Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD BACKGROUND REPORT RPastorek SMA May 2024 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT RYAN &PAUL PASTOREK SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (PL-SMA-2024-000055) RYAN AND PAUL PASTOREK have submitted an application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to consolidate and re-subdivide 2 subject parcels totaling 10.45 acres within the Special Management Area and to construct one single-family residence and related improvements on each parcel. The subject properties are located approximately 1.25 miles south of the intersection of Old Government Road and Maku`u Drive on the makai side, Por. of Maku`u and Keonepoko Nui, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026 and :027. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. Request: Ryan and Paul Pastorek are proposing to construct one (1) single-family residence each on two (2) adjoining lots, as well as consolidating and re-subdividing the two (2) parcels to allow for lesser impact on Parcel 27, which is a more heavily vegetated parcel, and to allow for greater setbacks to the neighboring properties. Under the proposed action, Ryan Pastorek (Son) would build one (1) single-family residence with supporting infrastructure and a storage/animal shelter on TMK No. (3) 1-5-010: 026 (LOT A). Paul Pastorek (Father) would build one (1) single-family residence with supporting infrastructure and an aquaculture pond on TMK No. (3) 1-5-010:027 (LOT B). Lot A and B are 7.45 (4.05 acres after re-subdivision) and 3 acres (6.40 acres after resubdivision), respectively, and each parcel will have its own separate utilities, one (1) driveway, (1) potable water well, and (1) Individual Wastewater System approved by the Dept. of Health (DOH). (Planning Department Exhibit 1 — SMA Use Permit Application dated March 26, 2024) 2. Project Objectives: The applicants wish to create a sustainable self-sufficient homestead while respecting the essential character of the land. The proposed project would improve the stewardship of the land and contribute to the sense of community in the area. -1- 3. Cost/Time of Project: The current estimated cost of the improvements is $2,000,000. The project would be initiated after the granting of all necessary permits. 4. Landowners: Opunaha LLC - Topanga CA (P. 26), Paul G. Pastorek - River Ridge, LA (P. 27). BACKGROUND INFORMATION 5. Special Management Area (SMA): August 26, 2004 — SMA Minor Permit No. 162 was approved for installation of electrical utility poles and overhead powerline within an existing 15-ft wide easement that covered 12 parcels (including the subject parcels) located along the road. 6. Chapter 343, HRS: The applicants published a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in the March 8, 2024, issue of the Environmental Notice in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Ch. 343. 7. State Land Use Conservation District — As the project area is located within the State Land Use Conservation District, the applicants will be required to obtain a Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP) from the State Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR)prior to any proposed land uses are conducted. 8. State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) — The proposed project application, AIS, CIA, and development plans were submitted to SHPD for their review and consideration pursuant to HRS Ch. 6E-42. To date no response has been received. STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 9. State Land Use Designation: Conservation 10. General Plan LUPAG MAP: Open 11. County Zoning: Agriculture 1-acre (A-la). However, County zoning does not apply within the State Land Use (SLU) Conservation District, and any proposed land uses are regulated via Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Ch. 13-5, Conservation District. 12. Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP): The Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP) was adopted by the Hawaii County Council by Ordinance No. 08-166 in 2008 and amended by Ordinances Nos. 10-104, 11-51, 11-52, 11-53, 11-117 and 11-118 in 2010 and 2011). -2- 13. Special Management Area (SMA): The project is located within the Special Management Area and therefore, the proposed development is subject to the SMA review. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREAS AND SURROUNDING AREA 14. Subject Project Area: The 10.45-acre shoreline parcels have approximately 1,000 feet of coastline that is primarily rocky cliffs 25-45 feet high with embayments, sea arches, caves, and other erosional features. A significant feature of the project area is a littoral cone found on the northeastern portion of Lot A along the sea cliff. The makai side of the cone is eroded, and slopes to the south and is currently covered in grass. The properties are relatively cleared of large vegetation other than a large stand of trees located on the southern end of the project area; there is no existing development on the parcel. The property is located on the makai side of Government Beach Road south of the Hawaiian Paradise Park (HPP) subdivision, with Conservation Lands (undeveloped) to the North, and developed with a residential structure to the south. Across the road are large agricultural parcels, with varied agriculture and residential uses. 15. Surrounding Land Zoning/Uses: The surrounding area is primarily undeveloped lands with some residential uses located along the shoreline. The majority of the surrounding parcels are within the counties A-la (makai of road) and A-5a (mauka of road) zoning designation. 16. Soil Type: The property is layered pahoehoe, with `Opihikao series (2kllp) soil, which is highly decomposed plant material with 2 to 20% slopes. This soil type is well drained and has high runoff. 17. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The property is predominately within Flood Zone X, or outside of the 500-year flood plan. A small portion of the shoreline is located within Flood Zone VE (areas subject to a 1% annual chance of inundation by a 100-year flood event with additional hazards associated with storm induced wave action). The proposed development will be within Flood Zone X. 18. Sea Level Rise: Due to the evident erosion of the shoreline area the applicants conducted a Coastal Erosion and Shoreline Hazards Study for the project area to determine the extent of the impacts of Sea Level Rise, coastal erosion, and to understand the hazards -3- associated with developing these coastal parcels. The study concluded that there is an Average Annual Erosion Rate (AAER) of 0.36-feet/year along the shoreline of the project area. 19. Flora/Fauna Resources: Both properties have been surveyed for rare, threatened, and endangered flora and fauna; the report found none in the project area. However, as is typical, the Hawaiian hawk, and the Hawaiian hoary bat are assumed to occasionally use portions of the site (tree stand area). This area has been historically utilized for commercial agriculture, ranching, what has altered the vegetation throughout this area. The primary vegetation is pasture grasses, common ironwood, and coconut, along with other non-native trees and shrubs. During the biotic survey, several common birds were observed, including common myna, cardinal, doves, and finches. It is unlikely that any native or endangered forest birds would utilize these properties due to the lack of native forest, invasive species, and geography of the site. 20. Archaeological Resources: The applicants conducted an Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) of the project area as part of the environmental assessment process. Two (2) rock walls were identified as significant under criterion "D", however, the AIS found that these sites would not be adversely impacted by the proposed project and no further action was required. 