers, Felton, CA.
Honolulu.
2000 -Year Story of Sugar in Hawai‘i Mutual Publishing,
Honolulu.
2006 –6–
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 References Cited
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
-Acre Portion of
-6-. Scientific
, -L. Chen, P.-S. Chu, J.K.
Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i.
--D-11- Electronic document, (accessed ).
online at www.google.com/earth.html.
2006 o DOE Schools, -Island DOE Cesspool Project, -6--
Native Planters Bulletin 233.
-6--6-
[3] 9 -6-002 and 9-6-005. Hawai‘i TMK Service, Honolulu.
Ruling Chiefs of Hawai‘i. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu.
Ahupua‘a. -
A Voyage of the Pacific Ocean
- 3 Vols. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 References Cited
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
of Accounting and General Services, Honolulu. Available online at
Second edition. Nathaniel B. Emerson,
Museum, Honolulu.
. W.F. Wilson, editor. New Freedom Press, Honolulu.
and digitized by Hawaiian Mission Houses. Electronic document, -collection.
--
Place Names of Hawaii. Revis
Honolulu.
Mission Statement Reports for
-collection.
Soehren, L
Hawai‘i -
(accessed March 2005).
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2 References Cited
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Palima Point USGS 7.5-uadrangle. USGS Information
Pahala USGS 7.5-uadrangle. USGS Information Colorado.
Naalehu, Pahala, Punaluu, and Wood Valley USGS 7.5-
quadrangles do.
20 . Electronic document, (accessed ).
Services, Honolulu. Available online at .
Archaeological M
Hawai‘i Inter-
-6-
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
90
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
92
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
93
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
95
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
96
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
97
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
99
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: HIONAMOA 2
AISR for the WWTP Project, Hionamoa
TMKs: [3] 9-6--6-and County Right-of-Ways
Harry Kim
Mayor
Wilfred M. Okabe
Managing Director
Qlouufy of�afuai'i
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 9, 2019
345 KekOanao'a Street, Suite 41 • Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
Ph: (808) 961-8083 · Fax: (808) 961-8086
Email: cohdem@hawaiicounty.gov
Via email (alan.s.downer@hawaii.gov) and U.S. Mail
Alan S. Downer, Ph.D., Administrator
Hawai'i State Historic Preservation Division
Department of land and Natural Resources
601 Kam6kila Boulevard, Suite 555
Kapolei, Hawai'i 96707
RE: Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant and Sewer System Project
William A. Kucharski
Director
Diane A. Noda
Deputy Director
Hionamoa, Palima, and Pa'au'au 1 and 2 Ahupua'a, Ka'u District, Hawai'i Island
TMKs: (3) 9-6-002:016 por. and 018 por., 9-6-005:036 por. and 044, and County
of Hawai'i Right-of Ways (Bautista et al. 2019)
Acceptance of Archaeological Inventory Survey Report (LOG No. 2018.000722)
Dear Dr. Downer:
The County of Hawai'i (COH) is proposing to undertake construction of the Paha la Large
Capacity Cesspool Replacement Project in Pahala, Pa'au'au 1, Ka'u District, Hawai'i Island. The
project includes a new collection system and treatment and disposal facility to service the
Paha la community as well as closure of two Large Capacity Cesspools (LCCs). The collection
system will be located primarily on County streets. The treatment and disposal facility will
occupy 14.9 acres and is located on a portion of a 42.5-acre parcel, TMK (3) 9-6-002:018, near
the southern edge of Pahala Town. A Final Environmental Assessment is currently being
prepared for this project. This project will use funds from a U.S. EPA Grant (EPA Grant XP-
96942401-7) and from the State Revolving Funds (C150090-05, C150090-08) which includes
federal and state monies.
On March 11, 2019, the County submitted to SHPD a Draft Archaeological Inventory Survey
(AIS) for the Pahala Wastewater Treatment Plant and Sewer System Project, Hionamoa, Palima,
and Pa'au'au 1 and 2 Ahupua'a, Ka'u District, Hawai'i Island (Log No. 2018.000722). In May
2019, the EPA contacted Sean Naleimaile of your staff and confirmed that SHPD was reviewing
the Draft AIS for both NHPA Section 106 consultation and HRS 6E-8 concurrence purposes.
County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
Alan S. Downer, Ph.D., Administrator
October 9, 2019
Page 2
On September 26, 2019, the EPA confirmed by letter that the EPA has determined that no
historic properties will be affected by the undertaking. The basis for this determination was
explained further in the Draft AIS submitted to SHPD in March 2019 by the County of Hawai'i,
EPA's NHPA Section 106 designee. The two enclosed figures from the Draft AIS show the Area
of Potential Effect (APE) and the treatment and disposal facility project site.
Based on the findings of the March 11, 2019, Draft AIS and the EPA's September 26, 2019,
determination letter, we respectfully request that you review and accept the findings in the
Draft AIS. Your acceptance of the Draft AIS is necessary so that needed final environmental
assessment, design work, and eventually construction can proceed for the Paha la Community
large Capacity Cesspool Replacement Project.
If you have any questions or desire additional information, please contact Dora Beck at (808)
961-8513 or dora.beck@hawaiicounty.gov
Sincerely,
Director
Encs: Draft AIS APE
Draft AIS Treatment and Disposal Facility
cc: Craig lekven, Brown & Caldwell
Kate Rao, EPA
WK:mef
Dora Beck, Wastewater Division Chief
S.Wilkinson, CSH
{·
Figure 1. Aerial photo (Google Earth 2013) showing the project area and existing Large Capacity
Cesspools (LCC)
(Note: this is Figure 5 in the AIS)
Figure 2. Pahala WWTP Preliminary Site Plan showing AIS test excavation locations (Note: this is Figure 43 in the AIS)
i~D
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco,CA 94105-3901
Certified Mail No.:7008 1830 0002 6279 3093
Return Receipt Requested
September 26,2019
Alan Downer,Ph.D.,Administrator
Hawai’i State Historic Preservation Division
Department of Land and Natural Resources
601 Kamokila Blvd.,Suite 555
Kapolei,Hawai’i 96707
RE:National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)Section 106 Consultation for the Pãhala
Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement Project (EPA Grant XP-9694240l)
Dear Dr.Downer:
The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 (EPA)authorized our grantee,the County
of Hawai’i (County),to initiate the NHPA Section 106 consultation process with the Hawai’i
State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)pursuant to 36 C.F.R.§800.2(c)(4)for the above-
referenced project in correspondence to you dated February 28,2018.
On March 11,2019,the County submitted to SHPD a Draft Archaeological Inventory Survey
(AIS)for the Pähala Wastewater Treatment Plant and Sewer System Project,Hionamoa,Pälima,
and Pä’au’au 1 and 2 Ahupua’a,Ka’ü District,Hawai’i Island (Log No.20 18.000722).In May
2019,EPA contacted Sean Naleimaile of your staff and confirmed that SHPD was reviewing the
Draft AIS for both NHPA Section 106 consultation and HRS 6E-8 concurrence purposes.
However,Mr.Naleimaile recently contacted my staff seeking EPA’s effect determination to
complete the Section 106 process.While it was EPA’s understanding that the County’s March
2019 submission would be sufficient to convey EPA’s effect determination,I am sending this
letter to confirm that EPA has determined that no historic properties will be affected by the
undertaking.The basis for this determination is summarized below and explained further in the
Draft AIS submitted to SHPD in March 2019 by EPA’s NHPA Section 106 designee.
Description of the Undertaking
The proposed undertaking involves construction of an improved wastewater system to replace
two large capacity cesspools (LCCs)in the community of Pähala,in the Ka’ü District,Island of
Hawai’i.See Figure 1 for an overview of the existing LCCs,new collection system,and new
treatment and disposal facility locations.Under the proposed undertaking,the County will
perform the following actions:
Printed on Recycled Paper
1)Acquire,or otherwise obtain the right to develop and use,a portion of a 42.5-acre
parcel,identified as Site 7,that is currently owned by Kamehameha Schools,then
construct a new secondary wastewater treatment and disposal facility within a portion
of the parcel (see Figure 2);
2)Construct a wastewater collection system,primarily within the public right-of-way
and two short segments within easements in the Pähala community,to collect and
convey sanitary waste from the residential lots to the new treatment and disposal
facility;
3)Close and abandon two LCCs,according to Hawai’i Department of Health (DOH)
closure procedures;and
4)Abandon the existing wastewater collection system in place.
The new secondary wastewater treatment and disposal facility will be located on a 14.9-acre
portion of the 42.5-acre parcel identified as Site 7.This 42.5-acre parcel (Tax Map Key (TMK):
3-9-6-002:0 18),located adjacent to LCC 1 about 0.5 miles (2,600 feet) south of the developed
area of the community,is owned by Kamehameha Schools and used as a macadamia nut orchard.
See Figure 2 for a preliminary site plan showing the proposed location of the treatment and
disposal facility within the southeast portion of Site 7.
The new wastewater treatment and disposal facility will consist of a headworks and an odor
control unit,an operations building,four lined aerated lagoons,a subsurface flow constructed
wetland to remove nitrogen,an adjacent disinfection system to remove pathogens,and four slow-
rate land treatment basins for disposal of the treated effluent. Construction will involve grading,
excavating,and fill activities at Site 7.Excavation to depths of approximately 4 to 10 feet will be
required to provide necessary capacity for the lagoons,constructed wetlands,and planted groves.
An approximately 4-foot tall berm will be constructed on all four sides of the groves to contain
rainfall from a 100-year,24-hour storm event.
The proposed wastewater collection system will be located within 8 public streets:Maile Street;
‘ilima Street;Huapala Street;Hinano Street;Hala Street (all located in the southern portion of
the community)and Puahala Street;Kaimani Street and Pikake Street (located on the eastern end
of the community).These streets serve the residential areas and have two travel lanes with
unpaved shoulders and no improved sidewalks. The new collection system will consist of a total
of approximately 12,150 linear feet (2.3 miles)of corrosion-resistant polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
piping,ranging in size from 8-inch diameter to 16-inch diameter.Construction of the new
wastewater collection system will require trenching in locations throughout the Pähala
community,primarily within the right-of-way of public streets plus two short segments within
easements.Trenches will typically be about 3 feet wide and at least 6 feet deep.Once the line is
placed in the trench,the affected area will be backfihled to restore the existing topography.
The two LCCs in Pãhala are readily accessible for closure activities.LCC 1 is located in a parcel
that has been previously cleared and is currently overgrown with tall grasses.It may be necessary
to clear a path for construction vehicles and equipment to access LCC 1.Clearing an access road
(or other similar work)will not be necessary to access LCC 2,which is located in the backyard
2
of a residential lot with access via the house driveway.The specific methods to be used for
closure of the LCCs have not yet been determined but will be compliant with DOH requirements.
Abandonment and closure of the two LCCs and the existing wastewater collection system will
likely require minor earthwork.The area of potential effects (APE)described below is designed
to encompass all potential closure activities.
Area of Potential Effects
In accordance with 36 C.F.R.§800.4(a)(1),EPA has defined the APE as the entire project area
that will potentially experience ground disturbance due to excavation,trenching,grading,filling,
vegetation removal,construction vehicle use,establishment and use of staging and laydown
areas,and other similar activities.The APE encompasses the wastewater treatment plant
development parcel,the entire length of the new wastewater collection system,utility and sewer
line easements, the sites of the two existing LCCs,and properties with existing sewer laterals
(see Figure 1).
Identification of Historic Properties
The County conducted a search for historic properties within the APE for this undertaking and
two road segments were identified and documented as historic features in the Draft AIS.
However,after further review and evaluation,the County determined that they were not eligible
for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places due to the lack of integrity apart from
their location.
If potential artifacts or archeological resources are discovered during construction activities,the
contractor will stop work immediately at that location and take all reasonable steps to secure the
preservation of those features.
Native Hawaiian Organization Consultation
In accordance with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act,numerous
stakeholders were consulted during the development of the Draft Environmental Assessment for
the Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement Project (Draft EA),including 14
Native Hawaiian Organizations that may attach religious or cultural significance to properties
affected by the undertaking.On March 29,2018,each of the following organizations was sent a
copy of a project summary and a request for their written comments on the undertaking.
Attachment A provides an example of the correspondence that was sent to all 14 organizations
listed below.As of the date of this letter,no responses have been submifted to the County.
•Hawai’i Island Burial Council e Maku’u Farmers Association
•Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs e Na Koa Ikaika Ka Lãhui Hawai’i
•Charles Pelenui Mahi ‘Ohana •Office of Hawaiian Affairs
•Friends of ‘lolani Palace o Pacific Agricultural Land Management
o Hawaiian Civic Club of Rib Systems
•Kamehameha Schools •Partners in Development Foundation
•Kanu o ka’Aina Learning ‘Ohana o Pi’ihonua Hawaiian Homestead
•Ko’olau Foundation Community Association
3
Outreach
During the public comment period for the Draft EA (September 23,2018 —December 10,2018),
EPA and the County received public comments expressing concern regarding impacts to “a
burial cave with human skeletal remains and or shelving”that is “in the area where the County
wants to put a Sewage wastewater treatment plant.”Based on the available information,EPA and
the County believe that these comments refer to the filled lava tube opening identified in the
2016 archaeological field inspection report that is described in Section 1.2 of the Draft AIS.To
ensure that the undertaking does not affect this cultural resource, the County configured the site
plan for the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal facility to ensure that the location of this
lava tube opening would be outside the APE for this undertaking.
Finding of No Historic Properties Affected
In accordance with 36 C.F.R.§800.4(d),EPA has reached a finding of no historic properties
affected for this undertaking.Since there are no known historic or archeological sites within the
APE,and since appropriate preservation measures will be taken should archeological resources
be discovered during construction, this undertaking will have no effect on any historic or cultural
resources or on any traditional and customary practices.In addition,the potential for
encountering unexpected archeological resources within the site of the proposed treatment and
disposal facility is low due to historical ground modifications and ongoing harvesting activities.
I am requesting your concurrence with the APE and the determination of no historic properties
affected within 30 days of receipt of this letter.If I do not receive a response within 30 days of
receipt,I will assume concurrence from your office and EPA will authorize the grant recipient to
proceed with the project in accordance with 36 C.F.R.§800.4(d)(1)(i).
If you require additional information or have questions regarding this request,please contact
Kate Rao,Groundwater Protection Section,at (415) 972-3533 or via email at rao.kate@epa.gov.
Sincerely,
Manager,Groundwater Protection Section
Water Division
cc:
William Kucharski,County of Hawai’i
Dora Beck,County of Hawai’i
Attachments:
Figure 1 --Area of Potential Affect and AIS ProjectArea for the Pãhala Community LCC
Replacement Project
Figure 2 --Preliminary site plan showing the 14.9-acre Pãhala WWTP within the southeast
portion of Site 7.
Attachment A —Native Hawaiian Organizations Correspondence
5
•I I’•~•‘~~
~I “~/•‘fJ•~F ••~‘~
ç~i~Y~-‘:~~
—-I’:f~t~e~’~’~
~HA~ELEflE?TZRV :~~;t~‘.‘r
OQL
~—h4M4~j 57*~I --ftc,-r
~r •bfi ‘
--
‘-‘F,-
//
‘—p-7-F
A
Project Area --I,;
4/4
Lenend
0 Area of Potenlial Elfect (APE).~rA)S Project flea
Exisitng Large Capacity Cesspool (ICC jc~••.
Base Map Google Earth Aerial Imagery 2013 ~I
Daia Sowves:CSH
150 300 Meters N
500 1,000 Feet
(kh-~I~’~J.vv,,Sfl /jat.ar~/--
a
I
-*4~‘t;t
/
Figure 1.Area of Potential Affect and AIS Project Area for the Pahala Community
ICC Replacement Project
EZIS~nNGACCESSV~KAMEH~AEKASCHOOLSFOROThERSTOR~AJN(0.9ACRES)HOlETOPOORAPHLCAI.CONTOURSAREM~PRQUMATEANDBASEDONPAHALA USGSTOROQUADRANGLE.~TERTREATMENT PLANTFigure2.Preliminarysite planshowingthe14.9-acrePãhalaWWTPwithinthesoutheastportionofSite7.(CourtesyofCulturalSurveysHawai’i)25WDE~mLrr~EASEMENT (0.94ACRES)8~*4FLUSNTSEWER000WELLSEFEAcKRREHYDRANTN8OOI.~LECHECKDETECTORASSEMB1.YFORFIRELINE1~WATERMETERFORPOTABLE‘-...WATER\\\\\\\\LOTI(27.6ACRES)BISHOPESTATES(KAMEILAMEHASCHOOLS)TMK(3)5-6402:01942.9ACRES25’ SETBACKWSEBACK-~--~-------~_~__~i~—~\-pRopERrcL0~ETYPSC’SETBACKUNNAA02DDRAINAGE WAYDISINFECTIONDRIVEWAYACCESS-~FORWWTPSLOWRATELANDARPLICAIONGROVLTYP-__--__~eooPRELIMINARYSITEPLANSCALEINFEET
Harry Kim William A.Kucharski
Mayor Director
Wilfred M.Okabe Diane A.Noda
Managing Director Deputy Director
(g~~f~nf~~rn~
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
345 Kekuan~o’a Street,Suite 41 Hilo, Hawai’i 96720
Ph:(808) 961-8083 Fax:(808)961-8086
cohdem@co.hawaii.hi.us
ht~pj//~yw.hawaiicounty.goy/envjronrnentaj-nianaoernentJ
March 29,2018
Ms.Mililani B.Trask,Convenor
Na Koa Ikaika o Ka Lãhui Hawai’i
P.O.Box 6377
Rib,1-11 96720
Subject:PAhala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement
PA’au’au,Ka’u, Hawai’i
Consultation Under U.S.C.§302706
Dear Ms.Trask:
The County of Hawai’i Department of Environmental Management (DEM)is undertaking the
Pähala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement,Pä’au’au,Ka’U,Hawai’i project.
This project would be funded by a U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Region 9
Special Appropriation Grant and by the State of Hawai’i Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF)loan program.The proposed project will utilize federal funds;as such it is considered a
federal action and undertaking,as defined by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)of
1966,as amended (2006),and as Set forth in 54 U.S.C.§300320.Therefore,the EPA must
consider the effects of the project on historic properties and must also consult with organizations
that attach religious or cultural significance to properties affected by the project.
