Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Kilauea Voluntary Housing Buyout Program Tiered Environmental Assessment 02
Tiered Environmental Assessment 24 CFR Part 58 Kīlauea Voluntary Housing Buyout Program County of Hawai'i March 2022 Page Intentionally Left Blank U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20410 www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Environmental Assessment – Tiered Review Determinations and Compliance Findings for HUD-assisted Projects 24 CFR Part 58 This is a suggested format that may be used by Responsible Entities to document completion of an Environmental Assessment. Project Information Project Name: Kīlauea Voluntary Housing Buyout Program Responsible Entity: County of Hawai‘i Grant Recipient (if different than Responsible Entity): N/A State/Local Identifier: B74427 Preparer: Lindsay Moore, CDBG-DR Project Specialist Certifying Officer Name and Title: Douglas Nam Le, Disaster Recovery Officer Consultant (if applicable): PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. Direct Comments to: Lindsay Moore, Lindsay.Moore@hawaiicounty.gov Project Location: Puna District, Island of Hawai‘i Description of the Proposed Project [24 CFR 50.12 & 58.32; 40 CFR 1508.25]: Kīlauea volcano, located on the Island of Hawai‘i, erupted in May of 2018 and resulted in a lava flow covering approximately 8,500 acres. The community experienced additional impacts from associated earthquakes, heat, gases, and fires. Following the eruption and disaster declaration (DR 4366), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocated Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Funds to the County of Hawai‘i to address the disaster-related needs. As required by HUD, the County prepared a CDBG-DR Action Plan that outlined a Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) as an activity to be implemented using disaster recovery funding. The proposed project(s) are located within the Puna District, including but not limited to the following census block groups, 211.01 Block Groups 1 and 2, 211.06 Block Groups 2 and 4, as well as a portion of land affected by underground magma located off Highway 130 near the ʻĪʻīlewa Crater (see Figure 1). This project area is generally bounded by Highway 130 to the west, Hawaiian Beaches subdivision to the north, and the coastline adjacent to the Pacific Ocean to the east and the south. The homes and parcels are of varying sizes. The list of specific TMKs to be cleared in the Tier 1 environmental review process is pending eligibility, and can be verified upon request by HUD. Per the 1991 HUD Volcanic Policy on the Island of Hawai‘i, HUD funds will be utilized by the County for disaster recovery buyout of applicant properties, and will not be used within Lava Hazard Zones 1 and 2 designated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for construction or any sort of rehabilitation work. Structures or improvements present on properties acquired through this program will be removed. The proposed work may include demolition of structures and associated infrastructure work including decommissioning of existing cesspools or other associated items on the parcels. Parcels and structures will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as appropriate based on their existing conditions, proximity to wetlands, and established Base Flood Elevations (BFE). The properties will be subsequently retained in perpetuity for a use that is compatible with open space, recreational, or floodplain and wetlands management practices. The purpose of the VHBP is for the County to acquire properties impacted by the 2018 Kīlauea eruption, through voluntary sale by interested property owners. Properties acquired through this program will have any structures or improvements, that are still present on the property, removed. The properties will be subsequently retained in perpetuity for a use that is compatible with open space, recreational, or floodplain and wetlands management practices. The County’s objectives with the VHBP are to serve as many disaster survivors as possible with available recovery funding and to meet the requirement of HUD to utilize a minimum of 70 percent of program funds to benefit low- to moderate-income (LMI) persons and households per Federal Register Notice 83 FR 5844. The maximum grant award to acquire a property is $230,000, which represents the median pre-disaster (2017) total market value of properties with structures that were used as primary homes, based upon the County of Hawai‘i Real Property Tax records. The appraised market value of land and any buildings or other improvements in 2017 serves as the basis to determine the buyout total for each applicant. Properties that were undeveloped at the time of the eruption will also be assessed at a median 2017 pre-disaster market value based upon the County of Hawai‘i Real Property Tax records. The County of Hawai‘i will limit acquisitions to one property per owner, with certain established exceptions in policy. While an application to the VHBP may be determined as eligible, it does not ensure assistance will be provided. It is expected that there will be more eligible applicants than can be served with available funds. The buyout program is available for property owners who owned the impacted property during the disaster event and currently own the property, with certain established exceptions in policy. Eligible properties must have been directly impacted by the volcanic event and/or be physically affected by secondary effects. Such impacts are identified as properties that were inundated by lava, isolated by lava, or suffered direct physical damage from lava including structures affected by fires caused by lava, heating from magma below the surface, gas emissions that make the property uninhabitable, and associated earthquake damage. Additional threshold factors to determine eligibility for the VHBP include: Applicants qualifying their property as a primary home must provide proof that they resided in the structure, as a primary home, at the time of the disaster. Applicant should be current on property taxes or current on an approved payment plan (including exemptions under current law). Any outstanding County taxes, liens, homeowner association (HOA) dues, or other financial property encumbrances on the property will be cleared at closing. Property qualifying as a primary or second home must have had an eligible structure prior to the disaster. Eligible structures for the VHBP must have served as dwelling units. Structures do not have to have been permitted prior to the eruption to be eligible for this program; however, proof of use as a dwelling unit prior to the disaster is required. Properties with an eligible structure used for both residential and commercial purposes are eligible for the program; however, the commercial purpose must be a secondary use of the property. No condominiums, co-operatives, townhomes, or other housing units that share any common wall or area will be eligible under the VHBP. Properties containing recreational vehicles and camper trailers used as a residence are not eligible for financial compensation. Only the value of the land will be provided for properties that did not contain structures with assessed values as recorded by the County. Otherwise eligible second homes and undeveloped parcels are eligible for the VHBP but will be prioritized after primary homes. Applicants applying to the VHBP will be processed according to the following priorities. A weighting, or point system, will also be implemented to assist in the ranking of properties to be acquired. Property Classification Applications will be prioritized based on the following classification of property that existed prior to the disaster: 1. Owner’s documented Primary Home 2. Owner’s documented Second Home, including Long-Term Rentals 3. Undeveloped/Vacant Parcels Low- to Moderate-Income (LMI) Households The County will also prioritize LMI applicants over non-LMI applicants. The Federal Register Notice 83 FR 5844 requires that, at a minimum, 70 percent of program funding will serve LMI households. LMI eligibility will be specific to each qualifying household and based on verification of each applicant’s household income. Damage Status Damage for properties will also be given different levels for prioritization. Properties with significant inundation or isolation will be the largest weight in the point system, followed by properties with significant damage, and then partial damage. Road Access The County will also rank properties without road access to be restored over those with road access to be restored. Road reconstruction is not part of the proposed project. Short-Term Vacation Rentals While the buyout program is prioritizing homes of the property owner as well as long-term rentals, properties with short-term rentals (used for vacation purposes) are also addressed as follows: An owner who used a property as a primary residence, and rented out a portion of the property as a short-term vacation rental as an accessory use, would qualify for the buyout program. If the property served as a full-time short-term vacation rental, and the owner did not reside on the property for any portion of the year, then the property would not qualify. In this circumstance the vacation rental would be considered a business which is not eligible for the VHBP. A property may qualify for the buyout program if an owner resided part time on the property and also rented out the property as a short-term vacation rental. The County will assess the amount of time the property was owner-occupied versus short-term tenant occupied in making this determination. Subsequent Use of Acquired Properties As part of long-term recovery, it is the County’s objective to implement the VHBP in close coordination with individual property owners who are applicants to and beneficiaries of the program as well as the communities where buyout activities are occurring. Various opportunities and challenges exist for those acquired properties, due to ongoing maintenance needs that may exist following a buyout. HUD encourages grantees implementing buyout programs to acquire contiguous parcels of land to the extent practicable for uses compatible with open space, agriculture, recreation, natural floodplain functions, ecosystem restoration, and/or wetland management practices. The County will work with communities where buyout activities are taking place to develop a management plan, with the knowledge of which properties are participating in the VHBP. The County will further explore opportunities for, and the appropriateness of, the following subsequent uses and stewards: providing access agreements to former owners while maintaining the compatible open space uses; preserving sites of cultural significance; providing for maintenance agreements; transferring title to a community association or land stewardship group for the maintenance and use of these properties in a way that is compatible with open space uses; or to lease lands for agricultural uses that are productive in the eruption areas and require a minimal investment in crops or infrastructure that could be lost to a future eruption. Statement of Purpose and Need for the Proposal [40 CFR 1508.9(b)]: It is estimated that 3,000 residents were displaced and nearly 2,000 parcels were impacted by lava flows. Public infrastructure was also damaged and includes approximately 12.5 miles of public roads, 20 miles of private roads, and 14.5 miles of water lines. Financially, the impacts were estimated at approximately $269,135,000 in housing damage, $236,000,000 in infrastructure damage, and $443,000,000 in economic damage. To determine the basis of funding allocations through the CDBG-DR Action Plan, the County evaluated the impacts from the 2018 Kīlauea eruption, the assessment of unmet recovery needs, the feedback and input from members of the public, the relationship of CDBG-DR funded project activities to planning activities for long-term recovery, and the requirements associated with CDBG-DR funding from HUD. The County’s initial analysis of the impacts from the 2018 Kīlauea eruption, and the resulting unmet recovery needs, include all three core recovery categories of housing, infrastructure, and economic revitalization. However, the need for housing solutions was identified as the most significant category of unmet needs in the County. To reflect these findings, the Action Plan allocated the largest portion of funding to assist impacted property owners through the VHBP. The acquisition of properties will address the unmet housing and financial need of property owners whose properties were impacted by the eruption event. The buyout program was further determined to provide a community-wide benefit by removing property and people from harm’s way by reverting properties, located in a high hazard zone, back to an open space status. The County assessed the impacts of housing recovery strategies on protected classes under Fair Housing law, racially and ethnically concentrated areas, and areas of concentrated poverty. The decision to implement a buyout program includes a prioritization based on household LMI status, road access, and property classification. This enables the limited CDBG-DR funding to assist impacted households in securing permanent housing, especially LMI households which lack access to financial resources in their recovery. This strategy also supports individual choice among participating property owners. Similarly, an assessment of available single-family housing stock and developable land in the Puna district was also conducted. One finding was that there were more than 5,000 platted, developable residential lots in the Puna district within Lava Zone 3. A supplemental housing project was explored, which contemplated the development of affordable housing that could be rental and/or home ownership and multi-family or single-family in scope. As HUD policy prohibits the use of CDBG-DR funds for permanent housing or residential-serving infrastructure in Lava Hazard Zones 1 and 2 on the Island of Hawai‘i any housing development would need to be outside of the areas impacted by the 2018 Kīlauea eruption. The County evaluated the potential need for a voluntary buyout program with the opportunity to build affordable housing to assist displaced renters and recognized that the financial resources within this CDBG-DR allocation may not be sufficient to accomplish both projects successfully. The County will continue to explore the opportunity to develop affordable housing to assist displaced renters with non-CDBG-DR sources and any CDBG-DR funds that may be reallocated from the projects in the future based on actual program participation and expenditures. Existing Conditions and Trends [24 CFR 58.40(a)]: The project area encompasses over 45,000 acres, with over 2,000 parcels of varying states of lava flow inundation, ranging from completely inundated, to partially inundated, to no inundation but damage or effects from volcanic activity such as smoke or heat. Parcels range from having existing homes and structures, to having small structures and no residences, to having no construction and being completely vacant. Funding Information Grant Number HUD Program Funding Amount B-19-UV-15-0001 B-19-UV-15-0002 Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG- DR) $107,561,000 Estimated Total HUD Funded Amount: $107,561,000 Estimated Total Project Cost (HUD and non-HUD funds) [24 CFR 58.32(d)]: $107,561,000 Compliance with 24 CFR 50.4, 58.5, and 58.6 Laws and Authorities Record below the compliance or conformance determinations for each statute, executive order, or regulation. Provide credible, traceable, and supportive source documentation for each authority. Where applicable, complete the necessary reviews or consultations and obtain or note applicable permits of approvals. Clearly note citations, dates/names/titles of contacts, and page references. Attach additional documentation as appropriate. Compliance Factors: Statutes, Executive Orders, and Regulations listed at 24 CFR §58.5 and §58.6 Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required? Compliance determinations STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR 50.4 and 58.6 Airport Hazards 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D Yes No The site location is not within 2,500 feet of a civil air operation. The closest airport is the Hilo International Airport (ITO) approximately 14.5 miles away (See Figure 3 in Exhibit A). ITO is part of the State of Hawai‘i Airport System and is owned and operated by the State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (DOT). Coastal Barrier Resources Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 [16 USC 3501] Yes No No impact. The project is not located within a designated coastal barrier resource area. There are no coastal barrier resources within the State of Hawai‘i, as shown on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) Coastal Barrier Resources System Mapper. Therefore, the proposed improvements will have no impact on these resources nor will any mitigation measures be necessary (see Exhibit B). Flood Insurance Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 [42 USC 4001-4128 and 42 USC 5154a] Yes No Although the project action does include acquisition, most of the project parcels that were located in flood zones are now fully inundated with lava and no structures remain. Any other structures remaining that are not inundated by lava and are located within a flood zone will be characterized as “abandoned in place” or will be “100% demolished,” and will therefore not require insurance. No existing homes that remain standing will be rehabilitated or reinhabited, and no new structures will be built on any of the land planned for acquisition under this project. See Exhibit J for 8‐step Review findings and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR 50.4 & 58.5 Clean Air Clean Air Act, as amended, particularly section 176(c) & (d); 40 CFR Parts 6, 51, 93 Yes No No impact. The project does not include new construction, and although it does involve land use changes from private to public, the proposed actions do not include the development of any type of facilities. The ambient air quality of the site meets all Federal and State standards. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the entire state of Hawai‘i is in attainment with Federal air quality standards. Therefore, this project is in an Attainment Area (see State of Hawai‘i Department of Health, March 2020, Annual Summary 2018 Air Quality Data). The information was accessed online at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/green-book in October 2021 and is included in Exhibit D. The monitoring station identified as “Leilani” is located within the proposed project area. The location of this station is identified in Section 3 of the July 2021 State of Hawai‘i Annual Summary 2019 Air Quality Data (2019AQD) report. Section 4 of 2019AQD report identifies stations that exceeded National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) during 2019. Exceedances of NAAQS at the Leilani Station during 2019 are attributed to natural environmental volcanic emissions. A list of all exceedances recorded in the State of Hawai‘i between January 2012 and December 2020 are available at the following website: http://health.hawaii.gov/cab/notification-of- exceedance-of-a-national-ambient-air-quality- standard/. Exceedances between January 2018 and December 2020 are included in Exhibit D. All exceedances listed are attributed to natural environmental volcanic emissions. Section 6 of the 2019AQD report compares all of the State’s monitoring stations, including Leilani, to State and Federal Standards. The 5- year trend for both stations indicates that values for criteria pollutant from air samples collected from each station are below State and Federal ambient air quality levels. Section 6 of the 2019 report is included in Exhibit D. The air quality of the subject area is not greatly affected by man-made air pollutants. In general, the ambient air quality of the project area meets all Federal and State standards as evidenced by its designation as an "attainment area" by the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department of Health, Clean Air Branch. Local air quality impacts from short-term construction dust and long-term automotive emissions will occur but will not be substantial. Given the above factors, the project is in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Coastal Zone Management Coastal Zone Management Act, sections 307(c) & (d) Yes No All lands in the State of Hawai‘i are within the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Area. In a letter dated June 24, 2004 and re-confirmed by phone January 11, 2021 (Exhibit E), the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism’s Office of Planning indicated that the Hawai‘i CZM program does not review any HUD assistance programs, grants, or loans for federal consistency, but that CZM regulations relating to actions within the Special Management Areas (SMA) and Shoreline Setback still apply. Although the project area does include lands within the SMA (see Exhibit E, Figure 4), the scope of the project actions (land acquisition and removal of existing structures) do not require further review through SMA permitting as per the County of Hawai‘i’s SMA requirements unless structures to be removed are on land abutting the shoreline or are located on any historic site as designated in national or state registers. Through the Tier 2 site specific reviews, parcels proposed for acquisition with structures to be demolished will be reviewed for their location relative to the shoreline and their status on National and State Historic registers. Should structures be required for removal on any shoreline parcels or National or State Register sites, the County of Hawai‘i will consult with County of Hawai‘i Planning Department to determine if a SMA permit is required for the demolition work, and acquire the necessary permit prior to removal of structure(s). Contamination and Toxic Substances 24 CFR Part 50.3(i) & 58.5(i)(2) Yes No A review of publicly available information through the Hawai‘i Department of Health's (HDOH) Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (iHEER) web-based tool, as well as the federal NEPAssist website demonstrate that there are no toxic, hazardous or radioactive substances found on-site or nearby. All sites found in the iHEER geographic database were found to be in NFA (No Further Action) status, with the exception of one testing location that was reportedly used for gathering HDOH research samples. The latest report from this site is dated to 1994. The NEPAssist Website also returned 13 sites within the project area, including 11 CWA/water discharge sites and 2 RCRA sites within the Kīlauea Voluntary Housing Buyout Program project area. All thirteen of the identified sites were found to be either terminated, expired, or in good standing with no identified violations. These facility reports, along with the limited project action, which is solely to acquire properties and remove previous residents from the project area, ensure that the project is in compliance with HUD’s contamination and toxic substances requirements. See the NEPAssist map and associated facility reports in Exhibit F. For any properties that require structural demolition, further analysis will be included in the Tier 2 review to assess and abate the presence of individual wastewater systems, lead based paint (LBP), asbestos, chemicals, solvents, poisons, oil containers, or any other potential sources of contamination and toxic substances that may be found on applicant parcels. Any sources of contamination found will be abated and removed in accordance with County building codes and State Department of Health regulations. OSHA standards will be followed to protect workers during demolition and removal of structures. Endangered Species Endangered Species Act of 1973, particularly section 7; 50 CFR Part 402 Yes No The County requested technical assistance from the USFWS in an email sent on August 30, 2021. The USFWS replied in a letter dated September 15, 2021, identifying federally listed species that may occur or transit through the vicinity of the project area (Exhibit G). The County requested concurrence from USFWS in a letter dated December 9, 2021, for the following conditions: • The purchase and no further activity planned on the 1,323 lots, that were completely covered by molten lava, will have no effect on any listed species currently extant on the Island of Hawai‘i. • The purchase and no further activity planned on any of the remaining lots, that may not be completely inundated by lava but do not involve demolition of structures or any ground disturbance, will have no effect on any listed species currently extant on the Island of Hawaiʻi. • The implementation of the minimization measures described herein for the lots, that were not completely inundated by lava and require demolition activities that include vegetation disturbance, may impact but is not likely to adversely affect any listed species known from the area. In a letter dated January 20, 2022, the USFWS agreed with the County’s determination of “no effect” on any parcels of land within the project area that were covered in lava by the 2018 eruption, are planned for purchase, and have no ground disturbance or demolition proposed. For remaining lots where the action includes purchase of land and may include structure demolition, the USFWS anticipates that the potential for adverse effects to listed species are insignificant (undetectable) or discountable (extremely unlikely to occur) on the remaining lots where purchase and structure demolition is proposed. The USFWS concurs with the County determination that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Hawaiian hoary bat, Hawaiian goose, Hawaiian seabirds, Hawaiian waterbirds, sea turtles, Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly, Blackburns’ sphinx moth, and listed plants. A discussion of each of these species, analysis of effects including avoidance and minimization measures follow: Hawaiian hoary bat The endangered Hawaiian hoary bat roosts in both exotic and native woody vegetation across all islands. Young are left unattended in trees and shrubs while foraging. If trees or shrubs 15 ft or taller are cleared during the pupping season (between June 1 and September 15) 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 3 ft to higher than 500 ft above the ground and can entangle in barbed wire used for fencing. To avoid and minimize impacts to the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, the County will incorporate the following applicable measures into their project plan: There will be no clearing and/or disturbance of any woody vegetation taller than 15 feet during the pupping season (June 1 and September 15). There is no construction of fencing proposed as part of this project. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian hoary bat The proposed project will not disturb, remove, or trim woody plants 15-ft tall or greater during the bat pupping season (June 1 through September 15) and barbed wire fencing will not be used. Based on the proposed project design and implementation of these avoidance and minimization measures, Hawaiian hoary bats are extremely unlikely to be measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Injury and mortality of the Hawaiian hoary bat will not occur. Therefore, effects to the Hawaiian hoary bat are insignificant. Hawaiian goose The threatened Hawaiian goose may be observed in a variety of habitats, but prefer open areas, such as 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. The Hawaiian goose is infrequently detected in the project area. If Hawaiian geese are detected during surveys, site preparation, or structure demolition, the following measures will be implemented and included in the County’s contracts and plans: Do not approach, feed, or disturb the Hawaiian goose. If Hawaiian geese are observed loafing or foraging within the project area during the breeding season (September through April), have a biologist familiar with Hawaiian goose nesting behavior 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 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). Cease all work immediately and contact the Service for further guidance if a nest is discovered within a radius of 150 ft of proposed project, or a previously undiscovered nest is found within the 150-ft radius after work begins. In areas where Hawaiian geese 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. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian goose The Hawaiian goose does not commonly occur within the proposed project area. Should a Hawaiian goose appear in the area during project implementation, the County will enact Service recommended avoidance and minimization measures as outlined above. Based on the low likelihood of Hawaiian goose presence in the area and implementation of recommended avoidance and minimization measures, the Hawaiian goose is unlikely to be encountered or measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Therefore, effects to the Hawaiian goose are discountable and insignificant. Hawaiian seabirds The Hawaiian petrel, band-rumped storm-petrel, and Newell’s shearwater (collectively known as Hawaiian seabirds) may transit over the project area when flying between the ocean and nesting sites in the mountains during their breeding season (March through November). Hawaiian seabirds fly at night and are attracted to artificial lighting, which causes disorientation and subsequent fallout due to exhaustion. Additionally, once grounded, they are vulnerable to predators and are often struck by vehicles along roadways. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian seabirds No nighttime work or outdoor lighting is proposed as part of this project. Hawaiian seabirds are extremely unlikely to be measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Injury and mortality would not occur associated with the proposed project. Therefore, effects to Hawaiian seabirds are insignificant and discountable. Hawaiian waterbirds Prior to the 2018 eruption, there were very few wetlands or aquatic environments in the project area with the exception of a series of pools along the shoreline from Kapoho to Pohoiki. Most of these coastal wetlands were inundated and destroyed by the 2018 lava flow. The few inland aquatic ecosystems in the project area were also destroyed by the lava flows in 2018. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian waterbirds There were few records of Hawaiian waterbirds in the project area prior to the eruption and the lava flows have destroyed much of the remaining wetland habitat. Due to prior low densities and additional loss of habitat in the area, it is unlikely Hawaiian waterbirds will occur in vicinity of proposed demolition activities during project implementation. If waterbirds are found during implementation, the County will implement appropriate measures to ensure that any demolition, clearing and/or grubbing activities will not impact any listed waterbirds species. Hawaiian waterbirds are extremely unlikely to be present during project activities. Therefore, effects to Hawaiian waterbirds are discountable. Sea turtles Green sea turtles may nest on any sandy beach area in the Pacific Islands. Hawksbill sea turtles exhibit a wide tolerance for nesting substrate (ranging from sandy beach to crushed coral) with nests typically placed under vegetation. Both species exhibit strong nesting site fidelity. Nesting occurs on beaches from May through September, peaking in June and July, with hatchlings emerging through November and December. Construction on, or in the vicinity of, beaches can result in sand and sediment compaction, sea turtle nest destruction, beach erosion, contaminant and nutrient runoff, and an increase in direct and ambient light pollution which may disorient hatchlings or deter nesting females. Off-road vehicle traffic may result in direct impacts to sea turtles or nests, and also contributes to habitat degradation through erosion and compaction. Analysis of effects – Sea turtles Proposed project activities will not take place at night, therefore there will be no light sources that could attract or disorient sea turtles. There is no sea turtle nesting habitat in the vicinity of lots that will need demolition, therefore sea turtles are extremely unlikely to be present near ground- disturbing activities associated with the proposed project. Sea turtles and their nesting habitat will not be measurably affected by proposed activities; therefore, effects to the sea turtles are both discountable and insignificant. Blackburn’s sphinx moth The adult Blackburn’s sphinx moth (BSM) feeds on nectar from native plants, including Ipomoea pes-caprae (beach morning glory), Plumbago zeylanica (ʻilieʻe), Capparis sandwichiana (maiapilo), and others. The BSM moth larvae feed on nonnative Nicotiana glauca (tree tobacco), and native, federally listed, Nothocestrum spp. (ʻaiea). To pupate, the larvae burrow into the soil and can remain in a state of torpor for a year or more before emerging from the soil. Soil disturbance can result in death of the pupae. The County will adopt the following avoidance and minimization measures for BSM and require these conditions in their contracts and plans: A biologist familiar with the species should survey areas of proposed activities for BSM and its larval host plants prior to work initiation. Surveys should be conducted during the wettest portion of the year (usually November-April or several weeks after a significant rain) and within 4-6 weeks prior to construction. Surveys should include searches for adults, eggs, larvae, and signs of larval feeding (chewed stems, frass, or leaf damage). If moths, eggs, larvae, or native ʻaiea or tree tobacco over 3 feet tall, are found during the survey, please contact the Service for additional guidance to avoid impacts to this species. If no BSM, ʻaiea, or tree tobacco are found during surveys, it is imperative that measures be taken to avoid attraction of Blackburn’s sphinx moth to the project location and prohibit tree tobacco from entering the site. Tree tobacco can grow greater than 3 feet tall in approximately 6 weeks. If it grows over 3 feet, the plants may become a host plant for Blackburn’s sphinx moth. If tree tobacco is found, the County will enact the following measures: Remove any tree tobacco less than 3 feet tall. Monitor the site every 4-6 weeks for new tree tobacco growth before, during, and after the proposed ground-disturbing activity. Monitoring for tree tobacco can be completed by any staff, such as groundskeeper or regular maintenance crew, provided with picture placards of tree tobacco at different life stages. Analysis of effects – Blackburn’s sphinx moth It is unknown whether or not suitable habitat for BSM is present within the project area. The proposed project design includes implementing Service recommended avoidance and minimization measures should host plants for BSM be found. BSM are unlikely to be present or exposed to project-related activities, particularly given the proposed avoidance and minimization measures to control tree tobacco. Therefore, effects to the BSM are discountable. Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly Hawaiian damselflies are found in aquatic habitats across the islands, with high species endemism within islands. Breeding habitat includes anchialine pools, perennial streams, marshes, ponds, and even artificial pools and seeps. Major threats include introduced fish, amphibians, and invertebrates in streams, reduced stream flow from drought and water diversion, small, isolated populations, reduced habitat quality from ungulates and nonnative plants, and possibly over-collection. Previously found in Ka Wai a Pele (Green Lake) and in the Kapoho area, all of the wetlands associated with known populations of Hawaiian orangeblack damselflies, as well as all of the known the inland aquatic ecosystems in the project area were destroyed by the lava flows of 2018. The County does not anticipate a need for structural demolition in areas of known wetland, marine and aquatic resources. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly Because of habitat loss in the area, Hawaiian orangeblack damselflies are extremely unlikely to occur in the project area. Therefore, effects to Hawaiian orangeblack damselflies are discountable. Threatened or Endangered Plants Service records indicate the endangered plants Ischaemum byrone and Cyrtandra nanawaleensis occur in the project area. Several of these populations have been documented inside of the project area, yet outside of the area inundated by lava since 2018. Project activities may affect listed plant species by causing physical damage to plant parts (i.e., roots, stems, flowers, fruits, seeds, etc.) as well as impacts to other life-requisite features of their habitat which may result in reduction of germination, growth and/or reproduction. Cutting and removing vegetation surrounding listed plants can alter microsite conditions (e.g., light, moisture, temperature), damage or destroy the listed plants, increase the risk of invasion by nonnative plants, and cause higher incidence or intensity of fire. Activities such as grazing, using construction equipment and vehicles, and increased human traffic (i.e., trails, visitation, monitoring), can cause ground disturbance, erosion, and/or soil compaction which decreases absorption of water and nutrients and damages the plants’ root systems. This may result in reduced growth and/or mortality of listed plants. Soil disturbance or removal has the potential to negatively impact the soil seed bank of listed plant species if such species are present or historically occurred in the project area. A botanical survey will be conducted prior to the onset of clearing and grubbing focusing on native and protected species. If any listed species are encountered during these surveys the Service will be contacted and measures to protect those plants will be implemented as outlined in the table provided at the end of this analysis. Analysis of effects – Threatened or Endangered Plants Demolitions and associated surveys are only proposed in highly disturbed areas associated with structures on lands that were previously private. The project area will be surveyed prior to any work and any listed plants will be protected by implementing the avoidance and minimization measures listed above. Protections include observing buffers around any threatened and endangered plant, including Ischaemum byrone and Cyrtandra nanawaleensis. No listed plants would be measurably affected by project activities. Therefore, effects to listed plants are insignificant. A botanical survey will be conducted prior to the onset of clearing and grubbing focusing on native and protected species. If any listed species are encountered during these surveys the Service will be contacted and measures to protect those plants will be implemented as outlined in the table below: Definitions to accompany table (Wagner et al. 1999) Crown: The leafy top of a tree. Herb: A plant, either annual, biennial, or perennial, with the non-woody stems dying back to the ground at the end of the growing season. Shrub: A perennial woody plant with usually several to numerous primary stems arising from or relatively near the ground. Tree: A woody perennial that usually has a single trunk. Explosive and Flammable Hazards 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart C Yes No Although the project is located within a volcanic hazard zone, the project is not itself the development of a hazardous facility, and it does not increase residential densities. Additionally, Tier 2 reviews will include assessments and identification of any above ground storage tanks (ASTs) or Isolated and Abandoned vehicles (Liquid reservoirs in cars) present on applicant parcels. Any ASTs or Isolated and Abandoned vehicles found will be abated and removed. The project is in compliance with explosive and flammable hazard requirements (see Exhibit H). Farmlands Protection Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, particularly sections 1504(b) and 1541; 7 CFR Part 658 Yes No The project does not include any development or construction activities that could convert agricultural land to a non-agricultural use. The project is in compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (see Exhibit I). Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988, particularly section 2(a); 24 CFR Part 55 Yes No Although the project Site is partially located in a Special Flood Hazard Zone (Zones A, B, AE, and V - see FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) FIRM map panels 1195F, 1201F, 1202F, 1204F, 1210F, 1212F, 1213F, 1214F, 1445F, 1440F, and 1655F in Exhibit J), and E.O. 11988 would be applicable, the project action is to remove housing and residents from a lava field after the 2018 Kīlauea eruption event. Coastal High Hazard Areas – this project may include expenditures to purchase parcels within Coastal High Hazard Areas. However, it does not involve construction of any new structures. Nevertheless, the 8-step process was employed to evaluate alternatives. 500-year Floodplain - this project may include expenditures to purchase parcels within 500-year floodplain. While no structures are proposed for construction, the 8-step process was employed to evaluate alternatives. 100-year Floodplain - this project may include expenditures to purchase parcels within 100-year floodplain. While no structures are proposed for construction, the 8-step process was employed to evaluate alternatives. An 8-Step review was completed in order to evaluate and mitigate potential impacts for projects located within flood zones or wetlands for compliance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. The entire 8-step record has been included with this EA in Exhibit J. One response was received during the 8-step process public comment period from the County of Hawai‘i Department of Public Works, dated September 8, 2021. The letter listed standard disposal, runoff, and construction code requirements, and listed the flood zones (VE, AE, and X) that are designated in the project area. The letter also recommended a FIRM map revision due to the recent land changes resulting from the eruptions in the area. The letter was responded to and included as a part of the 8-step process public notice documentation. The alternatives considered included: 1) Do nothing. This alternative would not negatively affect floodplains or wetlands, however, it would not fulfill the project purpose of utilizing disaster relief funding for the buyout of properties or assistance with relocation expenses for individuals who were displaced by the eruption. 2) Allow construction/reconstruction on properties that may be in the floodplain or wetlands, or construction/reconstruction on properties outside the floodplain or wetlands. The alternative of use of disaster recovery funds to reconstruct dwellings is not a selected alternative because pursuant to the 1971 HUD Volcanic Policy on the Island of Hawai‘i (amended in 1991 and 2006), HUD funds may not be used within USGS lava flow zones for construction or any sort of rehabilitation work. The County has reevaluated the alternatives to the project and has determined that the practicable alternative is to provide buyout funding through the VHBP program and return parcels acquired to their natural open space conditions. Given the nature of the project action, the likelihood that the chosen alternative would have impacts to floodplains or wetlands is extremely remote, and can be largely mitigated during the Tier 2 review through measures outlined in the 8-step review in this section and the Wetlands Protection sections. If an applicant parcel is located in or includes portions of floodplain areas, and if the parcels have structures present within floodplain areas within those parcels, any structures remaining that are not inundated by lava and are located within a flood zone will be characterized as “abandoned in place” or will be “100% demolished”. No existing homes that remain standing will be rehabilitated or reinhabited, and no new structures will be built on any of the land planned for acquisition under this project. Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as standard soil erosion and sediment control shall be implemented during demolition of structures as required by County building codes. Historic Preservation National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, particularly sections 106 and 110; 36 CFR Part 800 Yes No Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) State Historic Preservation Department (SHPD), was initiated by the County in a letter dated September 8, 2021 (Exhibit K). The SHPO has responded via Doc. No. 2110SN22, dated October 28, 2021, recommending archival research and identification of historic properties within the project APE (Area of Potential Effect). On September 27, 2021, the County also sent consultation letters via mail and email to nineteen Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), as well as individuals and organizations considered potential stakeholders in the buyout project. Three individuals responded to the consultation requests via personal conversations and emails, and a community outreach meeting was also conducted by ASM Affiliates and the County on November 29, 2021. In a letter to the SHPO dated December 30, 2021, based on the assessment of the proposed undertaking, the results of prior archaeological studies, current post-lava flow conditions, and the findings from the consultation efforts, the County of Hawaiʻi (COH) requested concurrence with their determination that the undertaking will have no effect on identified historic properties for existing parcels of land that have been fully inundated by lava, and/or where no ground disturbing activities are proposed. Parcels with previously identified historic properties, potentially historic properties as discovered through the ongoing consultation process, and parcels upon which inadvertent findings are discovered will require continued consultation with the SHPO. The SHPO responded with a verbal request for a procedural programmatic agreement (PPA). Through a series of meetings, the County of Hawai‘i and the SHPO agreed that the undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations (documented in the PPA) in order to account for possible effects of the undertaking on historic properties. I. The COH shall ensure that the following measures are carried out: a. For TMK parcels that are fully inundated with lava and the undertaking will be limited to purchase of lands, including those lands in the ahupua‘a of Keahialaka where new potentially eligible historic properties (fissures) are located, the COH will document a determination that the undertaking will have no potential to cause effects to historic properties. b. For TMK parcels that are partially inundated by lava or isolated by lava, contain no structures and the undertaking will be limited to purchase of lands, the COH will document a determination that the undertaking will have no potential to cause effects to historic properties. c. For TMK parcels that are partially inundated or isolated by lava, or rendered uninhabitable by heat or gasses, and have remaining structures and the undertaking will include purchase of lands and demolition or decommissioning, investigation for historic resources will include review of available databases and literature to determine if any historic properties are present. If research conducted by individuals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61) for their respective disciplines (Archaeology and Architectural History) indicates that no historic properties are present, the County will document a determination of no historic properties affected. However, if research indicates that historic properties are present, an analysis of the potential effect on the historic property(ies) will be conducted by individuals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61) for their respective disciplines (Archaeology and Architectural History). i. If through an analysis of effect, it is determined that the undertaking will not adversely affect historic properties, the COH will document a determination of no historic properties affected. ii. If through an analysis of effect, it is determined that the undertaking will adversely affect historic property(ies), the COH will either modify the undertaking sufficiently to render a determination of no historic properties affected, or render a determination of adverse effect and enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with consulting parties to resolve said effects. Additionally, each year following the execution of the MOA, until it expires or is terminated, the COH shall provide the SHPO a summary report documenting work undertaken pursuant to its terms. If historic properties are discovered during the demolition of structures or unanticipated effects on historic properties are found, the COH shall consult with the SHPO in developing a strategy for investigation and evaluation of the resource. Noise Abatement and Control Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Quiet Communities Act of 1978; 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart B Yes No The project and proposed work does not involve new construction for residential use or rehabilitation of any existing residential property. The project is in compliance with the Noise Abatement and Control requirements (see Exhibit L). Sole Source Aquifers Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, particularly section 1424(e); 40 CFR Part 149 Yes No Per the EPA’s Geographic Information System(GIS) database, the only two sole source aquifers in the State of Hawai‘i are located on O‘ahu and Moloka‘i (Exhibit M). The project is not located in a sole source aquifer. Wetlands Protection Executive Order 11990, particularly sections 2 and 5 Yes No An 8‐step review was completed in order to further evaluate and mitigate potential impacts for projects located within flood zones or wetlands as per EO 11988 and 11990. The entire 8-step record has been included and is detailed in Exhibit J. According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), few wetlands remain within the project area that were not inundated by lava during the 2018 eruption event (see Figure 12 in Exhibit N, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, accessed February 2022). No ground disturbance associated with demolition of existing buildings are anticipated within the vicinity of any identified wetlands. However, the Tier 2 review will include further evaluation of wetlands including whether any wetlands are located on applicant parcels that include actions with ground disturbance. If a parcel in the project area is proposed for ground disturbance and has a wetland, the US Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted. Mitigation measures for consideration if the project may impact a wetland include introduction of bioswales placed by biologists and hydrologists in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that incorporate native vegetation to contain potential pollutants and address drainage impacts; utilization of a biologist or wildlife specialist for the identification and preservation of flora (plants) and fauna (animals); and conservation easement agreements in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service for nearby wetlands owned by County of Hawai‘i. Therefore, the project is in compliance with Executive Order 11990. Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, particularly section 7(b) and (c) Yes No There are currently no designated wild and scenic rivers in the State of Hawai‘i (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, accessed Sept 2021), and no Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) rivers were found to be within close proximity to the project area (see Exhibit O). Therefore, the project is in compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 Yes No The EJSCREEN Report for the one-mile ring surrounding the project is included as Exhibit P and notes that the project site rates high in two of the eleven environmental indexes for national percentiles, mainly lead paint indicator and risk management plan proximity. The report also notes that there are currently no Superfund sites and two (2) hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities located within the EJSCREEN search area. Because this project does not involve the construction or reconstruction, but rather property acquisition and removal of structures to support individuals who have become displaced by the disaster, there is no environmental justice impact. Environmental Assessment Factors [24 CFR 58.40; Ref. 40 CFR 1508.8 &1508.27] Recorded below is the qualitative and quantitative significance of the effects of the proposal on the character, features and resources of the project area. Each factor has been evaluated and documented, as appropriate and in proportion to its relevance to the proposed action. Verifiable source documentation has been provided and described in support of each determination, as appropriate. Credible, traceable and supportive source documentation for each authority has been provided. Where applicable, the necessary reviews or consultations have been completed and applicable permits of approvals have been obtained or noted. Citations, dates/names/titles of contacts, and page references are clear. Additional documentation is attached, as appropriate. All conditions, attenuation or mitigation measures have been clearly identified. Impact Codes: Use an impact code from the following list to make the determination of impact for each factor. (1) Minor beneficial impact (2) No impact anticipated (3) Minor Adverse Impact – May require mitigation (4) Significant or potentially significant impact requiring avoidance or modification which may require an Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Assessment Factor Impact Code Impact Evaluation LAND DEVELOPMENT Conformance with Plans / Compatible Land Use and Zoning / Scale and Urban Design 2 State Land Use Designation: Agriculture, Conservation, Residential, Urban (Figure 13) County of Hawai‘i Land Use Plan Allocation Guide (LUPAG): Open Area, Extensive Agriculture, Important Ag Lands, Low Density Urban, Rural (Figure 8) County of Hawai‘i Zoning Designations: A-10a, A-1a, A-20a, A-3a, A-5a, CV-10, CV-38, FR (Figure 2) The project does not propose any construction or development, and will preserve land as open space. It is in compliance with SLUD, LUPAG, and County Zoning requirements. Special Management Area (SMA): As discussed within the Coastal Zone Management section of this review, and Exhibit E, Figure 4) although the project area does include lands within the SMA, the scope of the project actions (land acquisition and removal of existing structures) do not require further review through SMA permitting as per the County of Hawai‘i’s SMA requirements unless structures to be removed are on land abutting the shoreline or are listed in designated historic on National or State registers. Through the Tier 2 site specific reviews, parcels proposed for acquisition with structures to be demolished will be reviewed for their location relative to the shoreline and their status on National and State Historic registers. Should structures be required for removal on any shoreline parcels or National or State Register sites, the County of Hawaiʻi will consult with County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department to determine if a SMA permit is required for the demolition work, and acquire the necessary permit prior to removal of structure(s). Soil Suitability/ Slope/ Erosion/ Drainage/ Storm Water Runoff 3 The project area features a wide variety of soils, with large portions consisting of lava flows and cinder land (Figure 14). No construction or development is proposed as a part of the buyout project, no impacts to soil suitability /slope /erosion /drainage /storm water runoff is anticipated. Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as standard soil erosion and sediment control shall be implemented during demolition of structures as required by County building codes. Hazards and Nuisances including Site Safety and Noise 3 Noise and Vibration The Project is expected to produce short-term increased noise levels during demolition that may include an increase in heavy equipment/vehicular traffic in the area. Community Noise Control regulations (HAR (Hawai‘i Administrative Rules) Title 11, Chapter 46) establish maximum permissible sound levels for construction activities occurring within three “acoustical” zoning districts. Under these regulations, the Project area and immediate vicinity fall under the Class A zoning district. This district limits maximum permissible daytime noise (7AM-10PM) to 55 dB(A) and nighttime noise (10PM-7AM) to 45 dB(A). In general, construction activities cannot exceed the permissible noise levels for more than ten percent of the time within any twenty-minute period except by permit or variance. Any noise source that emits noise levels in excess of the maximum permissible sound levels cannot be operated without first obtaining a noise permit from the State of Hawai‘i Department of Health. Although the permit does not attenuate noise, it regulates the hours during which excessive noise is allowed. Exposure to noise is expected to vary by construction activity, and the type of equipment used during the different activities. Heavy machinery and pneumatic impact equipment will likely generate noise in the range of 82-96 decibels-weighted (dB(A)) within 50 feet of the source. County of Hawai‘i contractors performing any demolition work are expected to be responsible for obtaining necessary permits and complying with all permit conditions. Work is expected to be scheduled primarily for daytime hours, as described in HAR Title 11, Chapter 46 (7AM- 10:00 PM), Monday through Friday. Contractors are also expected to ensure that all construction equipment with motors are properly equipped with mufflers in good operating condition. The contractor may employ other mitigation measures to minimize those temporary noise impacts. In the long term, no significant noise impacts are anticipated. Fugitive Dust and Emissions Short-term air quality impacts due to the Project may result from construction activities. However, emissions are unlikely to violate state or federal air quality standards based on the good air quality and near absence of existing traffic volumes in the region. On an extremely localized level during construction, air quality may be impacted by exhaust generated from construction equipment and fugitive dust. County of Hawai‘i contractors performing any demolition work are expected to implement BMPs necessary to reduce any short term negative air quality impacts from fugitive dust or emissions. BMPs for dust control may include but are not limited to: (a) Planning the different phases of construction, focusing on minimizing the amount of dust-generating materials and activities, centralizing on–site vehicular traffic routes, and locating potential dust-generating equipment in areas of the least impact; (b) Providing an adequate water source at the site prior to start-up of construction activities; (c) Landscaping and providing rapid covering of bare areas, including slopes, starting from the initial grading phase; (d) Minimizing dust from shoulders and access roads; (e) Providing adequate dust control measures during weekends, after hours and prior to daily start-up of construction activities; and (f) Controlling dust from debris being hauled away from the Project site. Also, controlling dust from daily operations of material being processed, stockpiled, and hauled to and from the facility. A combination of these and other measures to mitigate potential construction-related air quality impacts will be implemented as appropriate. Exhaust emissions from construction equipment and increased vehicular traffic should not violate State or Federal air quality standards based on the moderate level of existing traffic volumes in the region. Long-term air quality impacts due to the Project are not expected. As the proposed uses are primarily residential, air quality impacts to the surrounding area are expected to be minimal, mainly from cars entering and exiting the site. The vehicular emissions associated with the Project are not expected to exceed any State or Federal air quality standards based on the moderate level of existing traffic volumes in the region. No conditions were observed or identified during archival searches or field inspection that have a significant potential for adverse environmental impacts on the property. Tsunami - The County of Hawai‘i uses three tsunami evacuation designations. The first is the Tsunami Evacuation Zone where evacuation is required for any tsunami warning. The second is the Extreme Tsunami Evacuation Zone where additional areas must be evacuated only during an extreme tsunami event generated from earthquakes of Magnitude 9+ on the Richter scale. Remaining areas are identified as safe areas that are anticipated to be outside of the inundated areas due tom tsunami events. Some parcels in the project area are located in the Tsunami Evacuation Zone (Figure 15). Sea Level Rise and Climate Adaptation - Sea level rise (SLR) of one meter is not anticipated to have significant, immediate impacts to flooding on the project because the project involves purchase of land and removal of structures. Figure 16 shows the simulated one-meter SLR in relation to the project site generated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Storms Program (2017). Hurricanes – Since 1980, two hurricanes have had a devastating effect on Hawai‘i, particularly on the islands of O‘ahu and Kaua‘i. These were Hurricane ‘Iwa in 1982 and Hurricane ‘Iniki in 1992. Although it is difficult to predict such natural occurrences, it is reasonable to assume that future incidents are likely. Several studies sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office of Earth Science have developed new models for estimating the probability of hurricanes in the Pacific. While the Island of Hawai‘i has not been hit by a hurricane since recordation began in 1950, it was threatened by Hurricane Flossie in 2007, in 2014 by Hurricane Iselle, three times in 2016 (hurricanes Darby, Madeline and Lester), and in 2018 by Hurricane Lane. Many of the listed hurricanes did not make landfall on Hawai‘i Island, but still caused significant flood impacts to Puna and surrounding districts, and models indicate that the island has a long-term hurricane hazard risk higher than any of the other islands. While hurricane storm damage is difficult to predict, the NOAA Coastal Storms Program and Dr. Kwok Fai Cheung from SOEST developed computer models to simulate Category 4 hurricane storm surges for both current sea levels and with projected one-meter Sea Level Rise (SLR). No construction or residential uses are proposed for the project parcels, the storm surge is not projected to impact the project site status as open space conservation area. Earthquakes – In Hawai‘i, most earthquakes are linked to volcanic activity, unlike other areas where a shift in tectonic plates is the cause of an earthquake. Each year, thousands of earthquakes occur in the islands, particularly on the Island of Hawai‘i, the vast majority of which are detectable only with highly sensitive instruments. However, moderate and disastrous earthquakes have occurred in the islands in the past. The largest earthquake in the state (magnitude 7.9) occurred in 1868 on the Island of Hawai‘i. On the Island of Hawai‘i, earthquakes may occur before or during a volcanic eruption, or may result from the underground movement of magma that comes close to the surface. The majority of the island’s seismicity is related to the movement of magma within Kīlauea or Mauna Loa. A few of the island’s earthquakes are less directly related to volcanism. These originate in the zones of structural weakness at the base of volcanoes or deep within the earth beneath the island due to the gravitational adjustment of the volcanic edifice. Non-volcanic Hawaiian earthquakes reflect the long-term accumulation and release of lithospheric stresses, rather than short-term processes associated with the motion of magma before or during an eruption. The long-term stresses consist in part of stresses generated in the crust and mantle by the weight of the volcanic rock that composes the islands. In that sense, most Hawaiian earthquakes that are not directly associated with eruptions are nonetheless broadly related to volcanic activity. The seismic risk classification of the Island of Hawai‘i is Zone 4 Seismic Probability Rating, which indicates a 10 percent chance of severe shaking in a 50-year interval. Seismic tremors on the island have caused ground cracks, landslides, ground settlement, damaging tsunami, and mudflows. Buildings, bridges, and water tanks have been destroyed or damaged, and utility, sewer, and water lines have been disrupted. New construction could be impacted by seismic activity resulting in destruction and possible injury or loss of life. The seismic hazard is highest along the southeast coast of the Island of Hawai‘i, followed by the Kona coast. The locations of larger damaging earthquakes of magnitude 6 or greater since 1868 on the Island of Hawai‘i have generally occurred on the southern half of the island, primarily on the eastern end. The most recent large earthquake on the southeast flank occurred in June 1989 with a magnitude 6.1. The largest earthquake in recent history occurred on May 4th of 2018, at the onset of the 2018 Kīlauea eruption event, and registered at a magnitude 6.9. Another recent earthquake with an epicenter about 10 miles from the Kamehameha Elementary School (KES) campus registered a magnitude of 6.7 on October 15, 2006. A magnitude 6.9 tremor on August 21, 1951, damaged homes on the Kona coast and triggered numerous damaging landslides. As mentioned above, the largest earthquake on the Island of Hawai‘i on record was a magnitude 7.9 that occurred in 1868 near the south coast which triggered a tsunami along the Ka‘ū- Puna coast that drowned 46 people. It also spawned numerous landslides, resulting in 31 deaths. The Project will not exacerbate any natural hazard conditions. Should there be an earthquake, the potential impact of destructive earth movement will not impact the proposed project use of open space conservation area. Volcanic Hazards – Hawaiian volcanoes erupt either at their summits where lava collects and may overflow from craters called calderas, or along their flanks where lava issues through fractures called rift zones. The volcanic hazard is associated with lava flows, explosive eruptions, airborne lava fragments, poisonous and corrosive volcanic gases, and ground cracks and settling. Lava hazard zone maps developed for the Island of Hawai‘i were revised by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1987. The current map divides this island into zones ranked from 1 through 9 based on the probability of coverage by lava flows, with Zone 1 having the most repeatedly active vents in historic time, and Zone 9 being least active. Lava flow risks are defined according to geology, seismic and volcanic activity history, and recent scientific predictions. Hazard zones from lava flows are based mainly on the location and frequency of both historic and prehistoric eruptions. Hazard zones also take into account larger topographic features of the volcanoes that will affect the distribution of lava flows. Based on this map, the Project site is located within an area with a hazard zone rating of 1 and 2 (See Figure 6). No uses or habitation is proposed in the project area, the Project’s open space conservation use will comply with applicable fire code requirements. Wild-land Fires – The greatest danger of fire is where wild-land (trees and brush) borders urban areas. Although all the Hawaiian Islands are vulnerable to wild-land fires (especially during the summer months, prolonged drought and/or high winds), the great majority of wildfires are human-caused (intentionally caused or by negligence) and start along roadsides. The numbers of such fires are increasing. Wildfires can and do also occur naturally. The County has a Fire Prevention Bureau that works to prevent fires before they can cause injuries and property damage. The State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife has authority under Chapter 185, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Land Fire Protection Law, for the prevention, pre-suppression, and suppression of wildfires for forest reserves. It also has the authority to cooperate with established fire control agencies for the protection of lands not within the Department’s protection areas. The Project does not involve any new structures or uses and will involve removing any structures to avoid the potential attractive nuisance. Energy Consumption 1 The proposed project will not require energy consumption, beyond typical needs for completing administrative tasks associated with land acquisition and equipment needs for removal of structures. No impact. Environmental Assessment Factor Impact Code Impact Evaluation SOCIOECONOMIC Employment and Income Patterns 2 No development is proposed as a part of this project. No significant impact on the area’s employment and income patterns are anticipated as a result of this project. Demographic Character Changes, Displacement 2 County of Hawai‘i has exhibited sustained population growth for decades, increasing 24.5 percent between 2000 and 2010, and 8.4 percent between 2010 and 2020. By comparison, the State’s population increased only 12.3 percent and 7 percent respectively, over the two past decades. As of 2020, population of the County of Hawai‘i was estimated at 200,629 persons, according to the U.S. Decennial Census Report. This is 8.4 percent more than the 185,079 enumerated at the 2010 Census, for an average annual increase of 0.81 percent. No residential development or units are proposed as a part of this project. No significant impact on the area’s demographics is anticipated from the project. Environmental Assessment Factor Impact Code Impact Evaluation COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Educational and Cultural Facilities 2 There are seven public schools (four elementary, two intermediate, one high, and one high school/intermediate school) in the Department of Education (DOE) Kea‘au and Pāhoa Complex Areas in the Hawai‘i District. In addition, there are four public charter schools in the Kea‘au and Pāhoa Complex Areas. Private schools in the area include the Mālamalama Waldorf School (preschool through 8th grade), and the Kamehameha Schools Hawai‘i Campus (elementary, middle and high school). The University of Hawai‘i at Hilo campus is located in the region, and Hawai‘i Community College has a Hilo Campus. In addition to schools, the Lili‘uokalani Trust has cultural centers and programs in the area. The Project will not result in an increase in the number of school- aged children to the DOE Kea‘au Complex Area, as no new residential development is proposed as a part of the project. Commercial Facilities 2 The main commercial facilities near the project include historic Pāhoa Town less than one mile to the north, and the Kea‘au Shopping Center 13.7 miles to the north. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to negatively impact commercial facilities in the region. Health Care and Social Services 1 Health care facilities in the vicinity of the Project site include the Puna Community Medical Center urgent care facility less than one mile to the north of the project, and the Ka Wai Ola Medical Clinic urgent care facility approximately 13.8 miles north of the project. Hilo Medical Center (HMC) located approximately 23.3 miles north from the project area at 1190 Waiānuenue Avenue, is the island’s main medical facility. The Project will not create an increase in the demand on existing medical services. Solid Waste Disposal / Recycling 2 The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) Wastewater/Solid Waste Division operates one County landfill in Kona (Pu‘uanahulu Landfill). There are also several solid waste transfer stations located around the island. The nearest transfer station is the Pāhoa Transfer Station and Recycling Center located an approximately 3.6-mile drive north from the Project site. The Project will not create a long-term increase in the demand on existing solid waste disposal / recycling services. Waste Water / Sanitary Sewers 1 The majority of parcels in the Puna District are not serviced by municipal sewers, and rely on individual wastewater systems, including private cesspools and septic systems. No land uses are proposed for the project area other than open space conservation. The project is not expected to create an adverse impact on waste water or sanitary sewer conditions. If any private waste water systems are found within buyout parcels, they will be removed with proper abatement techniques. Water Supply 1 No land uses are proposed for the project area other than open space conservation. The project is not expected to create an adverse impact on local water supply. Public Safety - Police, Fire and Emergency Medical 2 Police Protection. The closest police station to the Project Site is the Pāhoa Police Station/DMV located approximately 3.9 miles from the Project area. Fire Protection. The Hawai‘i County Fire Department Pāhoa Station provides fire protection and suppression services for the project area. Medical Services. Hilo Medical Center (HMC) is the primary health care facility serving East Hawai‘i. HMC is located approximately 23.3 miles from the project area at 1190 Waiānuenue Avenue. It is acknowledged that there may be an occasional and unavoidable demand for police, fire and emergency medical services. The project proposes no dwellings or land uses outside of open space conservation area, and is not anticipated to generate significant impacts to public safety services. Parks, Open Space and Recreation 1 The proposed Project will not displace any existing recreational facilities and is not anticipated to create any additional demand on the existing or proposed recreational facilities in the vicinity. The project will convert existing residential parcels into open space conservation areas. Transportation and Accessibility 2 Main vehicular access to the Project area is from Highway 130. Hele-On is a public transportation service provided by the Hawai‘i County Mass Transit Agency, with routes covering most of the Island of Hawai‘i. The project will not affect demand or disrupt transportation or mass transit operations, as any demolition work will occur outside public rights of way. Environmental Assessment Factor Impact Code Impact Evaluation NATURAL FEATURES Unique Natural Features, Water Resources 1 No water usage or development is proposed as a part of this project. The Project does not involve activities that will require any discharges into the water table or negative impact on water quality in the vicinity of the project. Vegetation, Wildlife 1 Compliance with the Endangered Species Act, as discussed previously will ensure that vegetation and wildlife resources in the Project area will not be adversely affected. The Project does not involve construction or land development that would contribute to habitat loss. Instead, land will be acquired for conservation, open space, or floodplain management uses, which is anticipated to be beneficial to natural resources. Other Factors N/A Additional Studies Performed: None. Field Inspection (Date and completed by): The project site is a lava hazard area, and field inspections were determined to not be feasible for this EA Tier 1 review due to safety precautions and lack of accessibility associated with the lava eruption event that took place in 2018. Additionally, the nature of the undertaking (acquisition of property) and scale of the Project area were taken into consideration in making the determination not to conduct field inspections. The preparation of this Tier 1 review relied on the review and analysis of publicly-available data sets, including maps and aerial imagery. Field inspections will be conducted to verify conditions identified through this Tier 1 review when Tier 2 site-specific reviews are completed for non-inundated properties where historic properties may be present and/or demolition activity may be required, among other conditions. List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted [40 CFR 1508.9(b)]: Section 106 request for consultation was mailed out on September 27, 2021 to the following individuals and groups: Name Affiliation Response Linda Kaleo Paik Ala Kahakai Trail Association No Hailama Farden Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs No Leialoha Ilae‐Kaleimamahu Kukulu Kumuhana O Puna No J. Kinohi Lewis Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement No Page Else Malama O Puna No Leslie Rosehill Waiwelawela No Lahela Williams Hawaiian Community Asset, Inc. No Abraham Cortes‐Kaleopaa Hawaiian Kingdom Task Force No Iopa Maunakea Men of Paa Yes Abraham Cortes‐Kaleopaa Independent District of Puna No Paula K. Kekahuna Makuu Farmers Association No Mililani Trask Na Koa Ikaika Ka Lahui Hawai‘i No Hanalei Fergerstrom Na Kupuna Moku O Keawe No Mr. William Aila, Jr. Department of Hawaiian Homelands No Kanaka O Puna Kanaka O Puna No Hand Mortensen Royal Order of Kamehameha No Paul Normann Neighborhood Place of Puna No Ikaika Marzo Ikaika Marzo No Aha Puhala O Puna No Hale Naua III No Ashley Lehualani Kierkiewicz Hawai‘i County Council, District 4 No Matt Kanealii‐Kleinfelder Hawai‘i County Council, District 5 No Keone Kalawe Yes Keikialoha Kekipi Yes Puuhonua O Puna No Hidi Boteilho No Pi'ilani Ka'awaloa No Kaniu Kinimaka‐Stockdale Aha Moku‐ Moku O Keawe No Julia Peleiholani Aha Moku‐ Moku O Keawe No Lono Lyman Kapoho Land and Development Company Yes Keola Bandmann Leilani Community Association No Sylvia M. Hussey Ed.D. Office of Hawaiian Affairs No Kiersten Faulkner Historic Hawai‘i Foundation No Ku‘ulei Kealoha Cooper Lono Lyman Kapoho Land & Development Co. Ltd./ Kapoho Management Company Inc. Yes Yes Responses to the consultation request were received in the form of personal conversations and emails between Keikialoha (Keiki) Kekipi and County Staff, and an email from Keiki Kekipi and Keone Kalawe, an email from Iopa Maunakea, and a letter from Kapoho Companies. Other individuals consulted through the process included Leila Kealoha, Leslie Enriques Rosehill, Ana Kon, Iopa Maunakea, Heather Irwin, and Keone Kalawe. A general public meeting, October 21, 2021 did not result in any parties expressing interest in participating in the Section 106 process. See Exhibit Q, Public Meeting Notes. Additionally, a community outreach meeting, November 29, 2021, focused on historic resources was attended virtually by three individuals Iopa Maunakea, Ku‘ulei Kealoha Cooper, and Leslie Rosehill. Three (3) additional individuals–Keikialoha Kekipi, Keone Kalawe, and Lono Lyman who contacted the County were unable to attend the November 29 meeting. The meeting, which was conducted via Zoom, was recorded and the audio and video recordings were emailed to the six (6) individuals identified above. The Section 106 consultation processes are further detailed in Exhibit K. Other Sources Referenced: County of Hawai‘i. 2020. Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG- DR) Action Plan. Web: https://recovery.hawaiicounty.gov/planning/action-plan US Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1991. HUD Volcanic Policy on the Island of Hawai‘i. List of Permits Obtained: No permits have yet been obtained or applied for. Grading and demolition permits will be required for the proposed activities. Public Outreach [24 CFR 50.23 & 58.43]: In addition to the community consultations described above, a public information meeting was conducted by the County on 10/21/2021 via Zoom. Please see the meeting minutes for this outreach included as Exhibit Q. A community outreach meeting to discuss historic resources was held November 29, 2021. An Early Notice and Public Review of Proposed Activity in a Floodplain and/or Wetlands was published in local media and mailed out to key stakeholders on September 1, 2021. A final notice was also published and sent on November 12, 2022. Information about the project was also made available to the public online: https://recovery.hawaiicounty.gov/resources/housing-buyout-program Cumulative Impact Analysis [24 CFR 58.32]: To determine whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment, expected consequences, both primary and secondary, and the cumulative as well as short- and long-term effects have been evaluated. Based on the studies performed and research evaluated, it is anticipated that the proposed project will have an overall net cumulative beneficial impact, given that it will provide displaced residents and property owners with funds to assist them in relocation and finding long-term housing outside the lava hazard areas after the eruption event of 2018. The action will also return parcels to conservation and open space conditions, which will have a positive impact on the environment, flora, and fauna. Primary impacts are expected to be associated with removal of remaining structures and can be avoidable, minimized, or mitigated. Potential impacts resulting from building removal are discussed throughout this document. In anticipation of potential impacts, Tier 2 reviews will be conducted for properties that require removal of structures. The Tier 2 review process is designed to identify these potential impacts and apply avoidance and minimization measures so as to avoid or minimize those impacts. Secondary and cumulative impacts are expected to be beneficial. The Project is one component of a suite of recovery actions the County of Hawaiʻi is undertaking to assist displaced families, support economic development, and rehabilitate public infrastructure (https://recovery.hawaiicounty.gov/home-recovery). Alternatives [24 CFR 58.40(e); 40 CFR 1508.9] The Alternative of Reconstruction This alternative would be to perform construction/reconstruction on properties in the project area. This alternative would not be in compliance with the 1971 HUD Volcanic Policy on the Island of Hawai‘i (amended in 1991 and 2006) which states that HUD funds may not be used within USGS Lava Hazard Zones 1 and 2 for construction or any sort of rehabilitation work. Furthermore, this alternative is provided for in the adopted CDBG-DR Action Plan prepared by the County to administer these CDBG-DR grant funds. No Action Alternative [24 CFR 58.40(e)]: No Action would force displaced residents and damaged parcel property owners to remain displaced, without funds to be able to relocate and find new housing for their families. The community would continue to struggle to utilize unusable land, and the area would continue to feature structures and facilities in various stages of damage or disrepair, which would likely continue to negatively impact the environment and natural resources in the area including air quality, water quality, and flora and fauna. Summary of Findings and Conclusions: The Tier 1 broad level review documented herein finds that the Project is in compliance with the statutes, executive orders, and regulations listed at 24 CFR 50.4 and 58.6, relating to airport hazards, coastal barrier resources and flood insurance. The Tier 1 broad level review documented herein also finds that the Project is in compliance with the following statutes, executive orders and regulations listed at 24 CFR 50.4 and 58.5 including, The Clean Air Act, Farmlands Protection Act, Noise Abatement and Control, Sole Source Aquifers, Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well as Environmental Justice. The Mitigations table (in the next section of this document) sets forth Tier 2 site-specific review procedures to ensure compliance with those statutes, executive orders, and regulations listed at 24 CFR 50.4 and 58.5 that cannot be eliminated from further review under the Tier 1 broad review. The Tier 1 broad level review documented herein finds that the Project is also in compliance with the Environmental Assessment Factors relating to land development, socioeconomics, community facilities and services, health care and social services, and will have a net beneficial impact to natural features such as water resources, vegetation, and wildlife. Temporary impacts associated with demolition of structures will be addressed with Tier 2 reviews, as detailed in the Mitigations table in the next section of this document. Mitigation Measures and Conditions [40 CFR 1505.2(c)] Summarize below all mitigation measures adopted by the Responsible Entity to reduce, avoid, or eliminate adverse environmental impacts and to avoid non-compliance or non-conformance with the above-listed authorities and factors. These measures/conditions must be incorporated into project contracts, development agreements, and other relevant documents. The staff responsible for implementing and monitoring mitigation measures should be clearly identified in the mitigation plan. Law, Authority, or Factor Mitigation Measure Coastal Zone Management Through the Tier 2 site specific reviews, parcels proposed for acquisition with structures to be demolished will be reviewed for their location relative to the shoreline and their status on National and State Historic registers. Should structures be required for removal on any shoreline parcels or National or State Register sites, the County of Hawaiʻi will consult with County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department to determine if a SMA permit is required for the demolition work and acquire the necessary permit prior to removal of structure(s). Contamination and Toxic Substances No sources of contamination were found in Tier 1 through an examination of NEPAssist and facilities reports. The Tier 2 review will include a further investigation process on a parcel level to determine whether any potential sources of contamination or toxic substances – including lead based paint (LBP), asbestos, individual wastewater systems, chemicals, solvents, poisons, oil containers, or any other potential sources of contamination and toxic substances that may be found on applicant parcels. Any sources of contamination found will be abated and removed in accordance with County building codes and State Department of Health regulations. OSHA standards will be followed to protect workers during demolition and removal of structures. Endangered Species Based on consultations with the USFWS (Exhibit G), there are resources identified by the USFWS where avoidance and minimization measures are recommended and should be incorporated into the project plans for any parcels where structural demolition is proposed to maintain the determination of may effect but not likely to adversely effect. The following measures will be implemented at the project sites to minimize potential adverse effects to listed species. Hawaiian hoary bat To avoid and minimize impacts to the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, the County will incorporate the following applicable measures into their project plan: There will be no clearing and/or disturbance of any woody vegetation taller than 15 feet during the pupping season (June 1 and September 15). There is no construction of fencing proposed as part of this project. Hawaiian goose If Hawaiian geese are detected during surveys, site preparation, or structure demolition, the following measures will be implemented and included in the County’s contracts and plans: Do not approach, feed, or disturb the Hawaiian goose. If Hawaiian geese are observed loafing or foraging within the project area during the breeding season (September through April), have a biologist familiar with Hawaiian goose nesting behavior 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 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). Cease all work immediately and contact the Service for further guidance if a nest is discovered within a radius of 150 ft of proposed project, or a previously undiscovered nest is found within the 150-ft radius after work begins. In areas where Hawaiian geese 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 Seabirds No nighttime work or outdoor lighting will be used as part of this project. Hawaiian Waterbirds If waterbirds are found during implementation, the County will implement appropriate measures to ensure that any demolition, clearing and/or grubbing activities will not impact any listed waterbirds species. Blackburn’s sphinx moth A biologist familiar with the species should survey areas of proposed activities for BSM and its larval host plants prior to work initiation. Surveys will be conducted during the wettest portion of the year (usually November-April or several weeks after a significant rain) and within 4-6 weeks prior to any construction or removal of structures. Surveys will include searches for adults, eggs, larvae, and signs of larval feeding (chewed stems, frass, or leaf damage). If moths, eggs, larvae, or native ʻaiea or tree tobacco over 3 feet tall, are found during the survey, please contact the Service for additional guidance to avoid impacts to this species. If no BSM, ʻaiea, or tree tobacco are found during surveys, it is imperative that measures be taken to avoid attraction of Blackburn’s sphinx moth to the project location and prohibit tree tobacco from entering the site. Tree tobacco can grow greater than 3 feet tall in approximately 6 weeks. If it grows over 3 feet, the plants may become a host plant for Blackburn’s sphinx moth. If tree tobacco is found, the County will enact the following measures: Remove any tree tobacco less than 3 feet tall. Monitor the site every 4-6 weeks for new tree tobacco growth before, during, and after the proposed ground- disturbing activity. Monitoring for tree tobacco can be completed by any staff, such as groundskeeper or regular maintenance crew, provided with picture placards of tree tobacco at different life stages. Threatened or Endangered Plants Service records indicate the endangered plants Ischaemum byrone and Cyrtandra nanawaleensis occur in the project area. Several of these populations have been documented inside of the project area, yet outside of the area inundated by lava since 2018. A botanical survey will be conducted prior to the onset of clearing and grubbing focusing on native and protected species. If any listed species are encountered during these surveys the Service will be contacted and measures to protect those plants will be implemented as outlined in the table below: Definitions to accompany table (Wagner et al. 1999) Crown: The leafy top of a tree. Herb: A plant, either annual, biennial, or perennial, with the non-woody stems dying back to the ground at the end of the growing season. Shrub: A perennial woody plant with usually several to numerous primary stems arising from or relatively near the ground. Tree: A woody perennial that usually has a single trunk. Explosive Hazards The project is not itself the development of a hazardous facility and does not increase residential densities. The project is in compliance with explosive and flammable hazard requirements. The Tier 2 review will determine whether or not there are above ground storage tanks (ASTs) or Isolated and Abandoned vehicles (Liquid reservoirs in cars) present on applicant parcels. If any ASTs or Isolated and Abandoned vehicles found are found to be present on applicant parcels, they will be abated and removed. OSHA standards will be followed to protect workers during demolition and removal of structures. Floodplain Management & Soil Suitability/ Slope/ Erosion/ Drainage/ Storm Water Runoff An 8‐step review was completed in order to further evaluate and mitigate potential impacts for projects located within flood zones or wetlands as per EO 11988 and 11990. If an applicant parcel is located in or includes portions of floodplain areas, and if the parcels have structures present within floodplain areas within those parcels, any structures remaining that are not inundated by lava and are located within a flood zone will be characterized as “abandoned in place” or will be “100% demolished.” No existing homes that remain standing will be rehabilitated or reinhabited, and no new structures will be built on any of the land planned for acquisition under this project. Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as standard soil erosion and sediment control shall be implemented during demolition of structures as required by County building codes. Hazards and Nuisances including Site Safety and Noise (Fugitive Dust) County of Hawai‘i contractors performing any demolition work are expected to be responsible for obtaining necessary permits and complying with all permit conditions. Work is expected to be scheduled primarily for daytime hours, as described in HAR Title 11, Chapter 46 (7AM-10:00 PM), Monday through Friday. Contractors are also expected to ensure that all construction equipment with motors are properly equipped with mufflers in good operating condition. The contractor may employ other mitigation measures to minimize those temporary noise impacts. County of Hawai‘i contractors performing any demolition work are expected to implement BMPs necessary to reduce any short-term negative air quality impacts from fugitive dust or emissions. Historic Preservation Historic preservation mitigations will be further assessed in Tier 2 reviews, following the mitigation measures laid out in the Procedural Programmatic Agreement, which were signed by the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Responsible Entity. The PPA outlines the following: For TMK parcels that are partially inundated or isolated by lava, or rendered uninhabitable by heat or gasses, and have remaining structures and the undertaking will include purchase of lands and demolition or decommissioning, investigation for historic resources will include review of available databases and literature to determine if any historic properties are present. If research conducted by individuals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61) for their respective disciplines (Archaeology and Architectural History) indicates that no historic properties are present, the County will document a determination of no historic properties affected. However, if research indicates that historic properties are present, an analysis of the potential effect on the historic property(ies) will be conducted by individuals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61) for their respective disciplines (Archaeology and Architectural History). i. If through an analysis of effect, it is determined that the undertaking will not adversely affect historic properties, the COH will document a determination of no historic properties affected. ii. If through an analysis of effect, it is determined that the undertaking will adversely affect historic property(ies), the COH will either modify the undertaking sufficiently to render a determination of no historic properties affected, or render a determination of adverse effect and enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with consulting parties to resolve said effects. Additionally, each year following the execution of the MOA, until it expires or is terminated, the COH shall provide the SHPO a summary report documenting work undertaken pursuant to its terms. If historic properties are discovered during the demolition of structures or unanticipated effects on historic properties are found, the COH shall consult with the SHPO in developing a strategy for investigation and evaluation of the resource. Wetlands Protection An 8‐step review was completed in order to further evaluate and mitigate potential impacts for projects located within flood zones or wetlands as per EO 11988 and 11990. According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), few wetlands remain within the project area that were not inundated by lava or destroyed by the 2018 eruption event. No ground disturbance associated with demolition of existing buildings are anticipated within the vicinity of any identified wetlands. The Tier 2 review will include further evaluation of wetlands including whether any wetlands are located on applicant parcels that include actions with ground disturbance. If a parcel in the project is proposed for ground disturbance is found to have a wetland, the US Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted. Mitigation measures for consideration if the project may impact a wetland include introduce bioswales placed by biologists and hydrologists in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that incorporate native vegetation to contain potential pollutants and address drainage impacts; utilization of a biologist or wildlife specialist for the identification and preservation of flora (plants) and fauna (animals); and conservation easement agreements in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service for nearby wetlands owned by County of Hawai‘i. Soils Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as standard soil erosion and sediment control shall be implemented during demolition of structures as required by County building codes. APPENDIX: Site-Specific or Tier 2 Reviews Update this document as site-specific reviews are completed. Complete each site-specific review according to the written strategies outlined in the broad-level review and attach it in the environmental review record. Site-specific project name Address or location Figure 1 Project Location Map Figure 2 County of Hawai‘i Zoning Designation Figure 3 Airport Hazards Figure 4 Coastal Zone Management Figure 5 Critical Habitat Figure 6 Volcanic Hazards Figure 7 ALISH Figure 8 LUPAG Figure 9 FIRM Figure 10 APE Figure 11 SSA Figure 12a Wetlands Figure 12b Wetland on TMK Parcel 130450630 Figure 13 State Land Use Designation Figure 14 Tsunami Zone Figure 15 Sea Level Rise Exhibit A Airport Hazards Exhibit B Coastal Barrier Resource Area Exhibit C Flood Insurance Exhibit D Air Quality Exhibit E Coastal Zone Management Exhibit F Contamination & Toxic Substances Exhibit G Endangered Species Exhibit H Explosive and Flammable Hazards Exhibit I Farmlands Exhibit J Floodplain Management Exhibit K Historic Preservation Exhibit L Noise Abatement and Control Exhibit M Sole Source Aquifers Exhibit N Wetlands Protection Exhibit O Wild and Scenic Rivers Exhibit P Environmental Justice Exhibit Q Public Meeting Minutes Figures Page Intentionally Left Blank Figure 1 Page Intentionally Left Blank Legend Project Area Lava Flow 211.01 Block Group 1 211.01 Block Group 2 211.06 Block Group 2 211.06 Block Group 4 Additional UndergroundMagma Location Source: County of Hawai‘i, 2019. USGS, 2019. ESRI Online B asemap.Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared f or general planning purposes only. Island of Hawai‘iNorth Linear Scale (Feet)0 3,000 6,000 12,000 Loca tion Map Client NamePath: Q:\Planning\Hawaii\Kilauea Recovery\GISKilauea Rec over y Plan ProjectArea Page Intentionally Left Blank Figure 2 Page Intentionally Left Blank Date: 10/4/2021 Source: County of Hawai‘i, 2020. ESRI Online Basem ap.Disclaim er: This g raphic has been prepared for g eneral plann ing purposes only. Island of Hawai‘iNorth Linear Scale (Feet) 0 2,500 5,000 10,000 Client Nam ePath: Q:\Plannin g \Hawaii\Kilauea Recovery\GIS Figure 2Zoning Map Kilauea Recovery Plan ProjectArea Legend Project Area(road)A-10aA-1aA-20aA-3aA-5aCN-20CV-10CV-20 CV-38FA-1aFA-2aFRMCX-20OPENRA-.5aRM-2RS-10RS-15V-1.5 Exhibits Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit A Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp.9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Airport Hazards (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/airport‐hazards 1. To ensure compatible land use development, you must determine your site’s proximity to civil and military airports. Is your project within 15,000 feet of a military airport or 2,500 feet of a civilian airport? ☒No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within the applicable distances to a military or civilian airport. ☐Yes Continue to Question 2. 2. Is your project located within a Runway Potential Zone/Clear Zone (RPZ/CZ) or Accident Potential Zone (APZ)? ☐Yes, project is in an APZ Continue to Question 3. ☐Yes, project is an RPZ/CZ Project cannot proceed at this location. ☐No, project is not within an APZ or RPZ/CZ If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within either zone. 3. Is the project in conformance with DOD guidelines for APZ? ☐Yes, project is consistent with DOD guidelines without further action. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documentation supporting this determination. ☐No, the project cannot be brought into conformance with DOD guidelines and has not been approved. Project cannot proceed at this location. If mitigation measures have been or will be taken, explain in detail the proposed measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. Click here to enter text. Work with the RE/HUD to develop mitigation measures. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documentation supporting this determination. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. The site location is not within 2,500 feet of a civil air operation. The closest airport is the Hilo International Airport (ITO), which is over 14 miles north of the northern most portion of the project area boundary (see Figure 3 Airport Distance Map enclosed). ITO is part of the State of Hawai‘i Airport System and is owned and operated by the State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT). The project is in compliance with Airport Hazards requirements. Da te: 2/8/2022 Source: Coun ty of Ha wa i‘i, 2020. ESRI On lin e Ba sema p .Discla imer: This gra p hic ha s been p rep a red for gen era l p la n n in g p urp oses on ly. Islan d of Ha wa i‘iNorth Lin ea r Sca le (Feet) 0 5,000 10,000 20,000 Clien t NamePa th: Q:\Pla n n in g\Ha wa ii\Kila uea Recovery\GIS Figure 3Airport Hazards Kilauea Recovery Plan ProjectArea Legend Project Area Lava Flow o Distance: Approx. 14.5 Miles Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit B Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp.9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Coastal Barrier Resources (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/coastal‐barrier‐resources Projects located in the following states must complete this form. Alabama Georgia Massachusetts New Jersey Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Connecticut Louisiana Michigan New York Rhode Island Virginia Delaware Maine Minnesota North Carolina South Carolina Wisconsin Florida Maryland Mississippi Ohio Texas 1. Is the project located in a CBRS Unit? ☒No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within a CBRS Unit. ☐Yes Continue to 2. 2. Indicate your recommended course of action for the RE/HUD ☐ Consultation with the FWS ☐ Cancel the project Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Federal assistance for most activities may not be used at this location. You must either choose an alternate site or cancel the project. In very rare cases, federal monies can be spent within CBRS units for certain exempted activities (e.g., a nature trail), after consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (see 16 USC 3505 for exceptions to limitations on expenditures). OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp.9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. The project is not located within a designated coastal barrier resource area. There are no coastal barrier resources within the State of Hawai‘i, as shown on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) Coastal Barrier Resources System Mapper. Therefore, the proposed improvements will have no impact on these resources, nor will any mitigation measures be necessary. Therefore, this project is in compliance with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. See enclosed map from the CBRS website. Source: https://www.fws.gov/ecological‐services/habitat‐conservation/cbra/maps/mapper.html Accessed: February 7, 2022 Conclusion: There are no designated Coastal Barrier Resources in the State of Hawaii. Exhibit C Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp. 9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410‐1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Flood Insurance (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/flood‐insurance 1. Does this project involve mortgage insurance, refinance, acquisition, repairs, rehabilitation, or construction of a structure, mobile home, or insurable personal property? ☒No. This project does not require flood insurance or is excepted from flood insurance. Continue to the Worksheet Summary. ☐Yes Continue to Question 2. 2. Provide a FEMA/FIRM map showing the site. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designates floodplains. The FEMA Map Service Center provides this information in the form of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Is the structure, part of the structure, or insurable property located in a FEMA‐designated Special Flood Hazard Area? ☐ No Continue to the Worksheet Summary. ☐ Yes Continue to Question 3. 3. Is the community participating in the National Flood Insurance Program or has less than one year passed since FEMA notification of Special Flood Hazards? ☐ Yes, the community is participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. Flood insurance is required. Provide a copy of the flood insurance policy declaration or a paid receipt for the current annual flood insurance premium and a copy of the application for flood insurance. Continue to the Worksheet Summary. ☐ Yes, less than one year has passed since FEMA notification of Special Flood Hazards. If less than one year has passed since notification of Special Flood Hazards, no flood Insurance is required. Continue to the Worksheet Summary. ☐ No. The community is not participating, or its participation has been suspended. Federal assistance may not be used at this location. Cancel the project at this location. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. Although the project scope does include acquisition, most areas that were located in a flood zone are now fully inundated with lava and no structures remain. Any other structures remaining that are not inundated by lava and are located within a flood zone will be characterized as “abandoned in place” or will be “100% demolished”, and will therefore not require insurance. No existing homes that remain standing will be rehabilitated or re‐inhabited, and no new structures will be built on any of the land planned for acquisition under this project. See Exhibit J for 8‐step Review findings and FIRM Maps. Exhibit D Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp.9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Air Quality (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/air‐quality 1. Does your project include new construction or conversion of land use facilitating the development of public, commercial, or industrial facilities OR five or more dwelling units? ☐ Yes Continue to Question 2. ☒ No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Provide any documents used to make your determination. 2. Is your project’s air quality management district or county in non‐attainment or maintenance status for any criteria pollutants? Follow the link below to determine compliance status of project county or air quality management district: https://www.epa.gov/green‐book ☐ No, project’s county or air quality management district is in attainment status for all criteria pollutants If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. ☐ Yes, project’s management district or county is in non‐attainment or maintenance status for one or more criteria pollutants. Continue to Question 3. 3. Determine the estimated emissions levels of your project for each of those criteria pollutants that are in non‐attainment or maintenance status on your project area. Will your project exceed any of the de minimis or threshold emissions levels of non‐attainment and maintenance level pollutants or exceed the screening levels established by the state or air quality management district? ☐ No, the project will not exceed de minimis or threshold emissions levels or screening levels If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Explain how you determined that the project would not exceed de minimis or threshold emissions. ☐ Yes, the project exceeds de minimis emissions levels or screening levels. Continue to Question 4. Explain how you determined that the project would not exceed de minimis or threshold emissions in the Worksheet Summary. 4. For the project to be brought into compliance with this section, all adverse impacts must be mitigated. Explain in detail the exact measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. Click here to enter text. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. No impact. The project does not include new construction, and although it does involve land use changes from private to public, the proposed actions do not include the development of any type of facilities. The ambient air quality of the Site meets all Federal and State standards. According to the EPA, the entire state of Hawai‘i is in attainment with Federal air quality standards, so this project is in an Attainment Area (see State of Hawai‘i Department of Health, March 2020, Annual Summary 2018 Air Quality Data). The information was accessed online at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/green‐book in October 2021 and is enclosed. The monitoring station identified as “Leilani” is located within the proposed project area. The location of this station is identified in Section 3 of the July 2021 State of Hawai‘i Annual Summary 2019 Air Quality Data (2019AQD) report. Section 4 of 2019AQD report identifies stations that exceeded National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) during 2019. Exceedances of NAAQS at the Leilani Station during 2019 are attributed to natural environmental volcanic emissions. A list of all exceedances recorded in the State of Hawai‘i between January 2012 and December 2020 are available at the following website: http://health.hawaii.gov/cab/notification‐of‐exceedance‐of‐ anational‐ambient‐air‐quality‐standard/. Exceedances between January 2018 and December 2020 are enclosed. All exceedances listed are attributed to natural environmental volcanic emissions. Section 6 of the 2019AQD report compares all of the State’s monitoring stations, including Leilani, to State and Federal Standards. The 5‐year trend for both stations indicates that values for criteria pollutant from air samples collected from each station are below State and Federal ambient air quality levels. Section 6 of the 2019 report is enclosed. The air quality of the subject area is not greatly affected by man‐made air pollutants. In general, the ambient air quality of the project area meets all Federal and State standards as evidenced by its designation as an "attainment area" by the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department of Health, Clean Air Branch. Local air quality impacts from short‐term construction dust and long‐term automotive emissions will occur but will not be substantial. Given the above factors, the project is in compliance with the Clean Air Act. List of Exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards The Hawai’i State Department of Health is required to notify the public whenever the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are exceeded. The list below shows the most recent exceedances due to an exceptional or natural event. For a listing of previous exceedances through 2017, please see the Department of Health, Clean Air Branch web page at http://health.hawaii.gov/cab/notification-of-exceedance-of-a-national-ambient-air-quality-standard/. DATE MONITORING STATION LOCATION & ISLAND AIR POLLUTANT STANDARD TYPE STANDARD LIMIT ACTUAL CAUSE Aug. 4, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.106 ppm (3-4 a.m.) volcanic emissions Aug. 1, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.355 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions Aug. 1, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.175 ppm (4-5 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 31, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.087 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions July 31, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.086 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 30, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.086 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 30, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.406 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 29, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.250 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 29, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.132 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 28, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.084 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions July 27, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.111 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 27, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.150 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 27, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 3-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.5 ppm 0.14 ppm 0.738 ppm (7-8 a.m.) 0.7 ppm (6-9 a.m.) 0.21 ppm volcanic emissions July 26, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.144 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 25, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.082 ppm (4-5 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 25, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.430 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 24, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 PM2.5 1-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 35 µg/m3 0.093 ppm (9-10 a.m.) 37 µg/m3 volcanic emissions July 24, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.128 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 23, 2018 Kona, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.100 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 23, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.099 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 23, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.310 ppm (1-2 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 23, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.161 ppm (1-2 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 22, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.296 ppm (10-11 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 22, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.679 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 21, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.143 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 20, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.137 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions July 19, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.100 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 19, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.309 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 18, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.076 ppm (2-3 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 18, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.093 ppm (9-10 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 17, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.227 ppm (5-6 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 17, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.109 ppm (7-8 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 16, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.086 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 15, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.145 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions July 15, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.110 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 14, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.339 ppm (8-9 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 14, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.137 ppm (8-9 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 13, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.122 ppm (1-2 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 13, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.571 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 11, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.086 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 11, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.265 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions July 10, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.105 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 9, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.097 ppm (8-9 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 9, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.080 ppm (11 p.m.-midnight) volcanic emissions July 8, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.076 ppm (4-5 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 8, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.095 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions July 6, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.322 ppm (10-11 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 6, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.110 ppm (2-3 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 5, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.097 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions July 5, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.274 ppm (3-4 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 2, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.169 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 2, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.139 ppm (1-2 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 2, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.188 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions July 2, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.396 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 1, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.087 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions July 1, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.115 ppm (2-3 p.m.) volcanic emissions July 1, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.399 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 30, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.305 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 28, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.308 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 26, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.134 ppm (3-4 p.m.) volcanic emissions June 25, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.090 ppm (9-10 p.m.) volcanic emissions June 25, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.118 ppm (9-10 p.m.) volcanic emissions June 24, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.141 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions June 24, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.470 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 22, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.387 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 22, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.538 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 21, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.232 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 21, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.407 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 21, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.283 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 20, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.099 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 20, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.078 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 20, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.136 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 19, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.176 ppm (4-5 p.m.) volcanic emissions June 19, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.079 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions June 18, 2018 Kona, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.161 ppm (3-4 p.m.) volcanic emissions June 18, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.477 ppm (noon-1 p.m.) volcanic emissions June 18, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.126 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 17, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.121 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions June 16, 2018 Kona, Hawaii PM2.5 24-hour avg. 35 µg/m3 37 µg/m3 volcanic emissions June 16, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 PM2.5 1-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 35 µg/m3 0.261 ppm (3-4 a.m.) 45 µg/m3 volcanic emissions June 16, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.253 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 15, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.112 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 15, 2018 Kona, Hawaii PM2.5 24-hour avg. 35 µg/m3 36 µg/m3 volcanic emissions June 15, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 PM2.5 1-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 35 µg/m3 0.887 ppm (5-6 a.m.) 43 µg/m3 volcanic emissions June 15, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.125 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 14, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 PM2.5 1-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 35 µg/m3 0.309 ppm (8-9 a.m.) 41 µg/m3 volcanic emissions June 14, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.079 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 13, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.427 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 13, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.084 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 12, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.426 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 12, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.14 ppm 0.686 ppm (6-7 a.m.) 0.15 ppm volcanic emissions June 11, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.121 ppm (midnight-1 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 9, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.080 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 8, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.336 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 8, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.088 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 7, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.286 ppm (11 p.m.-midnight) volcanic emissions June 7, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.280 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 6, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.090 ppm (noon-1 p.m.) volcanic emissions June 4, 2018 Kona, Hawaii PM2.5 24-hour avg. 35 µg/m3 49 µg/m3 volcanic emissions June 4, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 PM2.5 1-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 35 µg/m3 0.126 ppm (5-6 p.m.) 56 µg/m3 volcanic emissions June 4, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.210 ppm (5-6 p.m.) volcanic emissions June 3, 2018 Kona, Hawaii PM2.5 24-hour avg. 35 µg/m3 39 µg/m3 volcanic emissions June 3, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 SO2 PM2.5 1-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.14 ppm 35 µg/m3 0.472 ppm (7-8 a.m.) 0.17 ppm 42 µg/m3 volcanic emissions June 3, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.283 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 2, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.248 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 2, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.172 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions June 1, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.176 ppm (8-9 p.m.) volcanic emissions June 1, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.087 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 31, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.125 ppm (3-4 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 31, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.125 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 30, 2018 Kona, Hawaii PM2.5 24-hour avg. 35 µg/m3 36 µg/m3 volcanic emissions May 30, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 PM2.5 1-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 35 µg/m3 0.141 ppm (1-2 p.m.) 38 µg/m3 volcanic emissions May 29, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.290 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 29, 2018 Kona, Hawaii SO2 PM2.5 1-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 35 µg/m3 0.094 ppm (8-9 a.m.) 59 µg/m3 volcanic emissions May 29, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.344 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 29, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 3-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.5 ppm 0.14 ppm 0.659 ppm (1-2 a.m.) 0.6 ppm (midnight-3 a.m.) 0.17 ppm volcanic emissions May 28, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.343 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 28, 2018 Kona, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.120 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 28, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 SO2 SO2 PM2.5 1-hour avg. 3-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.5 ppm 0.14 ppm 35 µg/m3 1.114 ppm (5-6 a.m.) 0.9 ppm (3-6 a.m.) 0.27 ppm 46 µg/m3 volcanic emissions May 28, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.14 ppm 0.634 ppm (5-6 a.m.) 0.16 ppm volcanic emissions May 27, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.204 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 27, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.090 ppm (11 p.m.-midnight) volcanic emissions May 26, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.425 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 26, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.186 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 25, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 24-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.14 ppm 0.771 ppm (8-9 p.m.) 0.16 ppm volcanic emissions May 25, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.133 ppm (midnight-1 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 24, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.242 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions May 24, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.214 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 23, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.181 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 23, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.322 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 22, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.149 ppm (11 p.m.-midnight) volcanic emissions May 21, 2018 Kona, Hawaii PM2.5 24-hour avg. 35 µg/m3 37 µg/m3 volcanic emissions May 21, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.151 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 20, 2018 Kona, Hawaii PM2.5 24-hour avg. 35 µg/m3 36 µg/m3 volcanic emissions May 20, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.437 ppm (midnight-1 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 20, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.514 ppm (7-8 p.m.) volcanic emissions May 19, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.941 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 19, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.463 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 18, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.078 ppm (midnight-1 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 17, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.191 ppm (3-4 p.m.) volcanic emissions May 17, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.325 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions May 17, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.286 ppm (noon-1 p.m.) volcanic emissions May 16, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.106 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 16, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.187 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 15, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.273 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions May 14, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.542 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 13, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.185 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 13, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.294 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 12, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.141 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 12, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.345 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 10, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.322 ppm (1-2 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 10, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.400 ppm (1-2 a.m.) volcanic emissions May 9, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.204 ppm (11 p.m.-midnight) volcanic emissions May 8, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.099 ppm (6-7 p.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 27, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.087 ppm (11 p.m.-midnight) volcanic emissions Apr. 25, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.157 ppm (1-2 a.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 22, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.084 ppm (8-9 p.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 18, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.382 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 17, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.078 ppm (10-11 p.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 15, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.158 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 14, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.161 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 14, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.237 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 10, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.085 ppm (7-8 p.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 8, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.082 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 6, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.089 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 5, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.161 ppm (midnight-1 a.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 4, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.127 ppm (3-4 a.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 3, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.096 ppm (midnight-1 a.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 3, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.184 ppm (6-7 p.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 2, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.081 ppm (11 p.m.-midnight) volcanic emissions Apr. 1, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.095 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Apr. 1, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.141 ppm (midnight-1 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 31, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.404 ppm (10-11 p.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 31, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.105 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 30, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.717 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 27, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.138 ppm (midnight-1 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 27, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.759 ppm (4-5 p.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 26, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.432 ppm (3-4 p.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 23, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.187 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 17, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.223 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 14, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.202 ppm (midnight-1 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 12, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.298 ppm (1-2 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 11, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.099 ppm (8-9 p.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 11, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.103 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 10, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.076 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 8, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.182 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 7, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.077 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 6, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.111 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 3, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.161 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 2, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.127 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 1, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.174 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions Mar. 1, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.288 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 28, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.137 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 28, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.124 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 27, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.115 ppm (3-4 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 27, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.078 ppm (10-11 p.