21. Cultural/Historic Resources: As part of the environmental assessment prosses, the applicants conducted a Cultural Impact Assessment(CIA) on the impacts of the proposed project on nearby cultural and historic resources. Based on the results of consultation regarding area land-use and cultural practices, no past or ongoing cultural practices were identified for the project area or requested by lineal descendants. There were cultural practices, namely fishing and gathering of ocean and plant resources, associated with the wider region of the project area. While the coastal portion of the property is a cliff with no safe access, the applicants will allow ocean gathering to be conducted. 22. Scenic and Open Space Resources: The construction of a new single-family dwelling on each subject parcel is anticipated to have minimal impacts on scenic views. The consolidation and resubdivision is being requested to minimize impacts associated with scenic views, noise, and air quality. Additionally, the proposed landscape plan will lessen -4- potential impact to scenic resources and coastal views from Government Beach Road. Both the proposed dwellings are designed with a maximum height of 25-feet from current grade. The proposed development is consistent with the surrounding developed parcels which include numerous 2-story residential structures. Additionally, there are no views from the nearest public highway which is located over 5 miles from the site. Open space resources are primarily the shoreline area makai of the project site which is not easily accessible due to the heavily eroding shoreline cliffs. 23. Recreation/Public Access: The historical research and responses outlined in both the AIS and CIA identified no past or ongoing cultural practices on either Parcel. However, cultural practices such as fishing and gathering of ocean resources continue to be an important practice in the wider Maku`u region. Since the Property owners will not prevent shoreline access, traditional cultural practices within the project and wider area will not be affected. Staff notes that the geomorphology of the eroding shoreline makes direct access to the shoreline difficult and hazardous. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 24. Access: Access to each residence will be a single driveway from Government Beach Road. 25. Water: Each property will be equipped with one (1) potable water well and water lines for each single-family residence. 26. Wastewater: Each property will be equipped with one (1) DOH approved Individual Wastewater System (IWS)for each single-family residence. 27. Other Essential Utilities and Services: All other utilities including electrical, telephone and cable services are available to the site. AGENCIES' COMMENTS 28. Department of Environmental Management — Wastewater/Solid Waste: (Planning Department Exhibit 2—May 10,2024,Memo). 29. State Office of Planning and Sustainable Development (OPSD): (Planning Department Exhibit 3—May 13,2024,Letter). 30. Police Department: (Planning Department Exhibit 4—May 1, 2024, Memo). -5- AGENCIES -NO COMMENT 31. Department of Water Supply (DWS). AGENCIES -NO RESPONSE 32. Department of Public Works (DPW); Fire; Dept. of Health (DOH); USFWS; DLNR PUBLIC COMMENTS 33. The Department has not received any comments or objections from the general public or adjacent landowners on the subject application. -6- LAND"* 194 Wiwoole St. Hilo, HI 96720 PLANNING (808) 333-3393 info@landplanninghawaii.com HAWAII LLC March 26, 2024 Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Darrow: Subject: Special Management Area Use Permit Application Applicant: Ryan Pastorek & Paul Pastorek Maku'u,Puna,Hawaii,TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Transmitted here within for your review and processing is an application requesting a Special Management Area Use Permit in order to construct one single family residence and related infrastructure on each of the two adjacent above referenced parcels. The properties are located on the makai side of Government Beach Road, approximately 1.5 miles from the Maku`u Drive and Government Beach Road intersection in Puna. The transmittal includes a)the application form; b) a letter of authorization from the applicants allowing Land Planning Hawaii LLC to process the application; c) a list of surrounding property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the subject parcels; and d)the background& environmental report,which includes the location and proposed site plan, in the form of a Final Environmental Assessment. Further a payment of$500.00 for the County filing fee will be paid via electronic check. We trust that everything is in order for your acceptance and processing of this application. If not or if there are questions relating to this matter,please feel free to direct them to me. Sincerely, JOHN PIPAN Planning Administrator Planning Dept. Exhibit_,___1 DocuSign Envelope ID:CB676BDB-3A6D-4713-83CD-D4AA53DDBAC9 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) APPLICANT: Ryan Pastorek Dp&AIgP,gptorek DocuSignedby: > APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: i �aAA' Pod6 tk DATE: 3/7/2024 ADDRESS: 533 Fernwood Pacific Drive, Topanga, CA 90290 9816 Debra Drive, River Ridge, LA 70123 Managing Member of Opunaha LLC LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: & landowner LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS:Opunaha LLC: Ryan Pastorek PHONE:(Bus.) 310-248-3147 (Res.) 310-623-2312 (Fax) LANDOWNER(S): Opunaha LL . Pastorek DocuSignedby: > LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): °U^� �aSfoVt,� ATE: 3/7/2024 B996@EF�D4h4D8... (May be by letter) LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: 533 Fernwood Pacific Dr, Topanga, CA 90290 9816 Debra Drive, River Ridge, LA 70123 REQUEST:To obtain a SMA Major Permit in order to build one single family dwelling and associated infrastructure on each of the two adjacent shoreline parcels within the SMA TAX MAP KEY: (3) 1-5-010:026 & (3) 1-5-010:027 ZONING: A-1 a SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S): 7.45 acres (026) & 3 acres (027) AGENT: Land Planning Hawaii LLC ADDRESS: 194 Wiwoole Street, Hilo, HI 96720 TELEPHONE:(Bus.)