By letter dated March 8,2018, the EPA Region 9 reached out to participants to be consulted on
this project pursuant to U.S.C.§302706,also called Section 106 ofthe NHPA (see enclosure).
The letter also stated that the EPA had authorized the DEM to initiate consultation. Therefore,
on behalf of the EPA Region 9,the DEM invites you to participate in consultation for the
proposed Pãhala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement project,which is located
about 52 miles south of Rib and west (mauka)of Mämalahoa Highway (Route 11)within the
community of P~hala.
Overview of the Undertaking
The purpose of the project is to construct wastewater system improvements to replace the
County’s existing system servicing Pãhala.The wastewater system improvements will allow the
County of Hawai’i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
County to comply with EPA regulations requiring closure of large capacity cesspools (LCCs)
and to construct a system meeting current State of Hawaici Department of Bealth (DOT—I)and
DEM design guidelines for the collection,treatment and disposal of the treated effluent.The
Pähala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement Project improvements would be
owned,operated and maintained by the County.A project summary sheet and location map are
enclosed for your information.
The new wastewater collection system will be located within public rights-of-way,and the new
treatment and disposal system will be located on a currently privately owned parcel (TMK:9-6-
002:0 18)which will be acquired by the County.The wastewater collection system would be
located within 7 public streets;Maile Street,‘Ilima Street,Huapala Street,1—Ilnano Street,and
Hala Street,all located in the southern portion of the community and Puabala Street;and Pikake
Street located on the eastern end.The collection system would consist of approximately 11,000
linear feet of gravity flow piping ranging from 8 to 12 inches in diameter, The collection system
is not anticipated to include County pump stations,nor will the system collect stormwater runoff
The County’s sewer standards show the trenches for sewer lines would require at least 4 -feet of
cover from the top of the pipe to grade and 12 inches of cushion material on both sides of the line
and 6 inches below the line.Therefore,the typical sewer trenches will be about 3 feet wide and
at least 6 feet deep.
The proposed treatment and disposal system would occupy about 14 acres and consist of a
headworks with screens to remove debris and an odor control unit,-four lined aerated lagoons of
about 0.3 acres each,an operations building with adjacent disinfection system to remove
pathogens,a subsurface flow constructed polishing wetland to remove nitrogen and four slow
rate (SR)land treatment basins planted with native Hawaiian trees that will be surrounded by
berms on all four sides.SR land treatment involves irrigation of land and vegetation with the
treated effluent.Significant additional treatment is provided as the water percolates through the
soil.The vegetation uptakes the nutrients in the effluent as fertilizer,and transpires a portion of
the applied water.A security fence will be constructed along the perimeter of the site.
An archaeological inventory survey,including the excavation of trenches,will be conducted
within the treatment and disposal project site to identif~’the presence of historic properties as
defined in U.S.C §300308.
Consultations
We welcome any comments you have on this Project’s proposed improvements.We are
particularly interested in any information you may have on the historic and cultural sites that
have been recorded in the area or any other historic or cultural sites about which you may have
knowledge.
Section 106 consultation letters have also been sent to other organizations or individuals that
might attach significance to this area and inviting them to participate in the process.The attached
list shows the organizations that are also being consulted as part of this Section 106 consultation.
In addition,if you are acquainted with any persons or organization that are knowledgeable about
the proposed project area,or any descendants with ancestral lineal or cultural ties to or cultural
knowledge or concerns for,and cultural or religious attachment to the proposed project area,we
would appreciate receiving their names and contact information.
We would appreciate a written response within 30 days from date of receipt of this letter to Dora
Beck,RE,,Project Manager,County of Hawai’i Department of Environmental Management,by
U.S.Postal Service to County of Hawai’i Department of Environmental Management,108
Railroad Avenue,Rib,Hawai’i 96720.
Please feel free to contact Dora Beck by telephone at (808)961-8513 if you have any questions.
We look forward to working with you and the State Historic Preservation Division on these
needed improvements.
Very truly yours
~charski~
Director
WKIDB :rnef
Attachment and enclosures
Pãhala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement Project
Palau’au,Ka’u,Hawai’i
Native Hawaiian Organizations Consultation List
Hawai’i Island Burial Council
Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs
Charles Pelenui Mahi ‘Ohana
Friends of ‘lolani Palace
Hawaiian Civic Club of Hilo
Karnehameha Schools
Kanu o ka’Aina Learning ‘Ohana
Ko’olau Foundation
Maku’u Farmers Association
Na Koa Ikaika Ka Laliui Hawai’i
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Pacific Agricultural Land Management Systems
Partners in Development Foundation
Pi ‘ihouna Hawaiian Homestead Community Association
PROJECT SUMMARY
Pãhala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Closure
Pã~au’au,K&u,Island of Hawai’i
Tax Map Key:9-6~002:O18
1,Introduction
The community of Pãhala is located about 52 mites southeast of Hilo,in the Kau District, Island of
Hawaii.Pãhala is located west (mauka) of Mãmalahoa Highway (State Route 11)about 3.8 miles
from the shoreline with most of the community tying between 980 feet mean sea level (msl)on the
western end and approximately 800 feet msl on the eastern end.See Figure 1.The Pähala
community had its start in 1876 with establishment of the Hawaiian Agricultural Company to develop
the sugar industry in Hawaii.For the next 120 years or so,Pãhala was a major sugar producing area.
However,by the early 1 990s there was a major downturn in the sugar market.Thus,beginning in
1994,the sugar mill in the town was shut down and dismantled.By 1996,the Ka’u Sugar Company,
the successor to the Hawaiian Agricultural Company,closed and,subsequently,the sugar cane fields
were cleared and the lands now grow macadamia nut and coffee trees The population in Pãhala was
approximately 1,405 persons in 2016,the most current estimate.
Founded in 1826,C.Brewer was both the oldest company in Hawai’i and a major developer of the
sugar industry in Pãhala.For about the last 60 years,approximately 50 percent of the residential
units in Pãhala have been serviced by a wastewater collection and disposal system constructed,
operated and maintained by C.Brewer The collection system consisted of sewer lines,some of
which were located in the streets and others routed in the backyards of private parcels.The disposal
system consisted of two large capacity cesspools (LCCs) within the community.
In 1998,the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)issued regulations (40 CFR 144.14)requiring
the elimination or closure of all large capacity cesspools used for wastewater disposal by April 5,
2005.In 2003,C.Brewer requested assistance from the County to close their LCCs.Subsequently,
the County held a community meeting to present sewer system replacement alternatives.Voting took
place by mail to choose the preferred sewer improvement alternative,resulting in 87 percent of
returned ballots in favor of installing a new sewer collection, treatment and disposal system to be
operated and maintained by the County.
In 2006,in anticipation of its dissolution,C,Brewer requested the County construct and maintain a
new community sewer system.The County subsequently agreed by way of a County Council
Resolution,to enter into a formal agreement to assume ownership of the C.Brewer constructed
collection system and the two LCCs by April 30,2010 and to construct and maintain a new community
sewer system.As part of the County’s agreement,C.Brewer agreed to install laterals to certain of the
residential properties.
In 2007,the County proposed a new collection system and a wastewater treatment system,consisting
of large capacity septic tanks and converting the existing LCCs into seepage pits for disposal of the
treated effluent.In 2008,the combination of the LCCs being in poor and failing condition and the poor
results from soil percolation tests influenced the County to consider acquiring a larger land area to
construct a secondary treatment system.Such a system could allow a higher level of wastewater
treatment and disposal,as well as accommodate existing Pãhala properties not currently served by
the LCC system in addition to expanding the system to accommodate possible community growth.
2.Project Description
The County of Hawai’i.Department of Environmental Management (DEM)is proposing to construct
wastewater system improvements to replace the current system servicing Pãhala,now owned by the
County.The wastewater system improvements would allow the County to comply with EPA
PROJECT SUM MARY
Pähala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Closure
Pã’aWau,Ka’u,Island of Hawaii
Tax Map Key:9~.6-002:0l8
regulations requiring closure of the LCCs and to construct a system meeting current State of Hawaii
Department of Health (DOH)and DEM design guidelines for the collection,treatment and disposal of
the treated effluent.The Pãhala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Closure project improvements
would consist of a new wastewater collection system located within the public right-of-way and a
treatment and disposal system located on a currently privately-owned parcel (TM K:9-6-002:018)
which will be acquired by the County.The Pãhala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Closure
project would be funded by an EPA Special Appropriation Grant and by the State of Hawai’i Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)loan program.
The wastewater collection system would be located within 7 public streets;Maile Street;‘Ilima Street;
Huapala Street;HTnano Street;Hala Street;all located in the southern portion of the community and
Puahala Street;and Pikake Street located on the eastern end.These streets serve the residential
areas and have two travel lanes with unpaved shoulders and no improved sidewalks.The collection
system would consist of approximately 11,000 linear feet of gravity flow piping ranging from 8 to 12
inches in diameter.The collection system is not anticipated to include pump stations,nor will the
system collect stormwater runoff.The number of manholes in the system will be determined during
the detail design phase. The County’s sewer standards show the trenches for sewer lines would
require at least 4 feet of cover from the top of the pipe to grade and 12 inches of cushion material on
both sides of the line and 6 inches below the line.Therefore,the typical sewer trenches will be 3 feet
wide and at least 6 feet deep.
The treatment and disposal system would be a land-based system located southeast of the developed
community and would be designed to treat flows of approximately 190,000 gallons per day.The EPA
defines land treatment as “the application of appropriately pre-treated municipal and industrial
wastewater to the land at a controlled rate in a designed and engineered setting. The purpose of
the activity is to obtain beneficial use of these materials,to improve environmental quality,and to
achieve treatment goals in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner”.
The proposed treatment and disposal system would occupy about 14 acres and consist of a
headworks with screens to remove debris and an odor control unit,four lined aerated lagoons of
about 0.3 acres each,an operations building with adjacent disinfection system to remove pathogens,
a subsurface flow constructed polishing wetland to remove nitrogen and four slow rate (SR)land
treatment basins which will be surrounded by berms on all four sides.SR land treatment involves
irrigation of land and vegetation with the treated effluent.Significant additional treatment is
provided as the water percolates through the soil.The vegetation uptakes the nutrients in the
effluent as fertilizer,and transpires a portion of the applied water.A security fence will be
constructed along the perimeter of the site.
3.Anticipated Impacts
Project impacts would be primarily related to construction of the trenches for placement of the
collection system lines and construction of the land-based treatment and disposal system.These
activities would create dust and noise while work occurs in the streets and in the area of the land
treatment and disposal system,which will include removal of existing macadamia nut trees within the
14 acre project site. As the collection system is constructed,the streets will be restored for vehicle
travel.Upon completion of the treatment and disposal facilities, the project will operate without the
need for DEM employees to be on-site.Weekly monitoring visits will be sufficient to insure routine
proper operation,and a telemetry system will alert DEM employees of abnormal conditions to allow
timely response when they occur.
N
~Rsna1aa
W~iak~N
~RI
I
Pahaía
!c_ProjectLocation
o i,ooo 2,000 4,000
~Feet
~ii~ti~iirzizz~Meters
0 250 500 linch=2,000feet .~.,
Legend
Collection System
~Disposal and Treatment Site
‘I
FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCAIION MAP
KaHija-Kona
Island of Hawaii
0;
~0.
Collection
Systerh
Disposal and
Treatment Site
K
PAHALA COMMUNITY LARGE CAPACITY CESSPOOL CLOSURE PROJECT
COLJNTYOFHA WAIl DEPARTMENT OF ENViRONMENTAL MANAGMENT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REG1ON~X
75 Hawthorne Street\c~San Francisco,CA 94105-39011.PRO~
MAR 0 8 2016
Mililani B.Trask,Convenor
Na Koa Ikaika Ka Lahui Hawaii
P0 Box 6377
Hilo,HI 96720
RE:U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 authorization to allow the County of
Hawaii to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and Native
Hawaiian organizations for the Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement
Project
Dear Ms.Trask:
The U.S.Enviromnental Protection Agency Region 9 (EPA)awarded a Special Appropriation Act
project grant to the County of Hawaii for the Pahala Community Large Capacity Cesspool (LCC)
Replacement Project.This project may have effects on properties included in,or eligible for
inclusion in,the National Register of Historic Properties.The National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA),54 U.S.C.§300101 et seq.,and its implementing regulations,36 CFR Part 800,require
federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties,
Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.2(c)(4),a Federal agency may authorize an applicant for federal
assistance to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)or Native
Hawaiian organizations provided that: (1)the Federal agency remains legally responsible for all
findings and determinations charged to the agency official;and (2)the Federal agency notifies the
SHPO or Native Hawaiian organizations when an applicant is so authorized.
In accordance with 36 CFR §800.2(c)(4),EPA hereby authorizes the County of Hawaii to act on
EPA’s behalf when initiating the NHPA consultation process in connection with the Pahala
Community LCC Replacement Project.Effective immediately,the County of Hawaii may consult
with the SHPO and Native Hawaiian organizations (see enclosed list)to initiate the review
process under 36 CFR Part 800 including identifying and evaluating historic properties,assessing
effects,and proposing mitigation measures where necessary.However,EPA Region 9 will remain
responsible for participating in the consultation process if:
the County of Hawaii determines that the c~Criteria of Adverse Effect”under 36 CFR
§800.5 applies to this project;or
~there is disagreement between the County of Hawaii and the SHPO or Native Hawaiian
organizations regarding the scope of the area ofpotential effects,identification of historic
properties,or evaluation of effects;or
Printed on 100%Postconswner Recycled Paper P,VCCSS chlorine Free.
there is an objection from consulting parties or the public regarding findings or
determinations or the implementation of agreed provisions;or
~there is potential for a foreclosure situation or intentional adverse effects as described
under 36 CFR §800.9(b)and (c).
In accordance with 36 CFR §800.2(c)(2),EPA shall ensure that all consultations with Native
Hawaiian organizations are conducted in a sensitive manner concerning the needs of such
organizations.
If you have any questions,please contact Kate Rao,Drinking Water Protection Section,at (415)
972-3533 or via email at ~1cate~p~ov.
Td~más Torres
Water Division Director
End.:Pahala Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement Project
Native Hawaiian Organizations Consultation List
cc:William Kurcharski,County of Hawaii
Dora Beck,County of Hawaii
Craig Levken,Brown and Caldwell
Earl Matsukawa,Wilson Okamoto Corporation
John Sakaguchi,Wilson Okarnoto Corporation
David Shideler,Cultural Surveys Hawaii,Inc
9
Ca aci C ess 0ol Re lacement Pro ~e et
Native ~
Hawaii Island Burial Council
Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs
Charles Pelenui Mali Ohana
Friends of lolani Palace
Hawaiian Civic Club of Hilo
Kamehameha Schools
Kanu o ka ‘Ama Learning ‘Ohana
Koolau Foundation
Maku’u Farmers Association
Na Koa Ikaika Ka Lahui Hawaii
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Pacific Agricultural Land Management Systems
Partners in Development Foundation
Piihonua Hawaiian Homestead Community Association
February 2020
Appendix E
EPA and County of Hawai‘i Responses to Comments on the Draft EA
February 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix E:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and County of Hawai i
Response to Comments on the Draft
Environmental Assessment
for the
P hala Large Capacity Cesspool (LCC)
Replacement Project
EPA Grant XP-96942401
P hala, District of Ka‘u, County of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i
TMK: 9-6-002:018
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 i
Contents
1 Project Draft EA ............................................................................................................... 1
2 EPA Response to Comments .......................................................................................... 3
2.1 Resource Area Impacts........................................................................................3
2.1.1 Flood Risk ................................................................................................ 3
2.1.2 Public Services ......................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Visual Characteristics ............................................................................... 7
2.1.4 Socioeconomic ......................................................................................... 7
2.1.5 Archeological and Cultural Resources .................................................... 11
2.1.6 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 13
2.1.7 Other Impacts ......................................................................................... 14
2.2 NEPA Processes ...............................................................................................16
2.2.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................. 16
2.2.2 Scope of the Proposed Action ................................................................ 17
2.2.3 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................. 19
2.2.4 Federal and State Consultations ............................................................ 20
2.2.5 NEPA Procedures .................................................................................. 22
2.3 Public Involvement and Outreach ......................................................................24
2.3.1 Outreach ................................................................................................ 24
2.3.2 Accessing the Draft EA ........................................................................... 28
2.3.3 Public Information Meeting ..................................................................... 28
2.3.4 – 2007 Final EA ............. 30
2.3.5 State and Local Agencies ....................................................................... 31
2.4 State and Local Processes ................................................................................31
2.4.1 .......................................................... 32
2.4.2 ............................................... 32
2.4.3 Tourism, Land Use Commission (LUC) ................................................................. 33
2.4.4 ............................................ 34
2.5 Project Location and Design ..............................................................................34
2.5.1 Proximity to Schools ............................................................................... 34
2.5.2 Location of Preferred Alternative ............................................................ 35
2.5.3 Extent of Collection System .................................................................... 36
2.5.4 Treatment Alternatives ........................................................................... 37
2.5.5 Technical Design .................................................................................... 38
2.6 Other Comments................................................................................................41
2.6.1 Miscellaneous and Other Comments ...................................................... 41
2.6.2 .............................. 43
2.7 Comments Not Related to NEPA .......................................................................44
3 .................................................................... 46
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 1
1 Large
Capacity Cesspool Replacement Project Draft EA
A Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Large Capacity Cesspool (LCC) Replacement Project1 was released for public comment on September 23, 2018. Initially, a 30-day public comment period was planned; however, due to requests from the public for additional time, the U.S. Environmental Protection
to republish the Draft EA on November 8, 2018 which extended the comment period. The comment period closed on December 10, 2018. Table 1 lists the comments received, including the names of the commenters and a comment number assigned to each comment. In total, 77
comment letters were received, some of which included multiple individual comments.