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 26, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.091 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 25, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.117 ppm (1-2 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 25, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.218 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 24, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.164 ppm (9-10 p.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 24, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.281 ppm (3-4 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 23, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.219 ppm (9-10 p.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 23, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.152 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 21, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.123 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions Feb. 20, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.105 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 20, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.093 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 20, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.098 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 20, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.117 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 19, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.111 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 18, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.542 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 18, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.076 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 17, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.224 ppm (2-3 p.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 15, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.098 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 14, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.110 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 14, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.268 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 8, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.253 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 5, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.283 ppm (1-2 p.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 5, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.125 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 4, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.159 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 4, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.392 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 4, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.168 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 3, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.772 ppm (3-4 a.m.) volcanic emissions Feb. 1, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.084 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 31, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.139 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 30, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.619 ppm (11 a.m.-noon) volcanic emissions Jan. 28, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.102 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 27, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.087 ppm (3-4 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 27, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.165 ppm (10-11 p.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 26, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.085 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 26, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.077 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 25, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.140 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 24, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.116 ppm (1-2 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 23, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.104 ppm (6-7 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 22, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.108 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 22, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.098 ppm (10-11 p.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 21, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.076 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 20, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.171 ppm (3-4 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 19, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.327 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 18, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.125 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 18, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.329 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 17, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.224 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 17, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.499 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 16, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.095 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 16, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.220 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 15, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.096 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 14, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.125 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 12, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.172 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 12, 2018 Mountain View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.194 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 11, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.078 ppm (midnight-1 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 10, 2018 Hilo, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.191 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 10, 2018 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.076 ppm (3-4 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 10, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.085 ppm (11 p.m.-midnight) volcanic emissions Jan. 9, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.276 ppm (7-8 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 8, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.182 ppm (4-5 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 6, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.134 ppm (6-7 p.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 5, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.554 ppm (midnight-1 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 4, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.624 ppm (11 p.m.-midnight) volcanic emissions Jan. 3, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.278 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions Jan. 2, 2018 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.240 ppm (11 p.m.-midnight) volcanic emissions ppm = unit of the standard is in parts per million µg/m3 = unit of the standard is in micrograms per cubic meter of air List of Exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards The Hawai’i State Department of Health is required to notify the public whenever the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are exceeded. The list below shows the most recent exceedances due to an exceptional or natural event. For a listing of previous exceedances through 2018, please see the Department of Health, Clean Air Branch web page at http://health.hawaii.gov/cab/notification-of-exceedance-of-a-national-ambient-air-quality-standard/. DATE MONITORING STATION LOCATION & ISLAND AIR POLLUTANT STANDARD TYPE STANDARD LIMIT ACTUAL CAUSE Aug. 1, 2019 Kihei, Hawaii PM2.5 24-hour avg. 35 µg/m3 40.5 µg/m3 Wild fire ppm = unit of the standard is in parts per million µg/m3 = unit of the standard is in micrograms per cubic meter of air List of Exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards The Hawai’i State Department of Health is required to notify the public whenever the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are exceeded. The list below shows the most recent exceedances due to an exceptional or natural event. For a listing of previous exceedances through 2019, please see the Department of Health, Clean Air Branch web page at http://health.hawaii.gov/cab/notification-of-exceedance-of-a-national-ambient-air-quality-standard/. DATE MONITORING STATION LOCATION & ISLAND AIR POLLUTANT STANDARD TYPE STANDARD LIMIT ACTUAL CAUSE Dec. 31, 2020 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.105 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 30, 2020 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.269 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 30, 2020 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.204 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 29, 2020 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.216 ppm (midnight -1 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 28, 2020 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.205 ppm (5-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 28, 2020 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.106 ppm (11 p.m.-midnight) volcanic emissions Dec. 27, 2020 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.138 ppm (1-2 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 26, 2020 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.243 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 26, 2020 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.274 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 25, 2020 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.115 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 25, 2020 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.372 ppm (2-3 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 24, 2020 Kona, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.154 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 24, 2020 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 3-hour avg. 3-hour avg. 24-hour avg.1 0.075 ppm 0.5 ppm 0.5 ppm 0.14 ppm 1.981 ppm (7-8 a.m.) 1.6 ppm (6-9 a.m.) 0.8 ppm (9 a.m.-noon) 0.40 ppm volcanic emissions Dec. 24, 2020 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 3-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.5 ppm 0.841 ppm (5-6 a.m.) 0.6 ppm (3-6 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 22, 2020 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.115 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 22, 2020 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.349 ppm (9-10 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 21, 2020 Ocean View, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.098 ppm (8-9 a.m.) volcanic emissions Dec. 21, 2020 Pahala, Hawaii SO2 1-hour avg. 0.075 ppm 0.240 ppm (10-11 a.m.) volcanic emissions ppm = unit of the standard is in parts per million µg/m3 = unit of the standard is in micrograms per cubic meter of air 1 The 24-hour standard for SO2 is a state standard 17 Table 3-1 State of Hawaii Ambient Air Monitoring Network Pollutants Monitored and Station Type SITE PM10 PM2.5 CO O3 SO2 NO2 H2S MONITORING OBJECTIVE LOCATION SETTING OAHU Honolulu Kapolei1 Pearl City Sand Island Kahe2 Waiau2 S S S - - - S S,C S S - - S S - - - - - S - S - - S S - - S S - S - - - - - - - - - - Population Exposure Population Exposure Population Exposure Maximum Concentration (O3)/ Transport (PM2.5) Source Impact (DRR) Source Impact (DRR) Urban and Center City Suburban Urban and Center City Urban and Center City Neighborhood Suburban MAUI Kihei Kahului - - S SPM - - - - - - - - - - Population Exposure Population Exposure Suburban Neighborhood HAWAII Hilo Kona Mountain View Ocean View Pahala Honaunau3 Kailua-Kona3 Keeau3 Leilani3 Naalehu3, 4 Waikoloa3 - - - - - - - - - - - SPM SPM SPM SPM SPM SPM SPM SPM - SPM SPM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S SPM SPM SPM - - SPM SPM SPM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SPM - - Population Exposure Population Exposure (SO2)/ Maximum concentration (PM2.5) Source Impact Welfare Impact (SO2)/ Source Impact (PM2.5) Maximum concentration (SO2)/ Source Impact (PM2.5) Source Impact Source Impact Source Impact Source Impact (geothermal) Source Impact Source Impact Suburban Suburban Suburban Rural Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Rural Rural Rural KAUAI Niumalu - SPM - SPM SPM - Source Impact (cruise ships) Suburban C = Collocated Site S = (SLAMS) State and Local Air Monitoring Station SPM = Special Purpose Monitoring Station (for monitoring vog, geothermal energy production and cruise ships) 1 Includes NCore station; 2 As required by the Data Requirements Rule; 3 These temporary stations were in operation for all or part of 2019; 4 Two closely located temporary stations, one PM2.5 and one SO2. 18 Table 3-2 Sampling Equipment at Each Monitoring Station Monitoring Station PM10 Continuous Ambient Particulate Monitor PM2.5 Manual Particulate Monitor PM2.5 Continuous Monitor CO Continuous Gas Filter Correlation Analyzer SO2 Continuous Pulsed Fluorescence Ambient Air Analyzer O3 Continuous UV Photometric Analyzer NO2 Continuous Chemiluminescence Analyzer H2S Continuous Pulsed Fluorescence Ambient Air Analyzer OAHU Honolulu ■ ■ ■ ■ Kapolei ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Pearl City ■ ■ Sand Island ■ ■ MAUI Kihei ■ Kahului ■ HAWAII Hilo ■ ■ Kona ■ ■ Mt. View ■ ■ Ocean View ■ ■ Pahala ■ ■ Honaunau ■ Kailua-Kona ■ Keeau ■ ■ Leilani ■ ■ Naalehu-P ■ Naalaehu-S ■ Waikoloa ES ■ KAUAI Niumalu ■ ■ ■ 12 ® Station Name Location Pollutants Monitored 1 Hilo 1099 Waianuenue Ave. SO2, PM2.5 2 Keeau (temporary) 16-714 Volcano Rd. SO2, PM2.5 3 Mountain View 18-1235 Volcano Rd. SO2, PM2.5 4 Leilani 13-3441 Moku St. H2S, SO2 5 Pahala 96-3150 Pikake St. SO2, PM2.5 6 Naalehu-TP/S (temporary) Naalehu Fire Station/Elem. School SO2, PM2.5 7 Ocean View 92-6091 Orchid Mauka Circ. SO2, PM2.5 8 Honaunau (temporary) DWS Keei Well C, Painted Church Rd. PM2.5 9 Kona 81-1043 Konawaena School Rd. SO2, PM2.5 10 Kailua-Kona (temporary) DWS Puapua’a Reservoir PM2.5 11 Waikoloa (temporary) 68-1730 Hooko Street PM2.5 Figure 3-3: Island of Hawaii – Air Monitoring Stations 13 Hilo (HL) Location: 1099 Waianuenue Ave., Hilo Latitude: 19.71756 Longitude: -155.11053 Altitude: 136.8 m Parameters: SO2, PM2.5 Established: January 1997 Brief Description: Located near the Hilo Medical Center, this station was established to monitor vog during “Kona” or southerly wind conditions. Kona (KN) Location: 81-1043 Konawaena School Rd., Kona Latitude: 19.50978 Longitude: -155.91342 Altitude: 517.2 m Parameters: SO2, PM2.5 Established: September 2005 Brief Description: Located on the upper campus of Konawaena High School, this station monitors for vog on the west side of the island of Hawaii. Mt. View (MV) Location: 18-1235 Volcano Rd., Mt. View Latitude: 19.57002 Longitude: -155.08046 Altitude: 436.5 m Parameters: SO2, PM2.5 Established: December 2010 Brief Description: Located on the grounds of the Mt. View Elementary School, this station was established to monitor vog during southerly wind conditions. Ocean View (OV) Location: 92-6091 Orchid Mauka Circle, Ocean View Latitude: 19.11756 Longitude: -155.77814 Altitude: 862.6 m Parameters: SO2, PM2.5 Established: April 2010 Brief Description: This station is located in Hawaii Ocean View Estates at the Ocean View Fire Station and monitors for volcanic emissions. 14 Pahala (PA) Location: 96-3150 Pikake St., Pahala Latitude: 19.2039 Longitude: -155.48018 Altitude: 320 m Parameters: SO2, PM2.5 Established: August 2007 Brief Description: The station is on the grounds of the Kau High and Pahala Elementary School, monitoring for volcanic emissions. Honaunau – Temporary (HN) Location: DWS Keei Well C, Painted Church Rd., Honaunau Latitude: 19.44276389 Longitude: -155.88583333 Altitude: 274 m Parameters: PM2.5 Established: August 2018 Brief Description: This temporary station is located in a residential subdivision within a fenced area that contains a Hawaii County Department of Water Supply water tank and pump house, monitoring for volcanic emissions. KAILUA-KONA (KK) Location: DWS Puapua’a Reservoir, Kailua- Kona Latitude: 19.61815833 Longitude: -155. 9711111 Altitude: 92.4 m Parameters: PM2.5 Established: November 2018 Brief Description: This station is located in the middle Kailua-Kona town within a fenced area that contains a County of Hawaii water reservoir and pump house, monitoring for volcanic emissions. KEEAU - Temporary( KS-T) Location: Kamehameha Schools,16-714 Volcano Road, Keaau, HI 96749 Latitude: 19.60533889 Longitude: -155.05138889 Altitude: 179.8 m Parameters: PM2.5, SO2 Established: June 2018 Brief Description: This temporary station is located in the town of Keaau on the Kamehameha Schools Hawaii campus, monitoring for volcanic emissions during southerly wind conditions. 15 Leilani (LE) Location: 13-3441 Moku St., Pahoa Latitude: 19.46555556 Longitude: -154.91583333 Altitude: 229 m Parameters: H2S, SO2 Established: September 2019 Brief Description: This station is located in a residential subdivision within a fenced area that contains the Leilani Community Association Center, monitoring emissions from the nearby geothermal energy facility. Naalehu – Temporary PM2.5 (NA-TP) Location: Naalehu Volunteer Fire Station, Kaalaiki Road., Naalehu Latitude: 19.061379 Longitude: -155.586748 Altitude: 207.9 m Parameters: PM2.5 Established: June 2018 Brief Description: This temporary station is located at the Naalehu Volunteer Fire Station monitoring for volcanic emissions. Naalehu – SO2 (NA-S) Location: Naalehu Elementary School, 95- 5547 Mamalahoa Hwy., Naalehu Latitude: 19.060656 Longitude: -155.579167 Altitude: 196.3 m Parameters: SO2 Established: August 2018 Brief Description: This station is located i inside the USGS Seismograph building on the campus of Naalehu Elementary School, monitoring for volcanic emissions. Waikoloa (WL-T) Location: 68-1730 Hooko Street, Waikoloa Latitude: 19.945325 Longitude: -155.79138889 Altitude: 259.1 m Parameters: PM2.5 Established: June 2018 Brief Description: This temporary station is located at the Waikoloa Elementary School, monitoring for volcanic emissions. 19 Section 4 2019 AIR QUALITY DATA To protect the state’s air quality from degradation, the Department of Health’s Clean Air Branch is responsible for regulating and monitoring pollution sources to ensure that the levels of criteria pollutants remain well below the state and federal ambie nt air quality standards. Data collected from the ambient air network is validated by the Air Quality Monitoring Section to ensure that the reported data is of good quality and meets all quality control and assurance requirements. In 2019 the State of Hawaii was in attainment of all NAAQS. Explanation of Summary Tables 4-1 through 4-17: • Summaries are by pollutant and averaging period, with the number of occurrences exceeding the NAAQS or, in Table 4-17, the number of exceedances of the state H2S standard (there is no federal H2S standard); • The “Maximum” is the highest and second highest valid values recorded in the year for the averaging period. For PM2.5, the maximum and 98th percentile concentrations are provided and for O3, the 4th highest daily maximum value is also displayed; • The “Annual Mean” is the arithmetic mean of all valid values recorded in the year; • “Possible Periods” is the total number of possible sampling periods in the year for the averaging period; • “Valid Periods” is the total number of acceptable sampling periods after data validation; • “Percent Recovery” represents the amount of quality data reported; • Attainment with the NAAQS is determined according to 40 CFR 50. Explanation of Tables 4-18 through 4-25: • For each pollutant and averaging period, the highest concentration for each month is presented; • The month with the highest value recorded in the year for each site is highlighted. 20 Table 4-1. 2019 Summary of the 24-Hour PM10 Averages Maximum Annual Mean No. of 24-hour Averages Greater than 150 µg/m3 1st High 2nd High All Hours Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Possible Periods Valid Periods Percent Recovery OAHU Honolulu 35 27 10.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 355 97.3% Kapolei 42 32 11.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 352 96.4% Pearl City 15 10 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 359 98.4% Table 4-2. Attainment Determination of the 24-Hour PM10 NAAQS Station Exceedances in 2017 Exceedances in 2018 Exceedances in 2019 Sites in violation of the NAAQS Honolulu 0 0 0 0 Kapolei 0 0 0 0 Pearl City 0 0 0 0 Attainment: The standard not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment with the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 21 Table 4-3. 2019 Summary of the 24-Hour PM2.5 Averages: SLAMS Stations Maximum Annual Mean No. of 24-hour Averages Greater than 35 µg/m3 1st High 98th % All Hours Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Possible Periods Valid Periods Percent Recovery OAHU Honolulu 15.1 6.7 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 348 95.3% Kapolei 10.8 5.2 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 349 95.6% Pearl City 14.7 6.3 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 359 98.4% Sand Island 14.0 8.8 3.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 362 99.2% MAUI Kihei 84.5 16.9 4.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 365 357 97.8% Table 4-4. Attainment Determination of the 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS: SLAMS Stations Table 4-5. Attainment Determination of the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS: SLAMS Stations Station 2017 Ann. Avg. 2018 Ann. Avg. 2019 Ann. Avg. 3-Year Average Sites in violation of the NAAQS Honolulu 3.0 3.7 3.2 3.3 0 Kapolei 4.3 2.5 1.8 2.9 0 Pearl City 4.4 3.0 3.3 3.6 0 Sand Island 3.0 3.7 3.9 3.5 0 Kihei 4.1 4.5 4.1 4.2 0 Attainment: The 3-year average of annual mean values must be less than 15 µg/m3. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment with the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Station 2017 98th value 2018 98th value 2019 98th value 3-Year Average Sites in violation of the NAAQS Honolulu 9.8 7.5 6.7 8 0 Kapolei 9.6 8.7 5.2 7.8 0 Pearl City 14 9.1 6.3 9.8 0 Sand Island 10 7.3 7.7 8.3 0 Kihei 11 11 16.9 13 0 Attainment: The 3-year average of the 98th percentile values must be less than or equal to 35 µg/m3. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 22 Table 4-6. 2019 Summary of the 24-Hour PM2.5 Averages: SPM Stations 1 Preliminary data – for information only. Temporary stations were established in response to the 2018 Kilauea East Rift Zone eruption. 2 Does not meet summary criteria, <75% data recovery in 1st quarter, substitution test valid. Maximum Annual Mean No. of 24-hour Averages Greater than 35 µg/m3 1st High 98th% All Hours Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Possible Periods Valid Periods Percent Recovery HAWAII Hilo 9.6 5.8 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 348 95.3% Kona 5.6 4.3 2.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 360 98.6% Mt. View 13.2 7.3 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 357 97.8% Ocean View 7.3 6.2 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 343 94.0% Pahala 25.3 7.7 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 355 97.3% Honaunau1 10.7 4.2 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 347 95.1% Kailua-Kona1 5.2 4.4 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 340 93.2% Keeau1 8.0 5.0 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 345 94.5% Naalehu1 11.0 5.2 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 343 94.0% Waikoloa1 9.9 5.5 2.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 343 94.0% KAUAI Niumalu 19.1 7.5 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 340 93.2% MAUI Kahului2 13.0 7.6 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 323 88.5% The special purpose stations on Hawaii island were established to monitor ambient air concentrations of PM 2.5 from volcanic emissions. The special purpose station on Kauai was established to monitor emissions from cr uise ships. The special purpose station on Maui w as established to monitor emissions from agricultural burning. 23 Table 4-7. 2019 Summary of the 8-Hour O3 Averages Maximum Annual Mean No. of Daily Maximum 8-Hour Averages Greater than 0.070 ppm 1st High 2nd High 4th High All Hours Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Possible Periods Valid Periods Percent Recovery OAHU Sand Island 0.059 0.055 0.053 0.028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8755 8502 97.1% Kapolei 0.056 0.053 0.052 0.029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8755 8126 92.8% Table 4-8. Attainment Determination of the 8-Hour O3 NAAQS Station 2017 4th highest 2018 4th highest 2019 4th highest 3-Year Average Site in violation of the NAAQS Sand Island 0.048 0.046 0.053 0.049 0 Kapolei 0.049 0.049 0.052 0.050 0 Attainment: The 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average must be less than or equal to 0.070 ppm. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment with the 8-hour O3 NAAQS. . 24 Table 4-9. 2019 Summary of the 1-Hour and Annual NO2 Averages Maximum 1-hr Annual Mean No. of Daily Maximum 1-Hour Averages Greater than 0.100 ppm 1st High 98th% All Hours Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Possible Periods Valid Periods Percent Recovery OAHU SLAMS Station Kapolei 0.034 0.028 0.004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 8371 95.6% KAUAI SPM Station Niumalu 0.046 0.038 0.004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 8390 95.8% Attainment of the annual NO2 NAAQS: The annual mean shall not exceed 0.053 ppm. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment with the annual NO2 NAAQS. Table 4-10. Attainment Determination of the 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS Station 2017 98th value 2018 98th value 2019 98th value 3-Year Average Site in violation of the NAAQS OAHU SLAMS Station Kapolei 0.033 0.027 0.028 0.029 0 Attainment: The 3-year average of the 98th percentile values must be less than or equal to 0.100 ppm. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment with the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 25 4-11. 2019 Summary of the 1-Hour SO2 Averages 1 Does not meet summary criteria, <75% data recovery in one or more quarters, substitution test valid. 2 Does not meet summary criteria, <50% data recovery in 1st quarter, substitution test not allowed. 3 Station began sampling on 9/13/2019. Maximum Annual Mean No. of 1-hour Averages Greater than 0.075 ppm 1st High 99th% All Hours Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Possible Periods Valid Periods Percent Recovery OAHU SLAMS Stations Honolulu 0.006 0.006 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 8013 91.5% Kapolei 0.015 0.003 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 7762 88.6% OAHU SPM Stations (see NOTE) Kahe 0.070 0.062 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 8520 97.3% Waiau 0.024 0.016 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 8587 89.0% HAWAII SPM Stations (see NOTE) Hilo 0.013 0.011 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 8105 92.5% Kona 0.004 0.003 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 8546 97.6% Mt. View 0.013 0.008 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 8473 96.7% Ocean View 0.003 0.003 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 7964 90.9% Pahala 0.017 0.009 0.003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 8474 96.7% Keeau1 0.017 0.006 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 6128 70.0% Naalehu2 0.094 0.003 0.002 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 6741 76.9% Leilani3 0.002 - 0.000 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 2601 2499 96.1% KAUAI SPM Station Niumalu1 0.052 0.001 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 7728 88.2% Attainment: The 3-year average of the 99th percentile values must be less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. Effective June 2, 2010. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (SLAMS stations only). NOTE: The SPM stations on Hawaii Island were established to monitor ambient air concentrations of SO2 from volcanic emissions. Although Hilo and Kona stations are designated SLAMS, the values are still mostly attributed to volcanic emissions. Volcanic eruptions are considered natural ev ents and therefore EPA may exclude the exceedances of the 1-hour NAAQS from attainment determinations. The SPM station on Kauai was established to monitor emissions from cruise ships. 26 Table 4-12. Attainment Determination of the 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS: SLAMS Stations 1 Does not meet summary criteria, <75% data recovery in 1st quarter, substitution test valid. 2017 99th value 2018 99th value 2019 99th value 3-Year Average Violation of the NAAQS OAHU SLAMS stations N= NO Y= YES Honolulu 0.004 0.003 0.006 0.004 N Kapolei 0.008 0.006 0.003 0.006 N OAHU SPM stations (see NOTE) Kahe 0.055 0.038 0.062 0.052 N Waiau 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 N HAWAII SPM stations (see NOTE) Hilo 0.359 0.191 0.011 0.187 Y Kona 0.041 0.094 0.003 0.046 N Mt. View 0.269 0.325 0.008 0.201 Y Ocean View 0.480 0.887 0.003 0.457 Y Pahala 0.674 0.686 0.009 0.456 Y KAUAI SPM station Niumalu 0.002 0.003 0.0011 0.002 N Attainment: The 3-year average of the 99th percentile values must be less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. Effective June 2, 2010. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (SLAMS stations only). NOTE: The SPM stations on Hawaii Island were established to monitor ambient air concentrations of SO 2 from volcanic emissions. Although Hilo and Kona stations are designated SLAMS, the values are still mostly attributed to volcanic emissions. Volcanic eruptions are considered natural events and therefore EPA may exclude the exceedances of the 1-hour NAAQS from attainment determinations. The SPM station on Kauai was established to monitor emissions from cruise ships. 27 Table 4-13. 2019 Summary of the 3-Hour SO2 Averages 1 Does not meet summary criteria, <75% data recovery in one or more quarters, substitution test valid. 2 Does not meet summary criteria, <50% data recovery in 1st quarter, substitution test not allowed. 3 Station began sampling on 9/13/2019. Maximum Annual Mean No. of 3-hour Averages Greater than 0.5 ppm 1st High 2nd High All Hours Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Possible Periods Valid Periods Percent Recovery OAHU SLAMS stations Honolulu 0.001 0.001 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2920 2638 90.3% Kapolei 0.013 0.008 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2920 2537 86.9% OAHU SPM stations (see NOTE) Kahe 0.044 0.039 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2920 2805 96.1% Waiau 0.012 0.009 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2920 2828 96.8% HAWAII SPM stations (see NOTE) Hilo 0.008 0.007 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2920 2621 89.8% Kona 0.004 0.004 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2920 2736 93.7% Mt. View 0.009 0.008 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2920 2690 92.1% Ocean View 0.002 0.002 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2920 2533 86.7% Pahala 0.007 0.007 0.003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2920 2729 93.5% Keeau1 0.010 0.009 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2920 1777 60.9% Naalehu2 0.003 0.002 0.000 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2920 2192 75.1% Leilani3 0.001 0.001 0.000 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 867 819 94.5% KAUAI SPM station Niumalu1 0.018 0.002 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2920 2428 83.2% Attainment: 3-hour values not to exceed 0.5 ppm more than once per year. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment with the 3-hour SO2 NAAQS (SLAMS stations only). NOTE: The SPM stations on Hawaii island were established to monitor ambient air concentrations of SO 2 from volcanic emissions. Although Hilo and Kona stations are designated SLAMS, the values are still mostly attributed to volcanic emissions. Volcanic eruptions are consider ed natural events and therefore EPA may exclude the exceedances of the 3-hour NAAQS from attainment determinations. 28 Table 4-14. 2019 Summary of the 24-Hour and Annual SO2 Averages 1 Does not meet summary criteria, <75% data recovery in one or more quarters, substitution test valid . 2 Does not meet summary criteria, <50% data recovery in 1st quarter, substitution test not allowed. 3 Station began sampling on 9/13/2019. Maximum Annual Mean No. of 24-hour Averages Greater than 0.14 ppm 1st High 2nd High All Hours Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Possible Periods Valid Periods Percent Recovery OAHU SLAMS Stations Honolulu 0.001 0.001 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 339 92.9% Kapolei 0.004 0.003 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 326 89.3% OAHU SPM Stations (see NOTE) Kahe 0.014 0.011 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 361 98.9% Waiau 0.004 0.002 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 363 99.5% HAWAII SPM Stations (see NOTE) Hilo 0.004 0.004 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 360 98.6% Kona 0.003 0.002 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 364 99.7% Mt. View 0.005 0.005 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 365 100% Ocean View 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 336 92.1% Pahala 0.005 0.005 0.003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 360 98.6% Keeau1 0.002 0.002 0.001 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 207 56.7% Naalehu2 0.001 0.001 0.000 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 284 77.8% Leilani3 0.000 0.000 0.000 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 109 106 97.2% KAUAI SPM Station Niumalu1 0.003 0.001 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 316 86.6% Attainment: 24-hour values not to exceed 0.14 ppm more than once per year. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment of the state 24-hour SO2 standard (SLAMS stations only). NOTE: The SPM stations on Hawaii island were established to monitor ambient air concentrations of SO 2 from volcanic emissions. Although Hilo and Kona stations are designated SLAMS, the values are still mostly attributed to volcanic emissions. Volcanic eruptions are consider ed natural events and therefore EPA may exclude the exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS from attainment determinations. Attainment: Annual average (from SLAMS stations only) not to exceed 0.03 ppm. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment of the state annual SO2 standard. NOTE: The SPM stations on Hawaii island were established to monitor ambient air concentrations of SO2 from volcanic emissions. Although Hilo and Kona stations are designated SLAMS, the values are still mostly attributed to volcanic emissions. Volcanic eruptions are consider ed natural events and therefore EPA may exclude the exceedances of the annual NAAQS from attainment determinations. 29 Table 4-15. 2019 Summary of the 1-Hour CO Averages Maximum Annual Mean No. of 1-hour Averages Greater than 35 ppm 1st High 2nd High All Hours Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Possible Periods Valid Periods Percent Recovery OAHU SLAMS stations Honolulu 1.4 1.3 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 8035 91.7% Kapolei 0.9 0.5 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8760 8470 96.7% Attainment: 1-hour values not to exceed 35 ppm more than once per year. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment with the 1-hour CO NAAQS. Table 4-16. 2019 Summary of the 8-Hour CO Averages Table 4-17. 2019 Monthly Maximum of 24-Hour PM10 Values (µg/m3) The month with the highest value in the year is highlighted The state and federal 24-hr PM10 standard is 150 µg/m3 Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Honolulu 23 20 35 27 18 14 18 14 15 16 21 23 Kapolei 42 29 32 23 17 15 19 17 18 19 23 22 Pearl City 26 23 36 29 19 18 19 17 19 21 24 22 Maximum Annual Mean No. of 8-hour Averages Greater than 9 ppm 1st High 2nd High All Hours Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Possible Periods Valid Periods Percent Recovery OAHU SLAMS stations Honolulu 0.8 0.8 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8755 7756 88.6% Kapolei 0.3 0.3 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8755 8327 95.1% Attainment: 8-hour values not to exceed 9 ppm more than once per year. In 2019, Hawaii was in attainment with the 8-hour CO NAAQS. 30 Table 4-18. 2019 Monthly Maximum of 24-Hour PM2.5 Values (µg/m3) The month with the highest value in the year is highlighted The federal 24-hr PM2.5 standard is 35 µg/m Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec SLAMS Stations Honolulu 6 5.7 15.1 9.7 5.6 5 5.6 4.9 4.5 5.3 6.5 6.7 Kapolei 4.1 6.3 10.6 5.2 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.1 4.2 10.8 Pearl City 21 10.5 8.2 10 5.8 10.3 7.4 8.8 4.3 6.2 4.7 7.1 Sand Island 8.1 7.7 14 8.8 5.7 4.8 6.1 6.7 5.3 5.2 7.6 7.4 Kihei 7.8 7.1 7.9 6.5 4.9 5 84.5 40.5 23.6 13.1 18.8 12.9 SPM Stations Niumalu (cruise ships) 8.1 8.4 19.1 5.5 3.9 3.8 5.4 4.8 4.8 6.8 7.5 8.1 Hilo (volcano) 4.7 4.8 9.6 4.8 5.5 5.9 6.2 6.2 5.5 4.6 4.3 4.8 Kahului - 3.9 13 10 5.7 6.2 5.3 5.2 4.7 5.2 6.6 8.7 Kona (volcano) 4.9 3.2 4.4 5 3.6 4.9 4.5 3.9 5.6 2.4 3.2 3.3 Mt. View (volcano) 10.5 13.2 5.9 4.5 3.8 4.7 4.5 4.1 3.1 3.6 3.2 3.5 Ocean View (volcano) 5.9 5.5 6.2 7.3 4.8 3.1 3.8 3.5 3.6 2.8 3 3.2 Pahala (volcano) 17.2 3.5 8.9 5.6 3.8 7.5 6.9 8.2 3.9 5.6 3.6 25.3 Honaunau (volcano) 4 4.5 3.9 5.3 5.3 4.8 4.2 4.4 10.7 3.7 3.5 4 Kailua-Kona (volcano) 4 4 5.2 4.1 3.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 3.6 3.9 3.8 Keeau (volcano) 5.7 4.5 8 5.6 5 4.3 4.7 5 3.5 4.1 3.8 3.3 Naalehu (volcano) 5.9 4.2 11 5.4 4.3 5.2 5.7 4.8 3.4 3.4 3.5 8.4 Waikoloa (volcano) 5.1 6.8 9.9 6 5.6 5.4 5.5 4.2 3 4.6 3.8 4.5 31 Table 4-19. 2019 Monthly Maximum of 1-Hour NO2 Values (ppm) The month with the highest value in the year is highlighted The federal 1-hour standard for NO2 is 0.100 ppm Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Kapolei 34.4 34.1 32.6 24.4 25.1 17.9 15.8 17.9 19.7 23.3 24.5 30.1 Niumalu 40 30.6 43.3 46.2 37.5 23.7 25.1 24.2 26.2 30.6 29.7 38.7 Table 4-20. 2019 Monthly Maximum of 1-Hour CO Values (ppm) The month with the highest value in the year is highlighted The federal 1-hr CO standard is 35 ppm, the state standard is 9 ppm Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Honolulu 1 1.1 0.9 0.6 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.5 1.2 Kapolei 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.9 Kapolei Ncore 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1 Table 4-21. 2019 Monthly Maximum of 8-Hour CO Values (ppm) The month with the highest value in the year is highlighted The federal 8-hr CO standard is 9 ppm, the state standard is 4.4 ppm Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Honolulu 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.7 Kapolei 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Kapolei Ncore 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 4-22. 2019 Monthly Maximum of 8-Hour O3 Values (ppm) The month with the highest value in the year is highlighted The federal 8-hr O3 standard is 0.070 ppm Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Sand Island 45 47 59 48 56 34 21 23 31 33 43 44 Kapolei NCore 46 53 54 46 56 38 27 28 29 32 42 42 32 Table 4-23. 2019 Monthly Maximum of 1-Hour SO2 Values (ppm) The month with the highest value in the year is highlighted The federal 1-hr SO2 standard is 0.075 ppm (75 ppb) NOTE: The SPM stations on Hawaii Island were established to monitor ambient air concentrations of SO 2 from volcanic emissions. Although Hilo and Kona stations are designated SLAMS, the values are still mostly attributed to volcanic emissions. Volcanic eruptions are consider ed natural events and therefore EPA may exclude the exceedances of the 1-hour NAAQS from attainment determinations. 1 Station began sampling on 9/13/2019. Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec SLAMS Stations Honolulu 1 0.6 1 0.7 6.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.5 Kapolei 13.4 15.3 2.3 3.3 1.9 2.6 3.1 3.1 2.6 3. 1.3 2.8 Kapolei Ncore 15.8 14.8 5.7 4.8 11.2 2.8 6.6 5.3 7.7 2.3 4 7.7 Kahe 67.7 52.4 27.8 26.6 45.8 21.3 65.8 70 47.1 54.9 57.7 39.1 Waiau 7.1 12.6 8.8 15.5 11.7 1.8 7.3 0.2 0.4 4 5 5.7 SPM Stations (see NOTE) Niumalu (cruise ships) 52.3 0.7 0.8 1.3 1 2 1 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 Hilo (volcano) 6.8 8.9 7.7 11.9 8 12.6 7.1 10.6 7 7.3 7.7 11.2 Kona (volcano) 1.6 1.8 1.4 2 1.9 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.2 3.6 0.3 0.4 Mt. View (volcano) 12 8 12.8 4.2 3.5 2.3 4.7 2.7 3.6 4.1 5.2 6.3 Ocean View (volcano) 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.4 1.1 1.7 1.4 0.4 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.9 Pahala (volcano) 16.5 5.8 5.6 10 6.2 7.7 7.6 6.6 8.4 9 7.6 9.1 Keeau 0.7 6.5 3.6 0 3.8 3.5 46 4.8 5.3 3.1 6.8 3.3 Naalehu - - 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.7 1.1 9.4 2 2.8 3.4 2.4 Leilani1 - - - - - - - - 1.5 1.1 1.5 1.6 33 Table 4-24. 2019 Monthly Maximum of 3-Hour SO2 Values (ppm) The month with the highest value in the year is highlighted The state and federal 3-hr SO2 standard is 0.5 ppm NOTE: The SPM stations on Hawaii Island were established to monitor ambient air concentrations of SO2 from volcanic emissions. Volcanic eruptions are considered natural events and therefore EPA may exclude the exceedances of the 3 -hour NAAQS from attainment determinations. 1 Station began sampling on 9/13/2019. Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec SLAMS Stations Honolulu 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.4 Kapolei 8 12.7 2 2.4 1.9 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.8 1 2.5 Kapolei Ncore 8.9 12.1 3.9 2.5 5.5 2 6.3 4.2 3.5 1.9 3 3.3 Kahe 44.3 22.6 18.7 17.6 30.1 15.1 33.7 37.8 27 36.3 38 18 Waiau 5.4 6.8 4.9 6.3 5.3 8 7.1 7.6 4.8 6.9 6.5 11.9 SPM Stations (see NOTE) Niumalu (cruise ships) 18.4 0.6 0.7 1 1 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 Hilo (volcano) 5.3 0.6 5.6 7.4 4.3 7.1 4.9 5.9 4.8 5.2 5.6 7.5 Kona (volcano) 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.2 3.5 0.3 0.3 Mt. View (volcano) 9.1 6.7 5.5 2.1 2.5 2 3.3 2.2 2.8 3 3.8 4.4 Ocean View (volcano) 2.4 1.6 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.7 1 1.1 1.3 2.2 1.1 Pahala (volcano) 6.1 4.5 3.7 6.6 4.4 6.3 5.4 5.4 6.2 6.7 6.5 7 Keeau 1.2 3.6 8.9 4 9.5 2.3 3.2 3.3 3.1 2.4 3.7 2.1 Naalehu - - 0.4 0 0.1 0.3 0.4 3.4 0.5 2 2.4 1.2 Leilani1 - - - - - - - - 0.9 0.5 1 1 34 Table 4-25. 2019 Monthly Maximum of 24-Hour SO2 Values (ppm) The month with the highest value in the year is highlighted The state 24-hr SO2 standard is 0.14 ppm NOTE: The SPM stations on Hawaii Island were established to monitor ambient air concentrations of SO2 from volcanic emissions. Volcanic eruptions are considered natural events and therefore EPA may exclude the exceedances of the 24 -hour NAAQS from attainment determinations. 1 Leilani Started on 9/15/2019 Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec SLAMS Stations Honolulu 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 1 1 1.1 0.5 0.6 0 0.3 0 Kapolei 1.6 4.2 1.1 2.2 1.1 2.3 2.6 2.1 1.9 2.5 0.5 2.2 Kapolei NCore 1.8 3.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 1 5.6 1 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.9 Kahe 14.4 9.7 10.7 4.6 8.2 3.7 9.4 10.2 7.7 5.6 6.5 5.3 Waiau 1 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 4.4 SPM Stations (see NOTE) Niumalu (cruise ships) 2.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.3 0 0 Hilo (volcano) 1.9 2 2.4 3 3 4.1 3.6 4 3.6 4 3.9 2.6 Kona (volcano) 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.9 2 3.2 0.2 0.2 Mt. View (volcano) 5.1 4.6 3.8 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.7 Ocean View (volcano) 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9 1 0.8 0.3 0.6 1.2 0.7 Pahala (volcano) 2.5 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.5 4.7 Keeau 0.4 1.7 1.6 - 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.4 1.1 1 1.2 1 Naalehu - - 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.8 Leilani1 - - - - - - - - 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 38 Section 6 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY TRENDS The following graphs illustrate 5-year trends for PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NO2, O3, and CO from 2015 to 2019 at all SLAMS stations monitoring for those pollutants. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 are graphs of the PM10 annual and maximum 24-hour averages. Figure 6-3 is the graph of the PM2.5 annual averages. Attainment of the PM2.5 24-hour standard is based on the 98th percentile value at each station, which is depicted in Figure 6-4. Figures 6-5 and 6-6 are graphs of the SO2 annual and maximum 24-hour averages. Figure 6-7 and 6-8 shows the annual and maximum 1-hour averages of NO2 compared to the federal NAAQS. Attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard is achieved by averaging 3 years of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations, which must not exceed 0.070 ppm (standard effective October 26, 2015). Figure 6-9 is a graph of the fourth highest daily maximum values recorded at the Sand Island and Kapolei (since 2011) ozone monitoring stations in the past five years. The graphs for 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide (figures 6-10 and 6-11, respectively) represent the maximum 1-hour or 8-hour values recorded in the year. Criteria pollutant levels remain below state and federal ambient air quality standards at all SLAMS stations in the state. 41 Figure 6-5. SO2 Annual Average: 2015-2019 Figure 6-6. SO2 Maximum 24-Hour Average: 2015-2019 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019ppm Honolulu Kapolei Hilo Kona State Standard 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019ppm Honolulu Kapolei Hilo Kona State Standard Exhibit E Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp.9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Coastal Zone Management Act (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/coastal‐zone‐managementh Projects located in the following states must complete this form. Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Ohio Texas Alaska Georgia Maine New Hampshire Oregon Virgin Islands American Samoa Guam Maryland New Jersey Pennsylvania Virginia California Hawaii Massachusetts New York Puerto Rico Washington Connecticut Illinois Michigan North Carolina Rhode Island Wisconsin Delaware Indiana Minnesota Northern Mariana Islands South Carolina 1. Is the project located in, or does it affect, a Coastal Zone as defined in your state Coastal Management Plan? ☒Yes Continue to Question 2. ☐No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within a Coastal Zone. 2. Does this project include activities that are subject to state review? ☐Yes Continue to Question 3. ☒No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation used to make your determination. 3. Has this project been determined to be consistent with the State Coastal Management Program? ☐Yes, with mitigation. The RE/HUD must work with the State Coastal Management Program to develop mitigation measures to mitigate the impact or effect of the project. ☐Yes, without mitigation. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation used to make your determination. ☐No Project cannot proceed at this location. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. All lands in the State of Hawai‘i are within the Coastal Zone Management Area. In a letter dated June 24, 2004 and re‐confirmed by phone January 11, 2021 (enclosed), the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism’s Office of Planning indicated that the Hawai‘i CZM program does not review any HUD assistance programs, grants, or loans for federal consistency, but that CZM regulations relating to actions within the Special Management Areas (SMA) and Shoreline Setback still apply. Although the project area does include lands within the SMA (see Figure 4), the scope of the project actions (land acquisition and removal of existing structures) do not require further review through SMA permitting as per the County of Hawai‘i’s SMA requirements unless structures to be removed are on land abutting the shoreline or are located on any historic site as designated in national or state registers. Through the Tier 2 site specific reviews, parcels proposed for acquisition with structures to be demolished will be reviewed for their location relative to the shoreline and their status on National and State Historic registers. Should structures be required for removal on any shoreline parcels or National or State Register sites, the County of Hawai‘i will consult with County of Hawai‘i Planning Department to determine if a SMA permit is required for the demolition work, and acquire the necessary permit prior to removal of structure(s). Date: 1/28/2022 Source: County of Hawai‘i, 2020. ESRI On lin e Basem ap.Disclaim er: This g raphic has been prepared for g eneral plan n in g purposes only. Island of Hawai‘iNorth Linear Scale (Feet) 0 2,500 5,000 10,000 Client Nam ePath: Q:\Plan nin g \Hawaii\Kilauea Recovery\GIS Figure 4Coastal Zone Management Area (CZMA) Kilauea Recovery Plan ProjectArea Legend Project AreaLava FlowSpecial Management Area C O R R E S P O N D E N C E R E C O R D DATE: January 11, 2021 WITH: John Nakagawa /Hawai‘i State Office of Planning, Coastal Zone Management Program WHEN: January 11, 2021 DISTRIBUTION: File BY: Jeff Seastrom / PBR HAWAII SUBJECT: Federal Consistency Review of HUD-Funded Projects 1. The purpose of the phone call was to confirm the Hawai‘i Coastal Zone Management Program (CZM) does not review HUD-Funded Projects for Federal Consistency, as described in the attached letter from the Office of Planning dated June 24, 2004. 2. I confirmed with John Nakagawa, CZM staff that the policy stands. He also referred me to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website to review State Federal Consistency Lists for the types of federal funding the CZM staff does review at the link below: https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/consistency/states/ 3. Mr. Nakagawa also noted, if an agency or entity is requesting confirmation that CZM will not review a specific project for consistency, CZM can provide an email response or a formal letter response on letterhead confirming that for the specific project/location if necessary upon request. This is our understanding of the topics discussed and the conclusions reached. Please give PBR HAWAII written notification of any errors or omissions within seven calendar days. Otherwise, this report will be deemed an accurate record and directive. Q:\Planning Library\State\CZM\20210111_OP_CZM_CORRESPONDENCE RECORD.docx DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM OFFICE OF PLANNING 235 South Beretania Street, 6th Floor, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 . Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2359, Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 Ref No. P-10520 June 24, 2004 Mr. Gordan Y. Furutani, Field Office Director U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Hawaii State Field Office 500 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 3A Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Furutani: LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR THEODORE E. LIU DIRECTOR STEVE BRETSCHNEIDER DEPUTY DIRECTOR MARY LOU KOBAYASHI ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE OF PLANNING Telephone; (808) 587-2846 Fax: (808)587-2824 Subject: Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program Federal Consistency Requirements for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Grant Programs We have recently revised the Hawaii CZM Program list of federal assistance programs that require CZM federal consistency review by our office. We no longer review any HUD assistance programs, including Community Development Block Grants, and housing programs such as the Public Housing Capital Fund. Applicants for HUD assistance are no longer required to obtain CZM federal consistency approval for HUD assisted activities. Other CZM regulations such as the Special Management Area and Shoreline Setback provisions which are administered by the Counties, are still valid and may apply to HUD assisted projects. Each County Planning Department should be consulted for the applicability of Special Management Area and Shoreline Setback Area requirements. We suggest that the environmental checklist that applicants for HUD assistance must complete be modified to reflect the change in CZM requirements. Thank you for your cooperation in ensuring compliance with Hawaii's CZM Program. If you have any questions, please contact John Nakagawa at 587-2878 or Debra Tom at 587-2840, of our CZM Program. Sincerely, Mary Lou Kobayashi Administrator Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit F Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp. 9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410‐1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Contamination and Toxic Substances (Single Family Properties) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental‐review/site‐contamination 1. Evaluate the site for contamination. Were any on‐site or nearby toxic, hazardous, or radioactive substances found that could affect the health and safety of project occupants or conflict with the intended use of the property? Provide a map or other documentation of absence or presence of contamination1 and explain evaluation of site contamination in the Worksheet below. ☐ No Explain below. Click here to enter text. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. ☒ Yes Describe the findings, including any recognized environmental conditions (RECs), in Worksheet Summary below. Continue to Question 2. ☐ Check here if an ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report was utilized. [Note: HUD regulations does not require an ASTM Phase I ESA report for single family homes] 2. Can adverse environmental impacts be mitigated? ☐ Adverse environmental impacts cannot feasibly be mitigated HUD assistance may not be used for the project at this site. Project cannot proceed at this location. ☒ Yes, adverse environmental impacts can be eliminated through mitigation. Provide all mitigation requirements2 and documents. Continue to Question 3. 1 Utilize EPA’s Enviromapper and state/tribal databases to identify nearby dumps, junk yards, landfills, hazardous waste sites, and industrial sites, including EPA National Priorities List Sites (Superfund sites), CERCLA or state‐ equivalent sites, RCRA Corrective Action sites with release(s) or suspected release(s) requiring clean‐up action and/or further investigation. Additional supporting documentation may include other inspections and reports. 2 Mitigation requirements include all clean‐up actions required by applicable federal, state, tribal, or local law. Additionally, provide, as applicable, the long‐term operations and maintenance plan, Remedial Action Work Plan, and other equivalent documents. 3. Describe how compliance was achieved. Include any of the following that apply: State Voluntary Clean‐up Program, a No Further Action letter, use of engineering controls3, or use of institutional controls4. The purpose of the project is to remove residents from an area with a high risk of volcanic activity. Since residents will be removed from the area, they cannot be impacted by any toxic, hazardous, or radioactive substances that could occur in the project vicinity. The program action also includes removal of any existing structures, including any contaminants or hazardous substances found on the applicant parcels. Assessment of contamination on individual parcels will be reviewed in Tier 2. If a remediation plan or clean‐up program was necessary, which standard does it follow? ☒ Complete removal ☐ Risk‐based corrective action (RBCA) Continue to the Worksheet Summary. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. A review of publicly available information through the Hawai‘i Department of Health's Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (iHEER) web‐based tool, as well as the federal NEPAssist website demonstrate that there are no toxic, hazardous or radioactive substances found on‐site or nearby. All sites found in the iHEER geographic database were found to be in NFA (No Further Action) status, with the exception of one testing location that was reportedly used for gathering HDOH research samples (see enclosure). The latest report from this site is dated to 1994. The NEPAssist Website also returned 13 sites within the project area, including 11 CWA/water discharge sites and 2 RCRA sites within the Kīlauea Voluntary Housing Buyout Program project area. All thirteen of the identified sites were found to be either terminated, expired, or in good standing with no identified violations. These facility reports, along with the limited project action, which is solely to acquire properties and remove previous residents from the project area, ensure that the project is in compliance with HUD’s contamination and toxic substances requirements. See the NEPAssist map and associated facility reports enclosed. For any properties that require structural demolition, further analysis will be included in the Tier 2 review to assess and abate the presence of individual wastewater systems, lead based paint (LBP), asbestos, chemicals, solvents, poisons, oil containers, or any other potential sources of contamination and toxic substances that may be found on applicant parcels. OSHA standards will be followed to protect workers during demolition and removal of structures. 3 Engineering controls are any physical mechanism used to contain or stabilize contamination or ensure the effectiveness of a remedial action. Engineering controls may include, without limitation, caps, covers, dikes, trenches, leachate collection systems, signs, fences, physical access controls, ground water monitoring systems and ground water containment systems including, without limitation, slurry walls and ground water pumping systems. 4 Institutional controls are mechanisms used to limit human activities at or near a contaminated site, or to ensure the effectiveness of the remedial action over time, when contaminants remain at a site at levels above the applicable remediation standard which would allow for unrestricted use of the property. Institutional controls may include structure, land, and natural resource use restrictions, well restriction areas, classification exception areas, deed notices, and declarations of environmental restrictions. Kilauea Recovery NEPAssist © 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 TomTom Water Dischargers (NPDES) Water Dischargers (NPDES) Hazardous Waste (RCRAInfo) Hazardous Waste (RCRAInfo) Air Pollution (ICIS-AIR) Toxic Releases (TRI) Toxic Releases (TRI) Brownfields (ACRES) kilauea recovery project area November 3, 2021 0 4.5 92.25 mi 0 7.5 153.75 km 1:288,895 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110030898697 1/4 Regulatory Information Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): Minor, Permit Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off (HIF002032) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): No Information Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information DIAN BURROUGHS 13-793 MALAMA STREET, PAHOA, HI 96778 FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110030898697 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.459675 Longitude: -154.90005 Locational Data Source: FRS Industries: Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary CWAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection Terminated PermitCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110030898697 2/4 Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description No data records returned Facility Industrial Effluent Guidelines Identifier Effluent Guideline (40 CFR Part) Effluent Guideline Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description No data records returned Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Known Data Problems Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110030898697 N 19.459675 -154.90005 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF002032 Minor: General Permit Covered Facility Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off Construction Stormwater 11/06/2007 N 19.458596 -154.901271 Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110030898697 DIAN BURROUGHS 13-793 MALAMA STREET, PAHOA, HI 96778 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF002032 DIAN BURROUGHS 13-793 MALAMA STREET, PAHOA, HI 96778 Hawaii County Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation) Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12) Data Last Refreshed CWA HIF002032 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ CWA (Source ID: HIF002032)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Facility-Level Status TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit Quarterly Noncompliance Report History Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110030898697 3/4 Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- NATA Diesel PM 58.5 NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 61.6 Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD (Reach Address Database)) WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name (RAD (Reach Address Database)) State Water Body Name (ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System)) Beach Closures Within Last Year Beach Closures Within Last Two Years Pollutants Potentially Related to Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)- listed Aquatic Species? 200100000601 Kaimu Beach No No Yes Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use HI 2020 HI707059 Ahalanui Pond (Puala'a) Impaired - 303(d) Listed TURBIDITY Not Supporting Fully Supporting HI 2020 HI122881 Kapoho Tidepools (Vacationland) Impaired - 303(d) Listed TURBIDITY Not Supporting Fully Supporting HI 2020 HI316864 Pohoiki Beach Impaired - 303(d) Listed TURBIDITY Not Supporting Fully Supporting Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area? Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s) Within Maintenance Status Area? Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. nt ies in italics a e not counted as info mal enfo cement actions in policies pe taining to enfo cement esponse tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110030898697 4/4 Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 60.8 Traffic Proximity 59.6 Lead Paint Indicator 66.4 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 59.3 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 67.9 Hazardous Waste Proximity 65.1 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 3,202 Population Density 119/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 42% Households in Area 1,152 Housing Units in Area 1,576 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 2,503 Households on Public Assistance 60 Persons With Low Income 1,139 Percent With Low Income 46% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.459675 Center Longitude -154.90005 Land Area 98% Water Area 2% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 319 (27.69%) $15,000 - $25,000 157 (13.63%) $25,000 - $50,000 254 (22.05%) $50,000 - $75,000 194 (16.84%) Greater than $75,000 228 (19.79%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 202 (6%) Minors 17 years and younger 636 (20%) Adults 18 years and older 2,566 (80%) Seniors 65 years and older 380 (12%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 1,680 (52%) African-American 30 (1%) Hispanic-Origin 331 (10%) Asian/Pacific Islander 713 (22%) American Indian 44 (1%) Other/Multiracial 736 (23%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 24 (1.19%) 9th through 12th Grade 116 (5.76%) High School Diploma 585 (29.06%) Some College/2-year 612 (30.4%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 677 (33.63%) This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF002032&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…1/6 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro> CONTACTUS <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|Topic Searches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>|SystemDataSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|AbouttheData <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>| Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets> |Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv-index-mobile-app>| OtherDatasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> ICIS DetailedReports ThispagewascreatedonNOV-03-2021 ResultsarebasedondataextractedonSEP-05-2021 Note:Youareviewingresultsfromthemodernizeddatasystem,IntegratedCompliance InformationSystem(ICIS).ThestatereportingthisdatatoEPApreviouslyreportedthedatatoa historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS).Use the followingbutton to view the historicdatafromPCS.RunaPCSSearch Facility FACILITYNAME(1)DIAN BURROUGHS NPDES HIF002032 AnoÓicial website of the United States government Here is how you knoww Menu Search EPA.gov 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF002032&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…2/6 STREET 1 13-793 MALAMA STREET SIC CODE CITY MAJOR / MINOR COUNTY NAME Hawaii TYPE OF OWNERSHIP STATE HI ACTIVITY STATUS Terminated ZIP CODE 96778 INACTIVE DATE REGION Region 9 TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED General Permit Covered Facility LATITUDE 19.458596 ORIGINAL PERMIT ISSUE DATE 12-APR-2007 LONGITUDE -154.901271 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 12-APR-2007 LAT/LON CODE OF ACCURACY 30 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 06-NOV-2007 LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE LAT/LON DATUM FLOW RECEIVING WATERS FEDERAL GRANT IND PRETREATMENT CODE SLUDGE CLASS FAC IND NON-POTW MAILING NAME SLUDGE RELATED PERMIT NUM MAILING STREET (1) ANNUAL DRY SLUDGE PROD 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF002032&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…3/6 MAILING STREET (2) MAILING CITY MAILING STATE MAILING ZIP CODE COGNIZANT OFFICIAL Paul Nash, P.E.COGNIZANT OFFICIAL TEL 8089657350 Activity FACILITY NAME (1)DIAN BURROUGHS NPDES HIF002032 ACTIVITY NAME ACTIVITY TYPE DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DATE ACTUAL BEGIN DATE ACTUAL END DATE Permit Active 09-MAY- 2007 Contacts FACILITY NAME (1)DIAN BURROUGHS NPDES HIF002032 No Contacts Found. Permit Tracking FACILITY NAME (1)DIAN BURROUGHS NPDES HIF002032 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF002032&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…4/6 PERMIT ISSUED BY Department of Health - Clean Water Branch ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE 12-APR- 2007 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 12-APR-2007 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 06-NOV- 2007 EFFECTIVE DATE 12-APR-2007 RETIREMENT DATE Permit Tracking Events: EVENT DESCRIPTION EVENT DATE Permit Termination 22-OCT-2012 Permit Expiration 06-NOV-2007 Permit Issued 12-APR-2007 Permit EÓective 12-APR-2007 Inspections FACILITY NAME (1)DIAN BURROUGHS NPDES HIF002032 No Inspections Found. Outfalls/Pipe Schedules FACILITY NAME (1)DIAN BURROUGHS NPDES HIF002032 OUTFALL TYPE PIPE NUMBER ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT DESIGNATOR LATITUDE LONGITUDE 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF002032&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…5/6 LAT/LON ACCURACY LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE LAT/LON DATUM INACTIVE DATE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE INIT DMR DUE DATE SUBMISSION UNITS PIPE DESCRIPTION UNITS IN SUBM. PERIOD INIT REPORTING DATE REPORTING UNITS UNITS IN REPORTING PERIOD DMR COMMENT Limits Report FACILITY NAME (1)DIAN BURROUGHS NPDES HIF002032 PIPE NUMBER PIPE DESCRIPTION REPORT DESIGNATOR DMR COMMENT LIMIT SET TYPE No ICIS Limits Report Found. Measurements and Violations FACILITY NAME (1)DIAN BURROUGHS NPDES HIF002032 No ICIS Measurements Information Found. Compliance Schedules and Violations 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF002032&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…6/6 FACILITY NAME (1)DIAN BURROUGHS NPDES HIF002032 No Compliance Schedules Found. Pretreatment Inspections/Audits FACILITY NAME (1)DIAN BURROUGHS NPDES HIF002032 No ICIS Pretreatment Inspections Found. Pretreatment Performance Summary FACILITY NAME (1)DIAN BURROUGHS NPDES HIF002032 No ICIS Pretreatment Performance Summary Information Found. Note: You are viewing results from the modernized data system, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The state reporting this data to EPA previously reported the data to a historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS). Use the following button to view the historic data from PCS. Run a PCS Search Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110033199759 1/4 Regulatory Information Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): Minor, Permit Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off (HIF002130) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): No Information Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION PAHOA, HAWAII, PAHOA, HI 96778 FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110033199759 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.456998 Longitude: -154.940691 Locational Data Source: NPDES Industries: Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary CWAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection Terminated PermitCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110033199759 2/4 Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description No data records returned Facility Industrial Effluent Guidelines Identifier Effluent Guideline (40 CFR Part) Effluent Guideline Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description No data records returned Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Known Data Problems Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110033199759 N 19.456998 -154.940691 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF002130 Minor: General Permit Covered Facility Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off Construction Stormwater 10/21/2012 N 19.456998 -154.940691 Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110033199759 HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION PAHOA, HAWAII, PAHOA, HI 96778 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF002130 HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION PAHOA, HAWAII, PAHOA, HI 96778 Hawaii County Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation) Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12) Data Last Refreshed CWA HIF002130 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ CWA (Source ID: HIF002130)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Facility-Level Status Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Quarterly Noncompliance Report History Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110033199759 3/4 Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- NATA Diesel PM 58.5 NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 61.6 NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 60.8 Traffic Proximity 59.6 Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD (Reach Address Database)) WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name (RAD (Reach Address Database)) State Water Body Name (ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System)) Beach Closures Within Last Year Beach Closures Within Last Two Years Pollutants Potentially Related to Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)- listed Aquatic Species? 200100000503 Puna Forest Reserve No No Yes Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use No data records returned Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area?Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s)Within Maintenance Status Area?Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works)Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. nt ies in italics a e not counted as info mal enfo cement actions in policies pe taining to enfo cement esponse tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110033199759 4/4 Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Lead Paint Indicator 66.4 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 59.3 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 67.9 Hazardous Waste Proximity 65.1 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 3,068 Population Density 108/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 41% Households in Area 832 Housing Units in Area 1,450 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 1,714 Households on Public Assistance 43 Persons With Low Income 773 Percent With Low Income 45% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.456998 Center Longitude -154.940691 Land Area 100% Water Area 0% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 229 (27.49%) $15,000 - $25,000 117 (14.05%) $25,000 - $50,000 205 (24.61%) $50,000 - $75,000 149 (17.89%) Greater than $75,000 133 (15.97%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 200 (7%) Minors 17 years and younger 612 (20%) Adults 18 years and older 2,456 (80%) Seniors 65 years and older 426 (14%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 1,408 (46%) African-American 31 (1%) Hispanic-Origin 256 (8%) Asian/Pacific Islander 848 (28%) American Indian 47 (2%) Other/Multiracial 734 (24%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 14 (.99%) 9th through 12th Grade 63 (4.44%) High School Diploma 407 (28.7%) Some College/2-year 426 (30.04%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 510 (35.97%) This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF002130&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…1/6 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro> CONTACTUS <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|Topic Searches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>|SystemDataSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|AbouttheData <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>| Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets> |Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv-index-mobile-app>| OtherDatasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> ICIS DetailedReports ThispagewascreatedonNOV-03-2021 ResultsarebasedondataextractedonSEP-05-2021 Note:Youareviewingresultsfromthemodernizeddatasystem,IntegratedCompliance InformationSystem(ICIS).ThestatereportingthisdatatoEPApreviouslyreportedthedatatoa historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS).Use the followingbutton to view the historicdatafromPCS.RunaPCSSearch Facility FACILITYNAME(1)HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION NPDES HIF002130 STREET1 PAHOA,HAWAII SICCODE AnoÓicial website of the United States government Here is how you knoww Menu Search EPA.gov 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF002130&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…2/6 CITY MAJOR / MINOR COUNTY NAME Hawaii TYPE OF OWNERSHIP STATE HI ACTIVITY STATUS Terminated ZIP CODE 96778 INACTIVE DATE REGION Region 9 TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED General Permit Covered Facility LATITUDE 19.456998 ORIGINAL PERMIT ISSUE DATE 26-OCT-2007 LONGITUDE -154.940691 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 26-OCT-2007 LAT/LON CODE OF ACCURACY PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 21-OCT-2012 LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE LAT/LON DATUM FLOW RECEIVING WATERS FEDERAL GRANT IND PRETREATMENT CODE SLUDGE CLASS FAC IND NON-POTW MAILING NAME SLUDGE RELATED PERMIT NUM MAILING STREET (1) ANNUAL DRY SLUDGE PROD MAILING STREET (2) 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF002130&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…3/6 MAILING CITY MAILING STATE MAILING ZIP CODE COGNIZANT OFFICIAL Joseph Hellstern COGNIZANT OFFICIAL TEL 8089650696 Activity FACILITY NAME (1)HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION NPDES HIF002130 ACTIVITY NAME ACTIVITY TYPE DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DATE ACTUAL BEGIN DATE ACTUAL END DATE Permit Active 07-JAN- 2008 Contacts FACILITY NAME (1)HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION NPDES HIF002130 No Contacts Found. Permit Tracking FACILITY NAME (1)HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION NPDES HIF002130 PERMIT ISSUED BY Department of Health - Clean Water Branch ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE 26-OCT- 2007 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF002130&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…4/6 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 26-OCT-2007 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 21-OCT- 2012 EFFECTIVE DATE 26-OCT-2007 RETIREMENT DATE Permit Tracking Events: EVENT DESCRIPTION EVENT DATE Permit Termination 22-OCT-2012 Permit Expiration 21-OCT-2012 Permit EÓective 26-OCT-2007 Permit Issued 26-OCT-2007 Inspections FACILITY NAME (1)HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION NPDES HIF002130 No Inspections Found. Outfalls/Pipe Schedules FACILITY NAME (1)HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION NPDES HIF002130 OUTFALL TYPE PIPE NUMBER ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT DESIGNATOR LATITUDE LONGITUDE LAT/LON ACCURACY LAT/LON METHOD 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF002130&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…5/6 LAT/LON SCALE LAT/LON DATUM INACTIVE DATE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE INIT DMR DUE DATE SUBMISSION UNITS PIPE DESCRIPTION UNITS IN SUBM. PERIOD INIT REPORTING DATE REPORTING UNITS UNITS IN REPORTING PERIOD DMR COMMENT Limits Report FACILITY NAME (1)HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION NPDES HIF002130 PIPE NUMBER PIPE DESCRIPTION REPORT DESIGNATOR DMR COMMENT LIMIT SET TYPE No ICIS Limits Report Found. Measurements and Violations FACILITY NAME (1)HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION NPDES HIF002130 No ICIS Measurements Information Found. Compliance Schedules and Violations 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF002130&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…6/6 FACILITY NAME (1)HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION NPDES HIF002130 No Compliance Schedules Found. Pretreatment Inspections/Audits FACILITY NAME (1)HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION NPDES HIF002130 No ICIS Pretreatment Inspections Found. Pretreatment Performance Summary FACILITY NAME (1)HELLSTERN SUBDIVISION NPDES HIF002130 No ICIS Pretreatment Performance Summary Information Found. Note: You are viewing results from the modernized data system, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The state reporting this data to EPA previously reported the data to a historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS). Use the following button to view the historic data from PCS. Run a PCS Search Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110069530975 1/4 Regulatory Information Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): Minor, Permit Effective (HIS000497) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): No Information Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS HAWAIIAN SHORES SUBDIVISION, PAHOA, HI 96778 FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110069530975 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.557421 Longitude: -154.884278 Locational Data Source: NPDES Industries: Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary CWAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection No Violation IdentifiedCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110069530975 2/4 Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description No data records returned Facility Industrial Effluent Guidelines Identifier Effluent Guideline (40 CFR Part) Effluent Guideline Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description No data records returned Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Known Data Problems Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110069530975 N 19.557421 -154.884278 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIS000497 Minor: NPDES Individual Permit Effective 02/23/2022 N 19.557421 -154.884278 Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110069530975 HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS HAWAIIAN SHORES SUBDIVISION, PAHOA, HI 96778 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIS000497 HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS HAWAIIAN SHORES SUBDIVISION, PAHOA, HI 96778 Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation) Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12) Data Last Refreshed CWA HIS000497 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ CWA (Source ID: HIS000497)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Facility-Level Status No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified Undetermined Quarterly Noncompliance Report History Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. St t t S t S ID T f A ti L d A D t 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110069530975 3/4 Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- NATA Diesel PM 60.1 Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD(Reach Address Database)) WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name(RAD (Reach Address Database)) State Water Body Name (ICIS (IntegratedCompliance Information System)) Beach ClosuresWithin Last Year Beach Closures WithinLast Two Years Pollutants Potentially Relatedto Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)-listed Aquatic Species? No data records returned Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use No data records returned Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area? Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s) Within Maintenance Status Area? Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency DateStatute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110069530975 4/4 Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 72.6 NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 69.3 Traffic Proximity 62.4 Lead Paint Indicator 76 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 63 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 74.6 Hazardous Waste Proximity 73.2 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 3,110 Population Density 199/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 61% Households in Area 861 Housing Units in Area 1,377 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 2,434 Households on Public Assistance 87 Persons With Low Income 1,311 Percent With Low Income 54% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.557421 Center Longitude -154.884278 Land Area 54% Water Area 46% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 107 (12.43%) $15,000 - $25,000 123 (14.29%) $25,000 - $50,000 272 (31.59%) $50,000 - $75,000 145 (16.84%) Greater than $75,000 214 (24.85%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 224 (7%) Minors 17 years and younger 837 (27%) Adults 18 years and older 2,273 (73%) Seniors 65 years and older 405 (13%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 1,145 (37%) African-American 28 (1%) Hispanic-Origin 550 (18%) Asian/Pacific Islander 841 (27%) American Indian 31 (1%) Other/Multiracial 1,066 (34%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 15 (.87%) 9th through 12th Grade 100 (5.77%) High School Diploma 370 (21.36%) Some College/2-year 850 (49.08%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 396 (22.86%) This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIS000497&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…1/6 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro> CONTACTUS <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|TopicSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>|SystemDataSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|About theData <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>|Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets>|Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv- index-mobile-app>|OtherDatasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> ICIS DetailedReports ThispagewascreatedonNOV-03-2021 ResultsarebasedondataextractedonSEP-05-2021 Note:Youareviewingresultsfromthemodernizeddatasystem,IntegratedComplianceInformationSystem (ICIS).The statereportingthisdatatoEPApreviouslyreportedthedatatoa historicdata system,Permit Compliance System (PCS).Use the following button toview the historic data from PCS.Runa PCSSearch Facility FACILITYNAME (1) HAWAIIANSHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATERSYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS NPDES HIS000497 STREET1 HAWAIIANSHORES SUBDIVISION SICCODE CITY MAJOR /MINOR COUNTYNAME TYPEOF OWNERSHIP Privately Owned Facility STATE HI ACTIVITY STATUS EÓective AnoÓicial website of the United States government Hereishowyouknoww Menu SearchEPA.gov 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIS000497&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…2/6 ZIP CODE 96778 INACTIVE DATE REGION Region 9 TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED NPDES Individual Permit LATITUDE 19.557421 ORIGINAL PERMIT ISSUE DATE 24-FEB-2017 LONGITUDE -154.884278 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 24-FEB-2017 LAT/LON CODE OF ACCURACY PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 23-FEB-2022 LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE LAT/LON DATUM FLOW RECEIVING WATERS PACIFIC OCEAN FEDERAL GRANT IND PRETREATMENT CODE SLUDGE CLASS FAC IND NON-POTW MAILING NAME SLUDGE RELATED PERMIT NUM MAILING STREET (1) ANNUAL DRY SLUDGE PROD MAILING STREET (2) MAILING CITY MAILING STATE MAILING ZIP CODE COGNIZANT OFFICIAL COGNIZANT OFFICIAL TEL 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIS000497&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…3/6 Activity FACILITY NAME (1) HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS NPDES HIS000497 ACTIVITY NAME ACTIVITY TYPE DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DATE ACTUAL BEGIN DATE ACTUAL END DATE Permit Active 27-FEB-2017 Contacts FACILITY NAME (1) HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS NPDES HIS000497 FIRST NAME LAST NAME ORGANIZATION FORMAL NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER TELEPHONE EXTENSION NUMBER PHONE TYPE DESCRIPTION AFFILIATION TYPE DESCRIPTION Steve Bailey Hawaiian Shores Community Association Permittee Permit Tracking FACILITY NAME (1) HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS NPDES HIS000497 PERMIT ISSUED BY Hawaii Dept of Health, Clean Water Branch ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE 24-FEB- 2017 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 24-FEB-2017 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 23-FEB- 2022 EFFECTIVE DATE 24-FEB-2017 RETIREMENT DATE Permit Tracking Events: EVENT DESCRIPTION EVENT DATE 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIS000497&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…4/6 Permit Expiration 23-FEB-2022 Permit EÓective 24-FEB-2017 Permit Issued 24-FEB-2017 Application/NOI Complete 21-FEB-2017 Application/NOI Received 12-AUG-2016 Inspections FACILITY NAME (1) HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS NPDES HIS000497 No Inspections Found. Outfalls/Pipe Schedules FACILITY NAME (1) HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS NPDES HIS000497 OUTFALL TYPE External Outfall PIPE NUMBER 001 ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT DESIGNATOR LATITUDE 19.557421 LONGITUDE -154.884278 LAT/LON ACCURACY LAT/LON METHOD GPS- Unspecified LAT/LON SCALE LAT/LON DATUM WGS84 INACTIVE DATE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE INIT DMR DUE DATE SUBMISSION UNITS PIPE DESCRIPTION Discharge Point 1 UNITS IN SUBM. PERIOD INIT REPORTING DATE REPORTING UNITS 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIS000497&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…5/6 UNITS IN REPORTING PERIOD DMR COMMENT Limits Report FACILITY NAME (1) HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS NPDES HIS000497 PIPE NUMBER 001 PIPE DESCRIPTION Discharge Point 1 REPORT DESIGNATOR DMR COMMENT LIMIT SET TYPE No ICIS Limits Report Found. Measurements and Violations FACILITY NAME (1) HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS NPDES HIS000497 No ICIS Measurements Information Found. Compliance Schedules and Violations FACILITY NAME (1) HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS NPDES HIS000497 No Compliance Schedules Found. Pretreatment Inspections/Audits FACILITY NAME (1) HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS NPDES HIS000497 No ICIS Pretreatment Inspections Found. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIS000497&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…6/6 Pretreatment Performance Summary FACILITY NAME (1) HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS NPDES HIS000497 No ICIS Pretreatment Performance Summary Information Found. Note: You are viewing results from the modernized data system, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The state reporting this data to EPA previously reported the data to a historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS). Use the following button to view the historic data from PCS. Run a PCS Search Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110024877855 1/4 Regulatory Information Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): Minor, Permit Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off (HIF001587) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): No Information Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT, KALAPANA ROAD, PUNA, HI 00000 FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110024877855 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.367795 Longitude: -154.9648 Locational Data Source: NPDES Industries: Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary CWAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection Terminated PermitCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110024877855 2/4 Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description ICIS-NPDES HIF001587 9999 Nonclassifiable Establishments NPDES HIF001587 9999 Nonclassifiable Establishments Facility Industrial Effluent Guidelines Identifier Effluent Guideline (40 CFR Part)Effluent Guideline Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description No data records returned Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Known Data Problems Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110024877855 N 19.367795 -154.9648 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF001587 Minor: General Permit Covered Facility Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off 12/31/2009 N 19.367795 -154.9648 Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110024877855 KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT,KALAPANA ROAD, PUNA, HI 00000 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF001587 KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT,KALAPANA ROAD, PUNA, HI 00000 Hawaii County Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation)Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12)Data Last Refreshed CWA HIF001587 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ CWA (Source ID: HIF001587)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Facility-Level Status Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Quarterly Noncompliance Report History Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110024877855 3/4 Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- NATA Diesel PM 58.5 NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 61.6 NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 60.8 Traffic Proximity 59.6 Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD (Reach Address Database)) WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name (RAD (Reach Address Database)) State Water Body Name (ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System)) Beach Closures Within Last Year Beach Closures Within Last Two Years Pollutants Potentially Related to Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)- listed Aquatic Species? 200100000601 Kaimu Beach No No Yes Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use HI 2020 HI542822 Kalapana Beach (new) (Harry K. Brown Beach Co. Pk.)Good Not Assessed Fully Supporting Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area?Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s)Within Maintenance Status Area?Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works)Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. nt ies in italics a e not counted as info mal enfo cement actions in policies pe taining to enfo cement esponse tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110024877855 4/4 Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Lead Paint Indicator 66.4 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 59.3 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 67.9 Hazardous Waste Proximity 65.1 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 502 Population Density 29/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 40% Households in Area 310 Housing Units in Area 311 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 614 Households on Public Assistance 18 Persons With Low Income 277 Percent With Low Income 45% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.367795 Center Longitude -154.9648 Land Area 66% Water Area 34% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 85 (27.42%) $15,000 - $25,000 45 (14.52%) $25,000 - $50,000 82 (26.45%) $50,000 - $75,000 53 (17.1%) Greater than $75,000 45 (14.52%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 30 (6%) Minors 17 years and younger 96 (19%) Adults 18 years and older 406 (81%) Seniors 65 years and older 51 (10%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 345 (69%) African-American 6 (1%) Hispanic-Origin 45 (9%) Asian/Pacific Islander 80 (16%) American Indian 3 (1%) Other/Multiracial 68 (14%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 3 (.58%) 9th through 12th Grade 19 (3.68%) High School Diploma 145 (28.1%) Some College/2-year 150 (29.07%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 198 (38.37%) This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001587&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…1/7 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro> CONTACTUS <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|Topic Searches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>|SystemDataSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|AbouttheData <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>| Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets> |Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv-index-mobile-app>| OtherDatasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> ICIS DetailedReports ThispagewascreatedonNOV-03-2021 ResultsarebasedondataextractedonSEP-05-2021 Note:Youareviewingresultsfromthemodernizeddatasystem,IntegratedCompliance InformationSystem(ICIS).ThestatereportingthisdatatoEPApreviouslyreportedthedatatoa historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS).Use the followingbutton to view the historicdatafromPCS.RunaPCSSearch Facility FACILITYNAME (1) KALAPANAROAD REALIGNMENT,NPDES HIF001587 STREET1 KALAPANAROAD SICCODE 9999=Nonclassifiable Establishments AnoÓicial website of the United States government Here is how you knoww Menu Search EPA.gov 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001587&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…2/7 CITY MAJOR / MINOR COUNTY NAME Hawaii TYPE OF OWNERSHIP STATE HI ACTIVITY STATUS Terminated ZIP CODE 00000 INACTIVE DATE REGION Region 9 TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED General Permit Covered Facility LATITUDE 19.367795 ORIGINAL PERMIT ISSUE DATE 01-JAN-2005 LONGITUDE -154.9648 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 01-JAN-2005 LAT/LON CODE OF ACCURACY 30 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 31-DEC-2009 LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE LAT/LON DATUM FLOW RECEIVING WATERS FEDERAL GRANT IND N PRETREATMENT CODE SLUDGE CLASS FAC IND NON-POTW MAILING NAME SLUDGE RELATED PERMIT NUM MAILING STREET (1) ANNUAL DRY SLUDGE PROD 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001587&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…3/7 MAILING STREET (2) MAILING CITY MAILING STATE MAILING ZIP CODE COGNIZANT OFFICIAL BEN ISHII COGNIZANT OFFICIAL TEL 8089618423 Activity FACILITY NAME (1)KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT,NPDES HIF001587 ACTIVITY NAME ACTIVITY TYPE DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DATE ACTUAL BEGIN DATE ACTUAL END DATE NPDES Permit (CWA) Permit Contacts FACILITY NAME (1)KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT,NPDES HIF001587 No Contacts Found. Permit Tracking 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001587&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…4/7 FACILITY NAME (1) KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT,NPDES HIF001587 PERMIT ISSUED BY ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE 01-JAN- 2005 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 01-JAN-2005 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 31-DEC- 2009 EFFECTIVE DATE 01-JAN-2005 RETIREMENT DATE Permit Tracking Events: EVENT DESCRIPTION EVENT DATE Permit Expiration 31-DEC-2009 Permit Termination 05-APR-2007 Permit EÓective 01-JAN-2005 Permit Issued 01-JAN-2005 Inspections FACILITY NAME (1)KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT,NPDES HIF001587 No Inspections Found. Outfalls/Pipe Schedules FACILITY NAME (1)KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT,NPDES HIF001587 OUTFALL TYPE PIPE NUMBER ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT DESIGNATOR 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001587&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…5/7 LATITUDE LONGITUDE LAT/LON ACCURACY LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE LAT/LON DATUM INACTIVE DATE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE INIT DMR DUE DATE SUBMISSION UNITS PIPE DESCRIPTION UNITS IN SUBM. PERIOD INIT REPORTING DATE REPORTING UNITS UNITS IN REPORTING PERIOD DMR COMMENT Limits Report FACILITY NAME (1) KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT,NPDES HIF001587 PIPE NUMBER PIPE DESCRIPTION REPORT DESIGNATOR DMR COMMENT LIMIT SET TYPE No ICIS Limits Report Found. Measurements and Violations FACILITY NAME (1)KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT,NPDES HIF001587 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001587&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…6/7 No ICIS Measurements Information Found. Compliance Schedules and Violations FACILITY NAME (1)KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT,NPDES HIF001587 No Compliance Schedules Found. Pretreatment Inspections/Audits FACILITY NAME (1)KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT,NPDES HIF001587 No ICIS Pretreatment Inspections Found. Pretreatment Performance Summary FACILITY NAME (1)KALAPANA ROAD REALIGNMENT,NPDES HIF001587 No ICIS Pretreatment Performance Summary Information Found. Note: You are viewing results from the modernized data system, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The state reporting this data to EPA previously reported the data to a historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS). Use the following button to view the historic data from PCS. Run a PCS Search Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001587&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…7/7 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110039172132 1/4 Regulatory Information Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): Minor, Permit Expired (HIF005929), Minor, Permit Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off (HIF005916) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): No Information Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS KAPALAMA CAMPUS OFF OF BISHOP D, HONOLULU, HI 96817 FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110039172132 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.41303 Longitude: -154.952071 Locational Data Source: HI-EHW Industries: Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary CWAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection No Violation IdentifiedCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110039172132 2/4 Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description No data records returned Facility Industrial Effluent Guidelines Identifier Effluent Guideline (40 CFR Part) Effluent Guideline Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description No data records returned Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Known Data Problems Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110039172132 N 19.41303 -154.952071 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF005929 Minor: General Permit Covered Facility Expired 10/21/2012 N ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF005916 Minor: General Permit Covered Facility Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off 10/21/2012 N Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110039172132 KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS KAPALAMA CAMPUS OFF OF BISHOP D, HONOLULU, HI 96817 Honolulu County ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF005929 KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS KAPALAMA CAMPUS OFF OF BISHOP D, HONOLULU, HI 96817-0000 Honolulu County ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF005916 KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS KAPALAMA CAMPUS OFF OF BISHOP D, HONOLULU, HI 96817-0000 Honolulu County Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation) Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12) Data Last Refreshed CWA HIF005929 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 CWA HIF005916 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ CWA (Source ID: HIF005929)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Facility-Level Status No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified Undetermined Quarterly NoncomplianceReport History Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110039172132 3/4 Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ CWA (Source ID: HIF005916)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Facility-Level Status TerminatedPermit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit TerminatedPermit Quarterly Noncompliance Report History Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD(Reach Address Database)) WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name(RAD (Reach Address Database)) State Water Body Name (ICIS (IntegratedCompliance Information System)) Beach ClosuresWithin Last Year Beach Closures WithinLast Two Years Pollutants Potentially Relatedto Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)-listed Aquatic Species? No data records returned Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use No data records returned Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area? Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s) Within Maintenance Status Area? Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110039172132 4/4 Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- NATA Diesel PM 58.5 NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 61.6 NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 60.8 Traffic Proximity 59.6 Lead Paint Indicator 66.4 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 59.3 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 67.9 Hazardous Waste Proximity 65.1 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 1,113 Population Density 47/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 39% Households in Area 715 Housing Units in Area 695 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 1,401 Households on Public Assistance 35 Persons With Low Income 628 Percent With Low Income 45% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.41303 Center Longitude -154.952071 Land Area 94% Water Area 6% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 198 (27.73%) $15,000 - $25,000 102 (14.29%) $25,000 - $50,000 184 (25.77%) $50,000 - $75,000 124 (17.37%) Greater than $75,000 106 (14.85%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 61 (5%) Minors 17 years and younger 191 (17%) Adults 18 years and older 923 (83%) Seniors 65 years and older 109 (10%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 793 (71%) African-American 13 (1%) Hispanic-Origin 75 (7%) Asian/Pacific Islander 124 (11%) American Indian 14 (1%) Other/Multiracial 169 (15%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 8 (.67%) 9th through 12th Grade 46 (3.87%) High School Diploma 325 (27.31%) Some College/2-year 350 (29.41%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 461 (38.74%) Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005916&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…1/7 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro> CONTACTUS <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|Topic Searches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>|SystemDataSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|AbouttheData <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>| Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets> |Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv-index-mobile-app>| OtherDatasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> ICIS DetailedReports ThispagewascreatedonNOV-03-2021 Resultsarebasedon dataextractedon SEP-05-2021 Note:Youareviewingresultsfromthemodernizeddatasystem,IntegratedCompliance InformationSystem(ICIS).ThestatereportingthisdatatoEPApreviouslyreportedthedatatoa historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS).Use the following buttonto view the historicdatafromPCS.RunaPCSSearch Facility FACILITYNAME (1) KAMEHAMEHASCHOOLS - KAPALAMACAMPUS, EMERGENCYWATERLINE NPDES HIF005916 AnoÓicial website of the United States government Here is how you knoww Menu Search EPA.gov 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005916&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…2/7 STREET 1 KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS KAPALAMA CAMPUS OFF OF BISHOP D SIC CODE CITY MAJOR / MINOR COUNTY NAME Honolulu TYPE OF OWNERSHIP STATE HI ACTIVITY STATUS Terminated ZIP CODE 96817-0000 INACTIVE DATE REGION Region 9 TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED General Permit Covered Facility LATITUDE ORIGINAL PERMIT ISSUE DATE 10-JUN-2009 LONGITUDE PERMIT ISSUED DATE 10-JUN-2009 LAT/LON CODE OF ACCURACY PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 21-OCT-2012 LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE LAT/LON DATUM FLOW 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005916&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…3/7 RECEIVING WATERS FEDERAL GRANT IND PRETREATMENT CODE SLUDGE CLASS FAC IND NON-POTW MAILING NAME SLUDGE RELATED PERMIT NUM MAILING STREET (1) ANNUAL DRY SLUDGE PROD MAILING STREET (2) MAILING CITY MAILING STATE MAILING ZIP CODE COGNIZANT OFFICIAL Ivan Sakamoto COGNIZANT OFFICIAL TEL 8088428565 Activity FACILITY NAME (1) KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE NPDES HIF005916 ACTIVITY NAME ACTIVITY TYPE DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DATE ACTUAL BEGIN DATE ACTUAL END DATE 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005916&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…4/7 Permit Active 22-JUN- 2009 Contacts FACILITY NAME (1) KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE NPDES HIF005916 No Contacts Found. Permit Tracking FACILITY NAME (1) KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE NPDES HIF005916 PERMIT ISSUED BY State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean Water Branch ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE 10-JUN- 2009 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 10-JUN-2009 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 21-OCT- 2012 EFFECTIVE DATE 10-JUN-2009 RETIREMENT DATE Permit Tracking Events: EVENT DESCRIPTION EVENT DATE Permit Termination 22-OCT-2012 Permit Expiration 21-OCT-2012 Permit Issued 10-JUN-2009 Permit EÓective 10-JUN-2009 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005916&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…5/7 Inspections FACILITY NAME (1) KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE NPDES HIF005916 No Inspections Found. Outfalls/Pipe Schedules FACILITY NAME (1) KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE NPDES HIF005916 OUTFALL TYPE PIPE NUMBER ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT DESIGNATOR LATITUDE LONGITUDE LAT/LON ACCURACY LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE LAT/LON DATUM INACTIVE DATE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE INIT DMR DUE DATE SUBMISSION UNITS PIPE DESCRIPTION UNITS IN SUBM. PERIOD 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005916&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…6/7 INIT REPORTING DATE REPORTING UNITS UNITS IN REPORTING PERIOD DMR COMMENT Limits Report FACILITY NAME (1) KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE NPDES HIF005916 PIPE NUMBER PIPE DESCRIPTION REPORT DESIGNATOR DMR COMMENT LIMIT SET TYPE No ICIS Limits Report Found. Measurements and Violations FACILITY NAME (1) KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE NPDES HIF005916 No ICIS Measurements Information Found. Compliance Schedules and Violations FACILITY NAME (1) KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE NPDES HIF005916 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005916&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…7/7 No Compliance Schedules Found. Pretreatment Inspections/Audits FACILITY NAME (1) KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE NPDES HIF005916 No ICIS Pretreatment Inspections Found. Pretreatment Performance Summary FACILITY NAME (1) KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS - KAPALAMA CAMPUS, EMERGENCY WATERLINE NPDES HIF005916 No ICIS Pretreatment Performance Summary Information Found. Note: You are viewing results from the modernized data system, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The state reporting this data to EPA previously reported the data to a historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS). Use the following button to view the historic data from PCS. Run a PCS Search Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110070544528 1/4 Regulatory Information Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): Minor, Permit Effective (HIF012325) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): No Information Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION UNKNOWN, UNKNOWN, HI 00000 FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110070544528 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.459917 Longitude: -154.838737 Locational Data Source: NPDES Industries: Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary CWAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection No Violation IdentifiedCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110070544528 2/4 Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description No data records returned Facility Industrial Effluent Guidelines Identifier Effluent Guideline (40 CFR Part) Effluent Guideline Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description No data records returned Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Known Data Problems Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110070544528 N 19.459917 -154.838737 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF012325 Minor: General Permit Covered Facility Effective 02/08/2024 N 19.518419 -154.807543 Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110070544528 LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION UNKNOWN, UNKNOWN, HI 00000 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF012325 LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION UNKNOWN, UNKNOWN, HI 00000 Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation) Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12) Data Last Refreshed CWA HIF012325 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ CWA (Source ID: HIF012325)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Facility-Level Status No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified No ViolationIdentified Undetermined Quarterly Noncompliance Report History Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110070544528 3/4 Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD (Reach Address Database)) WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name (RAD (Reach Address Database)) State Water Body Name (ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System)) Beach Closures Within Last Year Beach Closures Within Last Two Years Pollutants Potentially Related to Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)- listed Aquatic Species? 200100000601 Kaimu Beach PACIFIC OCEAN No No Yes Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use HI 2020 HI707059 Ahalanui Pond (Puala'a) Impaired - 303(d) Listed TURBIDITY Not Supporting Fully Supporting HI 2020 HI391407 Kapoho Bay Impaired - 303(d) Listed TURBIDITY Not Supporting Fully Supporting HI 2020 HI122881 Kapoho Tidepools (Vacationland) Impaired - 303(d) Listed TURBIDITY Not Supporting Fully Supporting HI 2020 HI316864 Pohoiki Beach Impaired - 303(d) Listed TURBIDITY Not Supporting Fully Supporting Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area? Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s) Within Maintenance Status Area? Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. nt ies in italics a e not counted as info mal enfo cement actions in policies pe taining to enfo cement esponse tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110070544528 4/4 Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) NATA Diesel PM 58.3 NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 58.6 NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 58.5 Traffic Proximity 59.1 Lead Paint Indicator 62.8 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 58.4 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 60.1 Hazardous Waste Proximity 59.9 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 404 Population Density 29/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 34% Households in Area 239 Housing Units in Area 307 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 556 Households on Public Assistance 14 Persons With Low Income 267 Percent With Low Income 48% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.459917 Center Longitude -154.838737 Land Area 48% Water Area 52% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 71 (29.58%) $15,000 - $25,000 32 (13.33%) $25,000 - $50,000 32 (13.33%) $50,000 - $75,000 14 (5.83%) Greater than $75,000 91 (37.92%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 9 (2%) Minors 17 years and younger 53 (13%) Adults 18 years and older 351 (87%) Seniors 65 years and older 65 (16%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 309 (76%) African-American 0 (0%) Hispanic-Origin 27 (7%) Asian/Pacific Islander 45 (11%) American Indian 8 (2%) Other/Multiracial 43 (11%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 2 (.48%) 9th through 12th Grade 46 (10.98%) High School Diploma 106 (25.3%) Some College/2-year 118 (28.16%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 146 (34.84%) This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF012325&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…1/6 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro> CONTACTUS <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|TopicSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>|SystemDataSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|About theData <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>|Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets>|Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv- index-mobile-app>|OtherDatasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> ICIS DetailedReports ThispagewascreatedonNOV-03-2021 ResultsarebasedondataextractedonSEP-05-2021 Note:Youareviewingresultsfromthemodernizeddatasystem,IntegratedComplianceInformationSystem (ICIS).The statereportingthisdatatoEPApreviouslyreportedthedatatoa historicdata system,Permit Compliance System (PCS).Use the following button toview the historic data from PCS.Runa PCSSearch Facility FACILITYNAME(1)LAVAINUNDATEDROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 STREET1 UNKNOWN SICCODE CITY MAJOR /MINOR COUNTYNAME TYPEOF OWNERSHIP MunicipalorWater District STATE HI ACTIVITYSTATUS EÓective ZIPCODE 00000 INACTIVEDATE AnoÓicial website of the United States government Hereishowyouknoww Menu SearchEPA.gov 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF012325&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…2/6 REGION Region 9 TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED General Permit Covered Facility LATITUDE 19.518419 ORIGINAL PERMIT ISSUE DATE 15-APR-2019 LONGITUDE -154.807543 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 15-APR-2019 LAT/LON CODE OF ACCURACY PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 08-FEB-2024 LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE LAT/LON DATUM FLOW RECEIVING WATERS PACIFIC OCEAN FEDERAL GRANT IND PRETREATMENT CODE SLUDGE CLASS FAC IND NON-POTW MAILING NAME SLUDGE RELATED PERMIT NUM MAILING STREET (1)ANNUAL DRY SLUDGE PROD MAILING STREET (2) MAILING CITY MAILING STATE MAILING ZIP CODE COGNIZANT OFFICIAL COGNIZANT OFFICIAL TEL Activity FACILITY NAME (1)LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 ACTIVITY NAME ACTIVITY TYPE DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DATE ACTUAL BEGIN DATE ACTUAL END DATE 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF012325&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…3/6 Permit Active 16-APR-2019 Contacts FACILITY NAME (1)LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 FIRST NAME LAST NAME ORGANIZATION FORMAL NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER TELEPHONE EXTENSION NUMBER PHONE TYPE DESCRIPTION AFFILIATION TYPE DESCRIPTION Ben Ishii County of Hawaii Permittee Permit Tracking FACILITY NAME (1)LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 PERMIT ISSUED BY Hawaii Dept of Health, Clean Water Branch ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE 15-APR- 2019 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 15-APR-2019 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 08-FEB- 2024 EFFECTIVE DATE 15-APR-2019 RETIREMENT DATE Permit Tracking Events: EVENT DESCRIPTION EVENT DATE Permit Expiration 08-FEB-2024 Permit EÓective 15-APR-2019 Permit Issued 15-APR-2019 Application/NOI Complete 11-APR-2019 Application/NOI Received 11-MAR-2019 Inspections FACILITY NAME (1)LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF012325&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…4/6 No Inspections Found. Outfalls/Pipe Schedules FACILITY NAME (1)LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 OUTFALL TYPE External Outfall PIPE NUMBER 001 ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT DESIGNATOR LATITUDE 19.459917 LONGITUDE -154.838737 LAT/LON ACCURACY LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE LAT/LON DATUM NAD83 INACTIVE DATE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE INIT DMR DUE DATE SUBMISSION UNITS PIPE DESCRIPTION UNITS IN SUBM. PERIOD INIT REPORTING DATE REPORTING UNITS UNITS IN REPORTING PERIOD DMR COMMENT FACILITY NAME (1)LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 OUTFALL TYPE External Outfall PIPE NUMBER 002 ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT DESIGNATOR LATITUDE 19.518419 LONGITUDE -154.807543 LAT/LON ACCURACY LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE LAT/LON DATUM NAD83 INACTIVE DATE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE INIT DMR DUE DATE SUBMISSION UNITS 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF012325&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…5/6 PIPE DESCRIPTION UNITS IN SUBM. PERIOD INIT REPORTING DATE REPORTING UNITS UNITS IN REPORTING PERIOD DMR COMMENT Limits Report FACILITY NAME (1)LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 PIPE NUMBER 001 PIPE DESCRIPTION REPORT DESIGNATOR DMR COMMENT LIMIT SET TYPE No ICIS Limits Report Found. FACILITY NAME (1)LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 PIPE NUMBER 002 PIPE DESCRIPTION REPORT DESIGNATOR DMR COMMENT LIMIT SET TYPE No ICIS Limits Report Found. Measurements and Violations FACILITY NAME (1)LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 No ICIS Measurements Information Found. Compliance Schedules and Violations FACILITY NAME (1)LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 No Compliance Schedules Found. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF012325&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…6/6 Pretreatment Inspections/Audits FACILITY NAME (1)LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 No ICIS Pretreatment Inspections Found. Pretreatment Performance Summary FACILITY NAME (1)LAVA INUNDATED ROAD RESTORATION NPDES HIF012325 No ICIS Pretreatment Performance Summary Information Found. Note: You are viewing results from the modernized data system, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The state reporting this data to EPA previously reported the data to a historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS). Use the following button to view the historic data from PCS. Run a PCS Search Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110071073211 1/4 Regulatory Information Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): Minor, Permit Effective (HIF013166) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): No Information Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS UNKNOWN, UNKNOWN, HI 00000 FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110071073211 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.555503 Longitude: -154.879495 Locational Data Source: NPDES Industries: Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary CWAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection No Violation IdentifiedCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110071073211 2/4 Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description No data records returned Facility Industrial Effluent Guidelines Identifier Effluent Guideline (40 CFR Part) Effluent Guideline Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description No data records returned Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Known Data Problems Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110071073211 N 19.555503 -154.879495 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF013166 Minor: General Permit Covered Facility Effective 02/08/2024 N 19.555503 -154.879495 Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110071073211 LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS UNKNOWN, UNKNOWN, HI 00000 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF013166 LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS UNKNOWN, UNKNOWN, HI 00000 Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation) Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12) Data Last Refreshed CWA HIF013166 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ CWA (Source ID: HIF013166)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Facility-Level Status No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified Undetermined Quarterly Noncompliance Report History Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110071073211 3/4 Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- NATA Diesel PM 59 NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 64.6 NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 63.1 Traffic Proximity 59.1 Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD (Reach Address Database)) WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name (RAD (Reach Address Database)) State Water Body Name (ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System)) Beach Closures Within Last Year Beach Closures Within Last Two Years Pollutants Potentially Related to Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)- listed Aquatic Species? 200100000503 Puna Forest Reserve PACIFIC OCEAN No No Yes Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use No data records returned Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area?Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s)Within Maintenance Status Area?Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works)Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. nt ies in italics a e not counted as info mal enfo cement actions in policies pe taining to enfo cement esponse tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110071073211 4/4 Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Lead Paint Indicator 62.8 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 60.2 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 69 Hazardous Waste Proximity 68 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 2,917 Population Density 193/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 60% Households in Area 839 Housing Units in Area 1,310 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 2,357 Households on Public Assistance 77 Persons With Low Income 1,261 Percent With Low Income 54% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.555503 Center Longitude -154.879495 Land Area 53% Water Area 47% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 105 (12.53%) $15,000 - $25,000 120 (14.32%) $25,000 - $50,000 260 (31.03%) $50,000 - $75,000 142 (16.95%) Greater than $75,000 211 (25.18%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 211 (7%) Minors 17 years and younger 780 (27%) Adults 18 years and older 2,137 (73%) Seniors 65 years and older 377 (13%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 1,120 (38%) African-American 27 (1%) Hispanic-Origin 519 (18%) Asian/Pacific Islander 765 (26%) American Indian 30 (1%) Other/Multiracial 975 (33%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 15 (.89%) 9th through 12th Grade 96 (5.69%) High School Diploma 372 (22.04%) Some College/2-year 830 (49.17%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 375 (22.22%) This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF013166&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…1/6 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro> CONTACTUS <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|TopicSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>|SystemDataSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|About the Data <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>|Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets>|Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv-index- mobile-app>|Other Datasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> ICIS DetailedReports Thispage was createdonNOV-03-2021 Resultsare basedondataextractedonSEP-05-2021 Note:Youareviewingresultsfromthemodernizeddatasystem,IntegratedComplianceInformationSystem(ICIS).The statereportingthisdatatoEPApreviouslyreportedthedatatoahistoricdatasystem,PermitComplianceSystem (PCS).UsethefollowingbuttontoviewthehistoricdatafromPCS.Runa PCSSearch Facility FACILITY NAME (1) LEILANIESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATIONOFROADWAYS NPDES HIF013166 STREET1 UNKNOWN SICCODE CITY MAJOR /MINOR COUNTYNAME TYPE OF OWNERSHIP PrivatelyOwned Facility STATE HI ACTIVITYSTATUS EÓective ZIPCODE 00000 INACTIVE DATE REGION Region9 TYPEOFPERMIT ISSUED GeneralPermit Covered Facility AnoÓicial website of the United States government Here is how you knoww Menu SearchEPA.gov 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF013166&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…2/6 LATITUDE ORIGINAL PERMIT ISSUE DATE 28-JUL-2021 LONGITUDE PERMIT ISSUED DATE 28-JUL-2021 LAT/LON CODE OF ACCURACY PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 08-FEB-2024 LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE LAT/LON DATUM FLOW RECEIVING WATERS PACIFIC OCEAN FEDERAL GRANT IND PRETREATMENT CODE SLUDGE CLASS FAC IND NON-POTW MAILING NAME SLUDGE RELATED PERMIT NUM MAILING STREET (1) ANNUAL DRY SLUDGE PROD MAILING STREET (2) MAILING CITY MAILING STATE MAILING ZIP CODE COGNIZANT OFFICIAL COGNIZANT OFFICIAL TEL Activity FACILITY NAME (1) LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS NPDES HIF013166 ACTIVITY NAME ACTIVITY TYPE DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DATE ACTUAL BEGIN DATE ACTUAL END DATE 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF013166&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…3/6 Permit Active 30-JUL-2021 Contacts FACILITY NAME (1) LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS NPDES HIF013166 FIRST NAME LAST NAME ORGANIZATION FORMAL NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER TELEPHONE EXTENSION NUMBER PHONE TYPE DESCRIPTION AFFILIATION TYPE DESCRIPTION Keola Bandmann Leilani Community Association Permittee Permit Tracking FACILITY NAME (1) LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS NPDES HIF013166 PERMIT ISSUED BY Hawaii Dept of Health, Clean Water Branch ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE 28-JUL- 2021 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 28-JUL-2021 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 08-FEB- 2024 EFFECTIVE DATE 28-JUL-2021 RETIREMENT DATE Permit Tracking Events: EVENT DESCRIPTION EVENT DATE Permit Expiration 08-FEB-2024 Permit EÓective 28-JUL-2021 Permit Issued 28-JUL-2021 Application/NOI Complete 27-JUL-2021 Application/NOI Received 22-JUL-2021 Inspections 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF013166&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…4/6 FACILITY NAME (1) LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS NPDES HIF013166 No Inspections Found. Outfalls/Pipe Schedules FACILITY NAME (1)LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS NPDES HIF013166 OUTFALL TYPE External Outfall PIPE NUMBER 001 ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT DESIGNATOR LATITUDE 19.555503 LONGITUDE -154.879495 LAT/LON ACCURACY LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE LAT/LON DATUM WGS84 INACTIVE DATE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE INIT DMR DUE DATE SUBMISSION UNITS PIPE DESCRIPTION UNITS IN SUBM. PERIOD INIT REPORTING DATE REPORTING UNITS UNITS IN REPORTING PERIOD DMR COMMENT Limits Report FACILITY NAME (1) LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS NPDES HIF013166 PIPE NUMBER 001 PIPE DESCRIPTION REPORT DESIGNATOR DMR COMMENT LIMIT SET TYPE 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF013166&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…5/6 No ICIS Limits Report Found. Measurements and Violations FACILITY NAME (1) LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS NPDES HIF013166 No ICIS Measurements Information Found. Compliance Schedules and Violations FACILITY NAME (1) LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS NPDES HIF013166 No Compliance Schedules Found. Pretreatment Inspections/Audits FACILITY NAME (1) LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS NPDES HIF013166 No ICIS Pretreatment Inspections Found. Pretreatment Performance Summary FACILITY NAME (1) LEILANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION REHABILITATION OF ROADWAYS NPDES HIF013166 No ICIS Pretreatment Performance Summary Information Found. Note: You are viewing results from the modernized data system, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The state reporting this data to EPA previously reported the data to a historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS). Use the following button to view the historic data from PCS. Run a PCS Search 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF013166&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…6/6 Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110044281050 1/4 Regulatory Information Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): No Information Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): Active VSQG (HIR000140582) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information LONGS DRUG STORES NO 7098 15-1454 KAHAKAI BLVD, PAHOA, HI 96778 FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110044281050 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.515975 Longitude: -154.93817 Locational Data Source: FRS Industries: Health and Personal Care Stores Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary Known Data Problems RCRAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection No Violation IdentifiedCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110044281050 2/4 Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description RCRAInfo HIR000140582 446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110044281050 N 19.515975 -154.93817 RCRAInfo RCRA HIR000140582 VSQG Active (H )N Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110044281050 LONGS DRUG STORES NO 7098 15-1454 KAHAKAI BLVD, PAHOA, HI 96778 Hawaii County RCRAInfo RCRA HIR000140582 LONGS DRUG STORE #7098 15-1454 KAHAKAI BLVD, PAHOA, HI 96778 Honolulu County Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation) Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12) Data Last Refreshed RCRA HIR000140582 No 10/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/ViolationType QTR1 QTR2 QTR3 QTR4 QTR5 QTR6 QTR7 QTR8 QTR9 QTR10 QTR11 QTR12+ RCRA (Source ID:HIR000140582)01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-09/30/21 10/01-12/31/21 Facility-Level Status No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110044281050 3/4 Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- NATA Diesel PM 60.1 NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 72.6 NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 69.3 Traffic Proximity 62.4 Lead Paint Indicator 76 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 63 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 74.6 Hazardous Waste Proximity 73.2 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD(Reach Address Database))WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name (RAD(Reach Address Database))State Water Body Name (ICIS (IntegratedCompliance Information System))Beach Closures WithinLast Year Beach Closures WithinLast Two Years Pollutants Potentially Relatedto Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)-listed Aquatic Species? No data records returned Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use No data records returned Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area? Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s) Within Maintenance Status Area? Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110044281050 4/4 Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 5,177 Population Density 211/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 62% Households in Area 1,261 Housing Units in Area 2,095 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 3,544 Households on Public Assistance 152 Persons With Low Income 1,796 Percent With Low Income 51% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.515975 Center Longitude -154.93817 Land Area 100% Water Area 0% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 225 (17.87%) $15,000 - $25,000 169 (13.42%) $25,000 - $50,000 333 (26.45%) $50,000 - $75,000 226 (17.95%) Greater than $75,000 306 (24.31%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 395 (8%) Minors 17 years and younger 1,359 (26%) Adults 18 years and older 3,818 (74%) Seniors 65 years and older 666 (13%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 1,414 (27%) African-American 41 (1%) Hispanic-Origin 751 (15%) Asian/Pacific Islander 1,843 (36%) American Indian 61 (1%) Other/Multiracial 1,818 (35%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 42 (1.68%) 9th through 12th Grade 172 (6.89%) High School Diploma 662 (26.5%) Some College/2-year 1,047 (41.91%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 574 (22.98%) This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 RCRAINFO Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/rcrainfoquery_3.facility_information?pgm_sys_id=HIR000140582 1/3 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro>CONTACT US <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|TopicSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>|System DataSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|AbouttheData <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>|Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets>|Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv-index-mobile-app>|OtherDatasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> <http://www.epa.gov/wastes/disclaimer2.htm> RCRAInfoFacilityInformation LONGSDRUGSTORE#7098 HandlerID:HIR000140582 15-1454KAHAKAIBLVD PAHOA, HI 96778 County Name:HONOLULU Latitude:19.515975 Longitude:-154.93817 Hazardous WasteGenerator: OwnerName:HNMP *You cannavigatewithinthemapwithyourmouse. BIENNIALREPORT SUMMARY REPORT YEAR GENERATION (Tons) MANAGEMENT (Tons) WASTE RECEIVED (Tons) WASTE SHIPPED (Tons) INCINERATION (Tons) DISPOSAL (Tons) ACUTE GENERATION (Tons) 2019 .4 .4 LISTOFFACILITYCONTACTS NAME STREET CITY STATE ZIP CODE PHONE TYPE OF CONTACT NICOLE WILKINSON CVS DR MC2340 WOONSOCKET RI 02895 401-770- 7132 Public AnoÓicial website of the United States government Hereishowyouknoww Menu SearchEPA.gov 11/3/2021 RCRAINFO Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/rcrainfoquery_3.facility_information?pgm_sys_id=HIR000140582 2/3 NICOLE WILKINSON CVS DRIVE MC2340 WOONSOCKET RI 02895 401-770- 7132 Permit CHARLES SAVAGE 3207 GREY HAWK CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 760-602- 8736 Permit WENDY BRANT ONE CVS DRIVE WOONSOCKET RI 02895 401-765- 1500 Permit NICOLE WILKINSON CVS DR MC2340 WOONSOCKET RI 02895 401-770- 7132 Permit HANDLER / FACILITY CLASSIFICATION Unspecified Universe for the facility listed above. HANDLER TYPE LAND DISPOSAL INCINERATOR BOILER AND OR INDUSTRIAL FURNACE STORAGE TREATMENT No Handler information is available for the facility listed above. No PROCESS INFORMATION is available for the facility listed above. HANDLER TYPE LIST OF NAICS CODES AND DESCRIPTIONS NAICS CODE NAICS DESCRIPTION 812922 ONE-HOUR PHOTOFINISHING 446110 PHARMACIES AND DRUG STORES 44611 PHARMACIES AND DRUG STORES LIST OF WASTE CODES AND DESCRIPTIONS WASTE CODE WASTE DESCRIPTION D001 IGNITABLE WASTE D002 CORROSIVE WASTE D007 CHROMIUM D009 MERCURY D010 SELENIUM P001 2H-1-BENZOPYRAN-2-ONE, 4-HYDROXY-3-(3-OXO-1-PHENYLBUTYL)-, & SALTS, WHEN PRESENT AT CONCENTRATIONS GREATER THAN 0.3% (OR) WARFARIN, & SALTS, WHEN PRESENT AT CONCENTRATIONS GREATER THAN 0.3% 11/3/2021 RCRAINFO Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/rcrainfoquery_3.facility_information?pgm_sys_id=HIR000140582 3/3 Total Number of Facilities Retrieved: 1 U002 2-PROPANONE (I) (OR) ACETONE (I) U129 CYCLOHEXANE, 1,2,3,4,5,6-HEXACHLORO-, (1ALPHA, 2ALPHA, 3BETA, 4ALPHA, 5ALPHA, 6BETA)- (OR) LINDANE U165 NAPHTHALENE U188 PHENOL U205 SELENIUM SULFIDE (OR) SELENIUM SULFIDE SES2 (R,T) Go To Top Of The Page Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110028073395 1/4 Regulatory Information Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): Minor, Permit Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off (HIF001806) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): No Information Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS ???, ???, HI ??? FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110028073395 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.46129 Longitude: -154.84467 Locational Data Source: NPDES Industries: Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary CWAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection Terminated PermitCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110028073395 2/4 Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description No data records returned Facility Industrial Effluent Guidelines Identifier Effluent Guideline (40 CFR Part) Effluent Guideline Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description No data records returned Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Known Data Problems Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110028073395 N 19.46129 -154.84467 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF001806 Minor: General Permit Covered Facility Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off 11/06/2007 N 19.46129 -154.84467 Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110028073395 POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS ???, ???, HI ??? ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF001806 POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS ???, ???, HI ??? Hawaii County Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation) Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12) Data Last Refreshed CWA HIF001806 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ CWA (Source ID: HIF001806)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Facility-Level Status TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit Quarterly Noncompliance Report History Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110028073395 3/4 Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- NATA Diesel PM 58.3 NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 58.6 Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD (Reach Address Database)) WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name (RAD (Reach Address Database)) State Water Body Name (ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System)) Beach Closures Within Last Year Beach Closures Within Last Two Years Pollutants Potentially Related to Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)- listed Aquatic Species? 200100000601 Kaimu Beach No No Yes Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use HI 2020 HI707059 Ahalanui Pond (Puala'a) Impaired - 303(d) Listed TURBIDITY Not Supporting Fully Supporting HI 2020 HI122881 Kapoho Tidepools (Vacationland) Impaired - 303(d) Listed TURBIDITY Not Supporting Fully Supporting HI 2020 HI316864 Pohoiki Beach Impaired - 303(d) Listed TURBIDITY Not Supporting Fully Supporting Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area? Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s) Within Maintenance Status Area? Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. nt ies in italics a e not counted as info mal enfo cement actions in policies pe taining to enfo cement esponse tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110028073395 4/4 Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 58.5 Traffic Proximity 59.1 Lead Paint Indicator 62.8 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 58.4 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 60.1 Hazardous Waste Proximity 59.9 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 427 Population Density 27/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 37% Households in Area 307 Housing Units in Area 315 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 723 Households on Public Assistance 18 Persons With Low Income 345 Percent With Low Income 48% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.46129 Center Longitude -154.84467 Land Area 51% Water Area 49% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 88 (28.85%) $15,000 - $25,000 39 (12.79%) $25,000 - $50,000 45 (14.75%) $50,000 - $75,000 24 (7.87%) Greater than $75,000 109 (35.74%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 10 (2%) Minors 17 years and younger 58 (14%) Adults 18 years and older 369 (86%) Seniors 65 years and older 66 (15%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 323 (76%) African-American 0 (0%) Hispanic-Origin 28 (7%) Asian/Pacific Islander 48 (11%) American Indian 8 (2%) Other/Multiracial 47 (11%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 4 (.74%) 9th through 12th Grade 55 (10.11%) High School Diploma 145 (26.65%) Some College/2-year 158 (29.04%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 180 (33.09%) This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001806&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…1/6 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro> CONTACTUS <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|Topic Searches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>|SystemDataSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|AbouttheData <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>| Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets> |Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv-index-mobile-app>| OtherDatasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> ICIS DetailedReports ThispagewascreatedonNOV-03-2021 Resultsarebasedon dataextractedon SEP-05-2021 Note:Youareviewingresultsfromthemodernizeddatasystem,IntegratedCompliance InformationSystem(ICIS).ThestatereportingthisdatatoEPApreviouslyreportedthedatatoa historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS).Use the following buttonto view the historicdatafromPCS.RunaPCSSearch Facility FACILITYNAME(1)POHOIKI ROADBYPASS NPDES HIF001806 STREET1 ???SICCODE AnoÓicial website of the United States government Here is how you knoww Menu Search EPA.gov 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001806&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…2/6 CITY MAJOR / MINOR COUNTY NAME Hawaii TYPE OF OWNERSHIP STATE HI ACTIVITY STATUS Terminated ZIP CODE ???INACTIVE DATE REGION Region 9 TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED General Permit Covered Facility LATITUDE 19.46129 ORIGINAL PERMIT ISSUE DATE 23-JUN-2006 LONGITUDE -154.84467 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 23-JUN-2006 LAT/LON CODE OF ACCURACY 1000 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 06-NOV-2007 LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE LAT/LON DATUM FLOW RECEIVING WATERS FEDERAL GRANT IND PRETREATMENT CODE SLUDGE CLASS FAC IND NON-POTW MAILING NAME SLUDGE RELATED PERMIT NUM MAILING STREET (1) ANNUAL DRY SLUDGE PROD MAILING STREET (2) 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001806&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…3/6 MAILING CITY MAILING STATE MAILING ZIP CODE COGNIZANT OFFICIAL Ben Ishii COGNIZANT OFFICIAL TEL 8089618423 Activity FACILITY NAME (1)POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS NPDES HIF001806 ACTIVITY NAME ACTIVITY TYPE DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DATE ACTUAL BEGIN DATE ACTUAL END DATE Permit Active 28-AUG- 2006 Contacts FACILITY NAME (1)POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS NPDES HIF001806 No Contacts Found. Permit Tracking FACILITY NAME (1)POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS NPDES HIF001806 PERMIT ISSUED BY Department of Health - Clean Water Branch ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE 23-JUN- 2006 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001806&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…4/6 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 23-JUN-2006 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 06-NOV- 2007 EFFECTIVE DATE 23-JUN-2006 RETIREMENT DATE Permit Tracking Events: EVENT DESCRIPTION EVENT DATE Permit Termination 19-DEC-2008 Permit Expiration 06-NOV-2007 Permit Issued 23-JUN-2006 Permit EÓective 23-JUN-2006 Inspections FACILITY NAME (1)POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS NPDES HIF001806 No Inspections Found. Outfalls/Pipe Schedules FACILITY NAME (1)POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS NPDES HIF001806 OUTFALL TYPE PIPE NUMBER ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT DESIGNATOR LATITUDE LONGITUDE LAT/LON ACCURACY LAT/LON METHOD 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001806&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…5/6 LAT/LON SCALE LAT/LON DATUM INACTIVE DATE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE INIT DMR DUE DATE SUBMISSION UNITS PIPE DESCRIPTION UNITS IN SUBM. PERIOD INIT REPORTING DATE REPORTING UNITS UNITS IN REPORTING PERIOD DMR COMMENT Limits Report FACILITY NAME (1)POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS NPDES HIF001806 PIPE NUMBER PIPE DESCRIPTION REPORT DESIGNATOR DMR COMMENT LIMIT SET TYPE No ICIS Limits Report Found. Measurements and Violations FACILITY NAME (1)POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS NPDES HIF001806 No ICIS Measurements Information Found. Compliance Schedules and Violations FACILITY NAME (1)POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS NPDES HIF001806 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF001806&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…6/6 No Compliance Schedules Found. Pretreatment Inspections/Audits FACILITY NAME (1)POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS NPDES HIF001806 No ICIS Pretreatment Inspections Found. Pretreatment Performance Summary FACILITY NAME (1)POHOIKI ROAD BYPASS NPDES HIF001806 No ICIS Pretreatment Performance Summary Information Found. Note: You are viewing results from the modernized data system, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The state reporting this data to EPA previously reported the data to a historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS). Use the following button to view the historic data from PCS. Run a PCS Search Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110037943321 1/4 Regulatory Information Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): Minor, Permit Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off (HIF005737) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): No Information Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D 14-3860 KAPOHO PAHOA ROAD, PAHO, HI 96778 FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110037943321 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.481068 Longitude: -154.903195 Locational Data Source: FRS Industries: Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary CWAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection Terminated PermitCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110037943321 2/4 Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description No data records returned Facility Industrial Effluent Guidelines Identifier Effluent Guideline (40 CFR Part) Effluent Guideline Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description No data records returned Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Known Data Problems Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110037943321 N 19.481068 -154.903195 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF005737 Minor: General Permit Covered Facility Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off 10/21/2012 N 19.484641 -154.892732 Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110037943321 PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D 14-3860 KAPOHO PAHOA ROAD, PAHO, HI 96778 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF005737 PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D 14-3860 KAPOHO PAHOA ROAD, PAHO, HI 96778 Hawaii County Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation) Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12) Data Last Refreshed CWA HIF005737 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ CWA (Source ID: HIF005737)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Facility-Level Status Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Quarterly Noncompliance Report History Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110037943321 3/4 Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- NATA Diesel PM 58.5 NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 61.6 NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 60.8 Traffic Proximity 59.6 Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD (Reach Address Database)) WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name (RAD (Reach Address Database)) State Water Body Name (ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System)) Beach Closures Within Last Year Beach Closures Within Last Two Years Pollutants Potentially Related to Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)- listed Aquatic Species? 200100000503 Puna Forest Reserve No No Yes Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use No data records returned Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area? Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s) Within Maintenance Status Area? Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. nt ies in italics a e not counted as info mal enfo cement actions in policies pe taining to enfo cement esponse tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110037943321 4/4 Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Lead Paint Indicator 66.4 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 59.3 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 67.9 Hazardous Waste Proximity 65.1 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 3,975 Population Density 143/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 49% Households in Area 1,230 Housing Units in Area 1,891 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 3,049 Households on Public Assistance 78 Persons With Low Income 1,418 Percent With Low Income 47% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.481068 Center Longitude -154.903195 Land Area 100% Water Area 0% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 319 (25.89%) $15,000 - $25,000 161 (13.07%) $25,000 - $50,000 244 (19.81%) $50,000 - $75,000 227 (18.43%) Greater than $75,000 281 (22.81%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 261 (7%) Minors 17 years and younger 831 (21%) Adults 18 years and older 3,145 (79%) Seniors 65 years and older 504 (13%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 1,867 (47%) African-American 41 (1%) Hispanic-Origin 421 (11%) Asian/Pacific Islander 1,000 (25%) American Indian 67 (2%) Other/Multiracial 1,000 (25%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 42 (1.82%) 9th through 12th Grade 154 (6.68%) High School Diploma 748 (32.45%) Some College/2-year 768 (33.32%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 593 (25.73%) This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110028077211 1/4 Regulatory Information Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): Minor, Permit Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off (HIF001869), Minor, Permit Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off (HIF006002) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): No Information Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH 15-3188 PAHOA-KAPOHO ROAD, PAHOA, HI 96778 FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110028077211 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.490008 Longitude: -154.935268 Locational Data Source: FRS Industries: Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary CWAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection Terminated PermitCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110028077211 2/4 Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description No data records returned Facility Industrial Effluent Guidelines Identifier Effluent Guideline (40 CFR Part) Effluent Guideline Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description No data records returned Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Known Data Problems Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110028077211 N 19.490008 -154.935268 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF001869 Minor: General Permit Covered Facility Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off 11/06/2007 N 19.489022 -154.931946 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF006002 Minor: General Permit Covered Facility Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off 10/21/2012 N 19.489022 -154.931946 Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110028077211 PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH 15-3188 PAHOA-KAPOHO ROAD, PAHOA, HI 96778 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF001869 PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH 15-3188 PAHOA-KAPOHO ROAD, PAHOA, HI 96778 Hawaii County ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF006002 PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH 15-3188 PAHOA-KAPOHO ROAD, PAHOA, HI 96778 Hawaii County Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation) Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12) Data Last Refreshed CWA HIF001869 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 CWA HIF006002 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ CWA (Source ID: HIF001869)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Facility-Level Status TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit Quarterly Noncompliance Report History CWA (Source ID: HIF006002)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110028077211 3/4 Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ Facility-Level Status Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Terminated Permit Quarterly Noncompliance ReportHistory Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD (Reach Address Database)) WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name (RAD (Reach Address Database)) State Water Body Name (ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System)) Beach Closures Within Last Year Beach Closures Within Last Two Years Pollutants Potentially Related to Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)- listed Aquatic Species? 200100000503 Puna Forest Reserve No No Yes Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use No data records returned Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area? Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s) Within Maintenance Status Area? Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110028077211 4/4 Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- NATA Diesel PM 59.1 NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 65.5 NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 63.8 Traffic Proximity 60.6 Lead Paint Indicator 72.1 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 60.5 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 75.5 Hazardous Waste Proximity 72.9 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 4,676 Population Density 145/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 53% Households in Area 1,020 Housing Units in Area 2,103 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 2,597 Households on Public Assistance 83 Persons With Low Income 1,263 Percent With Low Income 49% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.490008 Center Longitude -154.935268 Land Area 100% Water Area 0% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 229 (22.47%) $15,000 - $25,000 137 (13.44%) $25,000 - $50,000 246 (24.14%) $50,000 - $75,000 190 (18.65%) Greater than $75,000 217 (21.3%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 327 (7%) Minors 17 years and younger 1,042 (22%) Adults 18 years and older 3,634 (78%) Seniors 65 years and older 615 (13%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 1,861 (40%) African-American 48 (1%) Hispanic-Origin 534 (11%) Asian/Pacific Islander 1,378 (29%) American Indian 76 (2%) Other/Multiracial 1,314 (28%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 29 (1.5%) 9th through 12th Grade 118 (6.1%) High School Diploma 565 (29.2%) Some College/2-year 721 (37.26%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 502 (25.94%) Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF006002&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…1/6 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro> CONTACTUS <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|Topic Searches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>|SystemDataSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|AbouttheData <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>| Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets> |Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv-index-mobile-app>| OtherDatasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> ICIS DetailedReports ThispagewascreatedonNOV-03-2021 Resultsarebasedon dataextractedon SEP-05-2021 Note:Youareviewingresultsfromthemodernizeddatasystem,IntegratedCompliance InformationSystem(ICIS).ThestatereportingthisdatatoEPApreviouslyreportedthedatatoa historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS).Use the following buttonto view the historicdatafromPCS.RunaPCSSearch Facility FACILITYNAME (1) PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH NPDES HIF006002 STREET1 15-3188PAHOA- KAPOHOROAD SICCODE AnoÓicial website of the United States government Here is how you knoww Menu Search EPA.gov 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF006002&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…2/6 CITY MAJOR / MINOR COUNTY NAME Hawaii TYPE OF OWNERSHIP STATE HI ACTIVITY STATUS Terminated ZIP CODE 96778 INACTIVE DATE REGION Region 9 TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED General Permit Covered Facility LATITUDE 19.489022 ORIGINAL PERMIT ISSUE DATE 23-SEP-2009 LONGITUDE -154.931946 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 23-SEP-2009 LAT/LON CODE OF ACCURACY 30 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 21-OCT-2012 LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE LAT/LON DATUM FLOW RECEIVING WATERS FEDERAL GRANT IND PRETREATMENT CODE SLUDGE CLASS FAC IND NON-POTW MAILING NAME SLUDGE RELATED PERMIT NUM MAILING STREET (1) ANNUAL DRY SLUDGE PROD MAILING STREET (2) 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF006002&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…3/6 MAILING CITY MAILING STATE MAILING ZIP CODE COGNIZANT OFFICIAL Tom Nelson COGNIZANT OFFICIAL TEL 8089381447 Activity FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH NPDES HIF006002 ACTIVITY NAME ACTIVITY TYPE DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DATE ACTUAL BEGIN DATE ACTUAL END DATE Permit Active 01-OCT- 2009 Contacts FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH NPDES HIF006002 No Contacts Found. Permit Tracking FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH NPDES HIF006002 PERMIT ISSUED BY Department of Health - Clean Water Branch ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE 23-SEP- 2009 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF006002&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…4/6 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 23-SEP-2009 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 21-OCT- 2012 EFFECTIVE DATE 23-SEP-2009 RETIREMENT DATE Permit Tracking Events: EVENT DESCRIPTION EVENT DATE Permit Termination 22-OCT-2012 Permit Expiration 21-OCT-2012 Permit Issued 23-SEP-2009 Permit EÓective 23-SEP-2009 Inspections FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH NPDES HIF006002 No Inspections Found. Outfalls/Pipe Schedules FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH NPDES HIF006002 OUTFALL TYPE PIPE NUMBER ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT DESIGNATOR LATITUDE LONGITUDE LAT/LON ACCURACY LAT/LON METHOD 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF006002&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…5/6 LAT/LON SCALE LAT/LON DATUM INACTIVE DATE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE INIT DMR DUE DATE SUBMISSION UNITS PIPE DESCRIPTION UNITS IN SUBM. PERIOD INIT REPORTING DATE REPORTING UNITS UNITS IN REPORTING PERIOD DMR COMMENT Limits Report FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH NPDES HIF006002 PIPE NUMBER PIPE DESCRIPTION REPORT DESIGNATOR DMR COMMENT LIMIT SET TYPE No ICIS Limits Report Found. Measurements and Violations FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH NPDES HIF006002 No ICIS Measurements Information Found. Compliance Schedules and Violations 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF006002&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…6/6 FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH NPDES HIF006002 No Compliance Schedules Found. Pretreatment Inspections/Audits FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH NPDES HIF006002 No ICIS Pretreatment Inspections Found. Pretreatment Performance Summary FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA BAPTIST CHURCH NPDES HIF006002 No ICIS Pretreatment Performance Summary Information Found. Note: You are viewing results from the modernized data system, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The state reporting this data to EPA previously reported the data to a historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS). Use the following button to view the historic data from PCS. Run a PCS Search Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110000518146 1/4 Regulatory Information PUNA GEOTHERMAL VENTURE 14-3860 KAPOHO PAHOA ROAD, PAHOA, HI 96778 FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110000518146 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.481667 Longitude: -154.891667 Locational Data Source: RMP Industries: Utilities Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary CAAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection --Current Compliance Status --Qtrs with NC (of 12) --Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) RCRAStatute --Insp (5 Years) 03/20/2014Date of Last Inspection No Violation IdentifiedCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110000518146 2/4 Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): No Information Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): Active LQG (HIR000001057) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description RMP 100000091599 221116 Geothermal Electric Power Generation RMP 100000091599 221119 Other Electric Power Generation RCRAInfo HIR000001057 221116 Geothermal Electric Power Generation Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Known Data Problems Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110000518146 N 19.481667 -154.891667 RMP CAA 100000091599 ACTIVE N RCRAInfo RCRA HIR000001057 LQG Active (H )N Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110000518146 PUNA GEOTHERMAL VENTURE 14-3860 KAPOHO PAHOA ROAD, PAHOA, HI 96778 Hawaii County RMP CAA 100000091599 PUNA GEOTHERMAL VENTURE 14-3860 KAPOHO PAHOA ROAD, PAHOA, HI 96778 Hawaii County RCRAInfo RCRA HIR000001057 PUNA GEOTHERMAL VENTURE 14-3860 KAPOHO-PAHOA ROAD, PAHOA, HI 96778 Hawaii County Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110000518146 3/4 Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation) Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12) Data Last Refreshed RCRA HIR000001057 No 10/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/ViolationType QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12+ RCRA (Source ID: HIR000001057)01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-09/30/21 10/01-12/31/21 Facility-Level Status No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified No Violation Identified Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD(Reach Address Database)) WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name(RAD (Reach Address Database)) State Water Body Name (ICIS (IntegratedCompliance Information System)) Beach ClosuresWithin Last Year Beach Closures WithinLast Two Years Pollutants Potentially Relatedto Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)-listed Aquatic Species? No data records returned Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use No data records returned Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area? Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s) Within Maintenance Status Area? Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110000518146 4/4 EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- NATA Diesel PM 58.3 NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 58.6 NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 58.5 Traffic Proximity 59.1 Lead Paint Indicator 62.8 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 58.4 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 60.1 Hazardous Waste Proximity 59.9 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 3,453 Population Density 125/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 49% Households in Area 1,213 Housing Units in Area 1,653 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 3,077 Households on Public Assistance 81 Persons With Low Income 1,427 Percent With Low Income 47% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.481667 Center Longitude -154.891667 Land Area 100% Water Area 0% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 321 (26.42%) $15,000 - $25,000 156 (12.84%) $25,000 - $50,000 223 (18.35%) $50,000 - $75,000 223 (18.35%) Greater than $75,000 292 (24.03%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 226 (7%) Minors 17 years and younger 736 (21%) Adults 18 years and older 2,717 (79%) Seniors 65 years and older 419 (12%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 1,680 (49%) African-American 32 (1%) Hispanic-Origin 375 (11%) Asian/Pacific Islander 807 (23%) American Indian 61 (2%) Other/Multiracial 873 (25%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 45 (1.96%) 9th through 12th Grade 166 (7.23%) High School Diploma 764 (33.29%) Some College/2-year 751 (32.72%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 566 (24.66%) Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 RCRAINFO Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/rcrainfoquery_3.facility_information?pgm_sys_id=HIR000001057 1/3 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro>CONTACT US <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|TopicSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>| System Data Searches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|AbouttheData <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>|Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets>|Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv-index-mobile-app>|OtherDatasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> <http://www.epa.gov/wastes/disclaimer2.htm> RCRAInfo FacilityInformation PUNAGEOTHERMALVENTURE HandlerID:HIR000001057 14-3860 KAPOHO-PAHOAROAD PAHOA,HI96778 County Name:HAWAII Latitude:19.481667 Longitude:-154.891667 Hazardous WasteGenerator:LargeQuantity Generator Owner Name:PUNAGEOTHERMALVENTURE *You can navigate within the map with yourmouse. BIENNIAL REPORT SUMMARY REPORT YEAR GENERATION (Tons) MANAGEMENT (Tons) WASTE RECEIVED (Tons) WASTE SHIPPED (Tons) INCINERATION (Tons) DISPOSAL (Tons) ACUTE GENERATION (Tons) 2019 7.1 7.1 LISTOFFACILITYCONTACTS NAME STREET CITY STATE ZIPCODE PHONE TYPEOFCONTACT RONALD PQUESADA PO BOX30 PAHOA HI 96778 808-965-2848 Public RONALD QUESADA PAHOA HI 96778 808-965-2848 Permit AnoÓicial website of the United States government Here is how you knoww Menu SearchEPA.gov 11/3/2021 RCRAINFO Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/rcrainfoquery_3.facility_information?pgm_sys_id=HIR000001057 2/3 DARREN HUNT PO BOX 30 PAHOA HI 96778 808-965-6233 Permit MICHAEL KALEIKINI 808-965-2838 Permit RONALD QUESADA PO BOX 30 PAHOA HI 96778 808-965-2848 Permit WILLIAM WIEBE 808-965-6233, 248 Permit HANDLER / FACILITY CLASSIFICATION Unspecified Universe for the facility listed above. HANDLER TYPE LAND DISPOSAL INCINERATOR BOILER AND OR INDUSTRIAL FURNACE STORAGE TREATMENT HANDLER TYPE Large Quantity Generator No PROCESS INFORMATION is available for the facility listed above. LIST OF NAICS CODES AND DESCRIPTIONS NAICS CODE NAICS DESCRIPTION 221116 GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION 221118 OTHER ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION 221119 OTHER ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION LIST OF WASTE CODES AND DESCRIPTIONS WASTE CODE WASTE DESCRIPTION D001 IGNITABLE WASTE D006 CADMIUM D008 LEAD Go To Top Of The Page 11/3/2021 RCRAINFO Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/rcrainfoquery_3.facility_information?pgm_sys_id=HIR000001057 3/3 Total Number of Facilities Retrieved: 1 Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005737&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…1/7 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro> CONTACTUS <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|Topic Searches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>|SystemDataSearches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|AbouttheData <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>| Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets> |Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv-index-mobile-app>| OtherDatasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> ICIS DetailedReports ThispagewascreatedonNOV-03-2021 ResultsarebasedondataextractedonSEP-05-2021 Note:Youareviewingresultsfromthemodernizeddatasystem,IntegratedCompliance InformationSystem(ICIS).ThestatereportingthisdatatoEPApreviouslyreportedthedatatoa historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS).Use the followingbutton to view the historicdatafromPCS.RunaPCSSearch Facility FACILITYNAME (1) PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPADD NPDES HIF005737 AnoÓicial website of the United States government Here is how you knoww Menu Search EPA.gov 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005737&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…2/7 STREET 1 14-3860 KAPOHO PAHOA ROAD SIC CODE CITY MAJOR / MINOR COUNTY NAME Hawaii TYPE OF OWNERSHIP STATE HI ACTIVITY STATUS Terminated ZIP CODE 96778 INACTIVE DATE REGION Region 9 TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED General Permit Covered Facility LATITUDE 19.484641 ORIGINAL PERMIT ISSUE DATE 24-OCT-2008 LONGITUDE -154.892732 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 24-OCT-2008 LAT/LON CODE OF ACCURACY 30 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 21-OCT-2012 LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE LAT/LON DATUM FLOW RECEIVING WATERS FEDERAL GRANT IND PRETREATMENT CODE SLUDGE CLASS FAC IND NON-POTW MAILING NAME SLUDGE RELATED PERMIT NUM MAILING STREET (1) ANNUAL DRY SLUDGE PROD 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005737&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…3/7 MAILING STREET (2) MAILING CITY MAILING STATE MAILING ZIP CODE COGNIZANT OFFICIAL Michael Kaleikini COGNIZANT OFFICIAL TEL 8089652838 Activity FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D NPDES HIF005737 ACTIVITY NAME ACTIVITY TYPE DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DATE ACTUAL BEGIN DATE ACTUAL END DATE Permit Active 10-NOV- 2008 Contacts FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D NPDES HIF005737 No Contacts Found. Permit Tracking FACILITY NAME (1) PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D NPDES HIF005737 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005737&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…4/7 PERMIT ISSUED BY Department of Health - Clean Water Branch ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE 24-OCT- 2008 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 24-OCT-2008 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 21-OCT- 2012 EFFECTIVE DATE 24-OCT-2008 RETIREMENT DATE Permit Tracking Events: EVENT DESCRIPTION EVENT DATE Permit Termination 22-OCT-2012 Permit Expiration 21-OCT-2012 Permit Issued 24-OCT-2008 Permit EÓective 24-OCT-2008 Inspections FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D NPDES HIF005737 No Inspections Found. Outfalls/Pipe Schedules FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D NPDES HIF005737 OUTFALL TYPE PIPE NUMBER ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT DESIGNATOR LATITUDE LONGITUDE 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005737&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…5/7 LAT/LON ACCURACY LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE LAT/LON DATUM INACTIVE DATE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE INIT DMR DUE DATE SUBMISSION UNITS PIPE DESCRIPTION UNITS IN SUBM. PERIOD INIT REPORTING DATE REPORTING UNITS UNITS IN REPORTING PERIOD DMR COMMENT Limits Report FACILITY NAME (1) PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D NPDES HIF005737 PIPE NUMBER PIPE DESCRIPTION REPORT DESIGNATOR DMR COMMENT LIMIT SET TYPE No ICIS Limits Report Found. Measurements and Violations FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D NPDES HIF005737 No ICIS Measurements Information Found. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005737&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…6/7 Compliance Schedules and Violations FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D NPDES HIF005737 No Compliance Schedules Found. Pretreatment Inspections/Audits FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D NPDES HIF005737 No ICIS Pretreatment Inspections Found. Pretreatment Performance Summary FACILITY NAME (1)PUNA GEOTHERMAL WELLPAD D NPDES HIF005737 No ICIS Pretreatment Performance Summary Information Found. Note: You are viewing results from the modernized data system, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The state reporting this data to EPA previously reported the data to a historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS). Use the following button to view the historic data from PCS. Run a PCS Search Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005737&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…7/7 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110038449453 1/4 Regulatory Information Clean Air Act (CAA): No Information Clean Water Act (CWA): Minor, Permit Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off (HIF005856) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): No Information Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Information Other Regulatory Reports Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Information Toxic Releases (TRI): No Information Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI): No Information WOODLAND CENTER 15-1450 KAHAKAI BLVD., PAHOA, HI 96778 FRS (Facility Registry Service) ID: 110038449453 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 19.515975 Longitude: -154.93817 Locational Data Source: FRS Industries: Indian Country: N Detailed Facility Report Facility Summary Enforcement and Compliance Summary CWAStatute --Insp (5 Years) --Date of Last Inspection Terminated PermitCurrent Compliance Status 0Qtrs with NC (of 12) 0Qtrs with Significant Violation --Informal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --Penalties from Formal Enforcement Actions (5 years) --EPA Cases (5 years) --Penalties from EPA Cases (5 years) 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110038449453 2/4 Facility/System Characteristics Facility SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes System Identifier SIC Code SIC Description No data records returned Facility Industrial Effluent Guidelines Identifier Effluent Guideline (40 CFR Part) Effluent Guideline Description No data records returned Facility NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Codes System Identifier NAICS Code NAICS Description No data records returned Facility Tribe Information Reservation Name Tribe Name EPA Tribal ID Distance to Tribe (miles) No data records returned Three-Year Compliance History by Quarter Informal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Known Data Problems Facility/System Characteristics System Statute Identifier Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Indian Country Latitude Longitude FRS 110038449453 N 19.515975 -154.93817 ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF005856 Minor: General Permit Covered Facility Terminated; Compliance Tracking Off Construction Stormwater 10/21/2012 N 19.504033 -154.954477 Facility Address System Statute Identifier Facility Name Facility Address Facility County FRS 110038449453 WOODLAND CENTER 15-1450 KAHAKAI BLVD., PAHOA, HI 96778 Hawaii County ICIS-NPDES CWA HIF005856 WOODLAND CENTER 15-1450 KAHAKAI BLVD., PAHOA, HI 96778 Hawaii County Enforcement and Compliance Compliance Monitoring History (5 years) Compliance Summary Data Statute Source ID Current SNC (Significant Noncompliance)/HPV (High Priority Violation) Current As Of Qtrs with NC (Noncompliance) (of 12) Data Last Refreshed CWA HIF005856 No 06/30/2021 0 10/29/2021 Statute Program/Pollutant/Violation Type QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 5 QTR 6 QTR 7 QTR 8 QTR 9 QTR 10 QTR 11 QTR 12 QTR 13+ CWA (Source ID: HIF005856)07/01-09/30/18 10/01-12/31/18 01/01-03/31/19 04/01-06/30/19 07/01-09/30/19 10/01-12/31/19 01/01-03/31/20 04/01-06/30/20 07/01-09/30/20 10/01-12/31/20 01/01-03/31/21 04/01-06/30/21 07/01-10/29/21 Facility-Level Status TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit TerminatedPermit Quarterly Noncompliance Report History Statute Source ID System Activity Type Compliance Monitoring Type Lead Agency Date Finding (if applicable) No data records returned Entries in italics are not counted in EPA compliance monitoring strategies or annual results. Statute System Source ID Type of Action Lead Agency Date No data records returned 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110038449453 3/4 Watershed(s) Toxics Release Inventory History of Reported Chemicals Released in Pounds per Year at Site EJSCREEN EJ Indexes Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)-- Ozone -- NATA Diesel PM 60.1 Number of EJ Indexes Above 80th Percentile 0 View EJSCREEN Report Formal Enforcement Actions (5 Years) Statute System Law/Section Source ID Action Type Case No. Lead Agency Case Name Issued/Filed Date Settlements/Actions Settlement/Action Date Federal Penalty Assessed State/Local Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Collected SEP Cost Comp Action Cost No data records returned Environmental Conditions 12-Digit WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) HUC (RAD (Reach Address Database)) WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) Subwatershed Name (RAD (Reach Address Database)) State Water Body Name (ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System)) Beach Closures Within Last Year Beach Closures Within Last Two Years Pollutants Potentially Related to Impairment Watershed with ESA (Endangered Species Act)- listed Aquatic Species? 200100000503 Puna Forest Reserve No No Yes Assessed Waters From Latest State Submission (ATTAINS) State Report Cycle Assessment Unit ID Assessment Unit Name Water Condition Cause Groups Impaired Drinking Water Use Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Use Recreation Use Other Use No data records returned Air Quality Nonattainment Areas Pollutant Within Nonattainment Status Area? Nonattainment Status Applicable Standard(s) Within Maintenance Status Area? Maintenance Status Applicable Standard(s) No data records returned Pollutants TRI Facility ID Year Total Air Emissions Surface Water Discharges Off-Site Transfers to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) Underground Injections Releases to Land Total On-site Releases Total Off-site Transfers No data records returned Toxics Release Inventory Total Releases and Transfers in Pounds by Chemical and Year Chemical Name No data records returned Community Eleven primary environmental justice (EJ) indexes of EJSCREEN, EPA's screening tool for EJ concerns. EPA uses these indexes to identify geographic areas that may warrant further consideration or analysis for potential EJ concerns. The index values below are for the Census block group in which the facility is located. Note that use of these indexes does not designate an area as an "EJ community" or "EJ facility." EJSCREEN provides screening level indicators, not a determination of the existence or absence of EJ concerns. For more information, see the EJSCREEN home page. Entries in italics are not counted as "informal enforcement actions" in EPA policies pertaining to enforcement response tools. 11/3/2021 Detailed Facility Report | ECHO | US EPA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110038449453 4/4 Census Block Group EJ Indexes (percentile) NATA Air Toxics Cancer Risk 72.6 NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (HI) 69.3 Traffic Proximity 62.4 Lead Paint Indicator 76 National Priority List (NPL) Site Proximity 63 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Site Proximity 74.6 Hazardous Waste Proximity 73.2 Wastewater Discharge Proximity 73.4 Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (3 Miles) General Statistics Total Persons (U.S. Census) 5,177 Population Density 211/sq.mi. Percent People of Color 62% Households in Area 1,261 Housing Units in Area 2,095 Total Persons (ACS (American Community Survey)) 3,544 Households on Public Assistance 152 Persons With Low Income 1,796 Percent With Low Income 51% Geography Radius of Selected Area 3 mi. Center Latitude 19.515975 Center Longitude -154.93817 Land Area 100% Water Area 0% Income Breakdown - Households (%) Less than $15,000 225 (17.87%) $15,000 - $25,000 169 (13.42%) $25,000 - $50,000 333 (26.45%) $50,000 - $75,000 226 (17.95%) Greater than $75,000 306 (24.31%) Age Breakdown - Persons (%) Children 5 years and younger 395 (8%) Minors 17 years and younger 1,359 (26%) Adults 18 years and older 3,818 (74%) Seniors 65 years and older 666 (13%) Race Breakdown - Persons (%) White 1,414 (27%) African-American 41 (1%) Hispanic-Origin 751 (15%) Asian/Pacific Islander 1,843 (36%) American Indian 61 (1%) Other/Multiracial 1,818 (35%) Education Level (Persons 25 & older) - Persons (%) Less than 9th Grade 42 (1.68%) 9th through 12th Grade 172 (6.89%) High School Diploma 662 (26.5%) Some College/2-year 1,047 (41.91%) B.S./B.A. (Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Arts) or More 574 (22.98%) This section provides demographic information regarding the community surrounding the facility. ECHO compliance data alone are not sufficient to determine whether violations at a particular facility had negative impacts on public health or the environment. Statistics are based upon the 2010 U.S. Census and 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Summary and are accurate to the extent that the facility latitude and longitude listed below are correct. EPA’s spatial processing methodology considers the overlap between the selected radii and the census blocks (for U.S. Census demographics) and census block groups (for ACS demographics) in determining the demographics surrounding the facility. For more detail about this methodology, see the DFR Data Dictionary. 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005856&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…1/7 RelatedTopics:Envirofacts <https://epa.gov/enviro> CONTACTUS <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/forms/contact-us-about-envirofacts> Home <https://enviro.epa.gov>|MultisystemSearch <https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/multisystem.html>|Topic Searches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches>|System Data Searches <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/system-data-searches>|Aboutthe Data <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/about-data>| Data Downloads <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/data-downloads>|Widgets <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/widgets>|Services <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/web-services>|Mobile <https://www.epa.gov/enviro/uv-index-mobile-app>|OtherDatasets <https://epa.gov/node/111331> ICIS DetailedReports Thispagewascreated on NOV-03-2021 Resultsarebased on dataextractedonSEP-05-2021 Note:Youareviewingresultsfromthemodernizeddatasystem,IntegratedCompliance InformationSystem (ICIS).ThestatereportingthisdatatoEPApreviouslyreportedthedatato a historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS). Use the following button to view the historicdatafromPCS.Run aPCSSearch Facility FACILITYNAME (1) WOODLAND CENTER NPDES HIF005856 AnoÓicial website of the United States government Here is how you knoww Menu Search EPA.gov 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005856&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…2/7 STREET 1 15-1450 KAHAKAI BLVD. SIC CODE CITY MAJOR / MINOR COUNTY NAME Hawaii TYPE OF OWNERSHIP STATE HI ACTIVITY STATUS Terminated ZIP CODE 96778 INACTIVE DATE REGION Region 9 TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED General Permit Covered Facility LATITUDE 19.504033 ORIGINAL PERMIT ISSUE DATE 07-APR-2009 LONGITUDE -154.954477 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 03-SEP-2010 LAT/LON CODE OF ACCURACY 30 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 21-OCT-2012 LAT/LON METHOD LAT/LON SCALE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE LAT/LON DATUM FLOW RECEIVING WATERS FEDERAL GRANT IND PRETREATMENT CODE SLUDGE CLASS FAC IND NON-POTW MAILING NAME SLUDGE RELATED PERMIT NUM 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005856&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…3/7 MAILING STREET (1) ANNUAL DRY SLUDGE PROD MAILING STREET (2) MAILING CITY MAILING STATE MAILING ZIP CODE COGNIZANT OFFICIAL Paul Ogasawara COGNIZANT OFFICIAL TEL 8089658920 Activity FACILITY NAME (1)WOODLAND CENTER NPDES HIF005856 ACTIVITY NAME ACTIVITY TYPE DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY STATUS DATE ACTUAL BEGIN DATE ACTUAL END DATE Permit Active 16-SEP- 2010 Permit Active 16-SEP- 2010 Permit Active 23-APR- 2009 Permit Active 23-APR- 2009 Contacts 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005856&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…4/7 FACILITY NAME (1)WOODLAND CENTER NPDES HIF005856 No Contacts Found. Permit Tracking FACILITY NAME (1)WOODLAND CENTER NPDES HIF005856 PERMIT ISSUED BY State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean Water Branch ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE 07-APR- 2009 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 07-APR-2009 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 21-OCT- 2012 EFFECTIVE DATE 07-APR-2009 RETIREMENT DATE 02-SEP- 2010 FACILITY NAME (1)WOODLAND CENTER NPDES HIF005856 PERMIT ISSUED BY State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean Water Branch ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUE 07-APR- 2009 PERMIT ISSUED DATE 03-SEP-2010 PERMIT EXPIRED DATE 21-OCT- 2012 EFFECTIVE DATE 03-SEP-2010 RETIREMENT DATE Permit Tracking Events: EVENT DESCRIPTION EVENT DATE Permit Expiration 21-OCT-2012 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005856&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…5/7 Permit Expiration 21-OCT-2012 Permit Termination 01-NOV-2010 Permit Reissued 03-SEP-2010 Permit Issued 03-SEP-2010 Permit EÓective 03-SEP-2010 Permit Retired 02-SEP-2010 Permit EÓective 07-APR-2009 Permit Issued 07-APR-2009 Application/NOI Received 05-DEC-2008 Inspections FACILITY NAME (1)WOODLAND CENTER NPDES HIF005856 No Inspections Found. Outfalls/Pipe Schedules FACILITY NAME (1)WOODLAND CENTER NPDES HIF005856 OUTFALL TYPE PIPE NUMBER ACTIVITY STATUS REPORT DESIGNATOR LATITUDE LONGITUDE LAT/LON ACCURACY LAT/LON METHOD 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005856&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…6/7 LAT/LON SCALE LAT/LON DATUM INACTIVE DATE USGS HYDRO BASIN CODE INIT DMR DUE DATE SUBMISSION UNITS PIPE DESCRIPTION UNITS IN SUBM. PERIOD INIT REPORTING DATE REPORTING UNITS UNITS IN REPORTING PERIOD DMR COMMENT Limits Report FACILITY NAME (1)WOODLAND CENTER NPDES HIF005856 PIPE NUMBER PIPE DESCRIPTION REPORT DESIGNATOR DMR COMMENT LIMIT SET TYPE No ICIS Limits Report Found. Measurements and Violations FACILITY NAME (1)WOODLAND CENTER NPDES HIF005856 No ICIS Measurements Information Found. Compliance Schedules and Violations 11/3/2021 ICIS Search | US EPA https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=HIF005856&npvalue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npv…7/7 FACILITY NAME (1)WOODLAND CENTER NPDES HIF005856 No Compliance Schedules Found. Pretreatment Inspections/Audits FACILITY NAME (1)WOODLAND CENTER NPDES HIF005856 No ICIS Pretreatment Inspections Found. Pretreatment Performance Summary FACILITY NAME (1)WOODLAND CENTER NPDES HIF005856 No ICIS Pretreatment Performance Summary Information Found. Note: You are viewing results from the modernized data system, Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The state reporting this data to EPA previously reported the data to a historic data system, Permit Compliance System (PCS). Use the following button to view the historic data from PCS. Run a PCS Search Data Refresh Information <https://epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the- data#sources> Exhibit G Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp.9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410‐1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Endangered Species Act (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/endangered‐species 1. Does the project involve any activities that have the potential to affect species or habitats? ☐No, the project will have No Effect due to the nature of the activities involved in the project. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. ☐No, the project will have No Effect based on a letter of understanding, memorandum of agreement, programmatic agreement, or checklist provided by local HUD office. Explain your determination: Click here to enter text. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. ☒Yes, the activities involved in the project have the potential to affect species and/or habitats. Continue to Question 2. 2. Are federally listed species or designated critical habitats present in the action area? Obtain a list of protected species from the Services. This information is available on the FWS Website. ☐No, the project will have No Effect due to the absence of federally listed species and designated critical habitat. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. Documentation may include letters from the Services, species lists from the Services’ websites, surveys or other documents and analysis showing that there are no species in the action area. ☒Yes, there are federally listed species or designated critical habitats present in the action area. Continue to Question 3. 3. Recommend one of the following effects that the project will have on federally listed species or designated critical habitat: ☐No Effect: Based on the specifics of both the project and any federally listed species in the action area, you have determined that the project will have absolutely no effect on listed species or critical habitat. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. Documentation should include a species list and explanation of your conclusion, and may require maps, photographs, and surveys as appropriate. ☒May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect: Any effects that the project may have on federally listed species or critical habitats would be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. Partner entities should not contact the Services directly. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, they will have to complete Informal Consultation. Provide the RE/HUD with a biological evaluation or equivalent document. They may request additional information, including surveys and professional analysis, to complete their consultation. ☐Likely to Adversely Affect: The project may have negative effects on one or more listed species or critical habitat. Partner entities should not contact the Services directly. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, they will have to complete Formal Consultation. Provide the RE/HUD with a biological evaluation or equivalent document. They may request additional information, including surveys and professional analysis, to complete their consultation. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. The County requested technical assistance from the USFWS in an email sent on August 30, 2021. The USFWS replied in a letter dated September 15, 2021, identifying federally listed species that may occur or transit through the vicinity of the project area (enclosed). The County requested concurrence from USFWS in a letter dated December 9, 2021, for the following conditions: • The purchase and no further activity planned on the 1,323 lots, that were completely covered by molten lava, will have no effect on any listed species currently extant on the Island of Hawai‘i. • The purchase and no further activity planned on any of the remaining lots, that may not be completely inundated by lava but do not involve demolition of structures or any ground disturbance, will have no effect on any listed species currently extant on the Island of Hawaiʻi. • The implementation of the minimization measures described herein for the lots, that were not completely inundated by lava and require demolition activities that include vegetation disturbance, may impact but is not likely to adversely affect any listed species known from the area. In a letter dated January 20, 2022, the USFWS agreed with the County’s determination of “no effect” on any parcels of land within the project area that were covered in lava by the 2018 eruption, are planned for purchase, and have no ground disturbance or demolition proposed. For remaining lots where the action includes purchase of land and may include structure demolition, the USFWS anticipates that the potential for adverse effects to listed species are insignificant (undetectable) or discountable (extremely unlikely to occur) on the remaining lots where purchase and structure demolition is proposed. The USFWS concurs with the County determination that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely effect Hawaiian hoary bat, Hawaiian goose, Hawaiian seabirds, Hawaiian waterbirds, sea turtles, Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly, Blackburns’ sphinx moth, and listed plants. A discussion of each of these species, analysis of effects including avoidance and minimization measures follow: Hawaiian hoary bat The endangered Hawaiian hoary bat roosts in both exotic and native woody vegetation across all islands. Young are left unattended in trees and shrubs while foraging. If trees or shrubs 15 ft or taller are cleared during the pupping season (between June 1 and September 15) 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 3 ft to higher than 500 ft above the ground and can entangle in barbed wire used for fencing. To avoid and minimize impacts to the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, the County will incorporate the following applicable measures into their project plan: There will be no clearing and or disturbance of any woody vegetation taller than 15 feet during the pupping season (June 1 and September 15). There is no construction of fencing proposed as part of this project. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian hoary bat The proposed project will not disturb, remove, or trim woody plants 15‐ft tall or greater during the bat pupping season (June 1 through September 15) and barbed wire fencing will not be used. Based on the proposed project design and implementation of these avoidance and minimization measures, Hawaiian hoary bats are extremely unlikely to be measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Injury and mortality of the Hawaiian hoary bat will not occur. Therefore, effects to the Hawaiian hoary bat are insignificant. Hawaiian goose The threatened Hawaiian goose may be observed in a variety of habitats, but prefer open areas, such as 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. The Hawaiian goose is infrequently detected in the project area. If Hawaiian geese are detected during surveys, site preparation, or structure demolition, the following measures will be implemented and included in the County’s contracts and plans: Do not approach, feed, or disturb the Hawaiian goose. If Hawaiian geese are observed loafing or foraging within the project area during the breeding season (September through April), have a biologist familiar with Hawaiian goose nesting behavior 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 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). Cease all work immediately and contact the Service for further guidance if a nest is discovered within a radius of 150 ft of proposed project, or a previously undiscovered nest is found within the 150‐ft radius after work begins. In areas where Hawaiian geese 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. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian goose The Hawaiian goose does not commonly occur within the proposed project area. Should a Hawaiian goose appear in the area during project implementation, the County will enact Service recommended avoidance and minimization measures as outlined above. Based on the low likelihood of Hawaiian goose presence in the area and implementation of recommended avoidance and minimization measures, the Hawaiian goose is unlikely to be encountered or measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Therefore, effects to the Hawaiian goose are discountable and insignificant. Hawaiian seabirds The Hawaiian petrel, band‐rumped storm‐petrel, and Newell’s shearwater (collectively known as Hawaiian seabirds) may transit over the project area when flying between the ocean and nesting sites in the mountains during their breeding season (March through November). Hawaiian seabirds fly at night and are attracted to artificial lighting, which causes disorientation and subsequent fallout due to exhaustion. Additionally, once grounded, they are vulnerable to predators and are often struck by vehicles along roadways. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian seabirds No nighttime work or outdoor lighting is proposed as part of this project. Hawaiian seabirds are extremely unlikely to be measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Injury and mortality would not occur associated with the proposed project. Therefore, effects to Hawaiian seabirds are insignificant and discountable. Hawaiian waterbirds Prior to the 2018 eruption, there were very few wetlands or aquatic environments in the project area with the exception of a series of pools along the shoreline from Kapoho to Pohoiki. Most of these coastal wetlands were inundated and destroyed by the 2018 lava flow. The few inland aquatic ecosystems in the project area were also destroyed by the lava flows in 2018. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian waterbirds There were few records of Hawaiian waterbirds in the project area prior to the eruption and the lava flows have destroyed much of the remaining wetland habitat. Due to prior low densities and additional loss of habitat in the area, it is unlikely Hawaiian waterbirds will occur in vicinity of proposed demolition activities during project implementation. If waterbirds are found during implementation, the County will implement appropriate measures to ensure that any demolition, clearing and/or grubbing activities will not impact any listed waterbirds species. Hawaiian waterbirds are extremely unlikely to be present during project activities. Therefore, effects to Hawaiian waterbirds are discountable. Sea turtles Green sea turtles may nest on any sandy beach area in the Pacific Islands. Hawksbill sea turtles exhibit a wide tolerance for nesting substrate (ranging from sandy beach to crushed coral) with nests typically placed under vegetation. Both species exhibit strong nesting site fidelity. Nesting occurs on beaches from May through September, peaking in June and July, with hatchlings emerging through November and December. Construction on, or in the vicinity of, beaches can result in sand and sediment compaction, sea turtle nest destruction, beach erosion, contaminant and nutrient runoff, and an increase in direct and ambient light pollution which may disorient hatchlings or deter nesting females. Off‐road vehicle traffic may result in direct impacts to sea turtles or nests, and also contributes to habitat degradation through erosion and compaction. Analysis of effects – Sea turtles Proposed project activities will not take place at night, therefore there will be no light sources that could attract or disorient sea turtles. There is no sea turtle nesting habitat in the vicinity of lots that will need demolition, therefore sea turtles are extremely unlikely to be present near ground‐disturbing activities associated with the proposed project. Sea turtles and their nesting habitat will not be measurably affected by proposed activities; therefore, effects to the sea turtles are both discountable and insignificant. Blackburn’s sphinx moth The adult Blackburn’s sphinx moth (BSM) feeds on nectar from native plants, including Ipomoea pes‐ caprae (beach morning glory), Plumbago zeylanica (ʻilieʻe), Capparis sandwichiana (maiapilo), and others. The BSM moth larvae feed on nonnative Nicotiana glauca (tree tobacco), and native, federally listed, Nothocestrum spp. (ʻaiea). To pupate, the larvae burrow into the soil and can remain in a state of torpor for a year or more before emerging from the soil. Soil disturbance can result in death of the pupae. The County will adopt the following avoidance and minimization measures for BSM and require these conditions in their contracts and plans: A biologist familiar with the species should survey areas of proposed activities for BSM and its larval host plants prior to work initiation. • Surveys should be conducted during the wettest portion of the year (usually November‐April or several weeks after a significant rain) and within 4‐6 weeks prior to construction. • Surveys should include searches for adults, eggs, larvae, and signs of larval feeding (chewed stems, frass, or leaf damage). • If moths, eggs, larvae, or native ʻaiea or tree tobacco over 3 feet tall, are found during the survey, please contact the Service for additional guidance to avoid impacts to this species. If no BSM, ʻaiea, or tree tobacco are found during surveys, it is imperative that measures be taken to avoid attraction of Blackburn’s sphinx moth to the project location and prohibit tree tobacco from entering the site. Tree tobacco can grow greater than 3 feet tall in approximately 6 weeks. If it grows over 3 feet, the plants may become a host plant for Blackburn’s sphinx moth. If tree tobacco is found, the County will enact the following measures: Remove any tree tobacco less than 3 feet tall. Monitor the site every 4‐6 weeks for new tree tobacco growth before, during, and after the proposed ground‐disturbing activity. • Monitoring for tree tobacco can be completed by any staff, such as groundskeeper or regular maintenance crew, provided with picture placards of tree tobacco at different life stages. Analysis of effects – Blackburn’s sphinx moth It is unknown whether or not suitable habitat for BSM is present within the project area. The proposed project design includes implementing Service recommended avoidance and minimization measures should host plants for BSM be found. BSM are unlikely to be present or exposed to project‐related activities, particularly given the proposed avoidance and minimization measures to control tree tobacco. Therefore, effects to the BSM are discountable. Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly Hawaiian damselflies are found in aquatic habitats across the islands, with high species endemism within islands. Breeding habitat includes anchialine pools, perennial streams, marshes, ponds, and even artificial pools and seeps. Major threats include introduced fish, amphibians, and invertebrates in streams, reduced stream flow from drought and water diversion, small isolated populations, reduced habitat quality from ungulates and nonnative plants, and possibly over‐collection. Previously found in Ka Wai a Pele (Green Lake) and in the Kapoho area, all of the wetlands associated with known populations of Hawaiian orangeblack damselflies, as well as all of the known the inland aquatic ecosystems in the project area were destroyed by the lava flows of 2018. The County does not anticipate a need for structural demolition in areas of known wetland, marine and aquatic resources. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly Because of habitat loss in the area, Hawaiian orangeblack damselflies are extremely unlikely to occur in the project area. Therefore, effects to Hawaiian orangeblack damselflies are discountable. Threatened or Endangered Plants Service records indicate the endangered plants Ischaemum byrone and Cyrtandra nanawaleensis occur in the project area. Several of these populations have been documented inside of the project area, yet outside of the area inundated by lava since 2018. Project activities may affect listed plant species by causing physical damage to plant parts (i.e., roots, stems, flowers, fruits, seeds, etc.) as well as impacts to other life‐requisite features of their habitat which may result in reduction of germination, growth and/or reproduction. Cutting and removing vegetation surrounding listed plants can alter microsite conditions (e.g., light, moisture, temperature), damage or destroy the listed plants, increase the risk of invasion by nonnative plants, and cause higher incidence or intensity of fire. Activities such as grazing, using construction equipment and vehicles, and increased human traffic (i.e., trails, visitation, monitoring), can cause ground disturbance, erosion, and/or soil compaction which decreases absorption of water and nutrients and damages the plants’ root systems. This may result in reduced growth and/or mortality of listed plants. Soil disturbance or removal has the potential to negatively impact the soil seed bank of listed plant species if such species are present or historically occurred in the project area. A botanical survey will be conducted prior to the onset of clearing and grubbing focusing on native and protected species. If any listed species are encountered during these surveys the Service will be contacted and measures to protect those plants will be implemented as outlined in the table provided at the end of this analysis. Analysis of effects – Threatened or Endangered Plants Demolitions and associated surveys are only proposed in highly disturbed areas associated with structures on lands that were previously private. The project area will be surveyed prior to any work and any listed plants will be protected by implementing the avoidance and minimization measures listed above. Protections include observing buffers around any threatened and endangered plant, including Ischaemum byrone and Cyrtandra nanawaleensis. No listed plants would be measurably affected by project activities. Therefore, effects to listed plants are insignificant. Avoidance and Minimization Measures: Based on the above, there are resources identified by the USFWS where avoidance and minimization measures are recommended and should be incorporated in to the project plans for any parcels where structural demolition is proposed to maintain the determination of may effect but not likely to adversely effect. Hawaiian hoary bat To avoid and minimize impacts to the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, the County will incorporate the following applicable measures into their project plan: There will be no clearing and/or disturbance of any woody vegetation taller than 15 feet during the pupping season (June 1 and September 15). There is no construction of fencing proposed as part of this project. Hawaiian goose If Hawaiian geese are detected during surveys, site preparation, or structure demolition, the following measures will be implemented and included in the County’s contracts and plans: Do not approach, feed, or disturb the Hawaiian goose. If Hawaiian geese are observed loafing or foraging within the project area during the breeding season (September through April), have a biologist familiar with Hawaiian goose nesting behavior 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 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). Cease all work immediately and contact the Service for further guidance if a nest is discovered within a radius of 150 ft of proposed project, or a previously undiscovered nest is found within the 150‐ft radius after work begins. In areas where Hawaiian geese 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 Seabirds No nighttime work or outdoor lighting will be used as part of this project. Hawaiian Waterbirds If waterbirds are found during implementation, the County will implement appropriate measures to ensure that any demolition, clearing and/or grubbing activities will not impact any listed waterbirds species. Blackburn’s sphinx moth The County will adopt the following avoidance and minimization measures for BSM and require these conditions in their contracts and plans: A biologist familiar with the species should survey areas of proposed activities for BSM and its larval host plants prior to work initiation. • Surveys should be conducted during the wettest portion of the year (usually November‐April or several weeks after a significant rain) and within 4‐6 weeks prior to construction. • Surveys should include searches for adults, eggs, larvae, and signs of larval feeding (chewed stems, frass, or leaf damage). • If moths, eggs, larvae, or native ʻaiea or tree tobacco over 3 feet tall, are found during the survey, please contact the Service for additional guidance to avoid impacts to this species. If no BSM, ʻaiea, or tree tobacco are found during surveys, it is imperaƟve that measures be taken to avoid attraction of Blackburn’s sphinx moth to the project location and prohibit tree tobacco from entering the site. Tree tobacco can grow greater than 3 feet tall in approximately 6 weeks. If it grows over 3 feet, the plants may become a host plant for Blackburn’s sphinx moth. If tree tobacco is found, the County will enact the following measures: Remove any tree tobacco less than 3 feet tall. Monitor the site every 4‐6 weeks for new tree tobacco growth before, during, and after the proposed ground‐disturbing activity. • Monitoring for tree tobacco can be completed by any staff, such as groundskeeper or regular maintenance crew, provided with picture placards of tree tobacco at different life stages. Continues to next page Threatened and Endangered Plants A botanical survey will be conducted prior to the onset of clearing and grubbing focusing on native and protected species. If any listed species are encountered during these surveys the Service will be contacted and measures to protect those plants will be implemented as outlined in the table below: Definitions to accompany table (Wagner et al. 1999) Crown: The leafy top of a tree. Herb: A plant, either annual, biennial, or perennial, with the non-woody stems dying back to the ground at the end of the growing season. Shrub: A perennial woody plant with usually several to numerous primary stems arising from or relatively near the ground. Tree: A woody perennial that usually has a single trunk. Hawaiianmonk s eal Da te: 2/10/2022 So ur ce: Co unt y o f Haw ai‘i, 20 20. E SR I Onl ine B as e ma p. USF W S & NO A A , 2019. h tt ps://e cos .f ws.go v/ec p/r ep or t /ta ble /cr i tic al-h ab ita t.ht ml d at a 2018.Di scl ai me r: T hi s grap h ic h as be en p re pa red fo r ge ne ral p l an ni n g p ur p os es o nl y. Is la nd o f Haw ai ‘iNorth Lin ear Sca le (Fee t) 0 2 ,50 0 5,0 00 10 ,0 00 Fig u re 5Critical H abita t Cl ie nt N amePath: Q:\Planning\Hawaii\Kilauea Recovery\GISKilau ea Recover y P lan P r o j ec tArea Le g e n d Proje ct Are a L a va F lo wUSFWS C ri tic a l H a b i ta t ʻA k uʻak u (C y anea P laty phy l la ) C urr ent R ange County of Hawai‘i PLANNING DEPARTMENT www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning@hawaiicounty.gov Zendo Kern Director Jeffrey W. Darrow Deputy Director Mitchell D. Roth Mayor Lee E. Lord Managing Director East Hawai‘i Office 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 Fax (808) 961-8742 West Hawai‘i Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Hwy Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i 96740 Phone (808) 323-4770 Fax (808) 327-3563 August 30, 2021 Melissa Cady Maui Nui & Hawaiʻi Island Team Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 154 Waianuenue Avenue Suite 103 Hilo, HI 96720-2452 RE: Designation of Responsible Entity for Programmatic Environmental Assessment covering Housing Recovery Programs for 2018 Kīlauea Volcanic Eruption with CDBG-DR Funds Dear Ms. Cady: Through Public Laws 115-254 and 116-20 Congress appropriated Community Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the County of Hawai‘i (County) to support recovery from the 2018 Kīlauea volcanic eruption. Federal Register Notices 85 FR 4681 and 86 FR 569 allocate $107,561,000 in CDBG-DR funds to the County. The County is utlizing these funds to administer a Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and voluntary Housing Relocation Services Program (HRSP) to assist survivors from the 2018 Kīlauea volcanic eruption. The Federal Register Notices which govern these CDBG-DR funds require the County to follow HUD regulation 24 CFR Part 58, which implements section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Section 58.4 of 24 CFR Part 58 states, in part, the following regarding the County assuming authority as the responsible entity by receiving HUD assistance: (a) Assumption authority for responsible entities: General. Responsible entities shall assume the responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA and other provisions of law that further the purposes of NEPA, as specified in §58.5. Responsible entities that receive assistance directly from HUD assume these responsibilities by execution of a grant agreement with HUD and/or a legally binding document such as the certification contained on HUD Form 7015.15, certifying to the assumption of environmental responsibilities. When a State distributes funds to a responsible entity, the State must provide for appropriate procedures by which these responsible entities will evidence their assumption of environmental responsibilities. Melissa Cady U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 30, 2021 Page 2 The County also assumes the responsibilities of the certifying officer per Section 58.13 of 24 CFR Part 58 which states, in part: Under the terms of the certification required by §58.71, a responsible entity's certifying officer is the “responsible Federal official” as that term is used in section 102 of NEPA and in statutory provisions cited in §58.1(b). The Certifying Officer is therefore responsible for all the requirements of section 102 of NEPA and the related provisions in 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508, and 24 CFR part 58, including the related Federal authorities listed in §58.5. For this Programamtic Environmental Assessment covering the Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and voluntary Housing Relocation Services Program (HRSP) with CDBG-DR funds the Certifying Officer on behalf of the County is: Douglas Nam Le, Disaster Recovery Officer. As the Certifying Officer I will also serve as the primary point of contact for Federal and State review agencies. I can be reached at douglas.le@hawaiicounty.gov and (808) 961-8174. Mail correspondence should be addressed to: County of Hawai‘i Planning Department Disaster Recovery Division ATTN: Douglas Nam Le 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 200 Hilo, HI 96720. On behalf of the County, I appreciate your important contributions to this effort. Regards, Douglas Nam Le, AICP Disaster Recovery Officer INTERIOR REGION 9 COLUMBIA–PACIFIC NORTHWEST INTERIOR REGION 12 Pacific Islands Idaho, Montana*, Oregon*, Washington *PARTIAL American Samoa, Guam, Hawaiʻi, Northern Mariana Islands In Reply Refer To: September 15, 2021 01EPIF00-2021-SL-0449 County of Hawai‘i Planning Department Disaster Recovery Division ATTN: Douglas Nam Le 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 200 Hilo, Hawaiʻi 96720 Subject: Species List for Hawaiʻi County Voluntary Housing Buyout Program, Island of Hawaiʻi Dear Douglas Nam Le: The County of Hawaiʻi (County) has received funds administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to support recovery from the 2018 Kīlauea volcanic eruption. The County is utilizing these funds to administer a Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and voluntary Housing Relocation Services Program (HRSP) to assist survivors from the 2018 Kīlauea volcanic eruption. Through the VHBP, the County will use Federal funds to acquire eligible properties impacted by the 2018 Kīlauea eruption in order to address unmet housing recovery needs and reduce risks from future eruptions. To be eligible for the VHBP, properties must have been impacted by the disaster, whether by inundation or isolation, damage by fires caused by lava, or secondary effects of volcanic activity, such as heating or gases. The project area is in the Puna District on the Island of Hawaiʻi, and is located south of the Hilo International Airport, generally bounded by Highway 130 to the west, Hawaiian Beaches subdivision to the north, and the coastline adjacent to the Pacific Ocean to the east and south. Proposed future activities for this project include land purchase, demolition of remaining structures, and future use of purchased lands as open space. No additional development or construction activities are proposed at this time. Thank you for organizing our meeting of August 26, 2021 in which we discussed your proposed project and you requested a list of proposed listed, threatened, or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as amended (ESA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) also received your correspondence on August 30, 2021, which included a map and list of parcels that are proposed for inclusion in the County’s VHBP. We also United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122 Honolulu, Hawaiʻi 96850 Douglas Nam Le 2 appreciate your letter of August 30, 2021, clarifying the role of Hawaiʻi County as HUD’s responsible entity as it relates to consultation for this project. This letter has been prepared under the authority of, and in accordance with, provisions of the ESA. We have reviewed the information you provided and pertinent information in our files, as it pertains to listed species in accordance with the ESA. The Service provides the following comments to assist you in your planning process so that impacts to trust resources can be avoided through site preparation and implementation. Our data indicate the following federally listed species may occur or transit through the vicinity of the proposed project area: the threatened nēnē or Hawaiian goose (Branta sandvicensis), the endangered ʻōpeʻapeʻa or Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), the endangered ʻuaʻu or Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwicensis), the endangered ʻakeʻake or Hawaiʻi distinct population segment (DPS) of the band-rumped storm-petrel (Oceanodroma castro), the threatened ʻaʻo or Newell’s shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli), the endangered aeʻo or Hawaiian stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), the endangered ʻalae keʻokeʻo or Hawaiian coot (Fulica alai), the threatened honu or Central North Pacific DPS of green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the endangered honu ʻea or hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), the endangered Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly (Megalagrion xanthomelas), the endangered Blackburn’s sphinx moth (Manduca blackburni), the endangered Ischaemum byrone (Hilo ischaemum), and the endangered Cyrtandra nanawaleensis (haʻiwale). The Hawaiian petrel, band-rumped storm-petrel, and Newell’s shearwater will hereafter, collectively be referred to as “Hawaiian seabirds,” the Hawaiian stilt and Hawaiian coot will be referred to as “Hawaiian waterbirds,” green and hawksbill sea turtles will be referred to as “sea turtles,” and Hilo ischaemum and haʻiwale will be referred to as “endangered plants.” There is no critical habitat for listed species in the vicinity of this proposed project. The ʻio or Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius), a species that was recently removed from the Federal list of threatened and endangered species, is known to occur in the area. While the Service no longer consults on the Hawaiian hawk, this species is still protected under Hawaiian state regulations (H.R.S. §195D-4) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712). Please see our recommendations below and reference the aforementioned regulations for any additional consultation or mitigation requirements. Hawaiian goose The Hawaiian goose is found on the islands of Hawaiʻi, Maui, Molokaʻi, and Kauaʻi. They are observed in a variety of habitats, but prefer open areas, such as pastures, golf courses, wetlands, natural grasslands and shrublands, and lava flows. Threats to the species include introduced mammalian and avian predators, wind energy facilities, and vehicle strikes. To avoid and minimize potential project impacts to the Hawaiian goose we recommend you incorporate the following measures into your project plan: • Do not approach, feed, or disturb the Hawaiian goose. • If Hawaiian geese are observed loafing or foraging within the project area during the breeding season (September through April), have a biologist familiar with Hawaiian goose nesting behavior survey for nests in and around the project area prior to the Douglas Nam Le 3 resumption of any work. Repeat surveys after any subsequent delay of work of 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). • Cease all work immediately and contact the Service for further guidance if a nest is discovered within a radius of 150 ft of proposed project, or a previously undiscovered nest is found within the 150-ft radius after work begins. • In areas where Hawaiian geese 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 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 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 3 ft 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 endangered Hawaiian hoary bat we recommend you incorporate the following applicable measures into your project plan: • Do not disturb, remove, or trim woody plants greater than 15 ft tall during the bat- birthing and pup-rearing season (June 1 through September 15). • Do not use barbed wire for fencing. Hawaiian seabirds 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 light attraction. To avoid and minimize potential project impacts to seabirds we recommend you incorporate the following measures into your project plan: • Fully shield all outdoor lights so the bulb can only be seen from below. • 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 waterbirds Hawaiian waterbirds are currently found in a variety of wetland habitats including freshwater marshes and ponds, coastal estuaries and ponds, artificial reservoirs, Colocasia esculenta (kalo or taro) loʻi or patches, irrigation ditches, and sewage treatment ponds. Hawaiian stilts may also Douglas Nam Le 4 be found wherever ephemeral or persistent standing water may occur. Threats to these species include nonnative predators, habitat loss, and habitat degradation. Based on the project details provided, your project may result in the creation of standing water or open water that could attract Hawaiian waterbirds to the project 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 project impacts to Hawaiian waterbirds we recommend you incorporate the following applicable measures into your project plan: • 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 (see enclosed Aquatic Best Management Practices). • 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-ft 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. o 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. Sea turtles The Service consults on sea turtles and their use of terrestrial habitats (beaches where nesting and/or basking is known to occur), whereas the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries consults on sea turtles in aquatic habitats. We recommend that you consult with NOAA Fisheries regarding the potential impacts from the proposed project if it may affect off-shore or open ocean habitats. Green sea turtles may nest on any sandy beach area in the Pacific Islands. Hawksbill sea turtles exhibit a wide tolerance for nesting substrate (ranging from sandy beach to crushed coral) with nests typically placed under vegetation. Both species exhibit strong nesting site fidelity. Nesting occurs on beaches from May through September, peaking in June and July, with hatchlings emerging through November and December. Douglas Nam Le 5 Construction on, or in the vicinity of, beaches can result in sand and sediment compaction, sea turtle nest destruction, beach erosion, contaminant and nutrient runoff, and an increase in direct and ambient light pollution which may disorient hatchlings or deter nesting females. Off-road vehicle traffic may result in direct impacts to sea turtles or nests, and also contributes to habitat degradation through erosion and compaction. Projects that alter the natural beach profile, such as nourishment and hardening, including the placement of seawalls, jetties, sandbags, and other structures, are known to reduce the suitability of on-shore habitat for sea turtles. These types of projects often result in sand compaction, erosion, and additional sedimentation in nearshore habitats, resulting in adverse effects to the ecological community and may inhibit future sea turtle nesting. The hardening of a shoreline increases the potential for erosion in adjacent areas, resulting in subsequent requests to install stabilization structures or conduct beach nourishment in adjacent areas. Given projected sea level rise estimates, the likelihood of increase in storm surge intensity, and other factors associated with climate change, we anticipate that beach erosion will continue and likely increase. Where possible, projects should consider alternatives that avoid the modification or hardening of coastlines. Beach nourishment or beach hardening projects should evaluate the long-term effect to sea turtle nesting habitat and consider the cumulative effects. To avoid and minimize project impacts to sea turtles and their nests we recommend you incorporate the following measures into your project description: • No vehicle use on or modification of the beach/dune environment during the sea turtle nesting or hatching season (May to December). • Do not remove native dune vegetation. • Incorporate applicable best management practices regarding Work in Aquatic Environments (see enclosed) into the project design. • Have a biologist familiar with sea turtles conduct a visual survey of the project site to ensure no basking sea turtles are present. o If a basking sea turtle is found within the project area, cease all mechanical or construction activities within 100 feet until the animal voluntarily leaves the area. o Cease all activities between the basking turtle and the ocean. • Remove any project-related debris, trash, or equipment from the beach or dune if not actively being used. • Do not stockpile project-related materials in the intertidal zone, reef flats, sandy beach and adjacent vegetated areas, or stream channels. Optimal sea turtle nesting habitat is a dark beach free of barriers that restrict sea turtle movement. Nesting turtles may be deterred from approaching or laying successful nests on lighted or disturbed beaches. They may become disoriented by artificial lighting, leading to exhaustion and placement of a nest in an inappropriate location (such as at or below the high tide line). Hatchlings that emerge from nests may also be disoriented by artificial lighting. Inland areas visible from the beach should be sufficiently dark to allow for successful navigation by hatchlings to the ocean. Douglas Nam Le 6 To avoid and minimize project impacts to sea turtles from lighting we recommend incorporating the following applicable measures into your project description: • Avoid nighttime work during the nesting and hatching season (May to December). • Minimize the use of lighting on or near beaches and shield all project-related lights so the light is not visible from any beach. o If lights can’t be fully shielded or if headlights must be used, fully enclose the light source with light filtering tape or filters. • Incorporate design measures into the construction or operation of buildings adjacent to the beach to reduce ambient outdoor lighting such as: o tinting or using automatic window shades for exterior windows that face the beach; o reducing the height of exterior lighting to below 3 feet and pointed downward or away from the beach; and o minimize light intensity to the lowest level feasible and, when possible, include timers and motion sensors. Orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly Hawaiian damselflies are found in aquatic habitats across the islands, with high species endemism within islands. The Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly has been previously recorded within the project area. Breeding habitat includes anchialine pools, perennial streams, marshes, ponds, and even artificial pools and seeps. Major threats include introduced fish, amphibians, and invertebrates in streams, reduced stream flow from drought and water diversion, small isolated populations, reduced habitat quality from ungulates and nonnative plants, and possibly over-collection. To avoid and minimize project impacts to damselflies, we recommend incorporating the following applicable measures into your project description: • Applicable best management practices regarding work in aquatic environments (see enclosure) should be incorporated into the project description to minimize the degradation of water quality and impacts to fish and wildlife resources. • Permits are required for accurate surveys of this species, so consult with the Service if work will be done in proximity to stream areas or within water bodies. Blackburn’s sphinx moth The adult Blackburn’s sphinx moth feeds on nectar from native plants, including Ipomoea pes- caprae (beach morning glory), Plumbago zeylanica (ʻilieʻe), Capparis sandwichiana (maiapilo), and others. Blackburn’s sphinx moth larvae feed on nonnative Nicotiana glauca (tree tobacco), and native, federally listed, Nothocestrum spp. (ʻaiea). To pupate, the larvae burrow into the soil and can remain in a state of torpor for a year or more before emerging from the soil. Soil disturbance can result in death of the pupae. We offer the following survey recommendations to assess whether the Blackburn’s sphinx moth occurs within the project area: • A biologist familiar with the species should survey areas of proposed activities for Blackburn’s sphinx moth and its larval host plants prior to work initiation. o Surveys should be conducted during the wettest portion of the year (usually November to April or several weeks after a significant rain) and within 4-to-6 weeks prior to construction. Douglas Nam Le 7 o Surveys should include searches for adults, eggs, larvae, and signs of larval feeding (i.e., chewed stems, frass, or leaf damage). o If moths, eggs, larvae, or native ʻaiea or tree tobacco over 3-ft tall, are found during the survey, please contact the Service for additional guidance to avoid impacts to this species. If no Blackburn’s sphinx moth, ʻaiea, or tree tobacco are found during surveys, it is imperative that measures be taken to avoid attraction of Blackburn’s sphinx moth to the project location and prohibit tree tobacco from entering the site. Tree tobacco can grow greater than 3-ft tall in approximately 6 weeks. If it grows over 3-ft tall, the plants may become a host plant for Blackburn’s sphinx moth. We therefore recommend that you: • Remove any tree tobacco less than 3-ft tall. • Monitor the site every 4-to-6 weeks for new tree tobacco growth before, during, and after the proposed ground-disturbing activity. o Monitoring for tree tobacco can be completed by any staff, such as groundskeeper or regular maintenance crew, provided with picture placards of tree tobacco at different life stages. Endangered plants Project activities may affect listed plant species by causing physical damage to plant parts (roots, stems, flowers, fruits, seeds, etc.) as well as impacts to other life requisite features of their habitat which may result in reduction of germination, growth and/or reproduction. Cutting and removal of vegetation surrounding listed plants has the potential to alter microsite conditions (e.g., light, moisture, temperature), damaging or destroying the listed plants and also increasing the risk of invasion by nonnative plants which can result in higher incidence or intensity of fire. Activities such as grazing, use of construction equipment and vehicles, and increased human traffic (i.e., trails, visitation, monitoring), can cause ground disturbance, erosion, and/or soil compaction which decrease absorption of water and nutrients and damage plant root systems and may result in reduced growth and/or mortality of listed plants. Soil disturbance or removal has the potential to negatively impact the soil seed bank of listed plant species if such species are present or historically occurred in the project area. In order to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects to listed plants that may occur on the proposed project site, we recommend minimizing disturbance outside of existing developed or otherwise modified areas. When disturbance outside existing developed or modified sites is proposed, conduct a botanical survey for listed plant species within the project action area, defined as the area where direct and indirect effects are likely to occur. Surveys should be conducted by a knowledgeable botanist with documented experience in identifying native Hawaiian and Pacific Islands plants, including listed plant species. Botanical surveys should optimally be conducted during the wettest part of the year (typically October to April) when plants and identifying features are more likely to be visible, especially in drier areas. If surveys are conducted outside of the wet season, the Service may assume plant presence. The boundary of the area occupied by listed plants should be marked with flagging by the surveyor. To avoid or minimize potential adverse effects to listed plants, we recommend adherence to buffer distances for the activities in the Table below. Where disturbed areas do not Douglas Nam Le 8 need to be maintained as an open area, restore disturbed areas using native plants as appropriate for the location. Whenever possible we recommend using native plants for landscaping purposes. The following websites are good resources to use when choosing landscaping plants: Landscape Industry Council of Hawai‘i Native Plant Poster (http://hawaiiscape.wpengine.com/publications/), Native Hawaiian Plants for Landscaping, Conservation, and Reforestation (https://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/of-30.pdf), and Best Native Plants for Landscapes (https://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/OF-40.pdf). If listed plants occur in a project area, the avoidance buffers are recommended to reduce direct and indirect impacts to listed plants from project activities. However, where project activities will occur within the recommended buffer distances, additional consultation is required. The impacts to the plants of concern within the buffer area may be reduced by placing temporary fencing or other barriers at the boundary of the disturbance, as far from the affected plants as practicable. The above guidelines apply to areas outside of designated critical habitat. If project activities occur within designated critical habitat unit boundaries, additional consultation is required. All activities, including site surveys, risk introducing nonnative species into project areas. Specific attention needs to be made to ensure that all equipment, personnel and supplies are properly checked and are free of contamination (weed seeds, organic matter, or other contaminants) before entering project areas. Quarantines and or management activities occurring on specific priority invasive species proximal to project areas need to be considered or adequately addressed. This information can be acquired by contacting local experts such as those on local invasive species committees (Hawaiʻi: https://www.biisc.org/). Table 1. Recommended buffer distances to minimize and avoid potential adverse impacts to listed plants from activities listed below. Action Buffer Distance (feet (meters)) - Keep Project Activity This Far Away from Listed Plant Grasses/Herbs/Shrubs and Terrestrial Orchids Trees and Arboreal Orchids Walking, hiking, surveys 3 ft (1 m) 3 ft (1 m) Cutting and Removing Vegetation By Hand or Hand Tools (e.g., weeding) 3 ft (1 m) 3 ft (1 m) Mechanical Removal of Individual Plants or Woody Vegetation (e.g., chainsaw, weed eater) 3 ft up to height of removed vegetation (whichever greater) 3 ft up to height of removed vegetation (whichever greater) Removal of Vegetation with Heavy Equipment (e.g., bulldozer, tractor, "bush hog") 2x width equipment + height of vegetation 820 ft (250 m) Use of Approved Ground-based Spray Application; hand 10 ft (3 m) Crown diameter Douglas Nam Le 9 Herbicides (following label) application (no wand applicator; spot treatment) Ground-based Spray Application; manual pump with wand, backpack 50 ft (15 m) Crown diameter Ground-based Spray Application; vehicle- mounted tank sprayer 50 ft (15 m) Crown diameter Aerial Spray (ball applicator) 250 ft (76 m) 250 ft (76 m) Aerial Application – herbicide ballistic technology (individual plant treatment) 100 ft (30 m) Crown diameter Aerial Spray (boom) Further consultation required Further consultation required Use of Insecticides (pollinators, seed dispersers) Further consultation required Further consultation required Ground/Soil Disturbance/Outplanting/Fencing (Hand tools, e.g. shovel, `ō`ō; Small mechanized tools, e.g., auger) 20 ft (6 m) 2x crown diameter Ground/Soil Disturbance (Heavy Equipment) 328 ft (100 m) 820 ft (250 m) Surface Hardening/Soil compaction Trails (e.g., human, ungulates) 20 ft (6 m) 2x crown diameter Roads/Utility Corridors, Buildings/Structures 328 ft (100 m) 820 ft (250 m) Prescribed Burns Further consultation required Further consultation required Farming/Ranching/Silviculture 820 ft (250 m) 820 ft (250 m) Definitions (Wagner et al. 1999) Crown: The leafy top of a tree. Herb: A plant, either annual, biennial, or perennial, with the non-woody stems dying back to the ground at the end of the growing season. Shrub: A perennial woody plant with usually several to numerous primary stems arising from or relatively near the ground. Tree: A woody perennial that usually has a single trunk Douglas Nam Le 10 Hawaiian hawk The Hawaiian hawk was recently federally delisted but remains a listed species under Hawaiʻi State law. The Hawaiian hawk is known to occur across a broad range of forest habitats throughout the island of Hawaiʻi. 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 incorporate the following applicable measures into your project plan: • If work must be conducted between March 1 through September 30, during the 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. • Clearing of vegetation or construction activities should not occur 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, avoid trimming or cutting trees containing a hawk nest, as nests may be re-used during consecutive breeding seasons. Measures to Avoid the Spread of Invasive Species Construction activities at project areas in or near local natural areas and areas with native habitat, risk introduction of nonnative species. Ensure that all equipment, personnel, and supplies are properly checked and are free of contamination (i.e., weed seeds, organic matter, or other contaminants) before entering natural areas and areas with native habitat. Please review the enclosed Biosecurity Protocol for the Island of Hawaiʻi and incorporate applicable measures into your project plans. The Service recommends incorporating all applicable avoidance and minimization measures into your project design to avoid and minimize effects on protected species. If it is determined that your proposed project may affect federally listed species, we recommend you contact our office early in the planning process so that we may assist you with ESA compliance. If the proposed project is funded, authorized, or permitted, or implemented by a Federal agency, then that agency should consult with us pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. If no federal action agency is involved but take of listed species cannot be fully avoided, the project should begin development of a Habitat Conservation Plan in order to obtain an Incidental Take Permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. We appreciate your efforts to conserve protected species. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact Melissa Cady, Fish and Wildlife Biologist at 808- 933-6963 or melissa_cady@fws.gov. When referring to this project, please include this reference number: 01EPIF00-2021-SL-0449. Douglas Nam Le 11 Sincerely, Acting Island Team Manager Maui Nui and Hawaiʻi Island Enclosures: Aquatic Best Management Practices Hawaiʻi Island Biosecurity Protocol cc: Catie Cullison, PBR Hawaiʻi Jeff Seastrom, PBR Hawaiʻi LITERATURE CITED Wagner, W.L., Sohmer, S., and D.R. Herbst. 1999. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawaii, revised edition. Honolulu, Hawaii. University of Hawaii and Bishop Museum Press. 1,919 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recommended Standard Best Management Practices The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommends the following measures to be incorporated into project planning to avoid or minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Best Management Practices (BMPs) include the incorporation of procedures or materials that may be used to reduce either direct or indirect negative impacts to aquatic habitats that result from project construction-related activities. These BMPs are recommended in addition to, and do not over-ride any terms, conditions, or other recommendations prepared by the USFWS, other federal, state or local agencies. If you have questions concerning these BMPs, please contact the USFWS Aquatic Ecosystems Conservation Program at 808-792-9400. 1. Authorized dredging and filling-related activities that may result in the temporary or permanent loss of aquatic habitats should be designed to avoid indirect, negative impacts to aquatic habitats beyond the planned project area. 2. Dredging/filling in the marine environment should be scheduled to avoid coral spawning and recruitment periods, and sea turtle nesting and hatching periods. Because these periods are variable throughout the Pacific islands, we recommend contacting the relevant local, state, or federal fish and wildlife resource agency for site specific guidance. 3. Turbidity and siltation from project-related work should be minimized and contained within the project area by silt containment devices and curtailing work during flooding or adverse tidal and weather conditions. BMPs should be maintained for the life of the construction period until turbidity and siltation within the project area is stabilized. All project construction-related debris and sediment containment devices should be removed and disposed of at an approved site. 4. All project construction-related materials and equipment (dredges, vessels, backhoes, silt curtains, etc.) to be placed in an aquatic environment should be inspected for pollutants including, but not limited to; marine fouling organisms, grease, oil, etc., and cleaned to remove pollutants prior to use. Project related activities should not result in any debris disposal, non-native species introductions, or attraction of non-native pests to the affected or adjacent aquatic or terrestrial habitats. Implementing both a litter-control plan and a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point plan (HACCP – see https://www.fws.gov/policy/A1750fw1.html) can help to prevent attraction and introduction of non-native species. 5. Project construction-related materials (fill, revetment rock, pipe, etc.) should not be stockpiled in, or in close proximity to aquatic habitats and should be protected from erosion (e.g., with filter fabric, etc.), to prevent materials from being carried into waters by wind, rain, or high surf. 6. Fueling of project-related vehicles and equipment should take place away from the aquatic environment and a contingency plan to control petroleum products accidentally Aquatic Best Management Practices 2 spilled during the project should be developed. The plan should be retained on site with the person responsible for compliance with the plan. Absorbent pads and containment booms should be stored on-site to facilitate the clean-up of accidental petroleum releases. 7. All deliberately exposed soil or under-layer materials used in the project near water should be protected from erosion and stabilized as soon as possible with geotextile, filter fabric or native or non-invasive vegetation matting, hydro-seeding, etc. BIOSECURITY PROTOCOL – HAWAIʻI ISLAND The following biosecurity protocol (based on National Park Service, State of Hawaiʻi, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Geological Survey, and the DOI Office of Native Hawaiian Relations guidance) should be followed when operating on Hawaiʻi Island to prevent the introduction of harmful invasive species including frogs, ants, weeds, and fungi into local natural areas (e.g., Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park, Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, State of Hawaiʻi “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 designated cleaning 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 is preferred. Areas of particular concern include bumpers, grills, hood compartments, areas under the battery, wheel wells, undercarriage, cabs, and truck beds (truck beds with accumulated material (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 and food. The interiors of vehicles and the cabs of machinery must be vacuumed clean. Floor mats shall be sanitized with a solution of >70 percent isopropyl alcohol or a freshly mixed 10 percent bleach solution. c. Any machinery, vehicles, equipment, or other supplies found to be infested with ants (or other invasive species) must not enter natural areas or native habitat. Treatment is the responsibility of the equipment or vehicle owner and operator. 2. Little Fire Ants – All work vehicles, machinery, and equipment should be inspected for invasive 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 or native 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 percent 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 Café Pro (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 the contents, apply a sticker listing contents to the station. Biosecurity Protocol 2 c. Any machinery, vehicles, equipment, or other supplies found to be infested with ants (or other invasive 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 by the Hawaiʻi Ant Lab (http://www.littlefireants.com/) or other ant control expert and in accordance 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 baited using MaxForce Complete Brand Granular Insect Bait (1.0 percent Hydramethylnon; http://littlefireants.com/Maxforce%20Complete.pdf) or AmdroPro (0.73 percent Hydramethylnon; http://littlefireants.com/Amdro percent20Pro.pdf) 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 percent Hydramethylnon; http://littlefireants.com/Maxforce%20Complete.pdf) or AmdroPro (0.73 percent Hydramethylnon; http://littlefireants.com/Amdro%20Pro.pdf) following label guidance. 3. Base yards and staging areas inside and outside areas must be kept free of invasive species. 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 parked overnight, keeping areas within 10-meters of vehicles free of debris. Parking on pavement and not 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 ʻŌhiʻa Death (ROD) fungus. a. Avoid wounding ʻōhiʻa 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 remove visible 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 sanitized using a solution of >70 percent isopropyl alcohol or a freshly mixed 10 percent bleach solution. One minute after sanitizing, you may apply an oil based lubricant to chainsaw chains or other metallic parts to prevent corrosion. Biosecurity Protocol 3 c. Only dedicated tools and chainsaws should be used to sample known or suspected ROD infected trees. d. Vehicles, machinery, and equipment must be cleaned as described in (1) above. 5. Imported firewood, logs, and ʻōhiʻa parts: a. ʻŌhiʻa firewood, ʻōhiʻa logs, and ʻōhiʻa 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, radio harness, tools and other personal gear and equipment, for seeds, soil, plant parts, insects, and other debris. A small brush is handy for cleaning boots, equipment and gear. Soles of shoes should be sanitized using a solution of >70 percent isopropyl alcohol or a freshly mixed 10 percent bleach solution. 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 percent isopropyl alcohol or a freshly mixed 10 percent bleach solution. c. Little fire ants nest in trees. If you are under a tree and that tree is bumped or somehow stressed, the threat response of the ants is to fall from the leaves and sting the person under the tree. If you are subject to an ant attack, do not panic. The ants are extremely small but their stings are 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. Stocking antihistamine 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, neck stiffness, low grade fever, nausea, and vomiting anywhere from 1-6 weeks after exposure. The disease is not spread person to person. Anyone who handles snails or slugs should wear gloves and/or wash hands. Eating unwashed produce is discouraged. County of Hawai‘i PLANNING DEPARTMENT www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning@hawaiicounty.gov Zendo Kern Director Jeffrey W. Darrow Deputy Director Mitchell D. Roth Mayor Lee E. Lord Managing Director East Hawai‘i Office 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 Fax (808) 961-8742 West Hawai‘i Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Hwy Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i 96740 Phone (808) 323-4770 Fax (808) 327-3563 December 9, 2021 Field Supervisor via electronic transmittal: pifwo_admin@fws.gov Department of the Interior melissa_cady@fws.gov U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088 Honolulu, Hawaiʻi 96850-5000 RE: SECTION 7, ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT INFORMAL CONSULTATION REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON EFFECT DETERMINATION, COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, HOUSING RECOVERY PROGRAMS FOR THE 2018 KĪLAUEA VOLCANIC ERUPTION. USFWS LOG # 01EPIF00-2021-SL-0449 Dear Field Supervisor, The County of Hawaiʻi (County) has received funds administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to support recovery from the 2018 Kīlauea volcanic eruption. The County is utilizing these funds to administer a Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and voluntary Housing Relocation Services Program (HRSP) to assist survivors from the 2018 Kīlauea volcanic eruption. Through the VHBP, the County will use Federal funds to acquire eligible properties impacted by the 2018 Kīlauea eruption in order to address unmet housing recovery needs and reduce risks from future eruptions. The County of Hawai‘i is acting as the agent for HUD (County of Hawaii, 2021, attached). Project Description The project area is in the Puna District on the Island of Hawaiʻi, and is located south of the Hilo International Airport, generally bounded by Highway 130 to the west, Hawaiian Beaches subdivision to the north, and the coastline adjacent to the Pacific Ocean to the east and south. The pro ject is located within the following census block groups, 211.01 Block Groups 1 and 2, and 211.06 Block Groups 2 and 4, as well as a portion of land affected by underground magma located off, of Highway 130 near the Iilewa Crater. See Regional Location Map, enclosed. To be eligible for the VHBP, properties must have been impacted by the disaster, whether by inundation or isolation, damage by fires caused by lava, or secondary effects of volcanic activity, such as heating or gases. RE: SECTION 7, ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT INFORMAL CONSULTATION REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON EFFECT DETERMINATION, COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, HOUSING RECOVERY PROGRAMS FOR THE 2018 KĪLAUEA VOLCANIC ERUPTION. USFWS LOG # 01EPIF00-2021-SL-0449 Page 2 A total of 1,882 lots are within the project area. Of these lots, 1,323 lots were completely covered by molten lava. Of the remaining 559 lots, 234lots have varying degrees of lava cover that were not isolated, 180 lots were partially isolated with varying degrees of lava cover, and 145 were completely isolated (GIS shape file data sent to the agency by Douglas Nam Le, County of Hawaiʻi, Disaster Recovery Officer, and the County’s POC for this consultation). The proposed action is the expenditure of federal (HUD) funds for land purchase and demolition of remaining structures, if present. No new development or construction activities are proposed at this time. Future use of purchased lands are expected to be open space. We are seeking concurrence from your office as follows: • The purchase and no further activity planned on the 1,323 lots, that were completely covered by molten lava, will have no effect on any listed species currently extant on the Island of Hawai‘i. • The purchase and no further activity planned on any of the remaining lots, that may not be completely inundated by lava but do not involve demolition of structures or any ground disturbance, will have no effect on any listed species currently extant on the Island of Hawaiʻi. • The implementation of the minimization measures described herein for the lots, that were not completely inundated by lava and require demolition activities that include vegetation distubance, may impact but is not likely to adversely affect any listed species known from the area. Section 7 Consultation History The project requested technical assistance from your office on August 30, 2021, following a meeting between the County and the USFWS on August 26, 2021. The County received a letter from the USFWS on September 15, 2021, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Log # USFWS Log # 01EPIF00-2021-SL-0449, detailing their technical assistance guidance, and a list of species that may occur or transit through Action Area. Those species are as follows: “The threatened nēnē or Hawaiian goose (Branta sandvicensis), the endangered ʻōpeʻapeʻa or Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), the endangered ʻuaʻu or Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwicensis), the endangered ʻakeʻake or Hawaiʻi distinct population segment (DPS) of the band-rumped storm-petrel (Oceanodroma castro), the threatened Newell’s shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli), the endangered Hawaiian stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), the endangered Hawaiian coot (Fulica alai), the threatened honu or Central North Pacific DPS of green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the endangered honu ʻea or hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), the endangered Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly (Megalagrion xanthomelas), the endangered Blackburn’s sphinx moth (Manduca blackburni), RE: SECTION 7, ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT INFORMAL CONSULTATION REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON EFFECT DETERMINATION, COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, HOUSING RECOVERY PROGRAMS FOR THE 2018 KĪLAUEA VOLCANIC ERUPTION. USFWS LOG # 01EPIF00-2021-SL-0449 Page 3 the endangered Ischaemum byrone (Hilo ischaemum), and the endangered Cyrtandra nanawaleensis (haʻiwale)………” Biological Surveys No biological surveys have been conducted on any of the parcels under discussion – the 1,323 lots which were completely inundated by molten lava, clearly have no protected species on them, and as such the purchase of those lots for use as open space will not result in impacts to any listed species. For lots with remaining vegetation qualify for buyout, that include structures which require demolition activities that include vegetation distubance, flora and fauna surveys will need to be conducted prior to commencement of work to ensure that the removal of remaining structures and the re-wilding of those lots does not result in deleterious impacts to any listed species. Minimization Measures Minimization measures that will be followed for those of the 559 remaining lots that qualify for buyout, and where vegetation disturbance is proposed, will include biological surveys and the following minimization measures: Plants: A botanical survey will be conducted prior to the onset of clearing and grubbing focusing on native and protected species. If any listed species are encountered during these surveys the USFWS will be contacted and measures to protect those plants in place will be developed and implemented to minimize any further harm to listed botanical resources. Damselflies: It is unlikely that any wetlands, streams, or seeps remain on these lots, however if any are found a damselfly survey will be conducted to determine if there is any current usage of any of these aquatic features by listed damselflies. If listed damselflies are recorded the USFWS will be contacted and measures to protect the damselflies will be developed and implemented if necessary. RE: SECTION 7, ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT INFORMAL CONSULTATION REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON EFFECT DETERMINATION, COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, HOUSING RECOVERY PROGRAMS FOR THE 2018 KĪLAUEA VOLCANIC ERUPTION. USFWS LOG # 01EPIF00-2021-SL-0449 Page 4 Blackburn’s Sphinx Moth: A botanical survey will be conducted prior to the onset of clearing and grubbing focusing on plants in the Solanaceae family and in particular tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) the host plants for the endangered Blackburn’s sphinx moth (Manduca blackburni). If tree tobacco or other potential host plant is recorded during that survey the project will consult with the USFWS to determine the appropriate steps to control the host plants. Sea Turtles: There are no lots with potential sea turtle nesting beaches that were not totally destroyed, ergo, no impacts to either green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), or hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmocheles imbricata) are expected from this proposed action. Nēnē: It is highly unlikely that threatened Nēnē (Branta sandvicensis) are present on any of the remaining habitat left on lots that still support vegetation, as it is not an area on the Island where this species is often seen. Nonetheless during avian surveys that will be conducted on these lots biologists will survey for Nēnē. If it is determined that there is suitable nesting habitat for Nēnē on any of the lots, and Nēnē are recorded appropriate measures will be implemented to ensure that any demolition, clearing and/or grubbing that include vegetation disturbance may be required will not impact Nēnē, furthermore no disturbance will occur during the Nēnē nesting season between October and March. Waterbirds: It is highly unlikely that any of the three extant listed waterbirds found on the Island of Hawai‘i, Hawaiian Duck (Anas wyvilliana), and Hawaiian Coot (Fulica alai), and the endemic subspecies of the Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni) use resources on any of these lots. If any are found appropriate measures will be implemented to ensure that any demolition, clearing and/or grubbing that includes vegetation disturbance that may be required will not impact any listed waterbirds species. Seabirds: Potential impacts to protected seabirds posed by demolition, clearing and/or grubbing that includes vegetation disturbance is an increased threat to transiting birds disoriented by lights associated with the action during the seabird nesting season and particularly during the fledging season which runs between September 15 through December 15 each year. As no night-time construction will occur in these remote areas, it is not expected that this proposed action will result in deleterious impacts to listed seabird species. RE: SECTION 7, ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT INFORMAL CONSULTATION REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON EFFECT DETERMINATION, COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, HOUSING RECOVERY PROGRAMS FOR THE 2018 KĪLAUEA VOLCANIC ERUPTION. USFWS LOG # 01EPIF00-2021-SL-0449 Page 5 Hawaiian Hawk: Hawaiian Hawks are no longer listed by the USFWS but are still listed by the state of Hawai‘i (USFWS, 2020; HDLNR,1998). Although not covered under a Section 7 consultation, the project will conduct nesting Hawaiian Hawk surveys on appropriate parcels if any are identified with suitable nesting substrate trees on them. Disturbance will be prohibited within a kilometer of any identified active or potential nest until the nest fails or the chick fledges. Hawaiian Hoary Bat: The principal potential impact to bats would occur when vegetation is cleared and grubbed. Removal of trees could displace individual bats using a tree as a roosting location. However, this species of bat uses multiple roosts within a home territory, so the disturbance associated with removal of particular trees would be minimal. An exception might be if, during the pupping season, a female bat carrying a pup is unable to vacate rapidly a roost tree that is being felled. Or, if an adult female bat out foraging is not with a pup in the roost tree when it is felled as very small pups would be unable to flee a tree that is being felled. Potential adverse impacts from such disturbance can be avoided or minimized by not clearing woody vegetation taller than 4.6 m (15 ft) between June 1 and September 15, the bat pupping season. Critical Habitat There is no federally delineated Critical Habitat for any biological species on the proposed project Action Areas (USFWS, 2021, nd-b). In summation, we are seeking concurrence from your office that the purchase and no further activity planned on the 1,323 lots, that were completely covered by molten lava, will not result in impacts to any listed species currently extant on the Island of Hawai‘i. Furthermore, that the implementation of the described minimization measures for the lots that were not completely inundated by lava that qualify for the buyout that the proposed action, and require vegetation disturbance, may impact but is not likely to adversely affect any listed species known from the area. RE: SECTION 7, ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT INFORMAL CONSULTATION REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON EFFECT DETERMINATION, COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, HOUSING RECOVERY PROGRAMS FOR THE 2018 KĪLAUEA VOLCANIC ERUPTION. USFWS LOG # 01EPIF00-2021-SL-0449 Page 6 Determination We are seeking concurrence from your office as follows: • The purchase and no further activity planned on the 1,323 lots, that were completely covered by molten lava, will have no effect on any listed species currently extant on the Island of Hawai‘i. • The purchase and no further activity planned on any of the remaining lots, that may not be completely inundated by lava but do not involve demolition of structures or any ground disturbance, will have no effect on any listed species currently extant on the Island of Hawaiʻi. • The implementation of the minimization measures described herein for the lots, that were not completely inundated by lava and require demolition activities that include vegetation distubance, may impact but is not likely to adversely affect any listed species known from the area. Should you have any questions or require further information regarding this project, please contact kilauearecovery@hawaiicounty.gov or (808) 961-8996. Citations County of Hawaii 2021. Designation of Responsible Entity for Programmatic Environmental Assessment covering Housing Recovery Programs for 2018 Kīlauea Volcanic Eruption with CDBG-DR Funds. Dated August 30, 2021. Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources (HDLNR). 1998. Indigenous Wildlife, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and Introduced Wild Birds. Department of Land and Natural Resources. State of Hawaii. Administrative Rule §13‐134‐1 through §13‐134‐10, dated March 02, 1998. USFWS. 2020b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Hawaiian Hawk From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register, Vol. 85. No. 1. (164-189). Published January 2, 2020. ________. Undated (nd-a). USFWS Endangered Species. Available online at URL: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/; last retrieved November 20, 2021. ______. Undated (nd-b). Critical Habitat Portal. Available online at URL: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html; last retrieved November 20, 2021. ______. Species List for Hawaiʻi County Voluntary Housing Buyout Program, Island of Hawaiʻi. Dated September 15, 2021. RE: SECTION 7, ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT INFORMAL CONSULTATION REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON EFFECT DETERMINATION, COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, HOUSING RECOVERY PROGRAMS FOR THE 2018 KĪLAUEA VOLCANIC ERUPTION. USFWS LOG # 01EPIF00-2021-SL-0449 Page 7 Mahalo, Douglas Nam Le, AICP Disaster Recovery Officer Hawaiʻi County Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 kilauearecovery@hawaiicounty.gov Attachments: County of Hawaiʻi, 2021 Regional Location Map cc: Catie Cullison, PBR HAWAII Date : 8 /2 4/2021 Legend Project Area Lava Flow 211.01 Block Group 1 211.01 Block Group 2 211.06 Block Group 2 211.06 Block Group 4 Additional UndergroundMagma Location Source: County of Hawai‘i, 2019. USGS, 2019. ESRI Online B asemap.Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared f or general planning purposes only. Island of Hawai‘iNorth Linear Scale (Feet)0 3,000 6,000 12,000 Exhibi t __Loca tion Map Client NamePath: Q:\Planning\Hawaii\Kilauea Recovery\GISKilauea Rec over y Plan ProjectArea INTERIOR REGION 9 COLUMBIA–PACIFIC NORTHWEST INTERIOR REGION 12 Pacific Islands Idaho, Montana*, Oregon*, Washington *PARTIAL American Samoa, Guam, Hawaiʻi, Northern Mariana Islands In Reply Refer To: January 20, 2022 01EPIF00-2022-I-0117 Douglas Nam Le County of Hawai‘i Planning Department Disaster Recovery Division 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 200 Hilo, Hawaiʻi 96720 Subject: Informal Consultation for Hawaiʻi County Voluntary Housing Buyout Program, Puna District, Island of Hawaiʻi Dear Douglas Nam Le: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received your request for informal consultation on December 15, 2021, and additional clarifications regarding the effects determinations via email on December 22, 2021, and January 6, 2022. Specifically, you have requested our concurrence with your determination that the proposed land purchase, survey, and demolition of structures in the 2018 Kīlauea Volcanic Eruption area may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the following species: • Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus); • Hawaiian goose (Branta sandvicensis); • Hawaiian seabirds, including the Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), Newell’s shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli), and the Hawaiʻi distinct population segment (DPS) of the band-rumped storm-petrel (Oceanodroma castro); • Hawaiian waterbirds, including the Hawaiian stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), Hawaiian Duck (Anas wyvilliana), and the Hawaiian coot (Fulica americana alai); • Sea turtles, including the Central North Pacific DPS of green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata); • Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly (Megalagrion xanthomelas); • Blackburn’s sphinx moth (Manduca blackburni); and • Listed plants, including Ischaemum byrone (Hilo ischaemum), and Cyrtandra nanawaleensis (haʻiwale). United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122 Honolulu, Hawaiʻi 96850 Douglas Nam Le 2 This letter has been prepared under the authority of, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) as amended (ESA). Project Description The County of Hawaiʻi (County) has received funds administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to support recovery from the 2018 Kīlauea volcanic eruption. Hawaiʻi County was identified as the responsible entity as it relates to consultation for this project as outlined in your letter of August 30, 2021. The County is utilizing these Federal funds to administer a Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and voluntary Housing Relocation Services Program (HRSP) to assist survivors from the 2018 Kīlauea volcanic eruption. Through the VHBP, the County will use Federal funds to acquire eligible properties impacted by the 2018 Kīlauea eruption in order to address unmet housing recovery needs and reduce risks from future eruptions. To be eligible for the VHBP, properties must have been impacted by the disaster, whether by inundation or isolation, damage by fires caused by lava, or secondary effects of volcanic activity, such as heating or gases. The project area is in the Puna District on the Island of Hawaiʻi, and is located south of the Hilo International Airport, generally bounded by Highway 130 to the west, Hawaiian Beaches subdivision to the north, and the coastline adjacent to the Pacific Ocean to the east and south. A total of 1,882 lots are within the project area. Of these lots, 1,323 lots were completely covered by molten lava. Of the remaining 559 lots, 234 lots have varying degrees of lava cover that were not isolated, 180 lots were partially isolated with varying degrees of lava cover, and 145 were completely isolated. Proposed future activities for this project include land purchase, demolition of remaining structures, and future use of purchased lands as open space. No additional development or construction activities are proposed at this time. Demolition and removal of existing structures will be required in cases where structures were not completely inundated with lava. Such parcels account for approximately 2 percent of the 449 applications received to date (fewer than 10 properties), though more are anticipated as this application period ends January 31, 2022. The County made “no effect” determinations for listed species on all remaining lots (at least 1,323 parcels) in the project area where the only project activity planned is purchase of the land and no structural demolition or ground disturbing activities are proposed. The exact number of parcels that will be purchased and structures that will be demolished is dependent on applications from the public and is therefore unknown at this time. A full list of parcels under consideration for this project is contained in the Service project record. The following project information is for those future actions involving demolition of structures and anticipated future use as open area. No barbed wire fencing is proposed as part of this project. No nighttime construction or demolition work is proposed as part of this project. The County does not anticipate a need for structural demolition in wetlands, marine, or any other aquatic areas based on the program eligibility criteria, the geographic locations of the current applicant properties, and the nature of inundation by lava in the areas where the program is acquiring properties. The few properties with remaining structures that would require demolition Douglas Nam Le 3 following acquisition by the County are inland and away from known wetland, marine, and aquatic areas. Hawaiian hoary bat The endangered Hawaiian hoary bat roosts in both exotic and native woody vegetation across all islands. Young are left unattended in trees and shrubs while foraging. If trees or shrubs 15 ft or taller are cleared during the pupping season (between June 1 and September 15) 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 3 ft to higher than 500 ft above the ground and can entangle in barbed wire used for fencing. To avoid and minimize impacts to the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, the County will incorporate the following applicable measures into their project plan: • There will be no clearing and or disturbance of any woody vegetation taller than 15 feet during the pupping season (June 1 and September 15). • There is no construction of fencing proposed as part of this project. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian hoary bat The proposed project will not disturb, remove, or trim woody plants 15-ft tall or greater during the bat pupping season (June 1 through September 15) and barbed wire fencing will not be used. Based on the proposed project design and implementation of these avoidance and minimization measures, Hawaiian hoary bats are extremely unlikely to be measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Injury and mortality of the Hawaiian hoary bat will not occur. Therefore, effects to the Hawaiian hoary bat are insignificant. Hawaiian goose The threatened Hawaiian goose may be observed in a variety of habitats, but prefer open areas, such as 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. The Hawaiian goose is infrequently detected in the project area. If Hawaiian geese are detected during surveys, site preparation, or structure demolition, the following measures will be implemented and included in the County’s contracts and plans: • Do not approach, feed, or disturb the Hawaiian goose. • If Hawaiian geese are observed loafing or foraging within the project area during the breeding season (September through April), have a biologist familiar with Hawaiian goose nesting behavior 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 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). • Cease all work immediately and contact the Service for further guidance if a nest is discovered within a radius of 150 ft of proposed project, or a previously undiscovered nest is found within the 150-ft radius after work begins. • In areas where Hawaiian geese 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. Douglas Nam Le 4 Analysis of effects – Hawaiian goose The Hawaiian goose does not commonly occur within the proposed project area. Should a Hawaiian goose appear in the area during project implementation, the County will enact Service recommended avoidance and minimization measures as outlined above. Based on the low likelihood of Hawaiian goose presence in the area and implementation of recommended avoidance and minimization measures, the Hawaiian goose is unlikely to be encountered or measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Therefore, effects to the Hawaiian goose are discountable and insignificant. Hawaiian seabirds The Hawaiian petrel, band-rumped storm-petrel, and Newell’s shearwater (collectively known as Hawaiian seabirds) may transit over the project area when flying between the ocean and nesting sites in the mountains during their breeding season (March through November). Hawaiian seabirds fly at night and are attracted to artificial lighting, which causes disorientation and subsequent fallout due to exhaustion. Additionally, once grounded, they are vulnerable to predators and are often struck by vehicles along roadways. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian seabirds No nighttime work or outdoor lighting is proposed as part of this project. Hawaiian seabirds are extremely unlikely to be measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Injury and mortality would not occur associated with the proposed project. Therefore, effects to Hawaiian seabirds are insignificant and discountable. Hawaiian waterbirds Prior to the 2018 eruption, there were very few wetlands or aquatic environments in the project area with the exception of a series of pools along the shoreline from Kapoho to Pohoiki. Most of these coastal wetlands were inundated and destroyed by the 2018 lava flow. The few inland aquatic ecosystems in the project area were also destroyed by the lava flows in 2018. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian waterbirds There were few records of Hawaiian waterbirds in the project area prior to the eruption and the lava flows have destroyed much of the remaining wetland habitat. Due to prior low densities and additional loss of habitat in the area, it is unlikely Hawaiian waterbirds will occur in vicinity of proposed demolition activities during project implementation. If waterbirds are found during implementation, the County will implement appropriate measures to ensure that any demolition, clearing and/or grubbing activities will not impact any listed waterbirds species. Hawaiian waterbirds are extremely unlikely to be present during project activities. Therefore, effects to Hawaiian waterbirds are discountable. Sea turtles Green sea turtles may nest on any sandy beach area in the Pacific Islands. Hawksbill sea turtles exhibit a wide tolerance for nesting substrate (ranging from sandy beach to crushed coral) with nests typically placed under vegetation. Both species exhibit strong nesting site fidelity. Nesting occurs on beaches from May through September, peaking in June and July, with hatchlings emerging through November and December. Douglas Nam Le 5 Construction on, or in the vicinity of, beaches can result in sand and sediment compaction, sea turtle nest destruction, beach erosion, contaminant and nutrient runoff, and an increase in direct and ambient light pollution which may disorient hatchlings or deter nesting females. Off-road vehicle traffic may result in direct impacts to sea turtles or nests, and also contributes to habitat degradation through erosion and compaction. Analysis of effects – Sea turtles Proposed project activities will not take place at night, therefore there will be no light sources that could attract or disorient sea turtles. There is no sea turtle nesting habitat in the vicinity of lots that will need demolition, therefore sea turtles are extremely unlikely to be present near ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project. Sea turtles and their nesting habitat will not be measurably affected by proposed activities; therefore, effects to the sea turtles are both discountable and insignificant. Blackburn’s sphinx moth The adult Blackburn’s sphinx moth (BSM) feeds on nectar from native plants, including Ipomoea pes-caprae (beach morning glory), Plumbago zeylanica (ʻilieʻe), Capparis sandwichiana (maiapilo), and others. The BSM moth larvae feed on nonnative Nicotiana glauca (tree tobacco), and native, federally listed, Nothocestrum spp. (ʻaiea). To pupate, the larvae burrow into the soil and can remain in a state of torpor for a year or more before emerging from the soil. Soil disturbance can result in death of the pupae. The County will adopt the following avoidance and minimization measures for BSM and require these conditions in their contracts and plans: • A biologist familiar with the species should survey areas of proposed activities for BSM and its larval host plants prior to work initiation. o Surveys should be conducted during the wettest portion of the year (usually November-April or several weeks after a significant rain) and within 4-6 weeks prior to construction. o Surveys should include searches for adults, eggs, larvae, and signs of larval feeding (chewed stems, frass, or leaf damage). o If moths, eggs, larvae, or native ʻaiea or tree tobacco over 3 feet tall, are found during the survey, please contact the Service for additional guidance to avoid impacts to this species. If no BSM, ʻaiea, or tree tobacco are found during surveys, it is imperative that measures be taken to avoid attraction of Blackburn’s sphinx moth to the project location and prohibit tree tobacco from entering the site. Tree tobacco can grow greater than 3 feet tall in approximately 6 weeks. If it grows over 3 feet, the plants may become a host plant for Blackburn’s sphinx moth. If tree tobacco is found, the County will enact the following measures: • Remove any tree tobacco less than 3 feet tall. • Monitor the site every 4-6 weeks for new tree tobacco growth before, during, and after the proposed ground-disturbing activity. o Monitoring for tree tobacco can be completed by any staff, such as groundskeeper or regular maintenance crew, provided with picture placards of tree tobacco at different life stages. Douglas Nam Le 6 Analysis of effects – Blackburn’s sphinx moth It us unknown whether or not suitable habitat for BSM is present within the project area. The proposed project design includes implementing Service recommended avoidance and minimization measures should host plants for BSM be found. BSM are unlikely to be present or exposed to project-related activities, particularly given the proposed avoidance and minimization measures to control tree tobacco. Therefore, effects to the BSM are discountable. Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly Hawaiian damselflies are found in aquatic habitats across the islands, with high species endemism within islands. Breeding habitat includes anchialine pools, perennial streams, marshes, ponds, and even artificial pools and seeps. Major threats include introduced fish, amphibians, and invertebrates in streams, reduced stream flow from drought and water diversion, small isolated populations, reduced habitat quality from ungulates and nonnative plants, and possibly over-collection. Previously found in Green Lake and in the Kapoho area, all of the wetlands associated with known populations of Hawaiian orangeblack damselflies, as well as all of the known the inland aquatic ecosystems in the project area were destroyed by the lava flows of 2018. The County does not anticipate a need for structural demolition in areas of known wetland, marine and aquatic resources. Analysis of effects – Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly Because of habitat loss in the area, Hawaiian orangeblack damselflies are extremely unlikely to occur in the project area. Therefore, effects to Hawaiian orangeblack damselflies are discountable. Threatened or Endangered Plants Service records indicate the endangered plants Ischaemum byrone and Cyrtandra nanawaleensis occur in the project area. Several of these populations have been documented inside of the project area, yet outside of the area inundated by lava since 2018. Project activities may affect listed plant species by causing physical damage to plant parts (i.e., roots, stems, flowers, fruits, seeds, etc.) as well as impacts to other life-requisite features of their habitat which may result in reduction of germination, growth and/or reproduction. Cutting and removing vegetation surrounding listed plants can alter microsite conditions (e.g., light, moisture, temperature), damage or destroy the listed plants, increase the risk of invasion by nonnative plants, and cause higher incidence or intensity of fire. Activities such as grazing, using construction equipment and vehicles, and increased human traffic (i.e., trails, visitation, monitoring), can cause ground disturbance, erosion, and/or soil compaction which decreases absorption of water and nutrients and damages the plants’ root systems. This may result in reduced growth and/or mortality of listed plants. Soil disturbance or removal has the potential to negatively impact the soil seed bank of listed plant species if such species are present or historically occurred in the project area. Douglas Nam Le 7 A botanical survey will be conducted prior to the onset of clearing and grubbing focusing on native and protected species. If any listed species are encountered during these surveys the Service will be contacted and measures to protect those plants will be implemented as outlined in Table 1. Table 1. Service recommended buffer distances to minimize and avoid potential adverse impacts to listed plants from activities listed below. Action Buffer Distance (feet (meters)) - Keep Project Activity This Far Away from Listed Plant Grasses/Herbs/Shrubs and Terrestrial Orchids Trees and Arboreal Orchids Walking, hiking, surveys 3 ft (1 m) 3 ft (1 m) Cutting and Removing Vegetation By Hand or Hand Tools (e.g., weeding) 3 ft (1 m) 3 ft (1 m) Mechanical Removal of Individual Plants or Woody Vegetation (e.g., chainsaw, weed eater) 3 ft up to height of removed vegetation (whichever greater) 3 ft up to height of removed vegetation (whichever greater) Removal of Vegetation with Heavy Equipment (e.g., bulldozer, tractor, "bush hog") 2x width equipment + height of vegetation 820 ft (250 m) Use of Approved Herbicides (following label) Ground-based Spray Application; hand application (no wand applicator; spot treatment) 10 ft (3 m) Crown diameter Ground-based Spray Application; manual pump with wand, backpack 50 ft (15 m) Crown diameter Ground-based Spray Application; vehicle-mounted tank sprayer 50 ft (15 m) Crown diameter Aerial Spray (ball applicator) 250 ft (76 m) 250 ft (76 m) Aerial Application – herbicide ballistic technology (individual plant treatment) 100 ft (30 m) Crown diameter Aerial Spray (boom) Further consultation required Further consultation required Ground/Soil Disturbance/Outplanting/Fencing (Hand tools, e.g., shovel, `ō`ō; Small mechanized tools, e.g., auger) 20 ft (6 m) 2x crown diameter Ground/Soil Disturbance (Heavy Equipment) 328 ft (100 m) 820 ft (250 m) Surface Hardening/Soil compaction Trails (e.g., human, ungulates) 20 ft (6 m) 2x crown diameter Roads/Utility Corridors, Buildings/Structures 328 ft (100 m) 820 ft (250 m) Prescribed Burns Further consultation required Further consultation required Definitions (Wagner et al. 1999) Crown: The leafy top of a tree. Herb: A plant, either annual, biennial, or perennial, with the non-woody stems dying back to the ground at the end of the growing season. Shrub: A perennial woody plant with usually several to numerous primary stems arising from or relatively near the ground. Douglas Nam Le 8 Tree: A woody perennial that usually has a single trunk. Analysis of effects – Threatened or Endangered Plants Demolitions and associated surveys are only proposed in highly disturbed areas associated with structures on lands that were previously private. The project area will be surveyed prior to any work and any listed plants will be protected by implementing the avoidance and minimization measures listed above. Protections include observing buffers around any threatened and endangered plant, including Ischaemum byrone and Cyrtandra nanawaleensis. No listed plants would be measurably affected by project activities. Therefore, effects to listed plants are insignificant. Summary The Service does not provide official concurrence with “no effect” determinations. For those properties covered by lava, that are purchased, but have no ground disturbance or demolition, we agree with your determination and analysis of effects. Based on the information provided and our assessment of potential project impacts, we anticipate that the potential for adverse effects to listed species are insignificant (undetectable) or discountable (extremely unlikely to occur) on the remaining lots (up to 559 parcels) where purchase and structure demolition is proposed. We concur with your determination that this project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Hawaiian hoary bat, Hawaiian goose, Hawaiian seabirds, Hawaiian waterbirds, sea turtles, Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly, Blackburn’s sphinx moth, and listed plants. Reinitiation of consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the Service, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and: • If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; • If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the written concurrence; or, • If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified actions. Thank you for participating with us in the protection of our endangered species. If you have any questions, please contact Melissa Cady at melissa_cady@fws.gov or by telephone at 808-933- 6963. When referring to this project, please include this reference number: 01EPIF00-2022-I- 0117. Sincerely, Lindsy Asman Island Team Manager Maui Nui and Hawaiʻi Island Douglas Nam Le 9 cc: Julie Leialoha, County of Hawaiʻi Catie Cullison, PBR Hawaiʻi LITERATURE CITED Wagner, W.L., Sohmer, S., and D.R. Herbst. 1999. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawaiʻi, revised edition. Honolulu, Hawaii. University of Hawaii and Bishop Museum Press. 1,919 pp. Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit H Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp.9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Explosive and Flammable Hazards (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/explosive‐and‐flammable‐facilities 1. Is the proposed HUD‐assisted project itself the development of a hazardous facility (a facility that mainly stores, handles or processes flammable or combustible chemicals such as bulk fuel storage facilities and refineries)? ☒ No Continue to Question 2. ☐ Yes Explain: Click here to enter text. Go directly to Question 5. 2. Does this project include any of the following activities: development, construction, rehabilitation that will increase residential densities, or conversion? ☒ No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. ☐ Yes Continue to Question 3. 3. Within 1 mile of the project site, are there any current or planned stationary aboveground storage containers that are covered by 24 CFR 51C? Containers that are NOT covered under the regulation include: Containers 100 gallons or less in capacity, containing common liquid industrial fuels OR Containers of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) or propane with a water volume capacity of 1,000 gallons or less that meet the requirements of the 2017 version of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Code 58. If all containers within the search area fit the above criteria, answer “no.” For any other type of aboveground storage container within the search area that holds one of the flammable or explosive materials listed in Appendix I of 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart C, answer “yes.” ☐ No Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide all documents used to make your determination. ☐ Yes Continue to Question 4. 4. Visit HUD’s website to identify the appropriate tank or tanks to assess and to calculate the required separation distance using the electronic assessment tool. To document this step in the analysis, please attach the following supporting documents to this screen: Map identifying the tank selected for assessment, and showing the distance from the tank to the proposed HUD‐assisted project site; and Electronic assessment tool calculation of the required separation distance. Based on the analysis, is the proposed HUD‐assisted project site located at or beyond the required separation distance from all covered tanks? ☐ Yes Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. ☐ No Go directly to Question 6. 5. Is the hazardous facility located at an acceptable separation distance from residences and any other facility or area where people may congregate or be present? Please visit HUD’s website for information on calculating Acceptable Separation Distance. ☐ Yes If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide map(s) showing the location of the project site relative to residences and any other facility or area where people congregate or are present and your separation distance calculations. ☐ No Continue to Question 6. Provide map(s) showing the location of the project site relative to residences and any other facility or area where people congregate or are present and your separation distance calculations. 6. For the project to be brought into compliance with this section, all adverse impacts must be mitigated. Mitigation measures may include both natural and manmade barriers, modification of the project design, burial or removal of the hazard, or other engineered solutions. Describe selected mitigation measures, including the timeline for implementation, and attach an implementation plan. If negative effects cannot be mitigated, cancel the project at this location. Note that only licensed professional engineers should design and implement blast barriers. If a barrier will be used or the project will be modified to compensate for an unacceptable separation distance, provide approval from a licensed professional engineer. Click here to enter text. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. Although the project is located on a volcanic lava field, the project action is not itself the development of a hazardous facility, and it does not increase residential densities. Additionally, Tier 2 reviews will include assessments and identification of any above ground storage tanks (ASTs) or Isolated and Abandoned vehicles (Liquid reservoirs in cars) present on applicant parcels. Any ASTs or Isolated and Abandoned vehicles found will be abated and removed. The project is in compliance with explosive and flammable hazard requirements. EA H H ous i ng Is la nd of Haw ai‘i Nor t h Line ar Sc a le (m ile s ) 0 2 ,50 0 5,000 10 ,0 00 Kila ue a R ec ov er y P la n Lege nd La v a Fl ow Pro j ec t Ar ea Volc a no Ha z a rd Z o nes(1 h i g h e st, 9 low e s t) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sourc e: State o f Ha wai ‘i, Depa rtme nt of T ran sp ort ation, 20 02. C ounty of Haw ai ‘i , 20 19. E SR I B as em ap, 20 16.GIS: Q:\Hawaii\Kilauea Recovery\GIS\Project\Volcanic Hazard_03.mxdInc re a s in g se v er ity o f h a za rd Z o n e 3 DATE : 1 0 /5 /20 2 1 Figu re 6Volcanic Ha za rds Pr ojectArea Z o n e 1 Zone 2 Z o n e 2 Exhibit I Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp.9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410‐1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Farmlands Protection (CEST and EA) ‐ PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/farmlands‐protection 1. Does your project include any activities, including new construction, acquisition of undeveloped land or conversion, that could convert agricultural land to a non‐agricultural use? ☐ Yes Continue to Question 2. ☒ No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. 2. Does “important farmland,” including prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance regulated under the Farmland Protection Policy Act, occur on the project site? You may use the links below to determine important farmland occurs on the project site: Utilize USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm Check with your city or county’s planning department and ask them to document if the project is on land regulated by the FPPA (zoning important farmland as non‐agricultural does not exempt it from FPPA requirements) Contact NRCS at the local USDA service center http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs or your NRCS state soil scientist https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951 for assistance ☐ No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. ☐ Yes Continue to Question 3. 3. Consider alternatives to completing the project on important farmland and means of avoiding impacts to important farmland. Complete form AD‐1006, “Farmland Conversion Impact Rating” and contact the state soil scientist before sending it to the local NRCS District Conservationist. Work with NRCS to minimize the impact of the project on the protected farmland. When you have finished with your analysis, return a copy of form AD‐1006 to the USDA‐NRCS State Soil Scientist or his/her designee informing them of your determination. Work with the RE/HUD to determine how the project will proceed. Document the conclusion: ☐Project will proceed with mitigation. Explain in detail the proposed measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. Click here to enter text. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide form AD‐1006 and all other documents used to make your determination. ☐Project will proceed without mitigation. Explain why mitigation will not be made here: Click here to enter text. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide form AD‐1006 and all other documents used to make your determination. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. The project does not include any development or construction activities that could convert agricultural land to non-agricultural use. The project is in compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Da te: 2/13/2022 So ur ce: St a te Dep a rt me nt of A gr ic ultu re, 1977. Co unt y o f Ha w ai‘i, 20 20. E SR I Online B as ema p. Di scl ai me r: T hi s grap h ic h as be en p re pa red fo r ge ne ral p l an ni n g p ur p os es o nl y. Is la nd o f Haw ai ‘iNorth Lin ear Sca le (Fee t) 0 2 ,50 0 5,0 00 10 ,0 00 Fig u re 7Agricultu ral L an ds of Im por ta n ce to t h e Sta t e of Ha w a iʻi (AL ISH ) Cl ie nt N amePath: Q:\Planning\Hawaii\Kilauea Recovery\GISKilau ea Recover y P lan Pro je ctArea Legend Pro ject Area Lava F l ow A L IS H Cl ass Ot he r AL I SH Prim e A LISH U niqu e A LI S H(no ne sho w n) Da te: 10/6/2021 So ur ce: Co unt y o f Haw ai‘i, 20 20. E SR I Onl ine B as e ma p. C ount y of H aw aiʻi Planning Depa r tm ent , 2019.Di scl ai me r: T hi s grap h ic h as be en p re pa red fo r ge ne ral p l an ni n g p ur p os es o nl y. Is la nd o f Haw ai ‘iNorth Lin ear Sca le (Fee t) 0 2 ,50 0 5,0 00 10 ,0 00 Fig u re 8Land Us e Pat ter n A lloca ti on Gu ide (LUPA G) Cl ie nt N amePath: Q:\Planning\Hawaii\Kilauea Recovery\GISKilau ea Recover y P lan P r o je c tArea Pro jectLUPAG(break wa ter ) Conserv at ionExtensiveAgricultureHigh D ens ityUrbanImportant Ag.LandsIndust rial Low D ens ityUrban Med ium D ens ityUrban OpenOrchards (pond)Res ort N odeResortRural Urba n E xpan sio nUniversity U se Exhibit J Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp. 9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410‐1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Floodplain Management (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/floodplain‐management 1. Does 24 CFR 55.12(c) exempt this project from compliance with HUD’s floodplain management regulations in Part 55? ☐ Yes Provide the applicable citation at 24 CFR 55.12(c) here. If project is exempt under 55.12(c)(6) or (8), provide supporting documentation. Click here to enter text. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Continue to the Worksheet Summary. ☒ No Continue to Question 2. 2. Provide a FEMA/FIRM map showing the site. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designates floodplains. The FEMA Map Service Center provides this information in the form of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Does your project occur in a floodplain? ☐ No Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. ☒ Yes Select the applicable floodplain using the FEMA map or the best available information: ☐ Floodway Continue to Question 3, Floodways ☒ Coastal High Hazard Area (V Zone) Continue to Question 4, Coastal High Hazard Areas ☒ 500‐year floodplain (B Zone or shaded X Zone) Continue to Question 5, 500‐year Floodplains ☒ 100‐year floodplain (A Zone) The 8‐Step Process is required. Continue to Question 6, 8‐Step Process 3. Floodways Is this a functionally dependent use? ☐ Yes The 8‐Step Process is required. Work with HUD or the RE to assist with the 8‐Step Process. Continue to Worksheet Summary. ☐ No Federal assistance may not be used at this location unless an exception in 55.12(c) applies. You must either choose an alternate site or cancel the project. See discussion in worksheet summary. 4. Coastal High Hazard Area Is this a critical action such as a hospital, nursing home, fire station, or police station? ☐ Yes Critical actions are prohibited in coastal high hazard areas unless an exception in 55.12(c) applies. You must either choose an alternate site or cancel the project. ☒ No Does this action include new construction that is not a functionally dependent use, existing construction (including improvements), or reconstruction following destruction caused by a disaster? ☐ Yes, there is new construction of something that is not a functionally dependent use. New construction must be designed to FEMA standards for V Zones at 44 CFR 60.3(e) (24 CFR 55.1(c)(3)(i)). Continue to Question 6, 8‐Step Process ☒ No, this action concerns only existing construction. Existing construction must have met FEMA elevation and construction standards for a coastal high hazard area or other standards applicable at the time of construction. Continue to Question 6, 8‐Step Process 5. 500‐year Floodplain Is this a critical action? ☐ No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. ☒Yes Continue to Question 6, 8‐Step Process 6. 8‐Step Process. Is this 8‐Step Process required? Select one of the following options: ☒ 8‐Step Process applies. This project will require mitigation and may require elevating structure or structures. See the link to the HUD Exchange above for information on HUD’s elevation requirements. Work with the RE/HUD to assist with the 8‐Step Process. Continue to Worksheet Summary. ☐ 5‐Step Process is applicable per 55.12(a)(1‐3). Provide the applicable citation at 24 CFR 55.12(a) here. Click here to enter text. Work with the RE/HUD to assist with the 5‐Step Process. Continue to Worksheet Summary. ☐ 8‐Step Process is inapplicable per 55.12(b)(1‐4). Provide the applicable citation at 24 CFR 55.12(b) here. Click here to enter text. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. Coastal High Hazard Areas – this project may include expenditures to purchase parcels within Coastal High Hazard Areas. However, it does not involve construction of any new structures. Nevertheless, the 8‐step process was employed to evaluate alternatives. 500‐year Floodplain ‐ this project may include expenditures to purchase parcels within 500‐year floodplain. While no structures are proposed for construction, the 8‐step process was employed to evaluate alternatives. 100‐year Floodplain ‐ this project may include expenditures to purchase parcels within 100‐year floodplain. While no structures are proposed for construction, the 8‐step process was employed to evaluate alternatives. An 8‐Step review was completed in order to evaluate and mitigate potential impacts for projects located within flood zones or wetlands for compliance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. The entire 8‐ step record is enclosed. One response was received during the 8‐step process public comment period from the County of Hawai‘i Department of Public Works, dated September 8, 2021. The letter listed standard disposal, runoff, and construction code requirements, and listed the flood zones (VE, AE, and X) that are designated in the project area. The letter also recommended a FIRM map revision due to the recent land changes resulting from the eruptions in the area. The letter was responded to and included as a part of the 8‐step process public notice documentation. The alternatives considered included: 1) No action. This alternative would not negatively affect floodplains or wetlands, however, it would not fulfill the project purpose of utilizing disaster relief funding for the buyout of properties or assistance with relocation expenses for individuals who were displaced by the eruption. 2) Allow construction/reconstruction on properties that may be in the floodplain or wetlands, or construction/reconstruction on properties outside the floodplain or wetlands. The alternative of use of disaster recovery funds to reconstruct dwellings is not a selected alternative because, per the 1971 HUD Volcanic Policy on the Island of Hawai‘i (amended in 1991 and 2006), HUD funds may not be used within USGS lava hazard zones 1 and 2 for construction or any sort of rehabilitation work. The County has reevaluated the alternatives to the project and has determined that the practicable alternative is to provide buyout funding through the VHBP program and return parcels acquired to their natural open space conditions. Given the nature of the project action, the likelihood that the chosen alternative would have impacts to floodplains or wetlands is extremely remote, and can be largely mitigated during the Tier 2 review through measures outlined in the 8‐step review in this section and the Wetlands Protection sections. If an applicant parcel is located in or includes portions of floodplain areas, and if the parcels have structures present within floodplain areas within those parcels, any structures remaining that are not inundated by lava and are located within a flood zone will be characterized as “abandoned in place” or will be “100% demolished”. No existing homes that remain standing will be rehabilitated or reinhabited, and no new structures will be built on any of the land planned for acquisition under this project. Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as standard soil erosion and sediment control shall be implemented during demolition of structures as required by County building codes. 1195F 1210F 1213F 1440F 1445F 1655F 1201F 1202F 1204F 1212F 1214F Da te: 9/3/2021 Legend Project Area FIR M Panels(See Exhibits X-Y) Flood ZoneAE: 1% annual chance floodVE: 1% annua l chance coastalflood (ad d itional ha zardassocia ted with storm wa ves) X: Minima l flood areasD: Unstud ied area s Source: Fed era l Emergency Ma na g ement Ag ency, 2021. County of Ha wa i‘i, 2019. ESR I Online Ba sema p.Discla imer: This g raphic ha s been prepa red for genera l pla nning purposes only. Island of Ha wa i‘iNorth Linea r Scale (Feet)0 3,000 6,000 12,000 Client Na mePa th: Q:\Planning \Hawa ii\Kilauea R ecovery\GIS FIGURE 9Flood Insurance Rate Map Kilauea Recovery Plan ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD Administrative Record—8‐Step Compliance with Executive Order 11988 and 11990 1. Location of Project: The proposed project(s) are located within the Puna District, including but not limited to the following census block groups, 211.01 Block Groups 1 and 2, and 211.06 Block Groups 2 and 4, as well as a portion of land affected by underground magma located off of Highway 130 near the Iilewa Crater. Portions of the project area are mapped as flood zones, Zone VE and Zone AE of the flood plain, with Base Flood Elevations (BFE) ranging from 12 feet to 33 feet as established on FIRM Map Panels 1551661195F, 155166201F, 1551661202F, 1551661204F, 1551661210F, 1551661212F, 1551661213F, 1551661214F, 1551661440F, 15516611445F, and 1551661655F (September 29, 2017). Portions of project area are also mapped as wetlands as depicted on the National Wetlands Inventory. The total number of properties located within floodplains and wetlands will be unknown until all applications to the VHBP are received. 2. Floodplain/Wetland Notice: Early notice alerting the public of project activity on lots located within the floodplain and wetlands was published in the Hawai‘i Tribune Herald on September 1, 2021. Comments to the proposed action were invited through September 16, 2021. One comment was received regarding floodplains from the County of Hawai‘i Department of Public Works, dated September 8, 2021. The letter listed standard disposal, runoff, and construction code requirements, and listed the flood zones (VE, AE, and X) that are designated in the project area. The letter also recommended a FIRM map revision due to the recent land changes resulting from the eruptions in the area. A response letter from the County of Hawaiʻi was sent, detailing that, “1. No development is proposed as a part of this project. All runoff generated during possible demolition work will be disposed of on site and not directed towards any adjacent properties. If required, a drainage plan will be prepared in accordance with Section 25‐2‐72(3) of the Hawai‘i County Code; and that 2. All demolition work will comply with Chapter 27, Floodplain Management, of the Hawai‘i County Code.” The letter also acknowledged the DPW’s confirmation of flood zones present in the project area (Flood Zones VE, AE, and X), as well as the DPW’s suggested map revision to the current FIRM be initiated due to changes from the 2018 eruption. It also related that under a separate effort, discussions have been initiated with FEMA and the County floodplain manager. The full correspondence as well as the 8‐step process notices are included as a part of Exhibit J in the Tier 1 section of this NEPA review. 3. Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives: The alternatives considered included: 1) Allow the County of Hawaii to utilize federal funds for the purchase of lands and properties in the identified project area, which is prone to hazards relating to the Kilauea lava field, and where private owners volunteer to sell their properties. The County would then remove any existing structures along with supporting infrastructure for uses compatible with open space, recreational, or floodplain and wetlands management practices. No reconstruction or rehabilitation would be undertaken as part of this alternative. 2) No action. This alternative would not negatively affect floodplains or wetlands, however, it would not fulfill the project purpose of utilizing disaster relief funding for the buyout of properties or assistance with relocation expenses for individuals who were displaced by the eruption. 3) Allow construction/reconstruction on properties that may be in the floodplain or wetlands, or construction/reconstruction on properties outside the floodplain or wetlands. The alternative of disaster recovery funds being used to reconstruct dwellings is not a selected alternative because, per the 1971 HUD Volcanic Policy on the Island of Hawai‘i (amended in 1991 and 2006), HUD funds may not be used within USGS lava hazard zones 1 and 2 for construction or any sort of rehabilitation work. 4. Impact of the Proposed Project: The proposed project will have the beneficial impact of providing disaster relief funding for the buyout of properties or assistance with relocation expenses for individuals who were displaced by the eruption. Properties acquired through this program would include the removal of any existing structures or appurtenances that may still be present on the property. Although the project Site is partially located in a Special Flood Hazard Zone (Zones X, AE, and VE ‐ see FEMA FIRM map panels 1195F, 1201F, 1202F, 1204F, 1210F, 1212F, 1213F, 1214F, 1445F, 1440F, and 1655F as Figure 9 in Exhibit J), and would be subject to review under E.O. 11988. Due to the limited scope of the proposed project action, the only potential impacts from floodplains would be from the removal of existing structures and appurtenances. According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), few wetlands remain within the project area that were not inundated by lava or destroyed by the 2018 eruption event. No ground disturbance associated with demolition of existing buildings are anticipated within the vicinity of any identified wetlands. The project will include further evaluation of wetlands including whether any wetlands are located on applicant parcels that include actions with ground disturbance, any potential impacts to wetlands, and pertinent mitigations in Tier 2. 5. Actions to Minimize, Restore, and Preserve: No development of structures, cut, or fill will occur in the floodplain, and impacts associated with those activities are avoided. Once existing structures are removed, the properties will be subsequently retained in perpetuity for a use that is compatible with open space, recreational, or floodplain and wetlands management practices. If demolition is planned for any parcel, runoff generated during demolition must be disposed of on site and not directed towards any adjacent properties. Additionally, a drainage plan must be prepared if required by Section 25‐2‐72(3) of the Hawai‘i County Code. Demolition work must also comply with Chapter 27, Floodplain Management, of the Hawai‘i County Code. In the event that the project includes a parcel with a wetland where there will be demolition of structures, wetland, the Tier 2 review will include further evaluation of wetlands including whether any wetlands are located on applicant parcels that include actions with ground disturbance, any potential impacts to wetlands, and pertinent mitigations. Mitigation measures for consideration if the project may impact a wetland include introduction of bioswales with placement by biologists and hydrologists in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); incorporating native vegetation to contain potential pollutants and address drainage impacts; utilization of a biologist or wildlife specialist for the identification and preservation of flora (plants) and fauna (animals); and conservation easement agreements in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service for nearby wetlands owned by COH. Additionally, the project action team will take mitigations to protect Hawaiian Waterbirds by Hawaiian Waterbirds, by implementing appropriate measures to ensure that any demolition, clearing and/or grubbing activities will not impact any listed waterbirds species, in the event that waterbirds are found during implementation. These actions will serve to both restore habitat off and on site while also preserving non‐impacted areas to minimize effects. Therefore, adverse impacts are anticipated to be temporary, and mitigatable. 6. Re‐evaluation of the Proposed Project: The County has re‐evaluated the alternatives listed above to the project and has determined that the practicable alternative (1, 2, or 3) is to provide buyout funding through the VHBP program and acquired to be retained for uses compatible with open space, recreational, or floodplain and wetlands management practices (the first alternative listed above). The proposed action in this alternative would also mitigate impacts to floodplains and wetlands by returning previously residential parcels to conservation and open space conditions, ensuring that no future developments could impact floodplains or wetlands. 7. Public Notice of Decision: A public notice in the same manner as the first notice was published and is attached. 8. Implementation: The parcels acquired will be returned to their natural open space conditions, ensuring that no grading or building will occur within the flood zone or near wetlan5 s. The mitigations outlined above will be taken during demolition work to remove any existing structures. The practicable alternative is to provide buyout funding through the VHBP program. Attachments: FIRM Maps, NWI Map, Tribune Herald tear sheets County of Hawai‘i DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 · Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720-4224 (808) 961-8321 · Fax (808) 961-8630 public_works@hawaiicounty.gov County of Hawai‘i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Steven Ikaika Rodenhurst, P.E. Director Mitchell D. Roth Mayor Lee E. Lord Managing Director Stephen M. Pause, P.E. Deputy Director September 8, 2021 County of Hawaii Disaster Recovery Team Attention: Douglas Le 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 200 Hilo, HI 96720 (via email to kilauearecovery@hawaiicounty.gov) SUBJECT: EARLY NOTICE AND PUBLIC REVIEW OF A PROPOSED ACTIVITY IN A FLOODPLAIN AND/OR WETLANDS Request: A Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and Housing Relocation Services Program (HRSP) as Primary Activities to be Implemented Utilizing Disaster Recovering Funding Location: Puna, Hawaii We have reviewed the subject request for compliance with Chapter 27, Floodplain Management, forwarded by your letter titled “Early Notice and Public Review of a Proposed Activity in a Floodplain and/or Wetlands” received on September 1, 2021, and provide the following comments for your consideration: 1. All development-generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and not directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage plan may be required by the Plan Approval process in accordance with Section 25-2-72(3) of the Hawaii County Code. 2. All construction shall comply with Chapter 27, Floodplain Management, of the Hawaii County Code. 3. The subject work is in an area designated as Flood Zone VE, AE, and X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). a. Flood Zone VE is the Special Flood Hazard Area inundated by the 100-year coastal flood (1% chance of occurring in any given year) with velocity hazard (wave action). b. Flood Zone AE is the Special Flood Hazard Area inundated by the 100-year flood (1% chance of occurring in any given year). County of Hawai`i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. c. Flood Zone X is an area determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. 4. Due to the topography changes from the 2018 Kilauea Volcano eruption within the Special Flood Hazard Areas, it is recommended that a map revision to the current FIRM be initiated for FEMA’s review and approval to reflect the current flood hazard conditions. Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please contact Bryce Harada of our Hilo Engineering Division at 961-8042 ALAN K. THOMPSON, Division Chief Engineering Division BH County of Hawai‘i PLANNING DEPARTMENT www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning@hawaiicounty.gov Zendo Kern Director Jeffrey W. Darrow Deputy Director Mitchell D. Roth Mayor Lee E. Lord Managing Director East Hawai‘i Office 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 Fax (808) 961-8742 West Hawai‘i Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Hwy Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i 96740 Phone (808) 323-4770 Fax (808) 327-3563 November 12, 2021 Alan K. Thompson, Division Chief County of Hawai‘i Department of Public Works Engineering Division 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 SUBJECT: EARLY NOTICE AND PUBLIC REVIEW OF A PROPOSED ACTIVITY IN A FLOODPLAIN AND/OR WETLANDS Request: A Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and Housing Relocation Services Program (HRSP) as Primary Activities to be Implemented Utilizing Disaster Recovery Funding Location: Puna, Hawaiʻi Dear Division Chief Thompson, Mahalo for your letter dated September 8, 2021, regarding the Kīlauea VHBP and HRSP activities in a flood plain and/or wetlands. We offer the following responses below: 1. No development is proposed as a part of this project. All runoff generated during possible demolition work will be disposed of on site and not directed towards any adjacent properties. If required, a drainage plan will be prepared in accordance with Section 25-2- 72(3) of the Hawai‘i County Code 2. All demolition work will comply with Chapter 27, Floodplain Management, of the Hawai‘i County Code. 3. Mahalo for confirming the flood zones present in the project area (Flood Zones VE, AE, and X). 4. We acknowledge your comment that a map revision to the current FIRM be initiated due to the changes from the 2018 eruption. Under a separate effort, discussions have been initiated with FEMA and the County floodplain manager. SUBJECT: EARLY NOTICE AND PUBLIC REVIEW OF A PROPOSED ACTIVITY IN A FLOODPLAIN AND/OR WETLANDS Request: A Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and Housing Relocation Services Program (HRSP) as Primary Activities to be Implemented Utilizing Disaster Recovery Funding Location: Puna, Hawai‘i Page 2 Enclosed with this letter is a Final Notice of a Proposed Activity in a Floodplain and/or Wetlands. Mahalo for your comments and interest in the project. Sincerely, Douglas Le Disaster Recovery Officer Hawaiʻi County Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 kilauearecovery@hawaiicounty.gov. Sincerely, Douglas Nam Le, AICP Disaster Recovery Officer Attachments: Final Notice of a Proposed Activity in a Floodplain STATE OF HAWAII City and County of Honolulu AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC NOTICE } ss. } NOV 1 2 2021 Doc. Date: ____________ _ # Pages:_ _;1 __ Notary Name: coLLEEN E. soRANAKA Doc. Description: ___ A_ff_id_a_v_it_o_f __ _ P- NOV 1 2 2021 Notary Signature Date ✓, . Uo--r\ '' Lisa Sakakida be ing duly sworn, deposes and says that she is a clerk, duly �tith@Pi�ecl • '' ''to execute this affidavit of Oahu Publications, Inc. publisher of The HonoluluStar-Advertiser, MidWeek, The Garden Island, West Hawaii Today, and HawaiiTribune-Herald, that said newspapers are newspapers of general circulation in the Stateof Hawaii, and that the attached notice is true notice as was published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser 0 times on: MidWeek 0 times on: The Garden Island 0 times on: Hawaii Tribune-Herald times on: 11/12/2021 West Hawaii Today 0 times on: Other Publications: 0 times on: And that affiant is not a party to or in any way interested in the above entitled matter. Lis� e thisli-thday of November AD. 20 2/ Colleen E._ Soranaka, Notary Public of the First Judicial Circuit, State qfJ;IawaiiMy commrssron expires: Jan 06 2024 , 1 • ' , , , i::: Ad# 0001349578 Final Notice and Public Review of a Proposed Activity in a Floodplain and/ or Wetlands Date: November 12, 2021 To: All Interested Agencies, Groups and Individuals This is to give notice that the County of Hawal'I has conducted an evaluation as require d by Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, and the Floodplain Management &. Wetlands Protection Guidelines adopted by the · Water. Resources· Council, to detennlne the potential effect that its activity In the floodplain and wetlands will have on the human _env,ironment for fund� received through the U,S; Departme nt of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocated under Community Development Block Grant -Disaster Recoveiy (CDBG·DR) program. The allocation of CDBG·DR funding to the County ls a result of the 2018 Kilauea Volcano eruption and subsequent disaster declaration. The proposed workJncludes � Voluntaiy Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and Housing Relocation Sel'lices Program (HRSP) as primaiy activities to be implemented utl_lizint,Disaster Recovering funding. The County will acquire properties, which have been Impacted by the eruption event, through the VHBP and retain these properties as open space; natural. areas,. or comparable land use. The County will aid Individuals, displaced by the eruption event, through the HRSP by providing financial assistance in securing housing. The proposed project(s) are located. within the Puna District,. including but not limited to the following census block groups, 211.01 Block Groups 1 and 2, and 211.06 Block Groups 2 and 4, as well as a portion of land affected by underground magma located off of Highway 130 near the lilewa Crater. The project area is located south of the Hilo International Airport, generally bounded by Highway 130 to the West,, Hawaiian Beaches subdivision to the north, and _th� coastline adjacent to the Pacffic Ocean to, the east and the. south. The hJJllBS and parcels are of varyingsquare footages. Portions of the project area are mapped as flood zones, Zone VE and Zone AE of the flood plain, with Base Rood Elevations (BFE) ranging f rom 12 feet to 33 feet as established on FIRM Map Panels 1551661195F, 155166201F, 1551661202F, 1551661204F, 1551661210F, 1551661212F, 1551661213F, 1551661214F, 1551661440F, 15516611445F, and 1551661655F (September 29, 2017). Port,to,ns of project area are also mapped a_s wetlands as depicted on the fiationalWetlandsJnventoiy i / .. -· •<··· (!l!m§�.fws.gov/wetlands/data/m�r.html ). The County hi 1on;idered the following aiern�t!Ves and mitigation measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts and_ to restore �ml preserve �atural and _benefici�I values:. no action; reconstruction. These alternatives• were h�t selected because no action _ would mean that the County would not fullllllthe project purpose of utilizing disaster relief funding for the buyout of properties or �ssistance. with relocation expenses for individuals who were di�_laced. by .the eruption. The alfernative of disaster recoveiy funds being used to reconstruct dwellin� is not a selected ·alternative because/ �erthe 1971 _HUD Volcanic Policy on the Island of Hawal'L(amended in 1991 and 2006), HUD funds may not be used wlthlri_USGS lava ha:za.rd zones + and 2 for construction or any sort of rehabll)!8�on, work. ·· The County has evaluated the alternatives to the project parcels In areas mapped las wetland and/or floodplain ard has detennin_ed that it has no practicable alternative. Environmental files that d()j)llment compUance with Steps,3 through. 6 of. Executive Order 11988 and 11990, are available for public inspection, review an_d ;copying upon request at the times and• location_ delineated in the last paragraph of this notice for receipt of comments •. This activity will . have no significant impact on the environment for the following reasons: The_ Ki;auea VH_BP .. a,jld. HRSP. progra� y,111 .• noflnvolve ·ariy development or construction. Lands In . floodplains or Tlood zones with significant hazards will be returned to their natural, open space conseivation uses, and _will avoid _ putting residents or users at risk by removing potential for non:conservatlon open space land uses. ' There are three primaiy purposes for this notice. First, people who may be affected by activities in a floodplain or wetland, and those . who have an interest in the protection of the natural environment, should be given an, oppoipmity to express their concerns and provide infonnation about these areas. Second, an adequate public notice_ program can. be_ an important public educational tool. The dissemination of info nnation about a floodplain or wetland can facilitate and enhance Federal efforts to reduce the risks associated with the occupant:)' and modification of these special !lreas. Third, as a.matter of fairness, whe.n the Fed_eral government detennlnes it_ will participate In actions �king place in a flo!)dpl�ln or wetland, it must lnfonn those who may be put at graater or continued risk: The County of Hawai'i has_ e_nvironmental files that document compliance with Steps 3 though 6 of Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, which are available for public Inspection, 1'1lView, and copying upon request by contacting Mr. Douglas Le, Disaster Recoveiy Officer, at (808) 961-8996 or kilauearecover)@hawaiicounty�. Information is also avanable at the County of Hawal'i offices on an appointment· only basis (by phone at 808-961-8996, office located at 100 eauahi Street, Suite 200, Hilo, HI 96720). Written comments must be rece_ived by the County of . Hawai'i at the following address on or before November 20, 2021: County of Hawai'i Disaster Recoveiy Team, attention Douglas Le, 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 200, Hilo, HI 96720, during ICSF the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Comments may also be submitted via email atkilauearecoveo-@hawaiicounty.gov . (HTH1349578 11/12/21) Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit K Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp. 9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Historic Preservation (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/historic‐preservation Threshold Is Section 106 review required for your project? ☐ No, because a Programmatic Agreement states that all activities included in this project are exempt. (See the PA Database to find applicable PAs.) Either provide the PA itself or a link to it here. Mark the applicable exemptions or include the text here: Click here to enter text. Continue to the Worksheet Summary. ☐ No, because the project consists solely of activities included in a No Potential to Cause Effects memo or other determination [36 CFR 800.3(a)(1)]. Either provide the memo itself or a link to it here. Explain and justify the other determination here: Click here to enter text. Continue to the Worksheet Summary. ☒Yes, because the project includes activities with potential to cause effects (direct or indirect). Continue to Step 1. The Section 106 Process After determining the need to do a Section 106 review, HUD or the RE will initiate consultation with regulatory and other interested parties, identify and evaluate historic properties, assess effects of the project on properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and resolve any adverse effects through project design modifications or mitigation. Step 1: Initiate consultation Step 2: Identify and evaluate historic properties Step 3: Assess effects of the project on historic properties Step 4: Resolve any adverse effects Only RE or HUD staff may initiate the Section 106 consultation process. Partner entities may gather information, including from SHPO records, identify and evaluate historic properties, and make initial assessments of effects of the project on properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Place. Partners should then provide their RE or HUD with all of their analysis and documentation so that they may initiate consultation. Step 1 ‐ Initiate Consultation The following parties are entitled to participate in Section 106 reviews: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs); federally recognized Indian tribes/Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs); Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs); local governments; and project grantees. The general public and individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in a project may participate as consulting parties at the discretion of the RE or HUD official. Participation varies with the nature and scope of a project. Refer to HUD’s website for guidance on consultation, including the required timeframes for response. Consultation should begin early to enable full consideration of preservation options. Use the When To Consult With Tribes checklist within Notice CPD‐12‐006: Process for Tribal Consultation to determine if the RE or HUD should invite tribes to consult on a particular project. Use the Tribal Directory Assessment Tool (TDAT) to identify tribes that may have an interest in the area where the project is located. Note that only HUD or the RE may initiate consultation with Tribes. Partner entities may prepare a draft letter for the RE or HUD to use to initiate consultation with tribes, but may not send the letter themselves. List all organizations and individuals that you believe may have an interest in the project here: On September 27, 2021, the County sent consultation letters via mail and email to the following nineteen Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) who were presumed to have religious and cultural attachments, knowledge of, or an interest in the APE: Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, Kukulu Kumuhana O Puna, Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, Malama O Puna, Waiwelawela, Hawaiian Community Asset, Inc., Hawaiian Kingdom Task Force, Men of Pa‘a, Independent District of Puna, Na Koa Ikaika Ka Lahui Hawai‘i, Na Kupuna Moku O Keawe, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Kanaka O Puna. Royal Order of Kamehameha, Aha Puhala O Puna, Hale Naua III, Puuhonua O Puna, Aha Moku‐ Moku O Keawe, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Of the nineteen NHOs that were mailed consultation letters, only one response representing an NHO was received from Lono Lyman at Kapoho Land & Development Co. Ltd./Kapoho Management Company, Inc. Eight other individuals consulted through the process included who did not represent NHO organizations included Iopa Mauankea, Ku’ulei Kealoha Cooper, Keikialoha Kekipi, Keone Kalawe, Ana Kon, Leila Kealoha, Heather Irwin, and Leslie Rosehill. Consultation letters were also sent to individuals and organizations considered potential stakeholders in the buyout project, and a general public meeting was held on October 21, 2021. That meeting did not result in any parties expressing interest in participating in the Section 106 process (see Exhibit Q, Public Meeting Notes, however, a community outreach meeting, held on November 29, 2021, focused on historic resources and was attended virtually by three individuals Iopa Maunakea, Ku‘ulei Kealoha Cooper, and Leslie Rosehill. Three (3) additional individuals–Keikialoha Kekipi, Keone Kalawe, and Lono Lyman–who contacted the County were unable to attend the November 29 meeting. The meeting, which was conducted via Zoom, was recorded, and the audio and video recordings were emailed to the six (6) individuals identified above. In total, the following individuals expressed interest in the project by responding to the consultation requests via personal conversations and emails: Iopa Mauankea, Ku’ulei Kealoha Cooper, Keikialoha Kekipi, Keone Kalawe, Ana Kon, Leila Kealoha, Heather Irwin, and Leslie Rosehill. Continue to Step 2. Step 2 ‐ Identify and Evaluate Historic Properties Provide a preliminary definition of the Area of Potential Effect (APE), either by entering the address(es) or providing a map depicting the APE. Attach an additional page if necessary. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for this undertaking is considered to be all properties eligible for the CDBG‐DR and VHBP programs. The APE has been revised to reflect refinements to the scope of the undertaking. The initial APE covered entire US Census Bureau block groups in the interest of inclusion for potential applicants to the VHBP and HRSP disaster relief. However, since program initiation, a more precise area of qualified parcels has been identified, including parcels of land fully inundated by lava, partially inundated by lava, and/or isolated from access by lava flows. By focusing the APE on parcels eligible for the disaster relief program, the size of the APE has been reduced. There will be no expenditure of HUD funds outside the revised APE, and there will be no effects from this undertaking outside the eligible TMK parcel boundaries. See enclosed APE map (Figure 10). Gather information about known historic properties in the APE. Historic buildings, districts and archeological sites may have been identified in local, state, and national surveys and registers, local historic districts, municipal plans, town and county histories, and local history websites. If not already listed on the National Register of Historic Places, identified properties are then evaluated to see if they are eligible for the National Register. Refer to HUD’s website for guidance on identifying and evaluating historic properties. In the space below, list historic properties identified and evaluated in the APE. Every historic property that may be affected by the project should be listed. For each historic property or district, include the National Register status, whether the SHPO has concurred with the finding, and whether information on the site is sensitive. Attach an additional page if necessary. No site inspections were conducted due to lava hazards and inaccessibility of the APE. However, the lava flow footprint, County damage letter assessment, and recorded site distribution locations available in the State Historic Preservation Division HICRIS system were consulted, and a listing of sites by TMK was prepared. There are no previously recorded sites remaining in the lava inundated areas. Areas not inundated by lava will be reviewed on an individual parcel level as per the Procedural Programmatic Agreement (PPA) stipulations outlined in the summary below. Provide the documentation (survey forms, Register nominations, concurrence(s) and/or objection(s), notes, and photos) that justify your National Register Status determination. Was a survey of historic buildings and/or archeological sites done as part of the project? If the APE contains previously unsurveyed buildings or structures over 50 years old, or there is a likely presence of previously unsurveyed archeological sites, a survey may be necessary. For Archeological surveys, refer to HP Fact Sheet #6, Guidance on Archeological Investigations in HUD Projects. ☐ Yes Provide survey(s) and report(s) and continue to Step 3. Additional notes: Click here to enter text. ☒ No Continue to Step 3. Step 3 ‐ Assess Effects of the Project on Historic Properties Only properties that are listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places receive further consideration under Section 106. Assess the effect(s) of the project by applying the Criteria of Adverse Effect. (36 CFR 800.5) Consider direct and indirect effects as applicable as per HUD guidance. Choose one of the findings below to recommend to the RE or HUD. Please note: this is a recommendation only. It is not the official finding, which will be made by the RE or HUD, but only your suggestion as a Partner entity. ☒ No Historic Properties Affected Document reason for finding: ☒ No historic properties present. ☐ Historic properties present, but project will have no effect upon them. ☒ No Adverse Effect Document reason for finding and provide any comments below. Comments may include recommendations for mitigation, monitoring, a plan for unanticipated discoveries, etc. This undertaking is subject to a Procedural Programmatic Agreement (PPA) that has been executed by the RE and SHPO (attached). The PPA has been designed to implement Section 106 in concert with the HUD Tiered Review for the project. a. For TMK parcels that are fully inundated with lava and the undertaking will be limited to purchase of lands, including those lands in the ahupua‘a of Keahialaka where new potentially eligible historic properties (fissures) are located, the County of Hawaii (COH) will document a determination that the undertaking will have no potential to cause effects to historic properties. b. For TMK parcels that are partially inundated by lava or isolated by lava, contain no structures and the undertaking will be limited to purchase of lands, the COH will document a determination that the undertaking will have no potential to cause effects to historic properties. c. For TMK parcels that are partially inundated or isolated by lava, or rendered uninhabitable by heat or gases, and have remaining structures and the undertaking will include purchase of lands and demolition or decommissioning, investigation for historic resources will include review of available databases and literature to determine if any historic properties are present. If research conducted by individuals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61) for their respective disciplines (Archaeology and Architectural History) indicates that no historic properties are present, the County will document a determination of no historic properties affected. However, if research indicates that historic properties are present, an analysis of the potential effect on the historic property(ies) will be conducted by individuals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61) for their respective disciplines (Archaeology and Architectural History). i. If through an analysis of effect, it is determined that the undertaking will not adversely affect historic properties, the COH will document a determination of no historic properties affected. ii. If through an analysis of effect, it is determined that the undertaking will adversely affect historic property(ies), the COH will either modify the undertaking sufficiently to render a determination of no historic properties affected, or render a determination of adverse effect and enter into a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) with consulting parties to resolve said effects. Additionally, each year following the execution of the MOA, until it expires or is terminated, the COH shall provide the SHPO a summary report documenting work undertaken pursuant to its terms. If historic properties are discovered during the demolition of structures or unanticipated effects on historic properties are found, the COH shall consult with the SHPO in developing a strategy for investigation and evaluation of the resource. The PPA will expire within five (5) years of execution (March 14, 2027). The PPA includes provisions for amendments, when agreed to by the COH and SHPO and provisions for termination when agreement on amendments cannot be reached. ☐ Adverse Effect Document reason for finding: Copy and paste applicable Criteria into text box with summary and justification. Criteria of Adverse Effect: 36 CFR 800.5] Adverse effect is not anticipated, however, provisions of the PPA guide the County and SHPO in the assessment of effects and process for resolving adverse effects through a Memorandum of Agreement. Provide any comments below: Comments may include recommendations for avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation. Click here to enter text. Remember to provide all documentation that justifies your National Register Status determination and recommendations along with this worksheet. Date : 12/30/2021 Legend APELava Inund ationMagm a Hotspot S ourc e : County of Hawai‘i. U.S . Ge ologic al S urve y. ES RI Online Base m ap.Disc laim e r: Th is graph ic h as be e n pre pare d for ge neral planning purpose s only. Island of Hawai‘iNorth Linear S c ale (Fee t)0 2,000 4,000 8,000 County of Hawai'iPath : Q:\Hawaii\Kilaue a Rec overy\GIS \Proje c t\Loc ation_APE 2021_12_30.m x d Figure 10APE Kilauea Recovery Plan County of Hawai‘i PLANNING DEPARTMENT www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning@hawaiicounty.gov Zendo Kern Director Jeffrey W. Darrow Deputy Director Mitchell D. Roth Mayor Lee E. Lord Managing Director East Hawai‘i Office 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 Fax (808) 961-8742 West Hawai‘i Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Hwy Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i 96740 Phone (808) 323-4770 Fax (808) 327-3563 September 8, 2021 Suzanne Case State Historic Preservation Officer Kākuhihewa Building 601 Kamokila Blvd., Suite 555 Kapolei, HI 96707 RE: Notification of Intent to Initiate Section 106 Review for the County of Hawai‘i Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and a Housing Relocation Services Program (HRSP), Puna District, Island of Hawai‘i Dear Ms. Case: The County of Hawai‘i (County) is conducting an evaluation as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to determine the potential effects of its activity involving funds received through HUD under their Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Program to address disaster-related needs resulting from the eruption of Kīlauea Volcano in May of 2018. The use of this HUD money will constitute a federal undertaking and will include a Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and a Housing Relocation Services Program (HRSP) as primary activities to be implemented. The proposed project(s) are located within the Puna District, including but not limited to the following census block groups, 211.01 Block Groups 1 and 2, 211.06 Block Groups 2 and 4, as well as a portion of land affected by underground magma located off Highway 130 near the Iilewa Crater (see map). This project area is generally bounded by Highway 130 to the west, Hawaiian Beaches subdivision to the north, and the coastline adjacent to the Pacific Ocean to the east and the south. The homes and parcels are of varying square footages. Per the 1991 HUD Volcanic Policy on the Island of Hawai‘i, HUD funds will be utilized by the County for disaster recovery buy out of applicant properties, and will not be used within USGS lava flow zones for construction or any sort of rehabilitation work. Structures or improvements present on properties acquired through this program will be removed. The properties will be subsequently retained in perpetuity for a use that is compatible with open space, recreational, or floodplain and wetlands management practices. This undertaking is subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108, and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800. Pursuant to Public Suzanne Case, SHPO RE: Notification of Intent to Initiate Section 106 Review for the County of Hawai‘i Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and a Housing Relocation Services Program (HRSP), Puna District, Island of Hawai‘i Page 2 Laws 115-254 and 116-20 Congress apportioned CDBG-DR funds to Hawaii County and names Hawaiʻi County as the Responsible Entity assuming authority for environmetnal review, decision-making and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA. (see enclosed). In accordance with this assumption of authority, the County is initiating Section 106 review on behalf of HUD. The County has determined that the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this undertaking consists of the area bounded by Highway 130 to the west, Hawaiian Beaches subdivision to the north, and the coastline adjacent to the Pacific Ocean to the east and the south. (see enclosed map). The County recognizes and understands that there are many potential historic properties located with the overall APE and will prepare both archaeological and cultural overview documents to support an eventual effects determination for the undertaking. Additionally, the County will be seeking information about possibly affected historic properties in the APE from the following entities: Native Hawaiian Organizations including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, as well as individuals known to County to have lineal and cultural ties to the area. Please review the project and enclosures. After completing your review, please provide the County with your recommendation(s) about the level of effort needed to identify affected historic properties within the APE. If you recommend additional study, please explain the nature and scope of the proposed investigation specifically in reference to those factors identified in 36 CFR § 800.4(b)(1). Please submit your recommendations within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this request to my attention: douglas.le@hawaiicounty.gov or 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 200, Hilo, HI 96720. If no timely response is received, the County will proceed with Section 106 review in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.3(b)(4). Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by email or phone at (808) 961-8996. Sincerely, Douglas Nam Le, AICP Disaster Recovery Officer Attachments: Designation of Responsible Entity for Programmic Environmental Assessment APE Map cc: Jeff Seastrom, PBR HAWAII (via email) From:Le, Douglas To:Jeff Seastrom; Catie Cullison Cc:Callis, Tom; Smith, Garrett; Leialoha, Julie Subject:FW: 106 Process/Consultation - Keiki Kekipi & Keone Kalawe representative Date:Thursday, October 7, 2021 1:53:12 PM Aloha Jeff and Catie, Please see the response below on the NHO consultation. If there is a different way you would like to receive these responses and have them shared with ASM, please let us know. Douglas From: Heather Irwin <Heather.Irwin@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 1:21 PM To: Kilauea Recovery <kilauearecovery@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: KKalawe@hushmail.com Subject: 106 Process/Consultation - Keiki Kekipi & Keone Kalawe representative Aloha Douglas, I am Heather Irwin from Hoʻoulu Lahui 501c3, writing this letter on behalf of Keiki Kekipi and Keone Kalawe. Mahalo for the letter for the Request for Consultation. As you know, I am a recognized lineal descendant, as well as Johnson Keone Kalawe. We both would like to be included as the consulting party, along with our non-profit Hoʻoulu Lāhui for the APE/Kilauea Recovery Plan. Please let us know if there is any additional information you need at this time, and we will be happy to assist you. Mahalo for your time, Keiki Kekipi & Keone Kalawe Heather Irwin Keiki: 808-747-2774 Keone: 808-989-7022 Heather: 503-409-4328 From:Le, Douglas To:Catie Cullison; Jeff Seastrom Cc:Smith, Garrett; Callis, Tom; Leialoha, Julie Subject:FW: Indicating Interest Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:25:12 PM Another party requesting consultation in the Section 106 process. From: IOPA MAUNAKEA <bruddahkuz@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:00 PM To: Kilauea Recovery <kilauearecovery@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Indicating Interest Aloha Doug, I Iopa Maunakea is interested in serving as a consulting party in the County of Hawaii’s both VHBP and HRSB programs. Please let me know next steps. Looking forward to serving…. Mahalo Iopa Maunakea Get Outlook for iOS Exhibit L Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp. 9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Noise (EA Level Reviews) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental‐review/noise‐abatement‐and‐control 1. What activities does your project involve? Check all that apply: ☐ New construction for residential use NOTE: HUD assistance to new construction projects is generally prohibited if they are located in an Unacceptable zone, and HUD discourages assistance for new construction projects in Normally Unacceptable zones. See 24 CFR 51.101(a)(3) for further details. Continue to Question 2. ☐ Rehabilitation of an existing residential property NOTE: For major or substantial rehabilitation in Normally Unacceptable zones, HUD encourages mitigation to reduce levels to acceptable compliance standards. For major rehabilitation in Unacceptable zones, HUD strongly encourages mitigation to reduce levels to acceptable compliance standards. See 24 CFR 51 Subpart B for further details. Continue to Question 2. ☒ None of the above If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. 2. Complete the Preliminary Screening to identify potential noise generators in the vicinity (1000’ from a major road, 3000’ from a railroad, or 15 miles from an airport). Indicate the findings of the Preliminary Screening below: ☐ There are no noise generators found within the threshold distances above. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing the location of the project relative to any noise generators. ☐ Noise generators were found within the threshold distances. Continue to Question 3. 3. Complete the Noise Assessment Guidelines to quantify the noise exposure. Indicate the findings of the Noise Assessment below: ☐ Acceptable (65 decibels or less; the ceiling may be shifted to 70 decibels in circumstances described in §24 CFR 51.105(a)) Indicate noise level here: Click here to enter text. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis. ☐ Normally Unacceptable: (Above 65 decibels but not exceeding 75 decibels; the floor may be shifted to 70 decibels in circumstances described in 24 CFR 51.105(a)) Indicate noise level here: Click here to enter text. If project is rehabilitation: Continue to Question 4. Provide noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis. If project is new construction: Is the project in a largely undeveloped area1? ☐ No ☐ Yes The project requires completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to 51.104(b)(1)(i). Continue to Question 4. Provide noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis. ☐ Unacceptable: (Above 75 decibels) Indicate noise level here: Click here to enter text. If project is rehabilitation: HUD strongly encourages conversion of noise‐exposed sites to land uses compatible with high noise levels. Consider converting this property to a non‐residential use compatible with high noise levels. Continue to Question 4. Provide noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis, and any other relevant information. If project is new construction: The project requires completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to 51.104(b)(1)(i). Work with HUD or the RE to either complete an EIS or obtain a waiver signed by the appropriate authority. Continue to Question 4. 4. HUD strongly encourages mitigation be used to eliminate adverse noise impacts. Work with the RE/HUD on the development of the mitigation measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. ☐ Mitigation as follows will be implemented: Click here to enter text. 1 A largely undeveloped area means the area within 2 miles of the project site is less than 50 percent developed with urban uses or does not have water and sewer capacity to serve the project. Provide drawings, specifications, and other materials as needed to describe the project’s noise mitigation measures. Continue to the Worksheet Summary. ☐ No mitigation is necessary. Explain why mitigation will not be made here: Click here to enter text. Continue to the Worksheet Summary. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. The project is a buyout program for properties affected by lava damage or damage related to the 2018 Kīlauea eruption. The project and proposed work does not involve new construction for residential use or rehabilitation of any existing residential property. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the Noise Abatement and Control requirements. Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit M Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp.9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Sole Source Aquifers (CEST and EA) ‐ PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/sole‐source‐aquifers 1. Is the project located on a sole source aquifer (SSA)1? ☒No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation used to make your determination, such as a map of your project or jurisdiction in relation to the nearest SSA. ☐Yes Continue to Question 2. 2. Does the project consist solely of acquisition, leasing, or rehabilitation of an existing building(s)? ☐Yes The review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. ☐No Continue to Question 3. 3. Does your region have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other working agreement with EPA for HUD projects impacting a sole source aquifer? Contact your Field or Regional Environmental Officer or visit the HUD webpage at the link above to determine if an MOU or agreement exists in your area. ☐Yes Continue to Question 4. ☐No Continue to Question 5. 4. Does your MOU or working agreement exclude your project from further review? ☐Yes If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation used to make your determination and document where your project fits within the MOU or agreement. ☐No Continue to Question 5. 5. Will the proposed project contaminate the aquifer and create a significant hazard to public health? Consult with your Regional EPA Office. Your consultation request should include detailed information about your proposed project and its relationship to the aquifer and associated streamflow source area. EPA will also want to know about water, storm water and waste water at the proposed project. Follow 1 A sole source aquifer is defined as an aquifer that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. This includes streamflow source areas, which are upstream areas of losing streams that flow into the recharge area. your MOU or working agreement or contact your Regional EPA office for specific information you may need to provide. EPA may request additional information if impacts to the aquifer are questionable after this information is submitted for review. ☐No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide your correspondence with the EPA and all documents used to make your determination. ☐Yes The RE/HUD will work with EPA to develop mitigation measures. If mitigation measures are approved, attach correspondence with EPA and include the mitigation measures in your environmental review documents and project contracts. If EPA determines that the project continues to pose a significant risk to the aquifer, federal financial assistance must be denied. Continue to Question 6. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. Per the EPA’s GIS database, the only two sole source aquifers in the State of Hawai‘i are located on O‘ahu and Moloka‘i, and there are no SSAs on the island of Hawai‘i (see SSA map below). The project is not located in a sole source aquifer, so is in compliance with Sole Source Aquifer requirements. /. .'\ ' .. -U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development San Francisco Regional Office, Region IX 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, California 94102-3448 MAY 13 1991 MEMORANDUM FOR: C. Raphael Mecham, Director, Indian Programs Office, 90IP Lily Lee, Manager, Fresno Office, 9.lS ~~. Gordan Y. Furutani, Manager, Honolulu Office, 9.2S Charles Ming, Manager, Los Angeles Office, 9.4S Dwight A. Peterson, Manager, Phoenix Office, 9.SS Anthony A. Randolph, Manager, Sacramento Office, 9.7S Jeanne Staley, Manager, Tucson Office, 9.lOS FROM: Robert J. De Monte, Housing Commissione , SUBJECT: Implementation o Understanding on in ~-Regional -EPA Memorandum of Source Aquifers All housing actions and programs and all, non-exempt CDBG, Rental Rehabilitation, Emergency Shelter Grant and HOG activities and projects are subject, by regulation, to the Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) consultation procedures [Section 1424(e)] of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). In order to ensure that all HUD activity complies with the Act and to facilitate and expedite the required consultation procedures, the regional offices of HUD and EPA have executed the enclosed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) limiting the types of activity that require consultation. Whereas this information has already been imparted to affected offices, this present memorandum has been prepared to facilitate implementation of the MOU. There are presently only six (6) EPA-designated SSA's in the HUD Region IX area. Two are located in Arizona, including portions of Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Cochise counties and part of the Tohono O'Odham Reservation. Two are located in the California counties of Fresno and Santa Cruz. One is in Hawaii, entirely within Honolulu County. And one is located in the Territory of Guam. .I .. We have identified the following CDBG grantees with SSA's in their geographic jurisdictions: the State of Arizona; the State of California; the City of .Tucson; the County of Fresno; the Tohono O'odham Nation; the Pascua- Yaqui Tribe; the Cold Springs Tribe; the City and County of Honolulu, and the Territory of Guam. Please convey this information to all HUD staff and any other grantees whose environmental review functions are affected by this MOU. In essence, the MOU states that HUD program staff and HUD grantees must, henceforth, refer to EPA for comment only those assisted projects which, in addition to being located in a SSA area, involve the following: 1) agricultural activities; 2) construction or land development projects whose sanitation facilities will consist of individual disposal systems, community sewer systems, or publicly owned sewer systems discharging on the aquifer; 3) the preparation of an EIS; 4) toxic chemicals or radioactive materials; 5) sanitary landfills; 6) water wells; or 7) facilities which dispose of waste water without employing treatment plants. Non-consultation with EPA on these program activities would constitute non-compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Section II of the MOU contains sufficient information to make, when permissible, the unilateral determination that a project will not contaminate a SSA through its streamflow, source, or recharge zones. In short, HUD staff may now determine, without further consultation, whether certain activities and projects (other than those mentioned above) can cause the contamination of EPA designated SSA's and thus whether they are in compliance with Section 1424(e) of the SOWA. The MOU defines the EPA-designated SSA areas and further specifies the kind of information required to make "decisions about those SSA contamination impacts which can create significant hazards to public health. Refer to the MOU itself for more specific details. Feel free to call Environmental Specialist Ernest Molins at FTS 556-6642 if you have questions on this issue. Enclosure I .~ / \ • I.· ·, Memorandum of Understanding Between The Department of Housing and Urban Development Region IX, San Francisco, CA, and The Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, CA I. INTRODUCTION and PURPOSE . ,. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a record of agreement between the Region IX Offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) concerning EPA review of projects receiving Federal financial assjstance and that may affect Region IX sole source aquifers designated pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523). This MOU outlines the steps that will be followed by HUD in determining which projects should be subject to review, and the procedures that will be followed by both agencies in meeting the requirements of Section 1424(e). Pursuant to Section 1424(e), EPA has designated six (6) aquifers in Region IX (others may be added from time to time) which are the sole or principal source of drinking water for all municipal and private water systems in that watershed, and that if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health. Therefore, per this MOU, no HUD (or HUD grant recipient) commitment for Federal financial assistance and/or Federal insurance may be entered into for any project which EPA pre- determines may contaminate the aquifer through its streamflow source and recharge zones so as to create a significant hazard to public health. · The purpose of this MOU is to ensure that each project proposed within an EPA designated sole source aquifer area (see attached maps) that is to receive HUD mortgage insurance or other financial assistance, is designed and constructed in a manner that will not cause contamination of any EPA designated sole source aquifer nor cause a public health hazard in connection with such designated sole source aquifers. In order to achieve this purpose, HUD or HUD Community Development Block Grant recipients (See Section III) will notify EPA of all applications for projects listed in II-A below at the earliest possible date. If an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ·(NEPA) is prepared for any project in the sole source aquifer area, HUD and EPA will coordinate so that the Draft EIS for the project contains EPA's 1424(e) comments. .. ;i;• .. ,. ' 'r. l .':', ~ __ j ,.:I• ··-,... r~::;\ ~; . .'. ':·.: , ... , _ .. . . -· 'l. ,. r .. 2 II. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION A. The following projects will be referred to EPA for review/comments under Section 1424(e): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. B. 1. 2. Projects that are located within an EPA designated sole s9urce aquifer area for which HUD mortgage insurance or other assistance is requested, and which involve: Agricultural activities including but not limited to land related operations employed in the production, raising, processing and marketing of crops or livestock. Construction of (or addition to) residential, commercial or industrial projects, or public facilities, or land developments, whose sanitation facilities will consist of individual disposal systems (cesspools, septic tanks with leach fields or seepage pits), or community sewerage systems (owned either privately or by a homeowners association), or a proposed (i.e. not yet in place) publicly owned piped sanitary sewer system, the discharge from which will terminate within the watershed of the aquifer. The preparation of an EIS. Existing or proposed industrial projects which manufacture, store, transport, or dispose of toxic chemicals or radioactive materials. Acquisition of a site intended to be used for a sanitary landfill and its operation, or closure of a sanitary landfill. Construction or abandonment of a water well. Facilities which dispose of their waste water in either dry wells, retention ponds, or by other methods not employing a treatment plant. The EPA and HUD mutually agree that activities listed below would not affect water quality in Region IX sole source aquifers, and need not be referred to EPA for evaluation prior to HUD approval: Construction of (or addition to) residential, corrmercial or industrial projects, or public facilities, or land developments, which will be served by an existing and publicly owned and operated sewerage system and treatment plant which is not subject to a locally or EPA imposed moratorium, except for any development covered in A above. Acquisition, disposition, rehabilitation, reconstruction or modernization of existing projects, buildings, and public facilities. 3 3. Financial assistance {loans or grants) including refinancing, or provision of mortgage insurance on existing projects, properties, buildings or developments. 4. Public services, preparation of environmental studies or project plans, planning activities, technical assistance and training, payment/repayment or reimbursement of loans or interest. • r 5. Emergency activities for mitigating an imminent threat to health and safety. III. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATIONS HUD regulations, at 24 CFR Part 58, implement the requirements of section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and apply to activities and projects funded with HUD assistance, under all Conununity Development Block Grant (CDBG) and other grant programs. This includes entitlement grants, non-entitlement (i.e. small cities) grants administered by HUD or by States, and grants to Indian tribes. Pursuant to section 104(g), a grant recipient's assumption of the responsibility for environmental review and decision making, includes such responsibilities under the other provisions of law and authorities specified at 58.5. Before committing any CDBG or other grant funds (other than for activi,~ies exempt under 58.34), the recipient must certify that it has complied with the requirements and obligations which would apply to HUD under the other laws and authorities, including Section 1424(e) of the Safe drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended. The following procedures shall apply to CDBG applications in addition to those specified in Section IV below: A. HUD will inform all CDBG recipients, and States which administer the Small Cities Block Grant program, that a 1424{e) review will be required for all projects listed in II-A above. B. If the recipient submits a Request for Release of Funds {RROF) and certification for a project listed in II-A above, and which EPA has determined will contaminate the sole source aquifer so as to create a hazard to public health and has so advised the recipient in writing, the EPA shall submit an objection to the RROF to HUD (or to the State in the case of a state administered Small Cities Block Grant program) within 15 days from the time EPA receives the Notice of Intent to RROF. In such cases, HUD (or the State) will not release the funds until the matter has been resolved between EPA and the recipient, and HUD (or the State) has been so advised in writing. 4 c. The environmental requirements for multi-year projects must encompass the entire multi-year scope of activities and be included in the RROF and certification. IV. REVIEW PROCEDURE A. Upon receipt of applications by HUD, or prior to submittin9:.a RROF and certification to HUD (or to the State) by a recipient, for projects meeting the criteria in II-A above, the HUD office will send copies of the application, or the recipient will send a brief description of the proposed project (see 2 below), to EPA for its review. 1. EPA shall notify the HUD Office (or the recipient) in writing within 10 calendar days to request additional information it may need to conduct its review. 2. Information needed by EPA normally includes the following and may be submitted concurrently with Item IV-A above: (a) Location map identifying project location relative to the sole source aquifer area, and topographic map. (b) Description and objective of project activity, including project design, materials to be used, assessment of potential impacts on ground water quality and quantity, and alteration of natural topography and vegetation. (c) Names/addresses/telephone numbers of any City, County, State or Federal agencies that are involved. 3. EPA shall have 30 calendar days to review and submit its conments to the HUD Office, or to the recipient. The 30 day period will begin when EPA has received the additional data it may have requested. 4. EPA may request and HUD (or the recipient) may grant additional time for review and comment in exceptional cases. Requests and approvals shall be in writing. 5. HUD (or the recipient) may approve the project if no EPA approval has been received within the normal 30 days or longer agreed-to period. 6. EPA review recommendations shall be sent directly to the HUD Office, or to the recipient, as applicable. 7. When the project reviewed was submitted to EPA by a HUD Field Office, a copy of EPA comments shall also be submitted to: HUD Regional Environmental Officer San Francisco, CA 94102 ... B. c. D. E. 5 Each Draft EIS prepared by HUD or by a recipient, for projects within a sole source aquifer area, shall reflect EPA comments. Materials submitted to EPA by HUD or recipients under this Memorandum of Understanding wil 1, be addressed to the attention of the Office of Ground Water (W-1-G), EPA Region IX, San F~ancisco, GA 94105. w Local Area Certification (HUD Handbook 4135.1 Rev 2) -If all or part of the geographical boundaries of a certifiable or conditionally certifiable community are within a sole source aquifer area, and residential land developments will meet criteria II.A. 2 above, the HUD office may consult with EPA as part of the certification review process. HUD and EPA will each assign liaison personnel to serve as contact points and to be. responsible for maintaining communications as to procedures and activities of their respective agency in Federal Region IX. The liaison personnel are: HUD: Regional Environmental Officer San Francisco, CA 94102 EPA: Director, Office of Groundwater, San Francisco, CA 94105 The liaison personnel, accompanied by appropriate staff, will hold meetings as needed to discuss matters of concern related to Region IX aquifers and this Memorandum of Understanding. F. The Memorandum of Understanding is subject to revision upon agreement of both parties. Regional Administrator-Regional Housing Commissioner Date: / /a/90 ~· U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator Date: 4·~·?o UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco. Ca. 94105 AQUIFER: Fresno Designated Sole Source Aquifer DATE DESIGNATED: 09/10/79 DESIGNATED AREA: In the State of California, entirely within Fresno County, including all or portions of the communities of Fresno, Clovis, Kerman, Raisin City, Selma, and Sanger. Specifically~ft the area border by (1) Fresno slough by-pass on the west, (2) the San Joaquin River on the north, (3) the Friant-Kern canal on the east, and (4) the King's River on the south. Approximately shown on the at~ached map. Exhibit N Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp.9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410‐1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Wetlands (CEST and EA) – Partner https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/wetlands‐protection 1. Does this project involve new construction as defined in Executive Order 11990, expansion of a building’s footprint, or ground disturbance? The term "new construction" includes draining, dredging, channelizing, filling, diking, impounding, and related activities and construction of any structures or facilities. ☐ No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. ☒ Yes Continue to Question 2. 2. Will the new construction or other ground disturbance impact a wetland as defined in E.O. 11990? ☐ No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map or any other relevant documentation to explain your determination. ☒ Yes Work with HUD or the RE to assist with the 8‐Step Process. Continue to Question 3. 3. Does Section 55.12 state that the 8‐Step Process is not required? ☒ No, the 8‐Step Process applies. This project will require mitigation and may require elevating structure or structures. See the link to the HUD Exchange above for information on HUD’s elevation requirements. Work with the RE/HUD to assist with the 8‐Step Process. Continue to Worksheet Summary. ☐ 5‐Step Process is applicable per 55.12(a). Provide the applicable citation at 24 CFR 55.12(a) here. Click here to enter text. Work with the RE/HUD to assist with the 5‐Step Process. This project may require mitigation or alternations. Continue to Worksheet Summary. ☐ 8‐Step Process is inapplicable per 55.12(b). Provide the applicable citation at 24 CFR 55.12(b) here. Click here to enter text. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to Worksheet Summary. ☐ 8‐Step Process is inapplicable per 55.12(c). Provide the applicable citation at 24 CFR 55.12(c) here. Click here to enter text. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to Worksheet Summary. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. An 8‐step review was completed in order to further evaluate and mitigate potential impacts for projects located within flood zones or wetlands as per EO 11988 and 11990. The entire 8‐step record has been included and is detailed in Exhibit J. According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), few wetlands remain within the project area that were not inundated by lava during the 2018 eruption event (see Figure 12, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, accessed February 2022). No ground disturbance associated with demolition of existing buildings are anticipated within the vicinity of any identified wetlands. However, the Tier 2 review will include further evaluation of wetlands including whether any wetlands are located on applicant parcels that include actions with ground disturbance. If a parcel in the project is proposed for ground disturbance and is found to have a wetland, the US Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted. Mitigation measures for consideration if the project may impact a wetland include introduction of bioswales placed by biologists and hydrologists in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that incorporate native vegetation to contain potential pollutants and address drainage impacts; utilization of a biologist or wildlife specialist for the identification and preservation of flora (plants) and fauna (animals); and conservation easement agreements in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service for nearby wetlands owned by County of Hawai‘i. Therefore, the project is in compliance with Executive Order 11990. Da te: 2/28/2022 So ur ce: Co unt y o f Haw ai‘i, 20 20. E SR I Onl ine B as e ma p. U.S. F i sh & W ildlife Ser v ice , 2018. Di scl ai me r: T hi s grap h ic h as be en p re pa red fo r ge ne ral p l an ni n g p ur p os es o nl y. Is la nd o f Haw ai ‘iNorth Lin ear Sca le (Fee t) 0 1 ,50 0 3,0 00 6,000 Fig u re 12aWetlands Cl ie nt N amePath: Q:\Planning\Hawaii\Kilauea Recovery\GISKilau ea Recover y P lan P r o j ec tArea Le g e n d Proje ct Are a L a va F lo wWetlandsFreshwater Fo res te d /S hr u b We tla n d Fres hw at er Po n d Est u arin e a n d Ma rin e W e tla n d Est u arin e a n d Ma rin e De e p wa te r Da te: 3/1/2022 So ur ce: Co unt y o f Haw ai‘i, 20 20. E SR I Onl ine B as e ma p. U.S. F i sh & W ildlife Ser v ice , 2018. Di scl ai me r: T hi s grap h ic h as be en p re pa red fo r ge ne ral p l an ni n g p ur p os es o nl y. Is la nd o f Haw ai ‘iNorth Lin ear Sca le (Fee t) 0 7 50 1 ,50 0 3,0 00 Fig u re 12bWetland on TMK Parcel 1 30450 360 Cl ie nt N amePath: Q:\Planning\Hawaii\Kilauea Recovery\GISKilau ea Recover y P lan P r o j ec tArea Le g e n d Proje ct Are a Ta x M ap Ke y Pa rc e ls TMK 1 30 4 5 0 36 0 L a va F lo wWetlandsFreshwater Fo res te d /S hr u b We tla n d Est u arin e a n d Ma rin e W e tla n d Est u arin e a n d Ma rin e De e p wa te r Exhibit O Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp. 9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410‐1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Wild and Scenic Rivers (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/wild‐and‐scenic‐rivers 1. Is your project within proximity of a Wild and Scenic River, Study River, or Nationwide Rivers Inventory River? ☒ No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Provide documentation used to make your determination. ☐ Yes Continue to Question 2. 2. Could the project do any of the following? Have a direct and adverse effect within Wild and Scenic River Boundaries, Invade the area or unreasonably diminish the river outside Wild and Scenic River Boundaries, or Have an adverse effect on the natural, cultural, and/or recreational values of a NRI segment. Consult with the appropriate federal/state/local/tribal Managing Agency(s), pursuant to Section 7 of the Act, to determine if the proposed project may have an adverse effect on a Wild & Scenic River or a Study River and, if so, to determine the appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures. Select one: ☐ The Managing Agency has concurred that the proposed project will not alter, directly, or indirectly, any of the characteristics that qualifies or potentially qualifies the river for inclusion in the NWSRS. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Provide documentation of the consultation (including the Managing Agency’s concurrence) and any other documentation used to make your determination. ☐ The Managing Agency was consulted and the proposed project may alter, directly, or indirectly, any of the characteristics that qualifies or potentially qualifies the river for inclusion in the NWSRS. The RE/HUD must work with the Managing Agency to identify mitigation measures to mitigate the impact or effect of the project on the river. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. There are currently no designated wild and scenic rivers in the State of Hawai‘i (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, accessed Sept 2021), and no Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) rivers were found to be within close proximity to the project area (see enclosed screenshots). Therefore, the project is in compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. + View larger map Hawaii has approximately 3,905 miles of river, but no designated wild & scenic rivers. Legend + – Hawaii does not have any designated rivers. Choose A State Go Choose A River Go NATIONWIDE RIVERS INVENTORY CONTACT US PRIVACY NOTICE Q & A SEARCH ENGINE SITE MAP HAWAII Dark and foreboding one minute, sun-drenched and exploding with color the next, tropical rivers span every mood. NATIONAL SYSTEM MANAGEMENT RESOURCES PUBLICATIONS CONTACT US 50 YEARS SITE INDEX Exhibit P Page Intentionally Left Blank OMB No. 2506‐0177 (exp.9/30/2021) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410‐1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Environmental Justice (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental‐review/environmental‐justice HUD strongly encourages starting the Environmental Justice analysis only after all other laws and authorities, including Environmental Assessment factors if necessary, have been completed. 1. Were any adverse environmental impacts identified in any other compliance review portion of this project’s total environmental review? ☒Yes Continue to Question 2. ☐No If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. 2. Were these adverse environmental impacts disproportionately high for low‐income and/or minority communities? ☐Yes Explain: Click here to enter text. The RE/HUD must work with the affected low‐income or minority community to decide what mitigation actions, if any, will be taken. Provide any supporting documentation. ☒No Explain: Potential adverse impacts of the project include those to wetlands and flood zones/floodplains, those to endangered or threatened species, or potential archaeological sites. These impacts are broad, are non‐economic or income‐based factors, and would not disproportionally impact low‐ income communities or minorities. If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: Map panel numbers and dates Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. The EJSCREEN Report for the one‐mile ring surrounding the project site (enclosed) notes that the project site rates high in two of the eleven environmental indexes for national percentiles, mainly lead paint indicator and risk management plan proximity. The report also notes that there are currently no Superfund sites and two (2) hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities located within the EJSCREEN search area. Because this project does not involve the construction or rehabilitation, and rather property acquisiton and removal of structures to support individuals who have become displaced by the disaster, there is no potential for environmental justice impacts. Documentation of such is found in the project purpose and supported throughout this ERR. State Percentile EPA Region Percentile USA Percentile 1/3 Selected Variables EJ Index for PM2.5 EJ Index for Ozone EJ Index for NATA* Diesel PM EJ Index for Wastewater Discharge Indicator EJ Indexes This report shows the values for environmental and demographic indicators and EJSCREEN indexes. It shows environmental and demographic raw data (e.g., the estimated concentration of ozone in the air), and also shows what percentile each raw data value represents. These percentiles provide perspective on how the selected block group or buffer area compares to the entire state, EPA region, or nation. For example, if a given location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this means that only 5 percent of the US population has a higher block group value than the average person in the location being analyzed. The years for which the data are available, and the methods used, vary across these indicators. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see EJSCREEN documentation for discussion of these issues before using reports. EJ Index for NATA* Air Toxics Cancer Risk EJ Index for NATA* Respiratory Hazard Index EJ Index for Traffic Proximity and Volume EJ Index for Lead Paint Indicator EJ Index for Superfund Proximity EJ Index for RMP Proximity EJ Index for Hazardous Waste Proximity EJSCREEN Report (Version ) 36 20 N/A N/A 34 19 44 N/A 30 53 19 42 36 N/A N/A 40 37 54 N/A 43 50 37 64 58 N/A N/A 63 60 70 N/A 69 70 60 1 mile Ring around the Area, HAWAII, EPA Region 9 Approximate Population: 9,010 Kilauea Buyout EA October 19, 2021 Input Area (sq. miles): 116.80 2020 2/3 EJSCREEN Report (Version ) Superfund NPL Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) Sites reporting to EPA 1 mile Ring around the Area, HAWAII, EPA Region 9 Approximate Population: 9,010 Kilauea Buyout EA October 19, 2021 Input Area (sq. miles): 116.80 2020 0 2 EJSCREEN Report (Version ) Value State Avg. %ile in State EPA Region Avg. %ile in EPA Region USA Avg. %ile in USA 3/3 RMP Proximity (facility count/km distance) Hazardous Waste Proximity (facility count/km distance) Wastewater Discharge Indicator (toxicity-weighted concentration/m distance) Demographic Index Population over 64 years of age People of Color Population Low Income Population Linguistically Isolated Population Population With Less Than High School Education Population Under 5 years of age Demographic Indicators EJSCREEN is a screening tool for pre-decisional use only. It can help identify areas that may warrant additional consideration, analysis, or outreach. It does not provide a basis for decision-making, but it may help identify potential areas of EJ concern. Users should keep in mind that screening tools are subject to substantial uncertainty in their demographic and environmental data, particularly when looking at small geographic areas. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see EJSCREEN documentation for discussion of these issues before using reports. This screening tool does not provide data on every environmental impact and demographic factor that may be relevant to a particular location. EJSCREEN outputs should be supplemented with additional information and local knowledge before taking any action to address potential EJ concerns. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice Selected Variables Environmental Indicators Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 in µg/m3) Ozone (ppb) NATA* Diesel PM (µg/m3) NATA* Cancer Risk (lifetime risk per million) NATA* Respiratory Hazard Index Traffic Proximity and Volume (daily traffic count/distance to road) Lead Paint Indicator (% Pre-1960 Housing) Superfund Proximity (site count/km distance) * The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) is EPA's ongoing, comprehensive evaluation of air toxics in the United States. EPA developed the NATA to prioritize air toxics, emission sources, and locations of interest for further study. It is important to remember that NATA provides broad estimates of health risks over geographic areas of the country, not definitive risks to specific individuals or locations. More information on the NATA analysis can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment. Demographic Indicators 1 mile Ring around the Area, HAWAII, EPA Region 9 Approximate Population: 9,010 Kilauea Buyout EA October 19, 2021 Input Area (sq. miles): 116.80 2020 N/A N/A 0.00644 N/A 0.35 0.22 0.0026 0.052 3.9 0.084 8.4 50% 50% 22% 6% 7% 3% 49% N/A N/A 0.164 37 3.2 0.39 0.097 0.16 1200 0.16 14 50% 78% 23% 6% 8% 6% 17% 46% 60% 33% 8% 16% 6% 14% 36% 39% 33% 4% 13% 6% 15% 50.1 9.99 0.479 18 5.3 0.99 0.15 0.24 1700 0.53 35 42.9 8.55 0.478 9.4 5 0.74 0.13 0.28 750 0.44 32 N/A N/A 6 N/A 21 52 0 38 7 6 5 46 9 92 52 52 55 73 56 38 76 38 32 51 85 73 66 78 64 37 54 82 N/A N/A <50th N/A 12 32 0 37 3 <50th <50th N/A N/A <50th N/A 33 41 0 28 8 <50th <50th Page Intentionally Left Blank Figures 13-16 Page Intentionally Left Blank Page Intentionally Left Blank Page Intentionally Left Blank Date : 10/4/2021 Source : Pacific Disaste r Ce nte r, 1998. County of Hawai‘i, 2020. ESRI Online Base m ap. Disclaim e r: T his graphic has be e n pre pare d for ge ne ral planning purpose s only. Island of Hawai‘iNorth Linear Scale (Feet) 0 2,500 5,000 10,000 Client Nam ePath: Q:\Planning\Haw aii\Kilaue a Re cove ry \GIS Figure 15Tsunami Evacuation Zo ne Kilauea Recovery Plan ProjectArea Legend Proje ct Are aTax Map Key ParcelsLava FlowTsunami Evacuation Zone Page Intentionally Left Blank Date: 9/30/2021 Source: County of Hawai‘i, 2020. ESRI Online Basem ap. NOAA, 2017. Disclaim er: T his g raphic has been prepared for g eneral plann ing purposes only. Island of Hawai‘iNorth Linear Scale (Feet) 0 2,500 5,000 10,000 Client Nam ePath: Q:\Plannin g \Haw aii\Kilauea Recovery\GIS Figure 16Sea L evel Ri s e (S L R) Kilauea Recovery Plan ProjectArea Legend Project Area Lava Flow3.2ft of SLR exposure6ft of SLR exposureLow Lying Areas at 6ft SLR (none)Depth at 6ftValueHigh : 4.55484 Low : 4.76837e-007 Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit Q Page Intentionally Left Blank MEETING NOTES DATE: October 26, 2021 MEETING DATE: October 21, 2021 PRESENT: Douglas Le, Hawaiʻi County Kīlauea Recovery Program Garrett Smith, Hawaiʻi County Kīlauea Recovery Program Catie Cullison, PBR HAWAII Brittany Wheatman, PBR HAWAII SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF THE KĪLAUEA RECOVERY PROGRAMMATIC EA PUBLIC MEETING 1 This memorandum summarizes topics discussed at the public meeting for the Kīlauea Recovery Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA), which was held on October 21, 2021 via video conference (Zoom). There were 35 attendees present for at least part of the meeting, including the project team and other Hawaiʻi County staff. The meeting started with a presentation (attached as Appendix A) from the project team presented by Douglas Le of Hawaiʻi County Kīlauea Recovery Program, and Catie Cullison of PBR HAWAII. The presentation covered the Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) and the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review to support the program. The presentation was followed by a question and answer (Q&A) session with those in attendance. Questions were submitted via video or through the Zoom chat feature. The information provided in response to questions during the Q&A is summarized below by topic: 1) Voluntary Housing Buyout Program Questions pertaining to the VHBP pertained to the number and types of applications to date as well as timing and funding sufficiency for all applicants. • A relatively small number of properties (six to eight) have already applied for and are eligible for the VHBP in Phase I, compared to the hundreds of applications received thus far. • Phase 3 (which covers undeveloped properties inundated by the eruption) is intended to start up in May, 2022. Phase 3 is the final phase of the VHBP and will begin after intake for Phase 1 (properties with primary dwellings) and 2 (properties with secondary dwellings). • Among eligible Phase 1 applicants, the County found that 294 homes were inundated by lava out of the 623 properties with structures that sustained damage from the eruption (based on the County’s assessment of homeowners exemptions). o Other applicants are also eligible for Phase 1 that were not inundated by lava (e.g. properties that sustained damage from cracks and fissures) • There are currently 84 pre-registrations for Phase 2 and about 76 pre-registrations for Phase 3. Letters have also been sent to all those who pre-registered for Phase 2 with information regarding the upcoming application process. SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF THE KĪLAUEA RECOVERY PROGRAMMATIC EA PUBLIC MEETING 1 10/26/21 Page 2 of 3 •Light agriculture uses are being considered for the affected properties, although consultation is underway to determine the parameters for such uses. •At the time of the eruption and in the weeks and months following, the County Real Property Tax Division sent letters to all property owners with property that was impacted by the eruption to notify them of the impacts. Those with questions about a specific property are encouraged to reach out to the project team to get more information. 2)NEPA Environmental Assessment Questions pertaining to the NEPA Environemtal Assesement sought more specificity as to the issues that will be covered by the document. •The EA will focus on the local context of regions affected by the eruption and will also have to discuss specific topics (such as airports) as required by federal law, even if they are not located in an area impacted by the eruption. •For properties inundated by lava, the review process is relatively straight-forward due to the nature of the damage. 3)Funding/Budget Questions pertaining to funding of the VHBP asked for particulars about how the federal monies will be deployed, if there will be sufficient budget for the VHBP to compensate applicants through Phase 3, and clarifications regarding other federal disaster relief funding that the County is distributing. •There are currently no specific concerns regarding the VHBP budget. The program phasing was designed to track intake of applications and appropriately allocate funding and resources for all three phases. Information from Phase 1 indicate that funding will be available for Phase 3 and Phase 2 of the program will also help to determine available funding for Phase 3. •EA Tier 1 & 2 contract with PBR HAWAII is for $79,000 (to conduct the EA and design the process for Tiers 1 and 2). The tiered reviews will be carried out by the County of Hawaii. •The County is anticipating a $50 million commitment of funds for the acquisition phase for the approximately 300 residences that have gone through the intake process and are eligible for the buyout. •The broader project budget includes funding for many different sectors of the project, including $107 million HUD Community Development Block Grant for Disaster Recovery (CDBGDR) funds (for the VHBP), $127 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (to various County departments for road infrastructure, drinking water, and parks and recreation facilities), $20 million from the Hawaii State Legislature, and a $20 million loan from the Hawaii State Legislature. Additional information can be found online at www.recovery.hawaiicounty.gov. 4)Other General Concerns •Regarding accessing property: The County has been and is continuing to work to provide vehicular access to properties that were damaged. While some roads have been repaired, some properties may still be inaccessible depending on the condition and location. In addition, the structures that were not destroyed may still have sustained SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF THE KĪLAUEA RECOVERY PROGRAMMATIC EA PUBLIC MEETING 1 10/26/21 Page 3 of 3 structural damage. Those with questions about a specific property are encouraged to reach out to the project team to get more information. • For more information: Program information and information about previous meetings can be found online at www.recovery.hawaiicounty.gov. Attached: Appendix A (Meeting Presentation) 2021-10-21 Public Meeting 1 Meeting Notes-Memo County of Hawai‘iKīlauea Eruption Recovery Programs P r e s en ted by The County of Hawai‘i Planning Department &P BR HAWAII O c t o b er 21, 2021 Kīlauea Eruption Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) Welcome! Tonight’s Meeting Purpose •Provide an overview of the Environmental Review process that is required for the County’s expenditure of HUD Disaster Relief funds•Provide a progress report on the Environmental Review process•Answer any questions you have pertaining to the Environmental Review process Welcome! Tonight’s Agenda •Introductions•Description of Voluntary housing buy out program & HUD funding process for the programs•HUD Environmental Review process and progress to date•Q&A Meet the Project Team U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Disaster Relief Funds •Federal funds were appropriated to Hawaiʻi County after the 2018 Kīlauea eruption•Approximately $107m•HUD Community Development Block Grant -Disaster Relief funds are one of the grants the County has recieved to support the community with a voluntary housing buy out program and relocation services program. Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) •The purpose of the VHBP is for the County to acquire properties impacted by the 2018 Kīlauea eruption, through voluntary sale by interested property owners. •Structures to be removed.•Median pre-disaster (2017) funding limit. Voluntary Housing Buyout Program (VHBP) •Eligible properties.•Strategy to address concern that there may be more applicants than available federal funds. •HUD Disaster Relief funds will be used for two activities that will be evaluated as part of the Environmental Review: •Expenditure of funds for VHBP •Removal of remaining structures HUD Funding Process Description HUD Funding Process Description Source: HUD Disaster Recovery Buyout Program Design Implementation Toolkit HUD Funding Process Description Source: HUD Disaster Recovery Buyout Program Design Implementation Toolkit We are here! Environmental Review completed before expenditure of any funds NEPA Process Description –Environmental Review •Environmental review is the process of reviewing an “action” or a “project” and its potential environmental impacts to determine and disclose if it meets federal, state, and county environmental standards.•Required for all HUD-assisted projects •Must be in compliance with NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) NEPA Process Description – Environmental Review •Includes review for potential impacts to:•Historic and cultural resources (National Historic Preservation Act)•Endangered Species and their habitat (Endangered Species Act)•Wetlands and Floodplains•Toxics and Hazardous Waste, Explosives•Farmland Resources•Noise•Airport Hazards•Local land use ordinances•etc. NEPA Process Description –HUD “Tiered” Review •Purpose: make environmental review more efficient, by resolving issues that will be repetitive across many properties•Tier I: broad level review across the whole project area•Tier II: specific to individual properties NEPA Process Description Tier I: Research and Initiate Consultation •Endangered Species •Historic Resources •Floodplain/wetlands Tier I: Compile NEPA Document Tier II: Individual site reviews NEPA Process Description and HUD Funding Process side-by-side Tier I: Research and Initiate Consultation •Endangered Species •Historic Resources •Floodplain/wetlands Tier I: Compile NEPA Document Tier II: Individual site reviews •Purpose: to ensure that historic properties are considered during planning processes that involve federal funds.•Historic consultation initiation letter sent to State Historic Preservation Officer –Sept. 8, 2021•Historic consultation initiation letter sent to known Native Hawaiian Organizations and historic preservation partners –Sept. 27, 2021•If you have information that you would like to share with the project team, we can connect with you individually in the days following this meeting to learn more. National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)Process –Progress Update Report Endangered Species Act (Section 7)Process –Progress Update Report •Purpose: to ensure that Federally-designated threatened and endangered species are considered during planning processes that involve federal funds.•Endangered Species technical assistance request sent to USFWS – Sept. 13, 2021•Initial response with list of species and suggested avoidance measures received from USFWS –Sept. 15, 2021•If you have information that you would like to share with the project team, we can connect with you individually in the days following this meeting to learn more. •Environmental Review Next Steps:•Complete consultation processes•Compile Tier I NEPA document•Create a “checklist” for Tier II reviews•Post environmental review documents on HUD and County websites•Voluntary Buy-out Next Steps:•Work through completing phase I (primary homes) applications•Phase II (second homes) begins Nov. 1•Future: supplemental environmental review for future uses of buy-out properties Next Steps Q&A Do you have any questions about the Environmental Review process? Thoughts or comments that you would like to share? MAHALO FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION! Contacts: Douglas Le –Hawaiʻi County Disaster Recovery Officer kilauearecovery@hawaiicounty.gov Catie Cullison -PBR HAWAII ccullison@pbrhawaii.com To learn more: https://recovery.hawaiicounty.gov