_ (808) 333-3393 (Res.) (Fax) Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Agent COPIES: Applicant DocuSign Envelope ID:CB676BDB-3A6D-4713-83CD-D4AA53DDBAC9 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: As applicant and/or landowner of parcels identified by TMKs: (3) 1-5-010:026 & (3) 1-5-010:027, I hereby consent and authorize Land Planning Hawaii LLC to file and process a Special Management Area Use Permit Application on my behalf. APPLICANTS: DSgned by: a& pas6rt t 3/7/2024 60cu , CEF59C90A454F9... Ryan Pastorek Date DocuSigned by: Pt-- 3/7/2024 AB9860CF7D424D8... Paul Pastorek Date LANDOWNERS: FKDocuSigned by: ;aJ.A, PasfbVtt 3/7/2024 Opunaha LLC Date Ryan Pastorek Print Name DocuSigned by: 3/7/2024 Paul Pastorek Date i 0 Q 3 z oQ U u 0 Y O J 00 Q N N m m m m H (.D O) N m m r- 1- n 00 ro w omi ON ON O O L -1 n r-I m 00 r1 Ol 61 N N O 00 00 0 O (.D (.D (.DQ (Lo 0 00 00 00 Q M61 O O 61 61 N N 61 61 61 NW lD Q Q lD N N 2 2 2 ], Q W 61 61 U U 61 61 61 n � �' _ Q Q _ 1-0 1-0 J J J (, X D Z Z Q SS J J J W c7 O Q Q Q Q O Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 o 3 o' Q W W O O Q W W J J 0 0 0 W O a m a Y Y a Y Y 2 2 2 2 2 W Ul) r44 LU J N C 1n � 0 c-1 z r-I ,� 00 00 r Q N ri ri O H pLU 0 0 �* �* z Q Q Q Lu Lu 0 0 Ln Ln Ln z W r-I 0 W 11 11 W W lD lD lD OQ Q > > N N N 0 > Q Q O O Q Q W W W O =Lu LI U Q d d -I W W (n (n (n N D co Tl- Q Q �a a Z Z �n J r1 O O N W 1_n O O O O < < a a a S W 2 N r-I Q Q z z 0 0 0 Wro O Y Q N U Lnr'1 X X Z Z Ln W W Q Q 2 2 2 Q Q W m X m m W W X (.DtD >Q >Q m m m m r1 W W (.DlD > > rl rl rl O m t.D m m m m m m 1n 1n 0 0 0 C7 X 3 m 1n O U U m m 0 t.6 t.6 1n 1n o 0 0 Z < O m m d 2 2 Ln Ln d -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 H J � W D ZOJ O z W W J z 2 2 u u z Q m Q a a J J cJ Q J W � c 2 = J W W W c� c� U U U CO J O W W Z_ Q Q C C J J J W <n m W > p Q Q U U Q Q cn cn cn W W H U c Z u Q z Q J J 0 Q LL LL Y Y fC J LU LU Q J Q Q J J Z Z 2 2 W W W z W w 0 C) cn 2 2 0 0 0 O Q Q Q Q Q Q GJ Q (7 �' 2 W o W O O z z W W z z Q Q 3 Q O Q O 0 Q J O O a a w w 0 0 Q Q 2 2 2 O Y u 2 2 = u O O O 2 2 = = S S J J J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rn N N m 1n 1n lD 1, 00 00 m O N m � 1n lD O N N N N N N N N N N N N m Til Til Til Til Til O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r-I r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln d r-1 r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District at Maku`u, Popoki Ahupua`a January 2024 TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026 & (3) 1-5-010:027 Maku`u, Puna, County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii APPLICANT: Ryan Pastorek and Paul Pastorek 533 Fernwood Pacific Drive Topanga, CA 90290-3209 DETERMINING AGENCY: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Board of Land and Natural Resources 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 CONSULTANT: Land Planning Hawaii LLC 194 Wiwo`ole Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 This document is prepared pursuant to: The Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 343,Hawaii Revised Statutes(HRS),and Title 11, Chapter 200.1,Hawaii Department of Health Administrative Rules(HAR) Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF PROJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND MI TIGA TION MEA S URES... 7 PART 1:PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAND E.A. PROCESS............................................................ 9 1.1 Project Description and Location............................................................................................ 10 1.2 Environmental Assessment Process........................................................................................ 39 PART 2:ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................ 41 2.1 Proposed Project, Alternative Sites, and Alternative Uses..................................................... 41 2.1.1 Consolidate and Re-Subdivide....................................................................................... 41 2.1.2 Maintain Existing Lot Lines ......................................................................................... 42 2.1.3 One (1) Single-Family Residence.................................................................................. 42 2.1.4 Alternatives for Pond_ Art Studio_ and Animal Shelter................................................. 42 2.1.5 Independent Utilities...................................................................................................... 43 2.2 No Action................................................................................................................................ 44 PART 3:ENVIRONMENTAL,SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION................................... 44 3.1 Physical Environment............................................................................................................. 44 3.1.1 Geology, Soils, Geologic Hazards, and Climate............................................................ 45 3.1.2 Flood Zones and Shoreline Setting................................................................................ 49 3.1.3 Water Quality................................................................................................................. 69 3.1.4 Flora and Fauna.............................................................................................................. 70 3.1.5 Air Quality, Noise, and Scenic Resources..................................................................... 76 3.1.6 Hazardous Substances, Toxic Waste, and Hazardous Conditions................................. 77 3.2 Socioeconomic and Cultural................................................................................................... 78 3.2.1 Land Use, Socioeconomic Characteristics, and Recreation........................................... 78 3.2.2 Cultural and Historic Resources .................................................................................... 79 3.3 Public Roads, Services, and Utilities...................................................................................... 94 3.3.1 Roads and Access .......................................................................................................... 94 3.3.2 Public Utilities and Services.......................................................................................... 95 3.4 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................ 95 3.5 Required Permits and Approvals............................................................................................ 96 3.6 Consistency with Government Plans and Policies.................................................................. 