Table 1
Index of
Number Commenter Date
1 S. Demoruelle 9/24/2018
2 S. Demoruelle 9/24/2018
3 S. Demoruelle 9/24/2018
4 S. Demoruelle 9/24/2018
5 S. Demoruelle 9/25/2018
6 S. Demoruelle 9/25/2018
7 S. Demoruelle 9/25/2018
8 S. Demoruelle 9/25/2018
9 S. Demoruelle 9/28/2018
10 S. Demoruelle 9/28/2018
11 S. Demoruelle 9/28/2018
12 S. Demoruelle 9/28/2018
13 S. Demoruelle 9/29/2018
14 S. Demoruelle 10/1/2018
15 S. Demoruelle 10/1/2018
16 S. Demoruelle 10/3/2018
17 S. Demoruelle 10/6/2018
18 S. Demoruelle 10/10/2018
19 S. Demoruelle 10/12/2018
20 S. Demoruelle 10/13/2018
21 S. Demoruelle 10/21/2018
22 S. Demoruelle 10/24/2018
23a S. & J. Demoruelle 10/22/2018
23 [Comment combined in 23a]
24 [Comment combined in 23a]
25 [Comment combined in 23a]
26 T. Tuttle 10/10/2018
27 S. Demoruelle 10/10/2018
28 N. Hong 10/10/2018
29 N. Gilmour 10/17/2018
30 J. Warren 10/19/2018
31 N. Gilmour 10/20/2018
1 Preconsultation letters and other materials related to this project may use a slightly different project title (e.g., P ).
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 2
Table 1
Index of
32 State of Office of Planning 10/17/2018
33 E. Andrade Jr. 10/19/2018
34 C. & T. Tuttle 10/22/2018
35 State of Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 9/27/2018
36 County of Police Department 10/2/2018
37 R. Javar 10/10/2018
38 L. Lopes 10/22/2018
39 S. Demoruelle 10/23/2018
40 Residents per Pele Defense Fund 10/23/2018
41 S. Hanoa 10/23/2018
42 J. Moses 10/24/2018
43 A. & A. McDowell 10/22/2018
44 D. Loper 9/29/2018
45 S. Demoruelle 10/31/2018
46 S. Demoruelle 10/31/2018
47 S. Demoruelle 10/31/2018
48 S. Demoruelle 10/31/2018
49 S. Demoruelle 10/26/2018
50 S. Demoruelle 11/2/2018
51 S. Demoruelle 11/5/2018
52 S. Demoruelle 11/6/2018
53 S. Demoruelle 11/8/2018
54 S. Demoruelle 11/13/2018
55 A. & M. Ibarra 11/13/2018
56 W. & D. Wong Yuen 11/14/2018
57 S. Demoruelle 11/16/2018
58 S. Demoruelle 11/2/2018
59 L. Navarro 11/19/2018
60 L. Gollin 11/19/2018
61 T. Ibarra 12/1/2018
62 P. Fuerte 10/10/2018
63 G. Sorensen 11/2/2018
64 S. Demoruelle 12/10/2018
65 S. Demoruelle 12/10/2018
66 S. Demoruelle 12/10/2018
67 T. Napeahi, Pele Defense Fund 12/10/2018
68 D. Kalua 12/4/2018
69 T. Napeahi, Pele Defense Fund [Duplicate of Comment 67] 12/10/2018
70 T. Napeahi, Pele Defense Fund [Duplicate of Comment 67] 12/10/2018
71 State of Department of Land and Natural Resources 12/7/2018
72 State of Department of Education 12/7/2018
73 N. Gilmour 12/10/2018
74 K. Fox 12/10/2018
75 S. Demoruelle 12/10/2018
76 N. Hong 10/28/2018
77 State of Department of Land and Natural Resources 10/22/2018
Final EA, Pāhala LCC Replacement Project – Appendix E
Pāhala, Ka‘ū District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 3
2 EPA Response to Comments
EPA’s responses to comments received are detailed below. Due to the number of comments received, comments and responses are grouped by subject matter. Each section contains a
summary of comments received, followed by EPA’s responses.
As explained in the Preface of the Final EA, EPA and the County elected to prepare a joint EA in order to promote consistency and avoid duplication of efforts. Due to the fact that it is a joint document, the Final EA contains information related not only to compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and federal cross-cutting authorities, but also information
related to compliance with state and local requirements, such as the Hawaiʻi Environmental Policy
Act (HEPA), otherwise referred to as Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343. EPA is only
responsible for addressing compliance with NEPA and federal cross-cutting authorities, and thus,
EPA’s responses to comments are focused on these issues. The County is responsible for complying with additional state and local requirements and has prepared separate responses to
individual comments that are included in Section 3 of this Appendix. The County responses use the same numbering system as Table 1 (see Section 1).
2.1 Resource Area Impacts
Responses to comments received regarding the impacts to the resource areas as described in the Draft EA associated with the proposed project have been arranged into the following categories:
• Flood Risk
• Public Services
• Visual Characteristics
• Socioeconomic
• Archeological and Cultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Other Impacts
2.1.1 Flood Risk
Comment
• I am concerned about the flooding potential of the WWTP, specifically relating to the culvert that carries water beneath the highway from the macadamia nut orchard.
(Comments 22, 41)
• What will prevent the "lagoon style treatment plant" from overflowing in the event of heavy rains and flooding due to tropical storms and hurricanes, which may be more frequent with climate changes? (Comments 28, 33, 56)
• There has been historical flooding that is a major concern to the community, to the proposed area. (Comment 40)
• Flooding at the sewage treatment plant site will cause health and safety issues.
(Comments 63, 76)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 4
Flooding at the site will create hazardous and dangerous scenarios. Flooding will impact emergency routes, may impact travel to hospitals or emergency facilities and could isolate emergency first responders, fire and EMS vehicles and equipment. (Comments 41, 67, 68)
The location of the plant should be reconsidered because of the history of flooding in the area. Overflow of the reservoirs could transport toxins, bacteria, and chemicals over
Highway 11, through conservation and preservation areas, and into the ocean. (Comments 55, 76)
Response
Due to the nature of the comments received, the responses to flooding-related comments were broken into two response categories:
a) Flood Risk: Response addressing concerns regarding the potential for the location of
the wastewater treatment and disposal facility and collection system to flood; and
b) Overflow of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility: Response addressing concerns regarding the design of the facility and concerns related to overflow inside the facility.
a) Flood Risk
As stated in the Draft EA Section 3.9.1 (Flood Risk – Existing Conditions), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community Panel No. 155166 1800F, effective date September 29, 2017, Zone X, which designates areas determined to be outside the 0.2-percent annual chance (500-year)
system project site, is located within Zone X – Other Flood Areas, indicating areas within the 0.2-percent annual chance (500-year) floodplain, or areas with a 1-percent annual chance of flooding with average flood depths less than 1 foot. The County of Hawai‘i Department of Public Works (in its April 16, 2018 response to the pre-assessment notification) confirmed that the proposed
wastewater treatment and disposal facility site is outside the 500-year floodplain. As such, the site is not considered to be in a high flood risk area. The wastewater treatment and disposal facility would not result in construction of new facilities within the 500-year floodplain. Although a small
portion of the proposed collection system is located within the 500-year floodplain, the associated trenching operations would be temporary and would not alter the 500-year floodplain. No impacts to the existing floodplain are expected.
The wastewater treatment and disposal facility would be designed to minimize the creation of new stormwater flow and to avoid disrupting existing stormwater flow patterns. Current drainage
patterns are influenced by two existing culverts that allow stormwater to flow across the M malahoa Highway in the vicinity of the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The first is a box culvert located at the intersection with Maile Street that conveys stormwater under the highway. The second culvert is located approximately 600 feet east of the Maile Street intersection and was used to convey sugar mill flume water across the highway for disposal. Please see the Final EA Section 3.23.1 (Infrastructure – Drainage System) for a map showing the location of the two culverts.
The proposed wastewater treatment and disposal facility would include an on-site drainage system to address stormwater surface runoff created by new impervious surfaces within the facility. The site would include a system to collect runoff via grated inlets or swales, and flows would be conveyed to on-site drainage detention systems, such as subsurface linear infiltration or depressed detention basins (see Draft EA Section 3.23.2).
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 5
The would have minimal impact on existing stormwater flows. The Site 7 parcel, including the proposed site of the wastewater treatment and disposal facility,
slopes from approximately north to south (mauka to makai) such that, during rain events, surface flows drain through the existing orchard to the southern (makai) end where the flows eventually drain through the culvert located at the Maile Street - M malahoa Highway intersection to the areas below the highway. Stormwater drainage flows generated upstream of the wastewater treatment and disposal facility project site would be directed around the perimeter via diversion swales that would convey flow back to the existing drainage pattern to the culvert at Maile Street. During heavy rain events, stormwater may temporarily back up behind the culvert. However, these ponding events are typical and expected at any culvert and would not be exacerbated as a result of the Proposed Action because there would be no net increase in runoff or drainage flows from the site up to and including design storm events. Due to the topography of Site 7, stormwater drainage flows from onsite are not anticipated to flow through the second culvert mentioned above
due to its elevation and location to the east which means it is generally upgradient from the onsite drainage patterns.
As a result, the is not anticipated to contribute to any increased
risk of flooding of M malahoa Highway, Maile Street, or downstream properties. The State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (DOT) Hawai‘i District office was contacted to discuss the historical roadway flooding concerns expressed by the community at the wastewater treatment
and disposal facility project site and the culvert at the Maile Street - M malahoa Highway intersection. The District office indicated the DOT owns and maintains the culvert at the Maile Street intersection, and that they have no record of the roadway being inundated by stormwater drainage at that location during precipitation events.
Furthermore, the would be constructed in accordance with all applicable design criteria related to minimizing flood risk. As stated in the Draft EA Section 3.23 (Infrastructure – Drainage System), the on-site stormwater management system would meet the requirements of Hawai‘i County Code (HCC) § 27-20(e) (Standards for subdivisions and other developments), which mandates a site drainage plan to “comply with sections 27-20(a) and (b) and section 27-24, and shall include a storm water disposal system to contain runoff caused by the proposed development, within the site boundaries, up to the expected one-hour, ten year
storm event as shown in the department of public works ‘Storm Drainage Standards’ unless those standards specify a greater interval.” To act as secondary containment in the event of a large storm event, landscape buffers with dirt berms may also be constructed around most of the
perimeter of the facility; these berms would be subject to a geotechnical engineering assessment of berm stability during the design process.
In addition, to meet the requirements of HCC § 27-20(f), the wastewater treatment and disposal
facility would be designed to not alter the general drainage pattern above or below the development. Thus, no increase in flow amount for HCC design storm events would be directed to either of the culverts at the highway as a result of the site development. HCC § 27-20 requires an on-site drainage plan to accommodate any runoff caused by a proposed development. Therefore, a drainage study would be prepared during the design process to evaluate the improvements that are needed to comply with the County Code requirements. These additional
requirements and impact avoidance measures are stated in the Final EA Sections 2.3.1 and 3.23.
Finally, the hala LCC Replacement Project is not anticipated to impact emergency routes. The Draft EA Section 2.3 (Proposed Action – Site 7 Alternative) Figure 2.2 showed that the P a au Gulch near the hospital is located about 0.735 miles north of the wastewater treatment and disposal facility site and lies at approximately 780 feet above mean sea level (about 140 to 200
feet above the site), which means surface flows at the site would not affect the gulch. Similarly, tion lies about 0.72 miles north of the
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 6
wastewater treatment and disposal facility site and at about 780 feet above mean sea level, which means surface flows at the site would also not affect that intersection. As stated above, the project
would not increase the risk of flooding of Highway or Maile Street as it would not increase the amount of runoff. Emergency access to Hospital would not be impacted as a result of the Proposed Action because flooding of the roads due to stormwater and surface flow is not expected to increase as a result of the Proposed Action. The entrance to the Hospital on Kamani Street is about 3/4 mile northeast of the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal facility site.
b) Overflow of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility
The wastewater treatment and disposal facility and collection system would be designed to accommodate the peak flows during design wet weather flow events, including precipitation on the area occupied by the lagoon treatment system. In the Draft EA Appendix B (Preliminary Engineering Report), Section 2.2, the anticipated peak wastewater flows from the community
provided are based on the applicable design standards. The Draft EA Section 2.3.1 (Acquire Site 7 and Construct New Secondary Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility) stated the lagoons would be lined with high density polyethylene liners to prevent water seepage through the bottom
and sides of the lagoons. The Draft EA Appendix B Section 5.3 showed the lagoons would have sufficient operational freeboard to contain and to equalize design flows during peak weather events. In addition, the slow-rate land application groves would be designed to completely contain
both anticipated peak wet weather effluent flows and on-site captured precipitation from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. This would be accomplished by constructing berms around the land application tree groves. The tree groves would be designed in accordance with the EPA’s “Process Design Manual, Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents.” Effluent would be applied at a hydraulic loading rate that is a small percentage of the percolation rate of the soil, ensuring sufficient capacity for assimilation of peak effluent flow rates and precipitation from the design storm event. Thus, the collection system, the lagoons themselves, and the land application groves would be designed to include sufficient extra capacity to limit overflows during design storm events. Due to these flood mitigation measures, no overflows would occur for storms up to
the 100-year, 24-hour storm event.
Additional information concerning the flood risk of the proposed treatment and disposal facility
and collection system has been added to the Final EA Section 2.3.1 (Acquire Site 7 and Construct New Secondary Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility) and 3.23 (Infrastructure – Drainage System).
2.1.2
Comment
Maile Street is an will the road be closed if there is an emergency? Will M malahoa Highway be closed too? (Comment 41)
Response
The fencing of the wastewater treatment and disposal facility (Site 7) would not affect emergency routes. As discussed in the Draft EA Section 3.17 (Traffic), the Proposed Action is “outside the ahoa Highway ROW and would not require any disturbance or other impacts within the M malahoa Highway ROW.” Maile Street would be impacted only to the extent needed for typical traffic control operations and no permanent or temporary fencing would be constructed in a way that impacts Maile Street or M malahoa Highway. This is also depicted in the Draft EA Figure 2.3, which shows no project elements affecting Maile Street or M malahoa Highway. Prior to implementing the Proposed Action, traffic control plans would be developed and approved by the
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 7
County which would include measures to allow for emergency access during project construction. As stated in the Draft EA Section 3.17.2, the traffic control plans would provide directions to
temporarily divert traffic or close travel lanes during the construction period. Normally, such plans call for these diversions or closures during non-peak travel times to minimize disruptions to traffic flow. No long-term road closures would be needed for the Proposed Action. This information has
been repeated and clarified in the Final EA.
2.1.3
Comment
(Comment 41)
The treatment plant will be visible during times of high winds, as the surrounding trees and foliage bend and sway. (Comment 56)
The plant will be an eyesore at the entrance to our community. (Comments 63, 67)
Response
As discussed in the Draft EA Section 3.19 (Visual Considerations and Light Pollution), the Proposed Action is not expected to adversely affect the views or viewsheds identified in the County General Plan. Above grade structures, such as the operations building and, headworks
cover structure, would be screened by existing Cook pine trees along Maile Street, most of which would remain. The wastewater collection system would be installed below the streets and therefore would not impact views. Visual impacts would also be mitigated by the 8.0 acres of
planted trees in the disposal groves, and by the rise in elevation between the highway and the facility. Exterior lighting at the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal facility would be
designed in accordance with HCC § 14-50 and would be limited to manually switched lights under the roof overhang at the entrance to the operations/electrical building and at the headworks area. Lights would be installed with down-shielding to prevent excess light pollution. When an operator or maintenance staff are not present on-site, lights would not be on. The Final EA Section 3.19 has been revised to include that the maximum height of the wastewater treatment and disposal facility above-grade structures would not exceed 25 feet. For more information, please refer to the County responses provided to the above comments.
2.1.4
Cost of the Project
Comment
The costs of the project are excessive and will cause economic harm of the county into
the future. The cost will be over $250,000 per LCC household. (Comment 45)
be kept under $10 million. (Comments 45, 46)
approximately $40 million. (Comment 51)
The combined costs of both WWTP projects in the County are excessive. (Comment 51)
These Wastewater Projects have become a total boondoggle. Please stop this waste of tax dollars and set a firm budget of under $10 million! (Comment 52)
The costs of the project have skyrocketed. (Comment 61)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 8
The County and taxpayers cannot afford to spend $81 million the two projects. (Comment 66)
The cost of the project is grossly underestimated. (Comment 23a)
Response
NEPA does not require a monetary cost-benefit analysis of a project, particularly where there are important qualitative considerations. See 40 CFR § 1502.23.2 In this case, the “No-Action
Alternative” would not satisfy the intended purpose and need for the Proposed Action as outlined in the Draft EA Section 2.2 (Purpose and Need for Action), which is to provide the infrastructure necessary to enable the County to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and fulfill the compliance provisions of the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) between EPA and the County with respect to closure of the LCCs by April 2023.3
Though not required under NEPA, planning-Replacement Project were summarized in the Preliminary Engineering Report (see Appendix B of both the Draft EA and Final EA). The capital cost of an aerated lagoon/constructed wetland/land application treatment and disposal facility is estimated at $16 million (plus $2 million for concrete lagoon lining if required) and has an estimated annual operations and maintenance cost of $227,000. The capital cost of closure of two community LCCs and a new collection system is estimated at $14 million. These numbers represent a conceptual planning-level construction cost
estimate and do not include planning, design, land acquisition, or past project costs. Of the treatment alternatives that were deemed feasible and compared in Appendix B, the proposed
wastewater treatment and disposal facility design has the lowest estimated capital cost and estimated annual operations and maintenance cost. Thus, even if a cost-benefit analysis were performed (which is not required under NEPA), it would likely support the Proposed Action.
Information on anticipated project costs has been added to the Final EA Section 2.1.2 (Project Funding).
County Financial Capacity
Comment
burden of the county discussed in the DEA? (Comment 12)
The Draft EA did not consider the economic impact of CWSRF loans on the County. (Comment 23a)
(Comment 27)
Response
The federal action triggering NEPA review of this project is the award of a federal earmark grant (not a loan), which would not require repayment. The County has proposed to finance the remainder of the project using funds from the Hawai‘i Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF),
which provides low-interest loans for the construction of publicly owned wastewater treatment
2 While the above-cited regulation applies specifically to the preparation of an EIS, the rationale behind it applies equally to the preparation of an EA. 3 In September 2019, EPA accepted the County’s request to extend the Pahala LCC closure date from June 2021 to April 2023.
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 9
works. The SRF loan process is managed by the State of Hawai i Department of Health and is outside of the scope of this NEPA analysis.
Economic Impacts on the Community
Comment
(Comment 23a)
The costs of connecting newly accessible properties will fall on many elderly residents with fixed incomes. (Comment 41)
sed community with a high percentage of people on welfare, social security, pension, or other fixed income. How are they going to afford any hook up fees, maintenance fees, or any other fees that will likely come with this wastewater
treatment plant? (Comment 56)
The county or state needs to find alternate sources of funding to cover hook-up costs for all lots within the planned project area. The expense of joining the new sewer system will 3)
The cost of connecting the "newly accessible lots" to the new system will have a devastating financial impact on the community and could result in the loss of community support for the project. (Comment 31)
Why are some residents paying hookup fees and others are not? Should not discriminate. (Comment 67)
What is the cost to be on the county sewer? Residents who are not on the LCC will be penalized with enormous fees, which is a large burden to older residents on fixed incomes. (Comment 55)
I am really upset that lots that were not hooked up to the C. Brewer system will have to pay a lot of money to hook up to the new system. Many of these lots are owned by low income or elderly people who cannot afford to hook up to the new system on their own. (Comment 42)
financial burden on both the homeowners and the County. (Comment 61)
I have no money to hook up to the sewage plant. (Comment 37)
The community is being divided because the County is covering costs for certain houses to be hooked up to the new system and requiring other homeowners to pay to hook up. (Comment 42)
The costs of the two projects far exceeds the taxable value of the lots to be disconnected from the LCCs. (Comment 65)
with 85% of residents retired or living on fixed incomes, limited employment opportunities. (Comment 40)
Response
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to bring the County into compliance with the SDWA by constructing an alternative means of wastewater disposal that would allow the County to close
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 10
the existing LCCs. NEPA does not require consideration of socioeconomic impacts that are unrelated to an impact on the physical environment. See 40 CFR § 1508.14.
The Proposed Action is expected to result in the connection of 111 existing connected lots to the new collection system and wastewater treatment and disposal facility. In addition, due to their proximity to the new collection system, 65 to 66 additional lots would become accessible to the sewer. Sewer laterals to the property line would be installed as a part of this project. Under the Proposed Action, the design of the new collection system would include sewer service stub-outs to the lot lines of adjacent properties, including the newly accessible, to accommodate their eventual connection. Accordingly, to close the existing LCCs, there would be additional properties
expense, after it becomes operational. Such properties are near the existing service area but are presently connected to individual wastewater systems. To conform to the HCC, the respective newly-accessible property owners would be responsible for the design, permitting, and completion
of sewer service connections between the County stub-outs and improvements for stated uses on their property, as well as for the proper closure of their individual wastewater systems. It is not accurate that the whole community of would be included in the new sewer system.
The Draft EA Section 3.16 (Socioeconomic Characteristics) provided information regarding the the County of Hawai‘i. The information for the 2012-,
compared to 41.8 years for the County. 7 percent less than 60 years old, compared to 74.2 percent for the County. The median household income for s $47,625, compared to $53,936 for the County. For , 85.1 percent of households have an income less than $99,999, compared to 77.6 percent for the County. Overall, the Proposed Action is expected to benefit residents by providing a cleaner and longer-lasting wastewater treatment system. This information has been repeated and updated in the Final EA. The Final EA Sections 3.16 (Socioeconomic Characteristics) and 5.7 (Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898) have been updated to clarify that, despite the relatively high proportions of low-Proposed Action would not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on these sensitive populations.
EPA acknowledges commenters’ concerns over hook-up fees, maintenance fees, and other potential fees. However, it is the responsibility of the County to determine how to finance their portion of the Proposed Action. Additional research and outreach regarding financing options for
residents was provided by the County in response to comments from the community. On March 21, 2019, the County held a meetiinformation on financing options available to residents whose lots would become accessible to
the new collection system. The purpose of the meeting was to fulfill a County commitment made in October 2018 to research financing options available to the newly accessible residents of the community by March 2019. This information has been included in the Final EA Section 7 (Public Participation).
Sources of Funding
Comment
Did C Brewer give the County funding? (Comment 67)
No consideration has been given of other funding types for the project. (Comment 23a)
Should the County of Hawai‘i fund the whole project, including hook ups? (Comment 67)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 11
Response
The Draft EA Section 2.1.2 (Project Funding) discussed the two funding sources that would be
used to support the LCC Replacement Project: an EPA Special Appropriations Act Project (SAAP) grant and Clean Water State Revolving Funds. An EPA SAAP grant was awarded to the County in 2005, and subsequently amended. The total amount of the award is $1.842 million.
The second source of funding for the project is the Hawai‘i Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Hawai‘i Clean Water State Revolving Fund receives annual funding from the EPA, which the State of Hawai‘i Department of Health is then responsible for allocating among eligible projects. The Final EA Section 2.1.2 has been updated to include additional information about this source of funds.
As stated previously, the proposed project is expected to result in some costs to owners of lots that become accessible to the new wastewater collection system. A discussion of the County’s efforts to identify additional financing options for homeowners to pursue can be found in the
section above (Economic Impacts on the Community). The Final EA Section 3.16 (Socioeconomic Characteristics) has been updated with this information.
Please refer to the Draft EA Section 2.1.4 (History of Wastewater Management in ) for a
discussion of C. Brewer’s involvement. Additional information has been added to the Final EA Section 2.1.4 for clarity.
2.1.5
Comment
The proposed plant may be located in proximity to an archeological or burial site.
(Comment 33)
There are burials and caves within the proximity of proposed site. Community members
have witnessed seeing the caves and burials. It was deemed a site not to be used by the County back in 2008. (Comment 41)
There are cultural and historic resources, including caves and bones, at the site.
(Comment 42)
There are many caves and unrecorded There needs to be a thorough EIS, and in-depth testing, not just surface testing that was done, to document any archeological findings. (Comment 56)
No subsurface testing for these resources was completed on the site, and these areas could be affected during development or flooding of the site. (Comment 67)
Possible burial sites are suspected to be present on or near the site. (Comment 68)
Concerned about use of the current site due to the presence of historically sensitive areas. Elders should be consulted about these resources. (Comment 73)
The location of the burial cave (believed to be in the southeastern corner of the site) should be ascertained and this area protected. Once the location of the cave has been identified,
completed to determine appropriate physical buffers for the facility. It is very important to ascertain that the burial cave is located at a higher elevation than the proposed facility to ensure that the cave is not subjected to contact with treated or untreated wastewater. (Comment 74)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 12
Response
As discussed in the Draft EA Section 3.15.1(a) (Archeological and Cultural Resources – Existing
Conditions), after consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), the County initiated an Archeological Inventory Survey (AIS) to “fully document, map, date and collect [any] surface artifacts” located at the proposed site. An AIS plan was approved by the SHPD on August
20, 2018.
and Sewer System Project was completed and submitted to the SHPD on March 11, 2019, for review. The AIS was generated based on a literature review and research, pedestrian surveys, and subsurface testing. The AIS report did not identify any pre-Contact features or lava tubes within the project area. The AIS report referenced the findings of a November 2016 survey which did identify a known lava tube access within former plantation land to the east of and outside of the treatment and disposal facility project site, and just north of M malahoa Highway that has
been blocked. No impacts to this lava tube are expected since it is located outside of the treatment and disposal facility project site. The Draft EA Section 2.3.1 (Acquire Site 7 and Construct New Secondary Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility) stated the aerated lagoons would be
lined with high density polyethylene liners to prevent water seepage through the bottom and sides of the lagoons. Thus, untreated wastewater would not enter the ground beneath the wastewater treatment and disposal facility.
To determine the location of the lava tube that may be what is referenced by commenters, the County sent a follow-up letter to Commenter 40, the Pele Defense Fund, requesting information about the known lava tubes in the project area via email to the address from which the comment was submitted and via certified mail on November 14, 2018 but received no response.
Overall, the AIS results supported a determination of “no historic properties affected” by the proposed project. This information is updated in the Final EA Section 3.15 and the Draft AIS report
has been included as an Appendix to the Final EA.
Consultation regarding historic properties has been completed according to applicable laws and regulations. The Draft AIS report was provided to SHPD in accordance with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and was made available to the public by the EPA on June 5,
project (see: https://www.epa.gov/uic/proposed--community-large-capacity-cesspool-replacement-project-draft-environmental). In the AIS, the area of potential effect was determined to be 57.7 acres and includes the following:
1. The 14.9-acre wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) site, within which all project-related staging, including for the collection system and the treatment and disposal facility, will be located;
2. An approximately 1,500-foot (ft) long by 25-ft wide utility easement (about 0.94 acres) located entirely within Tax Map Key (TMK) [3] 9- 6-002:018 to connect the collection system line and other utilities to the WWTP;
3. The path of the new sewer collection lines, to be located within the 22- to 24-ft wide travel surface of select county streets;
4. Sewer line easements of similar width (22-24 ft) through TMKs [3] 9-6-005:036 and 044
5. The existing LCC 1 and 2 locales (located in TMKs [3] 9-6-002:016 and 9-6-016:041, respectively), and an approximately 100-m (328-ft) long by 15-m (49-ft) wide corridor along
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 13
the existing sewer line easement in TMK [3] 9-6-002:016 between Maile Street and LCC 1; and
6. Numerous single-family residential/other properties with existing sewer laterals, some of which may need to be replaced/repaired/rehabilitated by the County.
In accordance with the NHPA (36 CFR § 800.4(d)), EPA reached a finding of no historic properties affected for this undertaking and requested SHPD concurrence with this determination on September 26, 2019. No response from SHPD has been provided to date. In accordance with 36 CFR § 800.4(d)(1)(i) and as specified in the September 26 letter, because no response was received within 30 days of SHPD receipt of the adequately documented finding, EPA has fulfilled their Section 106 responsibilities for this undertaking. However, construction would not proceed until SHPD has approved the Draft AIS.
Though pedestrian surveys were conducted throughout the APE to identify potential lava tubes and none were visually observed at the site, the AIS was not able to conclusively establish that
lava tubes are not present within the area surveyed as part of the AIS. Therefore, in addition to the field methodology presented in the AIS, and to limit ground disturbance, the County is in the process of performing Ground Penetrating Radar and soil resistivity surveys as part of the project
design phase, and would adjust the final design of the Proposed Action as needed to mitigate impacts to any potential lava tubes identified as a result of these surveys. The discussion in the Final EA Section 3.3 (Geology) has been updated to reflect this.
The Ha Island Burial Council was consulted as part of the Draft EA preparation process. As stated in the Draft EA Section 3.15 (Archeological and Cultural Resources), on March 29, 2018, the County also conducted outreach to Native Hawaiian Organizations as part of the Section 106 consultation for this project. Consultation letters were delivered to invite comments from organizations that may attach religious or cultural significance to properties affected by the Proposed Action. A total of 14 letters were mailed to various Native Hawaiian Organizations requesting comments (see the Draft EA Section 10); no responses have been submitted to the County. In addition, outreach for the Draft EA included talk story sessions that were open to all members of the public, including elders.
On September 26, 2018, a public notice was published in the Hawaii Tribune Herald and West Hawaii Today newspapers to advertise that on October 10, 2018, a public information meeting
-Purpose Conference Room to discuss the Draft EA and that a second part of the meeting would also address Section 106 of NHPA. Although eight persons signed in to comment on Section 106, no comments or information
were forthcoming regrading Section 106 during the October 10th meeting. This information is included in the Final EA Section 7 (Public Participation) and Section 3.15.
It is not true that the site of the Preferred Alternative (Site 7) was “deemed a site not to be used
by the County back in 2008.” It appears that the commenter is referring to the (the “2007 Final EA”), which evaluated a proposed project to install septic tanks to replace the existing LCCs. The 2007 Final EA did not evaluate
Site 7 as an alternative location for the septic tank project and did not identify it as a site “not to be used by the County.”
2.1.6
Comment
negative impacts on residents who live next to a sewage plant. Not only do we have the
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 14
chemicals left in the ground by C, Brewer, we have the dust and chemicals from the Macadamia Nut Co. and the vog from Tutu Pele. (Comment 41)
The smell of the facility is a concern. (Comments 33, 56, 67, 68)
The treatment plant could cause an increase in harmful airborne bacteria. (Comment 67)
Response
Odor and smell impacts were addressed in the Draft EA Section 3.14.2(a) (Air Quality – Impacts
and Mitigation Measures) which stated “to mitigate potential nuisance odors, the headworks [of the wastewater treatment and disposal facility] would be equipped with an odor control system with a GAC scrubber to remove odor […] the treatment lagoons would be equipped with
mechanical aerators capable of maintaining sufficiently aerobic (with oxygen) conditions within the water column, which would prevent nuisance odor conditions from occurring” under normal operating conditions. This information has been repeated in the Final EA.
For other air quality impacts, the design and operation characteristics of the new wastewater treatment and disposal facility would limit pathways for off-site migration of aerosols. As stated in the Draft EA Section 2.3.1 (Acquire Site 7 and Construct New Secondary Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility), the lagoons would be equipped with high-speed floating aerators. The plant design would not result in migration of aerosols outside of the site boundaries. The land application system would use a piping system with slots at ground level to distribute treated and disinfected wastewater; because this process distributes disinfected water and does not create an aerosol, risk of exposure to pathogens through inhalation is minimal.
Furthermore, the wastewater treatment and disposal facility would be located at least 0.5 miles away from the developed area of the community, which provides a buffer to mitigate potential concerns associated with nuisance odors or aerosol migration that could arise outside of normal
operating conditions.
2.1.7
Comment
Is this project going to affect the whole community? (Comment 62)
7)
Response
I community, between 176 and 177 lots would be affected directly by the new collection system of the Proposed Action (111 lots on the existing LCC system and 65 to 66 newly accessible lots). This information has been revised in the Final EA Section 2.3.2 (Construct New Wastewater Collection System). The collection system and the treatment and disposal facility are
to serve o
Comment
The sewer will attract pests. (Comment 67)
Response
The existing wastewater collection system is an aging system that has flaws and cracks that can
provide access to pests such as rats and cockroaches. When the new collection system is installed, the existing system would be abandoned, and the subsequent lack of use would reduce available habitat and pest food sources. The new collection system would be more resistant to
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 15
developing cracks and openings, resulting in fewer opportunities for pests to access the sewer as compared to existing system.
Closure and abandonment of the existing LCCs would eliminate potential pest attractants. In addition, the wastewater treatment and disposal facility would be located farther from the community than the existing LCCs, thus conveying sewage to a facility that would incorporate design elements and operation practices to reduce attractiveness to pests. These design elements and operation practices would include features such as appropriate removal and management of waste from screening mechanisms to reduce food sources; use of aerators in lagoons to agitate water sources that otherwise could attract mosquitoes; and intermittent dosing of effluent to avoid standing water in groves. The Proposed Action would not be expected to contribute to pest-related concerns in This information is included in the Final EA Section
3.13 (Fauna).
Comment
The current site location causes concerns about impacts in the event of a natural disaster. Topics to be addressed include developing a hazard plan, response to fires and spills resulting from pump failure, and assuring sources of power and water at the site. (Comment 67)
Response
As stated in the Draft EA Section 3.4 (Seismic Hazard), the wastewater treatment and disposal facility would be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the International Building Code, 2006 Edition (IBC) as specified in HCC Chapter 5 and would comply with seismic loadings established for the County of Hawai i. This would minimize the potential for an uncontrolled release of untreated or partially treated sanitary wastewater, emergency generator diesel fuel, or disinfection chemicals from the facility during a seismic event. Hazards related to hurricanes, such as wind, rain, and flood loads, would be taken into account during detailed design. In addition, the treatment processes would be appropriately designed to have capacity to accommodate upset conditions, including pump and other equipment failures by use of back-up generator for power
as described below, alarm conditions for operators and a communication system.
Information pertaining to fire systems, water supply, and electrical systems is located in the Final EA Sections 3.21 (Public Services – Fire Protection), 3.22 (Infrastructure – Water System), and
3.24 (Infrastructure – Electrical and Communication Systems), respectively. As explained there, fire protection and related services would be provided to the treatment facility from a fire station sized as required during design to be used in the event of a fire. Department of Water Supply and the Fire Department would have an opportunity to review construction plans for the Proposed Action
during the project design phase. All alternatives would be designed according to NFPA 820 “Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities.” In accordance with Hawai i Fire Department requirements, Fire Department access and water supply to the proposed Site 7 would be designed to comply with Chapter 18 of NFPA 2006 Uniform Fire Code as amended by the County of Hawai‘i. This information is included in the Final EA Sections 2.3.1 (Acquire Site 7 and Construct New Secondary Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility) and
3.22.
Water service does not currently exist at Site 7. Water for the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal facility would be provided by extending the existing water main operated by the County of Hawai i DWS (located approximately 2,000 feet northeast of the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal facility) and by installing a service line to connect the new facility to that extended water main. The proposed site (Site 7) was deemed preferable to two other sites
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 16
considered (Sites 8 and 9) because, among other reasons, potable water and fire protection lines would need to be extended further to reach the latter two sites. Operation of the sewer system
would not require a water source external to the proposed treatment and disposal facility. As stated in the Draft EA Section 3.22.2, construction plans would show the estimated maximum daily water usage calculations prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of . After review of the calculations, DWS would determine if enough water is available and a water commitment could be issued.
It is anticipated that electrical power would be provided by (HELCO) overhead power lines and a pole-mounted transformer. Backup power would be provided by a diesel generator and aboveground fuel tank with capacity to support three consecutive days of operation. In addition, the electrical service panel would support a connection to a portable trailer-mounted generator in the event of a power outage lasting longer than three days. This information has been repeated in the Final EA Section 3.24.
2.2 NEPA Processes
Responses to comments regarding the federal NEPA process for the Proposed Action have been arranged into the following categories:
Purpose and Need
Scope of Proposed Action
Cumulative Effects
Federal and State Consultations
NEPA Procedures
2.2.1
Comment
when other communities have larger populations and are growing in size? (Comment 56)
when the rest of the state has until 2050? (Comment 67)
If this is truly a means for Hawai‘i County to avoid fines from the federal government for
the LCC violations, then that is what the focus of the proposal should be about. (Comment 61)
Response
As described in the Draft EA Section 2.1.3 (Large Capacity Cesspools), the two cesspools serving community meet the criteria of being LCCs under federal law since they each serve multiple dwellings. These LCCs are in violation of the SDWA as long as they continue to operate. The SDWA Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program prohibited the construction of new LCCs as of April 2000 and required the closure of all existing LCCs by April 5, 2005 (see 40 CFR
§ 144.88). In order to close the LCCs serving the community and comply with federal law, the County needs to develop an alternate means of wastewater treatment for those homes and buildings that are currently connected to the LCCs.