96 3.6.1 Hawaii County General Plan........................................................................................ 96 3.6.2 Hawaii County Zoning and Special Management Area............................................. 102 3.6.3 Conservation District................................................................................................... 105 PART 4:DETERMINATION, FINDINGS, AND REASONS...................................................... 109 4.1 Determination ....................................................................................................................... 109 4.2 Findings and Supporting Reasons......................................................................................... 109 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 113 2 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Hazard Intensity Rank Definitions ..................................................................................49 Table 2: Rating of Natural Hazards Impacting the Subject Properties Coastline..........................52 Table 3: Average Annual Erosion Rates from Aerial Imagery .....................................................67 Table 4: AAER Results of the Inferential Model .........................................................................67 Table 5: Plant Species Observed on Pastorek Properties...............................................................71 Table 6: Proposed Fruit Trees/Shrubs............................................................................................73 Table 7: Proposed Flora for Landscaping .....................................................................................73 Table 8: Site 18419 Rock Wall Details and Description...............................................................85 Table 9: Site 31185 Rock Wall Details and Description...............................................................89 Table 10: Individual Responses to CIA Consultation Request......................................................92 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1: Location Map .................................................................................................................13 Figure 2: Drone Photo of TMK 1-5-010: 026 & 027 with Existing Lot Lines..............................14 Figure 3: Front View of TMK 1-5-010: 026, Looking West ........................................................14 Figure 4: Aerial Photo of TMK 1-5-010: 027................................................................................15 Figure 5: Drone Photo of 026 (left) and 027 (right), Looking Northeast......................................15 Figure 6: Consolidation and Re-subdivision Map ........................................................................16 Figure 7: Conceptual Photo of Lot A and B Looking Southwest..................................................17 Figure 8: Conceptual Photo of Lot A and B Looking West ........................................................17 Figure 9: Modified Architecture Site Map with Independent Utilities..........................................18 Figure 10: Residence A Floor Plan................................................................................................19 Figure 11: Residence A Roof Plan ................................................................................................20 Figure 12: Residence-A Building Elevations (North and East l ....................................................21 Figure 13: Residence-A Building Elevations (South and West l ...................................................22 Figure 14: Storage Structure Floor Plans ......................................................................................23 Figure 15: Storage Structure Building Elevations (North and East) .............................................24 Figure 16: Storage Structure Building Elevations (South and Westl ...........................................25 Figure 17: Residence B Floor Plan 1 .............................................................................................26 Figure 18: Residence B Floor Plan 2 ............................................................................................27 Figure 19: Residence B Roof Plan ................................................................................................28 Figure 20: Residence-B Building Elevations (North and East l ....................................................29 Figure 21: Residence-B Building Elevations (South and West l ...................................................30 Figure 22: Storage/Art Studio Floor Plan......................................................................................31 Figure 23: Storage/Art Studio Roof Plan ......................................................................................32 Figure 24: Storage/Art Studio Building Elevations (North and Eastl ..........................................33 Figure 25: Storage/Art Studio Building Elevations (South and Westl .........................................34 Figure 26: Modified Landscape Site Mab ....................................................................................35 Figure 27: Modified Landscape Plan Schedule ............................................................................36 Fi u : Certified Shoreline Survey 1 ........................................................................................37 Fi u : Certified Shoreline Survey 2........................................................................................38 Fi u : Aerial View of the Five (5) Embayments that make up the Subject Properties...........44 Fi u : Geologic Map of Project Area......................................................................................45 Fi u : An Active Littoral Cone on Kilauea's South Flank in 1996........................................46 3 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Fi u : 2021 USGS Earthquake Frequency Model for the Hawaiian Islands..........................48 Fi u : Overall Hazard Assessment(OHA)Map of the Pastorek Properties...........................51 Fi u : Flood Hazard Assessment Report for TMK 1-5-010: 026...........................................53 Fi u : Flood Hazard Assessment Report for TMK 1-5-010: 027...........................................54 Fi u : Sea Level Rise Exposure to the Opunaha Properties...................................................57 Fi u : Erosion Features of the Subject Properties Shoreline..................................................59 Fi u : Approximation of Geological Evolution of the Maku`u Coastline..............................60 Fi u : Profile and Cross-Section of Embayment 1 .................................................................61 Fi u : Embayment 1 Looking Northeast.................................................................................61 Fi u : Profile and Cross-section of Under-cutting