It is not true that the rest of the state has until 2050 to close LCCs—all LCCs across the nation, including those in the community, were required under federal law to be closed by 2005. In referencing 2050, it appears that the commenter is referring to a Hawai i state law that was
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 17
passed in 2017 that requires the closure of all cesspools (LCCs and small capacity cesspools) by 2050. Unlike LCCs, which serve multiple dwellings and/or have the capacity to serve 20 persons
or more per day, small capacity cesspools typically serve individual homes and are not regulated under federal law. This information has been clarified in the Final EA Section 2.1.3.
EPA and the County entered into an AOC in June 2017 since the County continued to operate the P hala LCCs after the 2005 closure deadline and after assuming ownership of the system from C. Brewer in 2010. This Administrative Order included an enforceable schedule for the County to close the LCCs in order to bring the County into compliance with federal law. Because the LCCs cannot be closed until an alternate means of wastewater disposal is constructed, the schedule for closure of the LCCs included in the Administrative Order was developed based on the County’s estimate of the amount of time required to design and build a
replacement means of wastewater disposal.
After careful review of different alternatives for wastewater treatment and disposal (see Section
2.5.4 (Treatment Alternatives) of this Appendix and the Final EA Section 2.8 (Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward)), the County identified the most appropriate solution given the community requirements as well as applicable Federal, State, and County regulations
governing wastewater disposal systems. The wastewater treatment and disposal facility would be sized appropriately for the community, based on the number of lots that would be connected to the new facility through the Proposed Action (anticipated to be approximately 176
to 177 lots), and wastewater flow projections for these lots, as determined by code. The size is also determined by the use and zoning of the lots and includes a standard allowance for industrial lots. For more information on the sizing of the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal facility, see Section 2.4.3 (, Land Use Commission (LUC)) of this Appendix.
Comment
water contamination. (Comment 67)
Response
The purpose of, and need for, the project is to close the LCCs serving the community in order to bring the County into compliance with federal law, and to prevent potential impacts to
public health and the environment that may be caused by discharging untreated sewage into the ground in a residential neighborhood. Regulations promulgated under the SDWA required the closure of all LCCs nationwide by no later than April 2005. There is no requirement under these regulations to show actual impacts to groundwater. This is because the SDWA is designed to prevent endangerment of drinking water before it occurs—thus, to comply with the SDWA, the
regulations require closure of all LCCs. The Draft EA Section 3.8.2 (Ground Water – Impacts and Mitigation Measures) stated that while use of the two LCCs has not resulted in documented impacts to groundwater or drinking water resources, abandonment of the LCCs would remove a potential source of such impacts and bring the facility into compliance with the SDWA. Abandonment of the existing wastewater collection system would not affect groundwater within the affected areas. This information is repeated in the Final EA Section 3.8.2.
2.2.2
Comment
hu projects is legally unacceptable. These two projects should be analyzed in a single impact
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 18
statement because of the connected nature and possible cumulative impacts of the projects. (Comment 4)
projects should be considered together. (Comment 16)
project is violating NEPA procedural requirements. (Comment 23a)
projects together. (Comment 65)
Demoruelle v. Beck evidence of misconduct in following NEPA/HEPA. (Comment 75)
Response
NEPA defines actions as connected if they satisfy any of the following criteria:
i. Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements
(EISs).
ii. Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously.
iii. Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. [40 CFR § 1508.25]
meet any of the above criteria. The
hich may require an EIS and is a stand-alone project which does not rely or depend on any other project Replacement Project is not considered connected
to the ( Project) for purposes of NEPA.
As stated in the Final EA Section 2.9 (Relationship to 2007 Final Environmental Assessment), in 2007 the County elected to evaluate the two projects in a single environmental review document under HRS 343 because at that time, both projects were expected to proceed along the same timeline and both were expected to be funded under the EPA SAAP grant. The County decided to not move forward with the proposed project as evaluated under that process for several reasons which are also described in the Draft EA Section 2.9.
Since then, the grant workplan for the EPA SAAP grant has been amended to include only the P hala community - LCCs Replacement Project. This decision was made based on two points: 1) the federal grant funds would only cover a portion of one of the projects and 2) it was expected
that the LCC Replacement Project could be completed faster than the P roject, and there was therefore a lesser likelihood that funds associated with the grant would be de-obligated before they could be spent. Consequently, the P roject will not receive any
funding under the EPA SAAP grant.4
The funding of the LCC Replacement Project under the SAAP grant is considered a federal action that requires environmental review under NEPA. Because funding from the EPA
SAAP grant is allocated to the LCC Replacement Project, and because the Project is not a connected action, it is not appropriate to include the P roject as part of the Proposed Action examined in the EA. The EPA did consider the potential cumulative effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions
4 In 2011, EPA reimbursed the County for approximately $113,000 for preliminary designs for the
any additional EPA SAAP grant funds.
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 19
(including the Project) as required by NEPA in the Draft EA Section 4 (Cumulative Effects) and additional information is included in Section 2.2.3 (Cumulative Effects) of this
Appendix.
The two projects are also considered separate for purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal undertakings on historic properties (see 40 CFR § 800.1(a)). Specifically, agency officials must assess whether historic properties occur within the “area of potential effect” for the project, and if so, whether they would be impacted by the project. NHPA regulations provide that agency officials should engage in consultation with the appropriate state historic preservation officer and consulting parties in order to determine whether the proposed project is expected to result in impacts to historic properties.
EPA and the County engaged in the NHPA Section 1Replacement Project and determined the area of potential effect for the project did not extend
outside the area as described in Section 2.1.5 (Archeological and Cultural Resources) of this Appendix. Because is located 11 miles from and is well outside of any area expected to be affected by the Project, the Project was not
considered as part of the Project Section 106 consultation process. The Final EA Section 3.15 (Archeological and Cultural Resources) has been updated with additional information regarding the NHPA Section 106 Consultation process.
In accordance with state requirements, the u P roject would undergo a similar consultation process to assess potential impacts on historic properties as part of the separate environmental review for that project.
2.2.3
Comment
The project is evading NEPA requirements by not considering the cumulative impacts (including economic impacts projects. (Comment 1)
The project is evading NEPA and crosscutting environmental review requirements by not considering the cumulative i projects. (Comment
2)
projects is legally unacceptable. These two projects should be analyzed in a single impact statement because of the connected nature and possible cumulative impacts of the projects. (Comment 4)
projects should be considered together. (Comment 16)
projects need to be considered together in one EIS. (Comment 23a)
WWTPs need to be considered. (Comment 27)
The County and EPA have avoided consideration of the impacts of the Project
3)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 20
Response
The community of is located approximately 11 miles from . As stated in the Draft
EA Section 4 (Cumulative Effects), “[the Project] are not expected to have a significant cause-and-effect relationship with the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action.” The P roject is undergoing separate community outreach and environmental review processes that have not yet been completed and therefore very little information regarding the impacts of that project is publicly available. However, information has been added to the Final EA Section 4 relating to the potential for cumulative effects between this project and similar construction projects within the district. Please refer to Section 2.2.5 (NEPA Procedures) of this Appendix for a discussion of why an EA was prepared rather than an EIS for the Proposed Action. The P roject is not the subject of this EA.
2.2.4
Section 7, Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Comment
EPA has failed to comply with the Endangered Species Act (subject of attached legal documents). (Comment 4)
The Project is in violation of the ESA and is causing concrete harm to the citizens of
The Project is in violation of environmental statutes and regulations including the Endangered Species Act. (Comment 14)
COHDEM and its contractors are avoiding Section 7 consultation under the ESA for the 7)
Response
The EPA has fulfilled its consultation requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. A biological field survey was performed in August 2018 for the proposed wastewater collection system and the preferred site (Site 7) for the wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The field study did not identify any species of plants or wildlife that are currently listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered species under Federal or State of Hawai‘i laws, and determined that Federally delineated Critical Habitat is not present in th. EPA initiated informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) by letter dated
December 21, 2018. The EPA received concurrence from the USFWS on February 15, 2019 that the project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species. A full discussion of the Section 7 consultation efforts and actions is included in the Final EA Sections
3.12 (Flora), 3.13 (Fauna), and 5.6 (Endangered Species Act).
Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
Comment
project was not also considered. The consultation was also done hastily and
without proper publication of notice. (Comment 65)
The federal Section 106 and the Cultural Assessment of the Draft EA are inadequate.
(Comment 40)
Local Hawaiian groups and individuals were not pre-consulted before the Section 106. (Comment 65)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 21
EPA failed to reach out to local Hawaiian organizations. The following should be consulted (list of suggested affected organizations attached). (Comment 7)
Response
On March 8, 2018, the EPA notified all Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) in the P hala area that the County had been authorized to act in EPA’s behalf when initiating consultation under 54 U.S.C. § 300101 and 36 CFR §800.2(c)4 for the P hala Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement Project. The County conducted consultation outreach to NHOs by directly contacting the federally recognized Native Hawaiian organizations listed in the Draft EA Section 10 (Consulted Parties). As stated in the Draft EA Section 3.15 (Archeological and Cultural Resources), consultation letters were delivered to invite comments from organizations that may attach religious or cultural significance to properties affected by the Proposed Action. The selection of NHOs for this outreach was developed using the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Native Hawaiian Relations, Native Hawaiian Organization Notification List (Updated December 4, 2017). Letters
requesting comments under Section 106 Consultation (54 U.S.C. § 32706) were sent to a total of 14 NHOs on March 29, 2018. No responses were submitted to the County.
On September 26, 2018, a public notice was published in the Hawaii Tribune Herald and West
Hawaii Today newspapers. The public notice was to advertise the October 10, 2018 public information meeting that -
Purpose Conference Room to discuss the Draft EA. The notice stated the second part of the meeting would address Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (2006). It was meant to involve consultation with NHOs and the Native Hawaiian descendants with ancestral lineal or cultural ties to, cultural knowledge or concerns for, and cultural religious attachment to the proposed project area. A Section 106 sign-in sheet was provided to those wishing to provide comments. No comments were made during the October 10, 2018 public
information meeting. This information is added to the Final EA Section 7 (Public Participation).
As explained in the Final EA, EPA has concluded Section 106 consultation with a determination of “no historic properties affected” by the Preferred Alternative. This information is updated in the
Final EA Sections 3.15 and 5.14 (National Historic Preservation Act).
The area of potential effect for the LCC Replacement Project does not extend to , which is approximately 11 miles from , meaning that there is no potential for the
LCC Replacement Project to impact historic properties in . The P roject would go through a separate consultation process for historic properties in accordance with state
requirements. Additional explanation for why these projects are considered separately is included in Section 2.2.2 (Scope of the Proposed Action) of this Appendix.
Please see Section 2.1.5 (Archeological and Cultural Resources) of this Appendix for further
details on the Section 106 consultat The Final EA Sections 3.15 and 5.14 have been updated to include additional information on the NHPA Section 106 Consultation process.
Other Agency Coordination
Comment
(HIDOE) requests consultation and coordination with the Facilities Development Branch, Public Works as early as possible to ensure a timely connection to the new collection system and closure of the on-site septic system.
(Comment 72)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 22
The HIDOE requests consultation and coordination with the school and the HIDOE Transportation Services Branch Manager to minimize construction and traffic impacts to the school such as noise, fugitive dust and HIDOE transportation of students. (Comment 72)
Response
The and P hala Elementary School, including the Gym and Shelter, would become accessible to the proposed County sewer system with the installation of two new laterals at the property line on Hala Street and Kamani Street. While typically only a single lateral is provided for a lot, the additional lateral on Hala Street is being installed to accommodate the project and create a gravity flow connection. This information is included in the Final EA Section 2.3.2 (Construct New Wastewater Collection System). Impacts and mitigation measures for addressing construction-related dust, traffic, and noise are addressed in the Draft EA Sections 3.14 (Air Quality), 3.17 (Traffic), and 3.18 (Noise). The County would provide
information about the construction schedule for the treatment and disposal facility and the collection system to the Facilities Development Branch Public Works Administrator on request.
Further, the County would coordinate with the HIDOE Student Transportation Services Branch Manager and the School in order to minimize construction-related impacts to student transportation services. Please refer to the County response to Comment 72 for further
information.
Comment
I request consulting party status under NEPA and Environmental Policy Act
(HEPA) and all cross-cutting statutes. (Comment 4)
I was not allowed to be a consulting party. I could have advised EPA and COH on proper procedures, but was never asked for my opinion or assistance. (Comment 65)
Response
A “consulting party” is a defined term specific to the NHPA that does not otherwise have meaning under NEPA. On October 19, 2018, EPA sent a letter to the commenter (Comment 4) indicating that, based on the information provided, the commenter did not meet the criteria for a consulting
party under the NHPA. In addition, HRS 343 and HAR 11-200 have no requirements or definitions related to consulted party status for an EA.
All interested members of the public were invited to provide comments on the Draft EA and to
attend the public information meeting on October 10, 2018. The public information meeting was -Purpose Conference Room to discuss the Draft EA. This was immediately followed by a second meeting addressing Section 106 of the
NHPA. A Section 106 sign-in sheet was provided to those wishing to provide comments.
2.2.5
Comment
The two WWTP projects are proceeding in violation of NEPA and HEPA. No EIS has been prepared or submitted for publication, and statutory and regulatory procedures for
public participation have not been followed. (Subject of forwarded legal documents) (Comment 16)
All wastewater systems with treatment units project is intentionally evading this process. (Comments 15, 18, 53)
A combined EIS for the LCC Closure Project should be provided. (Comment 38)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 23
Response
EPA determined that an EA is the appropriate e
Replacement Project because this federal action is not expected to significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA. It is not accurate that an EIS is prepared for all wastewater systems or wastewater treatment units in Hawai‘i. As described in EPA NEPA implementing regulations, types of actions that normally require the preparation of an EA include “certain grants awarded for special projects authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act.” See 40 CFR § 6.205(b). An EIS, on the other hand, is normally prepared for new regional wastewater treatment facilities or water supply systems for a community with a population greater than 100,000 (See 40 CFR § 6.207). As stated in the Draft EA Table 3.1, the total population of is 1,341. The LCC Replacement Project does meet the definition of a project normally requiring preparation of an EA and does not meet the definition for a project normally requiring preparation of an EIS.
Moreover, as described in the Draft EA and the Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), the LCC Replacement Project is not expected to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. As such, an EA is the appropriate vehicle for environmental review of
this project, and no EIS is required.
Additional information concerning applicable public outreach requirements and EPA and County compliance with such requirements is available in Section 2.3.1 (Outreach) of this Appendix, and
in Final EA Section 7 (Public Participation). Information concerning the separation of the Project and LCC Replacement Projects can be found in Section 2.2.2 (Scope of the Proposed Action) of this Appendix.
HRS § 343-5(a)(9)(A) states that “(a) Except as otherwise provided, an environmental assessment shall be required for actions that: (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…” For further discussion on the appropriateness of an EA for purposes of HRS 343, please refer to the County response to Comment 15.
Comment
The EPA and County are making an "irrevocable commitment of resources" to build the plants. (Comment 23a)
The project has taken "irrevocable siting action" before the environmental review is complete. (Comment 23a)
The two WWTP projects in are costing taxpayers at least $23,340,000 because the meter is now running and COHDEM has their contracts already in place.
(Comment 52)
Response
Neither EPA nor the County has made an irrevocable commitment of resources to the
LCC Replacement Project other than those required for planning and review of the project. As explained in both the Draft and Final EA, multiple sites and treatment technologies were evaluated for the Proposed Action, and a secondary wastewater treatment and land disposal system was deemed to satisfy the purpose and need for the Proposed Action (i.e., to close the LCCs in compliance with the SDWA by providing an alternate means of wastewater disposal). A
Preliminary Engineering Report was prepared in order to facilitate both a comparison of different wastewater treatment systems and a discussion of site selection considerations. Property has not yet been acquired for the project, however, and final design of the facility has not been completed.
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 24
As such, there has been no irrevocable siting action or commitment of resources associated with the project.
Additional information on the County’s commitment of resources to this project is included in the County response to Comment 23a.
2.3 Public Involvement and Outreach
Responses to comments regarding public involvement and outreach have been arranged into the following categories:
Outreach
Accessing the Draft EA
Public Information Meeting Comments
- Large Capacity Cesspool (LCC) Conversion Project – 2007 Final EA
Comments
Public Agencies
2.3.1
Comment
The community is concerned about the condemnation of property. (Comment 67)
Response
The Preferred Alternative wastewater treatment and disposal facility site (Site 7) is currently
owned by B. P. Bishop Estate Trustees (commonly known as Kamehameha Schools). Kamehameha Schools has agreed to transfer a portion of the property for the purpose of building the wastewater treatment and disposal facility, and legally it can transfer the property to the County through a condemnation proceeding. Thus, while the Preferred Alternative would involve condemnation of property, it would only be used to acquire Site 7. The County intends to purchase easements necessary to close the LCCs and construct the collection system. Apart from this specific property, the Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to result in the condemnation of additional private property.
Comment
The COHDEM refuses to provide (attendees, agenda, outcomes)
or environmental review records (except the PER and Draft EA) to the local libraries or online. (Comment 23a)
Response
EPA has fulfilled NEPA requirements for outreach and document availability/review by making the Draft EA available to the public for review and comment. The Draft EA Section 7 (Public Participation) included summaries of the talk story sessions and outcomes of these meetings. In
addition, though not required to do so, EPA has made key documents related to the project continuously available through its website (https://www.epa.gov/uic/proposed-pahala-community-large-capacity-cesspool-replacement-project-draft-environmental). Furthermore, there is no
requirement to publish notices of public meetings in the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) The Environmental Notice. OEQC may publish such notices on a space available basis. Finally, all project-related documents that have been released to any person under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) are available through the centralized FOIA Online system.
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 25
Comment
Resident Edward Andrade should have been consulted as he was the manager of the C. Brewer Sewage system for years. (Comment 41)
Response
All members of the community were welcome to attend the five talk story sessions held in December 2017 prior to the release of the Draft EA; to provide comments on the Draft EA; and to attend the October 10, 2018 public information meeting after the release of the Draft EA concerning the project. As a member of the public, Mr. Andrade has provided comments on the Draft EA which are addressed in this Appendix.