in Embayment 4 ......................................62 Fi urs Embayment 4 contact between "p4d' flow (left) and"pld3" cinder cone (right)........62 Fi u : Sea Stack within Embayment 4, Looking Northwest...................................................63 Fi u : Profile and Cross-section of Undercutting Cave in Embayment 5 ..............................63 Fi u : Embayment 5, Looking Northwest ..............................................................................64 Fi u : Sea Arch Located Between Embayment 2 and 3, Looking Southwest........................64 Fi u : Embayment 3, Looking Southwest ..............................................................................65 Fi u : Pahoehoe Block Liable to Failure, View to the Northwest..........................................65 Fi u : Comparison of 1954 and 2013 shorelines of the Opunaha Properties.........................66 Fi u : Map of Project Area and Land Grants .........................................................................81 Fi u : Location of Coastal Sites Recorded in Ewart and Luscomb 1974 Survey...................84 Fi u : USGS Map Showing the Location of Archaeological Sites on Subject Properties .....85 Fi u : Site 18418 in the Southwest Portion of the Project Area, Looking Southwest............86 Fi u : Site 18419 Rock Wall Southwest Profile at Middle of Project Area...........................87 Fi u : Site 18419 in the Northwest Portion of the Project Area, Looking Southwest............87 Fi u : Site 18419 Rock Wall Southwest Profile at Northwest Portion of Project Area.........88 Fi u : Site 18419 at Opunaha Gate, Looking Northeast.........................................................88 Fi u : Site 31185 Southwest Portion of Wall, Looking Northwest........................................89 Fi u : Site 31185 Middle Portion of Wall, Looking Northwest.............................................90 Fi u : Site 31185 Northwest Profile at Middle of Wall..........................................................90 Fi u : Current Driveway on Lot A..........................................................................................94 EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Comparison of 1994 and 2011 Hawaii Administrative Rules Chapter 13-5 Exhibit 4 Exhibit B: Letter to OCCL from Ryan and Paul Pastorek APPENDICES Appendix A: Modified Aquaculture Pond Management Plan Appendix B: Coastal Erosion Study and Shoreline Assessment Appendix C: Archaeological Inventory Survey Appendix D: Cultural Impact Assessment Appendix E: Comments and Responses to Early Consultation Appendix F: Comments and Responses to the Draft Environmental Assessment 4 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment ABBREVIATIONS AMSL Above Mean Sea Level AMFAC American Factors AIS Archaeological Inventory Survey AAER Average Annual Erosion Rate BMP Best Management Practices CES Coastal Erosion Study CS Coastal Slope CZM Coastal Zone Management CDP Community Development Plan CDUA Conservation Use District Application CDUP Conservation Use District Permit CIA Cultural Impact Assessment DHHL Department of Hawaiian Home Lands DOH Department of Health DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources DPW Department of Public Work DWS Department of Water Supply DEA Draft Environmental Assessment ERZ East Rift Zone EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Assessment FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FEA Final Environmental Assessment FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map GP General Plan GPS Global Positioning System GHG Green House Gases HAR Hawaii Administrative Rules HRS Hawaii Revised Statutes HCCMAC Hawai'i Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission IPCC International Panel on Climate Change LG Land Grant LUPAG Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide LP Linear Feet LERZ Lower East Rift Zone MDA Max Developable Area NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 5 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment OCCL Office of Coastal and Conservation Lands OHA Overall Hazard Assessment PCDP Puna Community Development Plan SCS Scientific Consultant Services Inc. SLH Session Laws of Hawaii SMA Special Management Area SHPD State Historic Preservation Division SIHP State Inventory of Historic Places SWPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan USGS United States Geological Survey 6 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment SUMMARY OF PROJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES Mr. Ryan Pastorek and Mr. Paul Pastorek(son and father) (together the"Applicants") are proposing to construct one single-family residence each on two adjoining lots in Puna_ Maku`u_ P6p6ki Ahupua`a_ County of Hawaii. Under the proposed action_ Ryan Pastorek would build one (1) single-family residence with supporting infrastructure and a storage/animal shelter on TNM No. (3) 1-5-010: 026 ("Parcel 026"). Paul Pastorek(Ryan's Father) would build one (1) single-family residence with supporting infrastructure and an aquaculture pond on TNM No. (3) 1-5-010: 027 ("Parcel 027") (Parcel 026 and Parcel 027 are together referred to as the "Properties" or"Parcels"). Parcel 026 and Parcel 027 are 7.45 and 3 acres, respectively, and located makai of Government Beach Road, approximately 8 miles southeast of Kea`au and 1 mile south of the Hawaiian Paradise Park(HPP) subdivision. The Pacific Ocean is located to the east, Government Beach Road to the west, and residential properties on conservation designated lands to the north and south (Figures 1-5). The Applicants wish to create a sustainable self-sufficient homestead while respecting the essential character of the land. The proposed project would improve the stewardship of the land and contribute to the sense of community in the area. Because the Properties are within the Special Management Area and in the State Land Use Conservation District_ Resource Subzone_ the Applicants are required to obtain Special Management Area (SMA)Use Permits as well as Conservation District Use Permits (CDUPI. The Applicants will seek separate CDUPs for their respective residences. As part of the proposed action_ the Applicants are requesting that Parcel 026 and Parcel 027 be consolidated and re-subdivided to move the lot line separating the Parcels to the north, resulting in no increase in density. Figure 6 shows the proposed consolidation and re-subdivision map completed by Daniel Berg, Licensed Professional Land Surveyor No. 11245. Under the proposed consolidation and re-subdivision, the subject properties would be consolidated and re-subdivided into"Lot A" (Parcel 026) and"Lot B" (Parcel 027). This would change Parcel 026 from 7.45 acres to 4.048 acres and Parcel 027 from 3 acres to 6.402 acres. This Environmental Assessment will provide property details based on the proposed consolidation and re-subdivision lot lines outlined in Figure 6-8 (Lot A and B). Consolidation and re-subdivision is being requested to allow for lesser impact on Parcel 027, which is the more heavily vegetated lot, and greater setbacks to the neighboring residence to the south for less adverse impacts associated with scenic views, noise, and air quality. This action would avoid unnecessary destruction of the dense wooded area, which may be utilized by endangered species such as the Hawaiian hoary bat(Lasiurus cinereus semotus), or the formerly endangered Hawaiian hawk(Buteo solitarius). Although the wooded area is mainly non-native trees_ there is reason to believe that removing them could result in more adverse impact to potential native or endangeredpecies that may fly over, roost or utilize resources of the property despite mitigating measures. Additionally_ removal of the dense vegetation would require grading andrum o�ghly 2-acres. With the consolidation and the re-subdivision however, minimal clearing would occur on this parcel_ which would mitigatepacts to flora_ fauna_ and coastal resources. 7 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment The proposed project would include the construction of one (1) single-family residence on each of the two adjacent lots. A site plan for the properties can be found in Figure 9. Floor plans for each structure are represented in Figures 10-25 and will be discussed in detail in the section below. Each parcel will have its own utilities, one (1) driveway, one (1)well for drinkingwater and an Individual Wastewater System (IWS) approved by the Department of Health. The Draft Environmental Assessment previously proposed shared utilities between the adjacent parcels_ however_ this option has been replaced with individual utilities to be more consistent with Conservation District regulations and setbacks outlined in Hawaii Administrative Rules (HART Chapter 13-5. Lot A will include less than one (1) acre forrg azing and an aquaculture pond is proposed for Lot B. A modified Aquaculture Management Plan outlining Best Management Practices (BMPs)for the proposed pond is attached in Appendix A. Construction activities would occur on approximately 0.5 acres on each parcel, with minor short- term impacts to noise, air, and water quality. BMPs would be followed to mitigate any potential impacts. Earthwork and grading will conform to all laws, regulations and standards associated with Conservation Districts as outlined in HAR Chapter 13-5 and Chapter 10 Hawaii County Code. Both Properties have been surveyed for rare, threatened, and endangered flora and fauna and none were detected. However, the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat(Lasiurus cinereus semotus) and formerly endangered Hawaiian hawk(Buteo solitarius) are assumed to occasionally use portions of the site for purposes of the environmental analyses contained in this Environmental Assessment. Impacts to these species will be mitigated under the proposed action to consolidate and re-subdivide the Properties as discussed above. Less than one acre of land will be utilized for grazing purposes on Lot A. Landscaping plans include 11,37=0=s=uare feet on Lot A and 11.255 square feet on Lot B. Proposed flora consists primarily of native_ Polynesian introduced_ or fruit bearing/edible plants. All non-native plants have been evaluated for potential invasiveness according to HAR Chapter 13-5. The landscape schedule has been modified to ensure continuity and will be strictly followed if approved during the CDUA process. The modified landscape plan can be seen in Figures 26 and 27. The Properties shoreline consists of hazardous cliffs, which show signs of recent and ongoing erosion. A Coastal Erosion Study (CES)was prepared by Timothy E. Scheffler, Ph.D., and John P. Lockwood, Ph.D., which can be found in Appendix B. All proposed structures will be setback at least 130 feet from the certified shoreline. The proposed storage/art studio has been moved closer to Residence B and over 130 feet away from the shoreline. The proposed action will not significantly impact costal hazards with these setbacks. A Shoreline Survey was certified for both Properties on 4/14/2021 and is represented in Figure 28 and 29. The Certified Shoreline Survey for Parcel 026 displays livestock sheds, which have since been removed. There are no sandy beaches on either Parcel 026 or Parcel 027 or in the nearby area and there is no safe access to the water along the shoreline fronting the Properties due to treacherous cliffs. The Planning Department has indicated it will recommend imposition of a condition on the landowner_ its successor_ or assigns_ through the SMA permits_ that prohibit them from constructing a wood_ metal or rope ladder_ platform_ steps_ stairs_ concrete pads_ or any other constructed appurtenance in order to gain access to the ocean from the top of the Pali of the Properties. The Applicants understand and acknowledge the public's right to traverse and utilize 8 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment the lateral shoreline area. A bre-historic lateral foot trail known as Site 18418 is located on the adjacent parcel to the south of Lot B (Parcel 027) identified as TMK (31 1-5-010: 028. Extensive efforts went into searching for the trail on Lot B_ however no physical evidence of its existence was found. Nevertheless. Na Ala Hele has requested that the Applicants respect and preserve the general area and enable lateral access along the general alignment of where the trail maybe situated. Therefore_ lateral access will be allowed across both subject parcels along theenteral alignment of where the trail may be. Please refer to Section 3.2.2 for further discussion. An Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS)was conducted by Glenn Escott, M.A. and Thomas Dols, MA (Appendix Q. Two (2)rock walls identified under significance criterion"D" were identified on the Properties. One wall borders the north boundary of Lot A, and the other is on the west boundary of the Properties. The report found that these sites would not be adversely impacted by the proposed action and states the AIS report is sufficient to warrant no further action. A Cultural Impact Assessment(CIA)was also conducted by Glenn Escott and Thomas Dols (Appendix D). The report found that no cultural sites or practices would be adversely affected and that there is no evidence of historical trails crossing the Properties. In the unlikely event that additional undocumented archaeological or cultural resources are identified during construction, work would stop immediately, and the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) would be contacted to determine appropriate actions. Ocean views will not be significantly impacted under the proposed action to construct asingle- family residence on Parcel 026 and Parcel 027. The proposed landscape plans have been modified to lessen potential impacts to scenic resources and ocean views from Government Beach