Comment
The entire town was not notified about the three information meetings. (Comment 33)
40)
There was no disclosure or conresulted in low turnout for all the meetings. (Comment 41)
the Project. (Comment 59)
The county is fast tracking the project without input from the community. (Comment 41)
Communication with residents was not done properly and with respect, so not everyone was informed about meetings. A lot of older people do not understand what is going on. (Comment 42)
The County failed to thoroughly
system. (Comment 55)
The community needs more information about the project. Information was presented poorly in the community meetings. (Comment 63)
More input by the county on how this project is going to be handled fairly to benefit the
community. (Comment 63)
secondary sewage treatment plant with four open sewage lagoons in remote . (Comment 53)
Residents were not given sufficient time to address concerns about the EA. (Comment 40)
Response
NEPA requires agencies to use “appropriate communication procedures to ensure meaningful public participation throughout the NEPA process,” and to “make reasonable efforts to involve potentially affected communities where the proposed action is expected to have environmental impacts.” See 40 CFR § 6.203(a)(5). For an EA, EPA’s NEPA regulations require that the EA and Preliminary FONSI be made available for review and comment at least thirty calendar days before making a decision on whether, and how, to proceed with a proposed action.
As described below, EPA has complied with these public participation requirements and guidelines throughout the scoping process and development of the Draft EA and Final EA. The
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 26
Draft EA Section 7 (Public Participation) identifies the community public outreach efforts the County conducted to solicit input while preparing the Draft EA. Prior to the issuance of the Draft
EA, the County held five talk story sessions in December 2017 to solicit community input on reactions and perceived effects of the proposed project. Notice about the talk stories was provided to the community through several means: direct mailing to properties currently connected to the LCCs, fliers were left at properties which are not currently connected to the LCCs but would have access to the proposed sewer (‘newly accessible properties’), fliers were provided to organizational leaders and posted in public venues in , and several online announcements
were made.
After collecting information on the anticipated scope and impacts of the proposed project, a Draft EA was prepared and published in The Environmental Notice issued by OEQC on September 23, 2018. The Draft EA was made available through the OEQC website, as well as through EPA’s website, for public review and comment. EPA and the County initially solicited written comments
on the Draft EA during the 30-day period from September 23 - October 23, 2018. In response to a request for extension, EPA and the County extended the public comment period for the Draft EA to December 10, 2018.
The Draft EA was made available through the following public notices and methods of outreach:
The EPA provided notice of the Draft EA on their website (https://www.epa.gov/uic/proposed-pahala-community-large-capacity-cesspool-replacement-project-draft-environmental);
Notice of the publication of the Draft EA was published in West Hawaii Today and the
Hawaii Tribune Herald on September 26, 2018.
iefs web site http://kaunewsbriefs.blogspot.com;
The Calendar News Brief included an article on October 9, 10, and 11, 2018 with mention of an upcoming meeting (October 10, 2018 public information meeting); and
Two notices for the Draft EA were published in The Environmental Notice:
o September 23, 2018 – notice for the statutory 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft EA; and
o November 8, 2018 – notice for republishing the Draft EA and extension of the public comment period for 30 days.
Fliers were posted in public venues such as the community shopping center, realtor office, ter.
Letters were mailed on September 10, 2018 containing information on the availability of the Draft EA, the comment period, and the October 10, 2018 public information meeting to all property owners on record adjacent to the proposed collection system.
After the publication and distribution of the Draft EA, a public information meeting was held on -Purpose Conference Room. The County provided a presentation and display boards in an open-house format prior to the meeting to facilitate public understanding of the proposed project, and meeting facilitators were available to answer technical questions concerning the project and offer clarification where necessary.
On September 10, 2018, letters containing information on the availability of the Draft EA, the comment period, and the October 10, 2018 public information meeting were mailed to all property
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 27
owners on record adjacent to the proposed collection system. This direct mailout included an invitation from DEM to workshops conducted prior to the October 10 public information meeting.
The workshop for owners served by C. Brewer lines was held on October 8, and the mailout for this meeting also included any non-owners currently receiving a wastewater bill. The workshop for owners of newly accessible properties was convened on October 9. In addition to the direct mailout, oNews Briefs website.
A summary of this public involvement and outreach following the issuance of the Draft EA is included in the Final EA Section 7 (Public Participation). These efforts for public outreach and involvement exceeded NEPA outreach requirements.
For responses to comments on outreach related specifically to the HEPA HRS 343 process,
please refer to the County’s individual responses to the above comments.
As explained at various points in the Draft EA, including in Draft EA Section 1 (Summary), and in
the coversheet accompanying the Draft EA published in The Environmental Notice, the Proposed Action is to construct “four lined aerated lagoons, a subsurface flow constructed wetland to remove nitrogen and an adjacent disinfection system to remove pathogens and four slow-rate
land treatment basins for disposal of the treated effluent.”
Comment
Why were residents who are not on the LCC system excluded from the decision-making process prior to December 2017? (Comment 55)
Response
On April 25, 2010, a community meeting sponsored by Councilman Guy Enriques was held at the
Replacement project. As part of the meeting, an informational handout prepared by the County’s Wastewater Division provided a brief history of the project documenting that, in 2004, Mayor Kim’s office used a ballot system to get input from property owners regarding different wastewater treatment/disposal alternatives for those properties connected to the LCCs who would no longer be served by the C. Brewer system after LCC closure. As reported in the Draft EA Section 2.1.4 (), 87 percent of the returned ballots were in favor of the installation of a new sewer collection system and a treatment and disposal system to be
operated and maintained by the County. The handout indicated Mayor Kim’s office advised the property owners the County would move forward with a new system for November 5, 2004. Additionally, the handout stated public meetings were held in both The handout included that adequate land for the treatment and disposal system had not been identified in
a. The Final EA Section 2.1.4 (History of Wastewater Management in P hala) has been updated with this information.
Subsequent to that, community outreach activities in the form of five talk story sessions took place cement Project and contributed to the development of
stated in the Draft EA Section 7 (Public Participation), began when the County held these five talk story sessions which were open to all residents and members of the public. This information is repeated in the Final EA.
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 28
2.3.2
Comment
I had difficulties downloading the Draft EA. (Comments 1, 2)
I was not provided a copy of the EA despite having requested consulting party status. (Comment 1)
The Notice for the DEA was sent to the wrong address. (Comment 3)
Response
The commenter responsible for comments 1, 2, and 3 received a copy of the Draft EA via U.S. Postal Service certified mail on or about September 27, 2018. The comment period ended December 10, 2018, giving the commenter ample time to provide comments on the Draft EA. Efforts to distribute the Draft EA for public review and comment exceeded NEPA outreach requirements that are described in the comment response on pages 25 through 27 above.
Comment
document, especially for the elderly. (Comment 41)
Response
The Draft EA was prepared and published in The Environmental Notice issued by OEQC on September 23, 2018. The Draft EA was made available through the OEQC website, as well as through EPA’s website, for public review and comment. Upon public request, 11 printed copies of
the Draft EA were made available at both the and libraries on November 7, 2018. The public comment period ended on December 10, 2018.
These efforts to distribute the Draft EA for public review and comment exceed the NEPA outreach
requirements. This information is included in the Final EA Section 7 (Public Participation).
Comment
There was no physical copy of the Draft EA available at the October 10, 2018 meeting. (Comment 18)
Response
Federal NEPA regulations do not require a project proponent to hold a public meeting on a Draft EA, nor do they require hard copies of a Draft EA be available at a public meeting. The October 10, 2018 public information meeting included a presentation and display boards to facilitate public understanding of the project. The Draft EA, which is a 300-page-plus document, was made available online and in the and public libraries in advance of the public information meeting for any person to review, copy, or download. In response to a request from a member of the community, additional copies of the document were made available at public libraries as described in the response to the previous comment.
2.3.3
Comment
Oral comments should be collected at public meetings. Surely someone can take oral comments and make a transcription as OECQ has done? (Comments 9, 16)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 29
The written commenting process used during public meetings is not adequate for people with limited English. (Comment 10)
Increments of project, if any, should be presented. What is presented is not complete. (in
reference to the October 10, 2018 meeting). (Comment 62)
Future subdivisions should be included in presentation (in reference to the October 10, 2018 meeting). (Comment 62)
Response
Unlike the process for preparing an EIS, there is no requirement under EPA’s NEPA regulations to hold public meetings concerning an EA or Proposed FONSI. As such, agency officials are not required to collect and respond to oral comments on a Draft EA. Despite not being required, the County held a public information meeting on the LCC Replacement Project during the comment period for the Draft EA in order to maximize the public’s awareness of the proposal.
The Draft EA public information meeting included a presentation and display boards that showed the entire project being considered under the Proposed Action. Though the Replacement Project would be built in a manner consistent with good engineering practices so that it would not preclude expansion to treat additional flow associated with residences being added to the collection system, there are no current plans to do so. The Draft EA Section 6.2.2
() discussed the and included a description of Policy 120, which is stated as “Extend the primary wastewater collection
built for new subdivisions to the County systems.” Future subdivisions would be accommodated, as capacity allows, on a first-come, first-served basis. This information has been added to the
Final EA.
Meeting facilitators verbally explained the Proposed Action and were available to answer technical questions concerning the project and its increments. As these meetings were not transcribed for the purpose of responding to oral comments, meeting facilitators made clear that persons seeking a formal response from the agencies to their comments should submit comments in writing to the County or EPA. The County provided staff at the October 10, 2018, public information meeting to personally assist commenters in preparing written comments, including those with limited English skills and those who preferred to dictate written comments instead of preparing the written comments themselves.
Comment
The make-up is majority immigrants, where English is a second language.
These residents do not fully understand the details of the project and legal jargon, so have not attended the community meetings. (Comment 56)
Response
The Draft EA Section 5.7 (Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898) indicated that has a higher proportion of minority groups as compared to the County. The American Community Survey Data for 2012-2016 8.8 percent) speak
only English at home, and that an additional 18.2 percent speak English “very well.”5 All notices and public outreach materials prepared and distributed for the
5 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey. Table S1601 (Language Spoken at Home). U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey Office, 2017. Web. October 16, 2019.
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 30
(see Section 2.3.1 (Outreach) of this Appendix for more information on outreach efforts) were developed to be as easily readable and understandable by the general public as possible.
-Purpose Conference Room to discuss the Draft EA. During this meeting, the County identified community volunteers attending the meeting who were proficient in Hawaiian, Tagalog, and English to assist anyone who identified as needing assistance. The OEQC rules have no provision for receiving oral comments. However, the facilitator at that meeting offered assistance in putting any oral comments attendees may wish to offer into writing.
This information has been included in the Final EA.
2.3.4
Comment
The 2007 and Villages Large Capacity Cesspool Conversion Project called for the use of septic tanks for wastewater treatment. The county switched the plan from septic tanks to a lagoon system without public review. (Comment 30)
Ballots were only sent to those homeowners that were connected to the C. Brewer system,
not the whole community (in reference to COM 0293.004 2004-2006). (Comment 61)
Response
The Proposed Action described in the LCC Replacement Project Draft EA was developed in response to new information and changed circumstances since the 2007 proposal that cast doubt on the viability of the proposal included in the 2007 Final EA.
The Draft EA Section 2.9 (Relationship to 2007 Final Environmental Assessment) describes the reasons for not implementing the project described in the 2007 and Large Capacity Cesspool (LCC) Conversion project Final EA. Specifically, after the County published
the Final EA in 2007, it performed additional studies and evaluation of the proposed LCC-to-septic conversion project and eventually concluded that the proposed system would not be feasible, and likely would not meet regulatory requirements for a new wastewater treatment/disposal system.
As stated in the Draft EA Section 2.8.2(a), based on current design criteria and current flow projections, an approximately 800,000-gallon community septic tank would be necessary to provide the extended detention times needed to optimize treatment performance, to avoid the
need for frequent septage pumping, and to account for peak flow rates. A community septic tank of this size would require pumping on a 3-year interval. Septic tanks produce hydrogen sulfide, reduced sulfur compounds, and other odorous gases; a community septic tank would concentrate these emissions to a single point source, requiring treatment with a dual-stage scrubber to avoid nuisance odor conditions. Therefore, use of a community septic tank is not considered to be feasible. In addition, Draft EA, Appendix B (Preliminary Engineering Report), Section 7.5.1 states that the use of a community septic tank would require the Department of Health to issue a variance to HAR § 11-62, which requires WWTPs with design capacities greater than 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) to produce effluent containing less than 30 mg/L of both BOD5 [5-day biochemical oxygen demand] and TSS [Total Suspended Solids] – septic tanks are not able to produce effluent of this quality.
On April 25, 2010, a community meeting sponsored by Councilman Guy Enriques was held at the Community Center to discuss the and LCC Conversion project. As part of the meeting, an informational handout prepared by the County's Wastewater Division provided
a brief history of the project documenting that, in 2004, Mayor Kim's office used a ballot system to get input from property owners regarding different wastewater treatment/disposal alternatives for those residents who would no longer be served by the C. Brewer system after LCC closure.
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 31
As reported in the Draft Section 2.1.4 (Histo), 87 percent of the returned ballots were in favor of the installation of a new sewer collection system and a
treatment and disposal system to be operated and maintained by the County. The handout indicated Mayor Kim's office advised the property owners the County would move forward with new systems for and on November 5, 2004. Additionally, the handout stated public meetings were held in both and in November of 2006 to discuss the wastewater system alternatives. The handout included that adequate land for the treatment and disposal system had not been identified in . This information is included in the Final EA
Section 2.1.4.
The LCC Replacement Project Draft EA was made available online and in public libraries in and beginning on September 23, 2018. The County and EPA solicited input on the Proposed Action via the public comment period that lasted from September 23 to December 10, 2018. Information concerning the decision to abandon the 2007 proposal has been
added to the Final EA Section 2.9.
2.3.5
Comment
The Department of Hawaiian Homelands acknowledges receiving the request for comments. After reviewing materials submitted, due to the project’s lack of proximity to Hawaiian Home Lands anticipates no impacts to our lands or beneficiaries. We encourage agencies to consult with Hawaiian Homestead community associations when preparing EAs. Dated 9/27/2018. (Comment 35)
any additional comments or concerns at this time. Dated 10/2/2018. (Comment 36)
(Engineering Division, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, and Land Division) has Replacement Project and has no comments. Dated 10/22/2018. (Comment 77)
(Division of Forestry and Wildlife
and Land Division) has reviewed the Draft EA (generated in response to the extension of public comment period) has no comments. Dated 12/7/2018. (Comment 71)
Response
EPA acknowledges receipt of letters from the above organizations and appreciates their review of the Proposed Action and Draft EA.
Pre-assessment consultation letters were sent to 14 Native Hawaiian Organizations, as stated in the Draft EA Section 3.15.1 (Archeological Resources – Existing Conditions). These organizations included the . No responses were
received from any Native Hawaiian Organization. This information is updated in the Final EA.
2.4 State and Local Processes
Responses to comments regarding compliance with state and local processes have been
arranged into the following categories:
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 32
ic Development and Tourism, Land Use Commission (LUC)
Development Plan (CDP)
2.4.1
Comment
discussion of the project's ability Chapter 226), and examine the project's consistency with these statutes, or clarify where it is in conflict. A discussion of Priority Guidelines, or a determination that these guidelines are not applicable to the proposed action, should be included in an examination of Part III statutes. (Comment 32)
discussion of the project's compatibility with statewide sustainability goals and principles
of sustainability (HRS § 226-108). (Comment 32)
Amendment could be considered as a land use approval option (could be used instead of a Special Permit) and discussed in the EA. (Comment 32)
Response
-assessment consultation letter on March 15, 2018 and provided a formal response on April 8, 2018 which included comments on the Proposed Action. These initial comments were incorporated into the project planning and the development of the Draft EA as appropriate. In addition to the pre-consultation response, the d above) that requested an expansion of the discussion in the Draft EA Section 6 (Plans, Policies, and Controls) to include the Proposed Action’s ability to meet all parts of the Hawai‘i State Planning Act. Information and a brief discussion of sustainability principles from HRS § 226-108 have been added to the Final EA Table 6.1 in addition to information on other applicable sections of Part III
of HRS § 226 as requested by the Office of Planning.
The State of Office of Planning’s comment concerning the option of a District Boundary Amendment is noted.
2.4.2
Comment
The project is in violation of HEPA and UIPA for disclosure of the August 15, 2018 environmental assessment records, and denial of requested records. (Comment 1)
The COH/EPA/Contractors should fully explain why two new-build secondary sewage -12 notice. (Comment 2)
projects are in violation of EIS requirements as established by HRS 343/ HAR 11-200 and 11-201. (Comment 13)
projects should be considered together under HEPA 343. (Comment 16)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 33
The project is not in compliance with HRS 343 because of the failure to prepare a HEPA EIS, the methods of public outreach and participation, lack of availability of documents, and lack of TEN public notice for the two “talkstory” sessions. (Comment 23a)
HEPA 343 Sec5(a)(9). (Comments 16, 53, 58)
Demoruelle v. Beck evidence of misconduct in following NEPA/HEPA. (Comment 75)
Response
The above-listed comments relate to compliance with the Hawai i Environmental Policy Act,
otherwise known as Chapter 343 of Hawai i Revised Statutes or HRS 343. The Final EA Section 6 (Plans, Policies and Controls) includes discussion of state and local requirements applicable to this project. Comments related specifically to compliance with state requirements including HRS
343 are addressed by the County in its separate responses to the above comments.
For discussion of compliance with NEPA procedures, please see Section 2.2 (NEPA Processes) of this Appendix. Discussion of public outreach and notice efforts is included in Section 2.3 (Public
Involvement and Outreach) of this Appendix and in the Final EA Section 7 (Public Participation).
Comments regarding the Large Capacity Cesspools Closure Project are outside the scope of the Proposed Action. The Large Capacity Cesspools Closure Project is currently undergoing a separate environmental review, coordinated by the County of Hawai‘i Department of Environmental Management, in accordance with HRS 343 requirements.
2.4.3
Comment
Describing the project as 14.9 acres is an attempt to evade LUC scrutiny, as LUC review is required for projects of 15 acres or more. (Comments 1, 6, 23a, 40 and 41)
The project covered a minimum 667,500 sq. ft. [15.3 acres] plus utility access must be considered as part of the project impacts no matter who will own it, so that is another 37,500 sq. ft., bring total acreage at Site 7 as 16.1 acres. (Comment 23a)
The LUC should be given a chance to review the project even if the property was not within their range. (Comment 42)
Response
Because the Proposed Action is located within an Agricultural District, under Hawai i law a Special Permit is needed. As described in the Draft EA Sections 3.10.2 (Agricultural Lands – Impacts and
Mitigation Measures) and 6.1.3 (State Land Use District), “under Chapter 205, HRS, use of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes greater than 15.0 acres requires approval of a
Special Permit by the Land Use Commission.” The Final EA clarifies that, for the Preferred Alternative at Site 7, the County would apply for a Special Permit which requires approval by the County Planning Commission. For projects that would use agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes greater than 15.0 acres, the County Planning Commission would then submit their
As stated in the Draft EA Section 3.10.2(a), “construction of the wastewater treatment and disposal facility at Site 7 would require removal of approximately 14.9 acres of macadamia nut trees.” The 14.9-acre site has been selected to provide the necessary land area for the facilities needed to treat the incoming flows and to dispose the treated effluent from the treatment process.
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 34
The proposed project site minimizes the use of the adjacent lands which contain a commercial macadamia orchard. A larger project site is not required. Please refer to the County response to
Comment 23a for more information.
As stated in the Draft EA Section 2.10.3 ( 205 Considerations), within the agricultural district, public, private, and quasi-public utility lines are a permitted use. The area of the Proposed Action located within the ROWs and other easements considered a permitted use within agricultural land and therefore does not add to the acreage of agricultural lands for purposes of the Special Permit for the LUC review. The County would therefore seek a Special Permit from the County Planning Commission. This information is repeated in the Final EA Section 2.10.3.
No attempt has been made to avoid review by the LUC. The County sent the LUC a pre-consultation letter for this project dated March 15, 2018 providing notice of the preparation of a Draft EA and inviting comments on the Proposed Action as part of the pre-assessment
consultation process. No response was received. Also, the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism was directly notified (by mail) of the availability of the Draft EA.
2.4.4
Comment
not follow its statutes. (Comments 46, 50, 65)
Response
Comments related to compliance with state and local requirements are addressed by the County in a separate response to the above comments. The Draft EA included a detailed discussion of the Community Development Plan in Section 6.2.2 (Community Development Plan). That section has been updated in the Final EA.
2.5 Project Location and Design
Responses to comments regarding the location and design of the proposed project have been arranged into the following categories:
Proximity to Schools
Location of preferred Alternative
Extent of Collection System
Treatment Alternatives
Technical Design
2.5.1
Comment
I am very concerned about the short distance between the proposed site and the school.
(Comment 26)
Response
As stated in the Draft EA Section 4 (Cumulative Effects)
Elementary School are approximately one-half mile north of the wastewater treatment and
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 35
disposal facility at Site 7 under the Preferred Alternative. The facility would be separated from the schools by a macadamia nut orchard, the old P five streets
and numerous private residences. The wastewater treatment and disposal facility would be enclosed with a 6-foot-high chain-link fence and posted to prevent public access. EPA does not anticipate that construction and operation of the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal facility would have any direct or indirect impact on the schools (e.g., due to visual, smell, or noise impacts), due to the distance between the proposed facility and the schools. This information has been added to the Final EA Sections 3.14 (Air Quality), 3.18 (Noise), and 3.19 (Visual
Characteristics).
The schools currently discharge wastewater to eight (8) DOH-approved septic systems. At the time the septic systems were installed, two new laterals were also installed at the property line on Hala Street and Kamani Street to allow for eventual connection to the new collection system (see Draft EA Section 4.1.1 (Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions)). Upgrading the
collection system in front of the school so that these laterals may be connected to the new collection system may result in temporary traffic impacts during construction but these impacts would be mitigated through the establishment of a traffic control plan which would be coordinated
with HIDOE transportation services (see the Draft EA Section 3.17.2 (Traffic – Impacts and Mitigation Measures)).
Construction of the project would also result in temporary noise impacts for all areas with
construction equipment and trenching as described in Draft EA Section 3.18.2. All construction activities would comply with the Community Noise Control provisions of HAR 11-46. Lastly, the Proposed Action could result in short-term impacts to air quality due to construction activities as a result of fugitive dust or exhaust emissions from mobile construction equipment as described in Draft EA Section 3.14.2. A dust control plan would be implemented to include mitigation measures such as watering of active work areas. EPA does not anticipate any long-
2.5.2
Comment
The plant should be sited below/south of the highway. (Comments 23a, 27, 55, 56, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73) – Commenters provided the following rationales for this comment: concern over flooding risk, concern that caves and burial sites may be present at the proposed location, concern about visual and odor impacts, and concern about safety and health.
I am very upset with this whole idea of where you are intending to put the new plant. (Comment 34)
The plant should be sited south of the highway and make use of the existing culvert that was installed by the sugar industry. (Comments 31, 33)
makai (seaward side) of the highway. The proposed site is too close for comfort and life quality. (Comment 37)
The site should be relocated below the highway to be further away from the town due to safety, environmental, historical, and aesthetic concerns. (Comment 41)
Response
The Draft EA Section 2.7 (Development of Site Alternatives and Selection of Preferred Alternative) discussed the alternative sites for construction of a new wastewater treatment and disposal
facility. One of the alternatives discussed, Site 9, is located below the highway. This alternative
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 36
scored lower than the Preferred Alternative location (Site 7) because it would require construction of additional access roads, a longer distance to available power and potable water, and a longer
transmission line due to the further distance from the existing LCCs and collection system infrastructure. Site 9 would require approval by the State of ansportation. It also scored lower than Site 7 because of presence of and/or proximity to archeological/cultural sites. In addition, it was determined that, depending on the configuration of the wastewater treatment facility and the land application groves, this alternative could require trenching and construction of piping across south flowing branches of the Hi‘onamoa Gulch, classified as a riverine wetland (per the National Wetland Inventory), which occurs within the site. To avoid this potential impact for Site 9 and to minimize costs, the headworks, lagoons, and the subsurface constructed wetlands could be sited in the upper portion of the site (i.e., the area closest to the highway) which would result in other impacts. Further discussion has been added to the Final EA Sections 2.5 (Proposed Action – Site 9 Alternative) and 3.7 (Surface Water).
Two additional parcels located below the highway were identified in the Draft EA as Sites 4 and 5. Site 4 was eliminated from consideration because, among other reasons, it contained an unnamed gulch that would need to be crossed by influent and fire protection lines and, because
of the soil type, it was estimated that 200 acres would be needed to accommodate the slow-rate land treatment basins (See Draft EA Section 2.8.1(d) (Other Site Alternatives)). Site 5 was eliminated from consideration for similar reasons, as described in Section 2.8.1(e) of the Draft
EA. No other parcels below the highway were identified as potentially suitable for the project.
The location and configuration of the Preferred Alternative (Site 7) were designed to minimize aesthetic impacts of the project. As described in the Draft EA Section 3.19.2 (Visual Considerations and Light Pollution – Impacts and Mitigation Measures), the existing pine trees along Maile Street would continue to obstruct the view of the facility from Maile Street. The facility view plane would be mitigated by the planted trees in the disposal groves and by the rise in elevation between the highway and the facility. In addition, as described in the Draft EA Table 6.1, the project “does not include facilities or improvements that would adversely affect public safety of this area of Hawai‘i.” Potential impacts of the project on historic properties are addressed in Section 2.1.5 (Archeological and Cultural Resources) of this Appendix.
2.5.3
Comment
It was my understanding that the reason the sewage system was being expanded beyond what was required by the Feds was because it was part of the CDP. Can you please direct me to the section in the CDP that states this? (Comment 29)
I really feel that the County of Hawai‘i should concentrate on only people involved with LCC’s first and foremost because of the Federal mandated regulations. We non-LCC are not in violation of any standards of the Federal Regulation’s requestings. (Comment 55)
The County has decided to expand the new sewage system beyond those homes currently on LCCs, and beyond what is required by the federal government. (Comments 31 and 73)
There are some homes which will have the sewer line running near their homes but are not part of the original C. Brewer LCC line. The homes across the street and connecting
are not part of the LCC line either, so it is perplexing as to why this initial phase of the project is including lines in areas that are not necessary. (Comment 61)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 37
Response
The Draft EA Section 2.3.2 (Construct New Wastewater Collection System) discusses the
construction the existing system of substandard gravity lines that currently conveys sewage to the two LCCs. As described in the Draft EA Section 6.2.1 (Hawai‘i County General Plan), the current LCC collection system includes lines located the backyard of many parcels. Where easements for the existing collection system aren’t accessible, the County must obtain permission from each landowner to enter them, through private property, to inspect, maintain, repair, or replace existing sewer facilities: all activities essential to an efficient, functioning system. As a result, the proposed new collection system would be located primarily within the public street rights-of-way and to close the LCCs, there would be parcels that become “newly accessible” to the collection system. The collection system is not being expanded under the Proposed Action beyond the area needed to close the LCCs. This information is repeated in the Final EA.
The collection system constructed as part of the Proposed Action would be designed to extend to all properties currently served by the LCC system. While the areal extent of the new collection system would mirror the old collection system, certain properties that are not currently served by
the LCC system and that are adjacent to, or across the street from, the LCC properties, would become accessible to a sewer when the new collection system is installed. Under County code, properties that become accessible to a sewer are required to connect to sewer unless certain
exceptions are met. While the Proposed Action does not include installation of laterals to connect these newly accessible properties to the new collection system, it is nonetheless foreseeable that these properties would be required to connect to the new system. These properties have therefore been included in the scope of the environmental review for this project.
The requirement for accessible properties to connect to sewer is discussed in detail in the Draft EA Section 2.3.2 and the Final EA Section 2.3.2. Comments related to state and local
requirements, including the CDP, are addressed in the County’s response to Comment 29.
2.5.4
Comment
If all the County had wanted was compliance with clean-water requirements, and with the least distress to the taxpayer and payer of sewage-system user fees, it probably would have explored alternative means of sewage treatment. Methods such as constructed wetlands generally are less capital and labor intensive than traditional treatment plants. (Comment 5)
The DEA gives no consideration to any decentralized, more cost-effective project for rural areas such as in Ka u. There should be remedial community meetings to consider
alternatives, including the original conversion to septic, to close the LCCs. (Comment 23a)
’s problem with cesspools. Mobile units could be used when cesspools are at capacity, and they do not require pipelines, which are subject to damage. (Comment 44)
No alternatives, including micro-sewage projects, have been offered to taxpayers. (Comment 52)
The sewage flow could easily be handled by one or two small packaged plants, affordably modular to accommodate growth, on a very small footprint of land with no noxious odors. (Comment 66)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 38
The type of plant to be used should be reconsidered due to the history of flooding from rain, storms, and hurricanes from the slopes of Mauna Loa which would overflow the open sewer reservoir. (Comment 76)
Response
lagoon treatment system with a constructed wetland and disinfection, followed by land application for effluent management. The system is described in detail in the Draft EA Section 2.3.1 (Acquire Site 7 and Construct New Secondary Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility). In addition to the proposed treatment method, the County and EPA considered numerous treatment alternatives, including septic tank alternatives (see Draft EA Section 2.8.2(a)), alternatives for onsite wastewater systems (see Draft EA Section 2.8.2(b)) and other “effluent management options” (see Draft EA Section 2.8.3). As described in the Draft EA, all these alternatives were removed from consideration due to their lack of feasibility and other concerns as outlined in the
Draft EA Section 2.8 (Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward).
Specifically, septic tank alternatives were rejected because it was determined that a community
septic system large enough to receive the projected flow from the community would not be capable of achieving the effluent quality standards required by HAR § 11-62-23.1 (see Draft EA Section 2.8.2). In addition, individual septic systems for the lots currently served by the LCCs
septic systems (see Draft EA Section 2.8.2).
The commenter referring to micro-sewage may have been referring to individual wastewater systems such as composting toilets which would be too small to meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action. A discussion of alternative individual systems is available in the Preliminary Engineering Report in Appendix B of the Final EA.
Flood risks associated with the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal system are discussed in Section 2.1.1 (Flood Risk) of this Appendix, and in the Final EA Sections 2.3.1 (Acquire Site 7 and Construct New Secondary Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility) and
3.23 (Infrastructure – Drainage System).
2.5.5
Comment
(80,000 gallons a day) as municipal. EPA cites small wastewater flows (non-municipal) as under 1 million gallons a day. All consideration of packaged treatment plants were dismissed based on the engineer characterizing the P hala wastewater flow as municipal. Since a package plant that would be adequate to close the P hala LCCs would cost around $4 million…this option would be given real consideration as a cost effective alternative. It would also require far less land and fit closer to the exiting LCCs. Since packaged plants are modular, capacity could be expanded for future flows by just adding new units. The added cost of electricity and sludge removal would be offset by saving of $10 million in borrowed SRF funds. (Comment 64)
gal/day when the actual flow for a larger population base in the 2007 FEA was 80,000 g/d.
Underutilized plants can become a “negative removal efficiency” - meaning what the plant pumped out was more contaminated that what went in. (Comment 5)
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 39
The engineers fail to justify the extremely high P hala wastewater flow rates which should have been based on City and County of Honolulu Sewer Standards with an average wastewater flow rate of 320 gal/day per lot. The LCC closure only required disconnecting from around one hundred households, so the flow rate is around 32,00 gal/day. (Comment
66)
Response
Per HAR 11-62, wastewater treatment works must be designed in accordance with County standards, or City and County of Honolulu standards if a county does not have design standards. The County of The City and County of Honolulu updated their design standards in July 2017 and the 320-gpd standard is no longer applicable.
dry weather flow of 190,000 gpd including lots which are not in single family residential use or zoning, which is sufficient capacity to allow closure of the LCCs. Additional detail is provided in
the Draft EA Appendix B (Preliminary Engineering Report). It should be noted that wastewater flows from a community are highly variable, and peak flow rates from small community wastewater collection systems are typically three to five times higher than the average flow rates. State and
County design standards take this variability into account, and application of the standards results in conservatively designed facilities that are protective of human health and the environment under anticipated conditions. Information relating to applicable design standards has been added to the Final EA Section 2.3 (Proposed Action – Site 7 Alternative (Preferred Alternative)).
The wastewater treatment and disposal facility and the collection system would be designed to meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action. The facility would be built to handle 190,000 gpd (average dry weather), not the full-buildout flow projections of 360,000 gpd associated with expansion to entire community. However, as a matter of good engineering practice, and to the extent practical, the wastewater treatment and disposal facility and collection system would be designed not to preclude expansion to treat future average dry weather flows up to 360,000 gpd should the County or community decide in the future that expansion is necessary in accordance .
lagoons that are more energy efficient than conventional activated sludge wastewater treatment
processes. The aerated lagoon process is less sensitive to underloading conditions than conventional activated sludge wastewater treatment processes and would provide excellent treatment performance during low flow conditions. The “negative removal efficiency” effect is not
LCC Replacement Project does include a constructed wetland treatment system and the proposed land treatment tree groves provide an energy efficient “natural” technology that would use sunlight, vegetation, and soil properties to achieve the desired results.
Comment
The consideration of the use of alternative energy sources (wind, solar, methane) would decrease emissions. Hooking up to HELCO is not looking to the future. Please look beyond the grid for energy. (Comments 31, 73)
Response
The 14.9-acre area for the wastewater treatment and disposal facility under the Preferred Alternative (Site 7) minimizes use of the adjacent macadamia nut farm. The Draft EA Figure 2.3
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 40
shows the project site as fully utilized by the four lagoons, the four planted groves used for slow-rate land application system, the subsurface flow constructed wetland, and the headworks and
operation building. The remaining land area would not be sufficient to accommodate construction of facilities for an alternative energy source.
The Preferred Alternative does not include utilizing alternative energy systems such as
photovoltaic solar or wind as a total replacement for connecting to the HELCO grid due to:
The need for consistent power supply;
Emergency backup power requirements;
Up-front capital cost;
Full utilization of the 14.9-acre proposed site for the treatment and disposal facility;
Objective to minimize the amount of land area removed from agricultural production; and
EPA-enforced project implementation schedule deadlines.
Partial augmentation of traditional power utilizing photovoltaic solar panel arrays on the headworks and operations building rooftops, however, is feasible and would be further analyzed during the detailed design phase after loads and demand patterns are better understood. Additional alternative energy systems can be added in the future if prioritized and funded by County Council, and the electrical systems would be designed to accept additional alternative energy input.
Methane gas is generated at wastewater treatment plants using a process called anaerobic digestion. The proposed wastewater treatment and disposal facility would be too small for
anaerobic digestion to be economical; the design flow to the wastewater treatment and disposal facility would be 190,000 gpd, and anaerobic digestion is only economically attractive for wastewater treatment and disposal facilities that treat at least 5 to 10 million gpd. In addition, the
anaerobic digestion process requires primary clarifiers as part of the liquid treatment process, but primary clarifiers tend to be odorous in tropical climates, due to the relatively high wastewater temperatures. The proposed facility would rely on natural treatment systems that require relatively low energy input. Additional detail regarding the preliminary analysis of alternative energy options can be found in the Final EA, Appendix B (Preliminary Engineering Report).
Comment
I am concerned with the placement of the sewer lines near the water lines of . Is there some kind of spec sheet that shows how far away the sewer line will be to the water
line? (Comment 61)
Response
As stated in Draft EA Section 3.22.1(a) (Infrastructure – Water System – Existing Conditions),
“the water lines are primarily located along or under the roadways in the area.” The Draft EA Appendix A included a letter from the County of Hawai‘i DWS that stated the following:
“The Department requests that the construction plans show, and the proposed sewer lines be
installed with, the proper horizontal and vertical clearances from our existing water system facilities and concrete jacketing at waterline crossings, where necessary, as recommended by the
Department's Water System Standards. In addition, backflow prevention devices must be installed where there are connections to our water system at wastewater processing and treatment facilities.”
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 41
T would not impact existing water lines in the community. This information was added to the Final EA Section 2.3.2 (Construct New Wastewater Collection
System).
2.6 Other Comments
Responses to other comments have been arranged into the following categories:
Miscellaneous and Other Comments
Large Capacity Cesspools Closure Project
2.6.1
Comment
A councilmember's name was listed incorrectly in the Draft EA. (Comment 8)
Response
Refer to the Final EA Section 10.1 (Pre-Assessment Consultation) for corrected spelling of the
councilmembers name.
Comment
61)
Response
Refer to the Final EA Section 2.1.1 (Community) for a correction to the text which has been revised to state consists of community, which has a population of approximately 1,341 persons.”
Comment
The Draft EA list of preparers did not include the outreach subcontractors. (Comments
23a, 27)
Response
The public outreach subcontractor did not prepare the EA and therefore no correction the List of Preparers in the Final EA is required.