Road and maintain the natural flow of the tradewinds. Overall landscaped areas have been reduced by over 50 percent and number of proposed species by 30 percent. Six alien species have been removed and replaced with three native ones. New species have been chosen to reflect shorter potential heights. A single milo tree (ThesPesiaPoPulnea)is proposed on the north property line of Lot A to provide important shade for the proposed sheep. However_ nothing else will be planted on this portion of the lot to preserve ocean views and trade wind flow. Please review the new plans in Figures 26-27 for all modifications. In addition, the proposed construction would not require any changes to existing roadways or traffic, and no existing or planned vegetation will be allowed to encroach onto Government Beach Road. The valuation of the project will exceed $500,000 therefore a Special Management Area Use Application (SMA-Major) and two (2) Conservation District Use Applications (CDUA)will be submitted following approval of the Final Environmental Assessment. 9 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment PART 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND E.A. PROCESS 1.1 Project Description and Location Mr. Ryan Pastorek wishes to build one (1) single-family residence on Parcel 026 (Lot A based on proposed new lot lines) and Mr. Paul Pastorek wishes to build one (1) single-family residence on Parcel 027 (Lot B). The Properties are located makai of Government Beach Road in the Conservation District near the Hawaiian Paradise Park subdivision in the Puna District on the Island of Hawaii. Mr. Ryan Pastorek and Paul Pastorek intend to consolidate and re-subdivide the Parcel 026 and Parcel 027, moving the lot line to the north, with no resulting increase in density. This request will allow for lesser impact to the heavily vegetated portion of Lot B and greater setback from the neighboring parcel to the south. Building plans include one (1) single-family residence on each of the two (2) adjacent lots as seen in the site plan (Figure 9). I,ot A Residence A on Lot A would be built for Mr. Ryan Pastorek and is proposed to include a 3.980 square foot home with three (3)bedrooms, three and a half(3.5)bathrooms, a kitchen and living/dining room, covered lanai areas_ and two (2) outdoor showers. This home will also be equipped with a 725 square foot garage. The garage for Residence A is proposed to protect cars from weathering which is a concern this close to the coast. It is proposed to be detached_ roughly 20 feet from the dwelling_ to provide for better natural light and air circulation to the south side of the house. The proposed location would also not block desired views from this side of the house. Further_ the proposed modest separation will serve to buffer potential noise and vibration impacts on the home from the gara�proposed `auto courts' labeled on the floor plans are simply areas where cars can easily_ maneuver to enter and exit theag=rage or turn around near the house. No section of the building is above 25 feet in height at current grade. See Figures 10-13 for the floor plan of this residence. Single-family residences must also conform to design standards as outlined in HAR Chapter 13- 5-24, R-7 Single Family Residence (13-1). Several features have been implemented into the site plans to conform to design standards that blend in with the natural features of the site and provide sustainable functions. Some of these design features include wood screening, stone walls and chimney and solar panels for a renewable energy source. A storage/animal shelter is also proposed for Lot A, to support grazing sheep, store equipment, and feed. This structure is proposed to be 291 square feet(Figures 14-16). Grazingofof sheeb is proposed to occur on less than one (1) acre of land. Fencing would be constructed around this area. Sheep are relatively low maintenance animals: therefore_ care is minimal. The shelter is proposed to maintain sheep health by providing protection from the elements including the sun_ wind_ and rain. Occasional hoof trimming will be required_ along with salt and mineral supplements. Milk replacement formula will be kept on hand in case of lambs not being cared for by their mother ewe. Shearing would occur as needed and the applicants will routinely clean ub sheep droppings. The upper storage area of the animal shelter is proposed for animal supplies and equipment. It is intentionally proposed to be stored above ground and separately from where 10 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment the animals will be sheltered to keep these supplies clean and prevent the animals from accessing them. HAR Chapter 13-5 Exhibit 4 outlines the Maximum Developable Area(MDA)for a parcel over 1-acre located within the Conservation District. The total residence area including all accessory features outlined above_ and the storage/animal shelter is 4.996 square feet_ which complies with the 5.000 square foot MDA for this parcel. Proposed infrastructure for this dwelling includes a driveway__ an auto court_ one (1)well for drinking water_ an Individual Wastewater System (IWS) approved by the Department of Health and fencing. Several landscaping structures shown on the site plan in the Draft EA have been removed from the site plan attached to this Final EA to better comply with Conservation District rules. Lot B Residence B on Lot B would be built for Mr. Paul Pastorek and is proposed to include a 4.060 square foot home with three (3)bedrooms and one and a half(1.5)bathrooms a kitchen and living/dining room, open-air lanai areas_ an outdoor shower_ hot tub_ pool_ and wooden deck. Natural design features for this residence include stone walls, natural wood patina, dark windows, and natural colored roofing. See Figures 17-21 for the detailed floor plans. A 940 square foot storage/art studio is also proposed for Lot B. The proposed storage/art studio has been moved to 100 feet from the proposed single-family dwelling to better alit Conservation District rules. Separation between the-storage/art studio is required due to the nature of art activities that would occur therein. Woodworking and metalworking would also occur in this building. These activities have the potential to generate noise_ vibrations_ dust_ heat_ and fumes that would be disruptive to other household uses if the structures were within close proximity to each other or connected. The storage portion of the structure is intended for landscaping and yard equipment to maintain the property alonggeneral household storage (holiday decor_ keepsakes etc.). See the site plan (Figure ) and Figures 22-25 for the floor plan for this structure. Proposed infrastructure for this dwelling includes a driveway__ one (1)well for drinking water_ and an Individual Wastewater System (IWS) approved by the Department of Health. The total residence area including the main area and accessory areas is proposed