Comment
What were the agreements made between C. Brewer and the County during the transition of turnover? (Comment 67)
Response
The Draft EA Section 2.1.4 (), which described the , includes the following information: “Around 2006,
C. Brewer requested that the County construct and maintain a new and improved community sewer system. A County Council Resolution approved the C. Brewer request. In anticipation of C. Brewer's dissolution, C. Brewer proposed, and the County agreed, to enter into a formal
agreement to not only construct and maintain a new and improved community sewer system but to assume ownership of the existing system including the LCC's by April 30, 2010.” As part of this agreement, for the majority of complete the line (called a lateral) between the residences and the property line at the edge of
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 42
the public right-of-way adjacent to the new collection system. It was agreed, if the County did not complete its portion of the work by April 30, 2010, the County would assume pending and
unfinished obligations to connect the new laterals installed by C. Brewer to the residences and new collection system when complete. Thus, because that date has passed and the County has not completed installation of the new collection system, this project includes connecting these C. Brewer laterals, which may now need to be replaced, or installing private laterals for currently connected properties if authorized by the property owner and approved by County Council. This information has been added to the Final EA Section 2.1.4.
Comment
Since the Kealakehe WWTP is running so much over budget, w
project? (Comment 27)
Response
The Kealakehe Aeration Upgrade and Sludge Removal Project is a repair and upgrade project
that is outside of the original project scope for construction of that facility; comments regarding the cost of that repair and upgrade are not pertinent to the scope, cost, or impacts of the Proposed
Action.
Comment
A handout was distributed by then County Rep. Guy Enriques to everyone in the community. Why did the county waste money doing an EA regarding the same site? (Comment 41)
The citizens of have been significantly harmed by COHDEM and EPA failure to incorporate environmental review from the initial proposal of the WWTP projects in 2012
DEM’s CIP 2012-13 Budget. (Comment 23a)
The supplemented or withdrawn
(Comment 4)
Why hasn't the 2007 LCC project Final EA/FONSI been withdrawn under HRS?
(Comment 27)
Response
In 2007, the County prepared a Final EA for a project to install septic tanks to replace the existing
cesspools in order to comply with HRS 343. Before EPA performed its environmental review of the project as required under NEPA, the project was abandoned because it was determined to be
infeasible based on further engineering review. Additionally, the parcel considered in the 2007 EA for construction of a septic tank treatment system (TMK 9-06-002:016) is not the same parcel as the Preferred Alternative (Site 7) of the current LCC Replacement Project (TMK 9-6-
002:018). A discussion of the history of the projects is included in the Final EA Section 2.9 (Relationship to 2007 Final Environmental Assessment).
Comments relating to HRS 343 publication procedures for the project proposed in 2007 are not germane to the LCC Replacement Project that is currently the subject of EPA’s review under NEPA. As explained in the Draft EA Section 2.9 and in Section 2.3.4 ( and LCC Conversion Project – 2007 Final EA) of this Appendix, the EPA did not prepare or approve the 2007 County-led environmental review referenced in the comment. Comments related to compliance with publication requirements under HRS 343 are addressed by the County in their responses to the above comments.
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 43
2.6.2
Comment
EPA and CODEM are avoiding NEPA/HEPA, ESA, NHPA, Section 106 and the environmental review for the project. (Comments 1, 34, 43, 57, 65)
EPA has separated the Ka u LCC closure grant into two separate projects and refused to follow NEPA/ESA procedures that EPA followed for the P hala project DEA as for the
WWTP work plan. (Comment 4)
I have concerns about the plant, including its location. (Comment 5)
plant is sited too close to the school. The DEA has been withheld since April 2017, and no EA has been published, preventing the opportunity for public review
and comments. (Comment 23a)
There was no public participation in the decision to site the WWTP near the elementary school. (Comment 38)
How can comments be made about the WWTP? We will share this information 7)
The project is sited too close to the well, school and in PONC Land. (Comments 43, 47, 48, 52, 75)
Is the Preliminary Engineering Report available at the libraries? I did not know it had been published because two scheduled meetings about the project have not
been held. (Comment 48)
Did the libraries receive copies of the Preliminary Engineering Report for the
sewage treatment plant? (Comment 54)
EPA and COHDEM transferred funding away from the project to evade NEPA,
NHPA-/ESA requirements. (Comment 65)
The estimated costs for the project are suspicious. The large value of the administrative and legal expenses budget for suggests it may be a slush fund. (Comment 66)
HI Department of Education requests to be included in the pre-draft assessment consultation and Draft EA for the LCC Replacement Project. (Comment 72)
COHDEM and its contractors are avoiding Section 7 consultation under the ESA for the project. (Comment 57)
Response
Comments regarding the Large Capacity Cesspools Closure Project are outside the scope of the Proposed Action. As explained in the Draft EA Section 4.1.2 (Actions Considered but Excluded from Analysis), the Large Capacity Cesspools Closure Project is a
separate project from the LCC Replacement Project and the two are not expected to result in any cumulative impacts given the considerable distance between the two towns. This is further clarified and supported in the Final EA Section 4 (Cumulative Effects). In addition, neither project is dependent on the other for completion, nor does approval or completion of one project make it more likely the other would be similarly approved or completed. The Large Capacity Cesspools Closure Project is currently undergoing a separate environmental review, coordinated
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 44
by the County of Hawai‘i Department of Environmental Management, in accordance with HRS 343 requirements.
2.7 Comments Not Related to NEPA
Comment
EPA should consider a settlement because the third circuit will be considering the preliminary injunction. I am planning to file a personal injury claim. (Comment 17)
The County should grandfather in the "newly accessible lots" with functional cesspools
and septic tanks. (Comment 31)
The plaintiff responds to the defendant's Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The wastewater system Draft EA should be immediately released,
subconsultant contractors and halt all planning and development activities on the
The community plans to file multiple lawsuits. (Comment 23a)
Is there any impact on rapport when there will be endless lawsuits based on violation of
twin WWTP projects treated as “important”? (Comment 27)
I did not receive any confirmation that comments were mailed. (Comment 39)
I am having trouble finding an attorney and no one has attempted to talk to me about the case. (Comment 21)
We will be suing on this forever! (Comment 22)
rienced negative psychological impacts since 2005 or 2007. (Comments 40, 41)
The judge dismissed the Preliminary Injunction, and the COH Motion to Dismiss. The court case will move forward. (Comment 49)
that has been totally ignored. The judges who awarded it were misled. (Comment 50)
I am available as a consultant to produce a Cultural Impact Assessment if the project proceeds to the EIS phase. (Comment 60)
Will police be present at the public meeting? (Comments 11 and 16)
The LCC households of deserve reparations and should not pay for sewer service until the project is completed. (Comment 23a)
Employee strikes (disputes). (Comment 67)
Response
These comments are not relevant to the environmental review.
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 45
Comment
A Brown & Caldwell sub-contractor has approached community members seeking personal information about me, which is criminal invasion. I will be contacting the Pele Defense Fund and the FBI. (Comment 19)
I will not be consulting the Pele Defense Fund. I have been traumatized by the Brown and Caldwell sub-contractor inquiring about me. The County Council will request an audit of
this 13 year fiasco or I will take evidence of malfeasance to the FBI. (Comment 20)
Response
These comments are not relevant to the environmental review. EPA has found no indication that
illegal conduct has occurred.
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 46
3 County of Hawai i Response to Comments
The following is a compilation of all comment letters from agencies, organizations, and others who formally replied with comments to the Draft EA. Note that some of the comments were submitted as a letter and some via e-mail as shown by the date and time. As required by HAR § 11-200-9.1(c), all written comments and responses are reproduced in this appendix.
(*) denotes comment number shown in Table 1
State Agencies
(32) Office of Planning
(72) Department of Education
(35) Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
(77) Department of Land and Natural Resources, Engineering Division
(71; 77) Department of Land and Natural Resources, Land Division
(71; 77) Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife
County of Hawaii Agencies
(36) County of Hawai i Police Department
Interested Parties
(37) Ruby Javar
(26) Tina Tuttle
(27) Sandra Demoruelle
(28) Dr. Noelani Hong 10/10/2018; 11:38 am
(44) Dale A. Loper 9/29/2018; 7:46 am
(29) Ngaire Gilmour 10/17/2018; 10:30 am
(30) Jerome Warren
(31) Ngaire Gilmour 10/20/2018; 12:40 pm
(33) Edward Andrade, Jr.
(41) Sophia M. Hanoa 10/23/2018; 4:47 pm
(42) Jadelyn Kaapana-Moses 10/24/2018; 1:39 pm
(38) Lila Lopes
(34) Charles Tuttle and Tina Tuttle
(43) Amanda McDowell and Anthony McDowell
(40) Pele Defense Fund
(55) Alfred Ibarra and Mary Ibarra
(56) Walter T.L. and Debra A. Wong Yuen
(63) Gwendolyn Sorensen 11/2/2018; 2:43 pm
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 47
(62) Prodincio Fuerte
(59) Larry O. Navarro 11/19/2018; 11:27 am
(60) Lisa Gollin 11/19/2018; 11:46 am
(61) Tanya Ibarra 12/3/2018; 8:19 am
(68) Dorothy Kalua
(67; 69; 70) Pele Defense Fund (2 duplicates) 12/10/2018; 6:15 am; 6:26 am; 6:26 am
(73) Ngaire Gilmour 12/10/2018; 5:01 pm
(74) Keoni Fox 12/10/2018; 5:43 pm
(76) Noelani Hong
(1) Sandra Demoruelle 9/24/2018; 8:57 am
(2) Sandra Demoruelle 9/24/2018; 10:26 am
(3) Sandra Demoruelle 9/24/2018; 11:15 am
(4) Sandra Demoruelle 9/24/2018; 1:21 pm
(5) Sandra Demoruelle 9/25/2018; 8:32 am
(6) Sandra Demoruelle 9/25/2018; 9:39 am
(7) Sandra Demoruelle 9/25/2018; 12:28 pm
(8) Sandra Demoruelle 9/25/2018; 12:39 pm
(9) Sandra Demoruelle 9/28/2018; 9:54 am
(10) Sandra Demoruelle 9/28/2018; 11:52 am
(11) Sandra Demoruelle 9/28/2018; 1:21 pm
(12) Sandra Demoruelle 9/28/2018; 1:43 pm
(13) Sandra Demoruelle 9/29/2018; 5:50 pm
(14) Sandra Demoruelle 10/1/2018; 10:29 am
(15) Sandra Demoruelle 10/1/2018; 10:41 am
(16) Sandra Demoruelle 10/3/2018; 8:17 am
(17) Sandra Demoruelle 10/6/2018; 9:00 am
(18) Sandra Demoruelle 10/10/2018; 10:50 pm
(19) Sandra Demoruelle 10/12/2018; 10:20 am
(20) Sandra Demoruelle 10/13/2018; 8:51 am
(21) Sandra Demoruelle 10/21/2018; 4:12 pm
(22) Sandra Demoruelle 10/24/2018; 4:03 pm
(39) Sandra Demoruelle 10/23/2018; 2:48 pm
(46) Sandra Demoruelle 10/31/2018; 8:03 am
(45) Sandra Demoruelle 10/31/2018; 8:13 am
(48) Sandra Demoruelle 10/31/2018; 11:39 am
(47) Sandra Demoruelle 10/31/2018; 12:41 pm
(49) Sandra Demoruelle 10/26/2018; 11:12 am
Final – Appendix E District, Hawai‘i
February 2020 48
(50) Sandra Demoruelle 11/2/2018; 12:22 pm
(51) Sandra Demoruelle 11/5/2018; 9:26 am
(52) Sandra Demoruelle 11/6/2018; 11:51 am
(53) Sandra Demoruelle 11/8/2018; 11:52 am
(54) Sandra Demoruelle 11/13/2018; 12:40 pm
(57) Sandra Demoruelle 11/16/2018; 10:03 am
(58) Sandra Demoruelle 11/2/2018; 12:14 pm
(64) Sandra Demoruelle 12/10/2018; 2:36 pm
(65) Sandra Demoruelle 12/10/2018; 3:01 pm
(66) Sandra Demoruelle 12/10/2018; 3:29 pm
(75) Sandra Demoruelle 12/10/2018; 4:38 pm
(23a) Sandra Demoruelle 10/22/2018; USPS
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
PART II. PLANNING COORDINATION and IMPLEMENTATIONPart II does not apply to the Phala Community Large Capacity Cesspool Replacement project.PART III. PRIORITY GUIDELINESDiscussion§226-101 Purpose.§226-102 Overall direction. §226-103 Economic priority guidelines.§226-104 Population growth and land resources priority guidelines.§226-105 Crime and criminal justice.§226-106 Affordable housing.226-107 Quality education:§226-108] Sustainability[§226-109] Climate change adaptationpriority guidelines
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277County of Hawai‘i, Department of Public Works, Final
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Zone XZone X –Other Flood AreasZone X
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
(a)Owners of all dwellings, buildings, or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purposes, which are accessible to a sewer are required at their expense to connect directly with the public sewer within 180 days after date of official notice
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Applicability and requirementsContents of an environmental assessment
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Zone XZone X – Other Flood Areas
Zone XZone X
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
(a) Owners of all dwellings, buildings, or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purposes, which are accessible to a sewer are required at their expense to connect directly with the public sewer within 180 days after date of official notice.”
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
“The director shall promulgate regulations establishing an underground injection control program. Such program shall prohibit any underground injection which is not authorized by a permit issued by the director; provided that the director shall not issue permits for the construction of sewage wastewater injection wells unless alternative wastewater disposal options are not available, feasible, or practical;”
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277“(a)Owners of all dwellings, buildings, or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purposes, which are accessible to a sewer are required at their expense to connect directly with the public sewer within 180 days after date of official notice.
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Zone XZone X –Other Flood AreasZone XZone X
Hawaii Tribune Herald West Hawaii Today
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Hawaii Tribune Herald West Hawaii Today
Zone XZone X –Other Flood AreasZone XZone X
Araucaria columnaris)(a) Owners of all dwellings, buildings, or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purposes, which are accessible to a sewer are required at their expense to connect directly with the public sewer within 180 days after date of official notice
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
Hawaii Tribune Herald West Hawaii Today
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Multiple or phased applicant or agency actions
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
Hawaii Tribune Herald West Hawaii TodayHawaii Tribune HeraldWest Hawaii Today
Zone XZone X –Other Flood AreasZone XZone X
Floodplain ManagementStandards for subdivisions and other developments
(a)Owners of all dwellings, buildings, or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purposes, which are accessible to a sewer are required at their expense to connect directly with the public sewer within 180 days after date of official notice
Araucaria columnaris
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
(a) Owners of all dwellings, buildings, or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purposes, which are accessible to a sewer are required at their expense to connect directly with the public sewer within 180 days after date of official notice.”“Sewer user charges for residential customers shall be assessed to all lots accessible to a public sewer or public gang cesspools whether connected or not. User charges for sewer service…hall be according to the schedule shown under section 21-36.1”Hawaii Tribune Herald West Hawaii Today
Zone XZone X – Other Flood AreasZone XZone X
Floodplain ManagementStandards for subdivisions and other developments
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
Hawaii Tribune HeraldWest Hawaii Today
environmental assessmentApplicability and requirementsContents of an environmental assessment Zone XZone X –Other Flood AreasZone X
Zone X Floodplain ManagementStandards for subdivisions and other developmentsAraucaria columnaris
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Araucaria columnarisZone X –Other Flood AreasZone XZone X
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
“(a)Owners of all dwellings, buildings, or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purposes, which are accessible to a sewer are required at their expense to connect directly with the public sewer within 180 days after date of official notice.
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277“(a) Owners of all dwellings, buildings, or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purposes, which are accessible to a sewer are required at their expense to connect directly with the public sewer within 180 days after date of official notice.” “(c) The director may grant a variance/exemption of the foregoing connection requirements to owners of single-family dwellings existing at the time of installation of the public wastewater system, if the following is found: (1) There are special or unusual circumstances applying to the subject real property which exist that render the ability to connect to a wastewater system an extreme physical or financial hardship; and (2) There are no other reasonable alternatives; and (3) The variance is consistent with the general purpose of the chapter and will not be materially detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare.”
The Environmental Notice
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277COMMUNITY INPUT ON THE PROJECTREASON FOR THE PROJECT“(a) Owners of all dwellings, buildings, or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purposes, which are accessible to a sewer are required at their expense to connect directly with the public sewer within 180 days after date of official notice.”
WATER LINE/SEWER LINE PLACEMENTERRORS IN THE PROPOSALPLACEMENT OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE SEWER PROJECT
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
Zone XZone X –Other Flood AreasZone X
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
FloodingZone XZone X –Other Flood AreasZone XZone X
Section 106FloodingFloodingHook Ups(a)Owners of all dwellings, buildings, or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purposes, which are accessible to a sewer are required at their expense to connect directly with the public sewer within 180 days after date of official notice
NuisanceAraucaria columnaris
Natural DisastersFlooding
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
Hawaii Tribune HeraldWest Hawaii Today
(a) Owners of all dwellings, buildings, or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purposes, which are accessible to a sewer are required at their expense to connect directly with the public sewer within 180 days after date of official notice.”
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
Hawaii Tribune HeraldWest Hawaii Today
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Zone XZone X – Other Flood AreasZone XZone X
Floodplain ManagementStandards for subdivisions and other developments
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Applicability and requirementsContents of an environmental assessment
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Hawaii Tribune HeraldWest Hawaii Today.
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Contents of an environmental assessment
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Applicability and requirementsContents of an environmental assessment
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Public review and response requirements for draft environmental assessments for anticipated negative declaration determination and addenda to draft environmental assessments
Applicability and requirementsContents of an environmental assessment Multiple or phased applicant or agency actions
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Zone XZone X –Other Flood AreasZone XZone X
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Contents of an environmental assessment
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Contents of an environmental assessment
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277The Environmental NoticeThe Environmental Notice
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277Hawaii Tribune HeraldWest Hawaii Today
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
1B2
34
56
78
910
1112
1314
1516
1718
1920
2122
2324
2526
2728
2930
3132
3334
3536
3738
3940
4142
4344
4546
4748
4950
5152
5354
5556
5758
5960
6162
6364
6566
6768
6970
7172
7374
7576
7778
7980
8182
8384
8586
8788
8990
9192
9394
9596
1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 •Honolulu, Hawaii •96826 •(808) 946-2277
The Environmental NoticeThe Environmental Notice.
Multiple or phased applicant or agency actionsThe Environmental Notice