to be 5.000 square feet_ which complies with the 5.000 square foot MDA for this parcel. Lot B is also proposed to include a 3,541 square foot aquaculture pond to farm taro and tilapia for personal and family use. The pond is proposed to be next to the consolidation and re- subdivision lot line and roughly 90 feet north of the property line along Government Beach Road. The pond was not included in the MDA for this lot. Close review of the 1994 and 2011 versions of HAR Chapter 13-5 revealed that language specifically pertaining to"other developed water features (excluding naturally existing ponds, tide pools, etc.)" was removed from MDA requirements (Exhibit A). Site plans and the modified management plan for the pond can be found in Appendix A. In summary_ the Aquaculture Management Plan is meant to ensure that the environmental impacts of aquaculture are minimized to the extent feasible_ in keeping with 11 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment the values of the Conservation District. To meet this goal_ the aquaculture pond will meet the following ob'eci tives: • Produce a clean_ aesthetically pleasing, and natural looking aquaponic system. • Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs)_ which are aimed at producing healthy and sustainable products_ while minimizingMotential environmental impacts. • Implement a regular drainage program to maintain water quality_ and flora and fauna health. • Recycle water by utilizing effluent as nutrient-rich irrigation for all landscaped areas. • Create a simple irrigation and draining system to minimize unnecessary trenching and to prevent erosion and sedimentation. • Teach children and family members traditional methods of aquaculture farming. Lot A and B The proposed driveways will be surfaced with gravel and are proposed to be approximately 430 Linear Feet(LF) and 440 LF on Lot A and B_ respectively. Both driveways will be 15 feet wide. Required site infrastructure includes power lines, water lines, and LP gas lines. Required trenching in linear feet for site infrastructure on both lots is detailed on the site plan in Figure . Each residence will have individual utilities. The Draft Environmental Assessment initially proposed shared utilities between both parcels_ however_ this alternative has been removed as an option to better align with setback requirements and Conservation District rules and regulations. Dry_ stack rock walls have also been significantly reduced for both residences and will not exceed 30 inches in height. All proposed uses conform with HAR Chapter 13-5, which will be discussed in detail in Section 2.1.1. Lot A has been grazed for many years whereas Lot B has a heavily vegetated portion with primarily non-native trees. A botanical survey determined that no threatened or endangered plant species are present on either parcel. Modified landscaping plans include 11.370 square feet of landscaping on Lot A and 11.255 square feet of landscaping on Lot B. All non-native plants have been evaluated for potential invasiveness. According to the CES, the subject Properties show recent and ongoing erosion. An Average Annual Erosion Rate (AAER) of 0.36 feet per year was determined during this study. Both single-family residences will be setback a minimum of 130 feet from the certified shoreline and the proposed storage/art studio on Lot B also will be setback roughly 130 feet from the shoreline. The storage/art studio has been sited closer to the proposed single-family residence on Lot B than previously proposed in the Draft Environmental Assessment to closer alit Conservation District rules and regulations. These setbacks are more than what is required by the AAER, which is approximately 65 feet(40ft from the shoreline, plus 70 times the AAER of 0.36 ft/year). A discussion on the impacts of coastal hazards and the AAER can be found in Section 3.1.2 below. The full CES report is in Appendix B. Two (2)rock walls of historic value were identified during the Archaeological Inventory Survey. They are located on the north boundary of Lot A and west boundaries of both parcels. A summary of these findings will be discussed in Section 3.2.2 below. No significant cultural resources were found on or near the Properties. The full AIS report is in Appendix C and CIA report in Appendix D. 12 zIn N d r C 6 O W ' L �i Lo07 i. • t' �q� OO ,� v —� �u rrTT N ' O CYC pp �e ?4 QA S Yf Y v � E d'OW � Ue 5 ste N e` uM QPV 2e p0 Y — S ~Y - o< e° gg� / N �p C "V do n o d 0 � a u v NI: _ I W-, 2 em �9 � e � O wy. O60Q; d �7 W �b> �• '�� gee°� }y iY.S ° 2F Q Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment # p: . � � ,�+�, ,w^,•�"�'�."• ,;�:� ' P � �, � -^ice ' TMK(3)1-5-010:027 ILI - V TMK(3)1-5-070:026 r ao Figure 2: Drone Photo of TMK 1-5-010: 026 & 027 with Existing Lot Lines ,yr 40 Ip y.� �'�fir ��tr✓!rrSy '�` - ,�- � Y p'ft X SIT+i .IYEs 4i 'fir x" - ' �(. - � i K r F-I Tr Figure 3: Front View of TMK 1-5-010: 026, Looking West 14 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment ir- jo am x� ter. -� •� meq„ �: d- s rA �W s M. �� :.tom 'Ly 71 .'n y.�'• . N X': r Figure 4: Aerial Photo of TMK 1-5-010: 027 d fir,.gyl ems' 'yti 1 v �r z t Figure 5: Drone Photo of 026 (left) and 027 (right), Looking Northeast 15 Nd Li E6 MO Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment MW _- �=licisAng Lot Line � 'Jh^�' � C" Lot B -TMX(3)1-5-010:027 4---Proposed Loi Line(roughly) Lot A pir TMX(3)1-5-010:026 - w s r I t I fi. Figure 7: Conceptual Photo of Lot A and B Looking Southwest Prnp—d Lot Line(roughly) Lot B - A TMX(3)1-5-010:027 , P Lot A r°+ YNX(31 I-5-070:026 '"� �--�•^(:.Ykdug Loi Lin, �Yl f am ,_ _ PSI•: :;� _ j' Figure 8: Conceptual Photo of Lot A and B Looking West 17 N�. \\\\\\\\ a o z _ gID w o w m _ a s =e ew o3 a e W \\\\\\\\\\\ a a N J 0 3 0 \ \ \ o No \\\\\\\ \\ a o Q \V \\\\\ U w a � - w \\ \\ 3Qo s o S. v\\\\\\\ \\\\ °I 0 \\\ 0 o U \ a3z \ 0 a a Q o o ° o m ow \ \ \\ o c W 0-- < oW \V A\ � � U w i Q cl Of o - u o AL U w J 0 a Z = Y Z Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 4 4 Q ! o .9l/f - NtlJ E-,f .f;e .01;B ------------------------------------- a I it II m III r I I I I I 3e as� II W Vi - --� J E I I o LA,w I-------------- --------------------- - -------------------- I I / I I / I I II� I C I I I I I � 0 m w ` I � �� Q � I ®j� j �� I, I II �m3.a a� r , I ml� d ®w I e ae s D 0 D m la - 0 ®103.. D a E 0 D p D s > IIa 3 �� IIS o a w I � I - a III � w D I y D I 0 all 0 sl 51 I 0 Eo I 0 �� I II III v z - v G 0 - w d - � W k� a C7 r7 r-1 ic lo Nn.9 L -0 0 � w LL LL CD LO N ..6-.0£ 0) i cli LL 2�k O LL 66I C:O wtr ❑tr Z �o m w v U Z) N Z w O W 0 Q uE OL W Q CL O U C) a s m `z o � N S m L (h s nZ19Z � - `z 0 0 � 0 g 0 0 _ _ 0 m N _ (O x 0 a o y 0 � y 0 � � 0 - g 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl) ¢ v 0 - z ss w Q E8 x s a 0 wa 0 s � w �$ j N bA 0 j t � Sg 3m j ao m O G d Ig W U -T- 7 P/ H ------ ----------- X 71 7177 Y 0 w gs � & W w i W a c7 °z Qo G � | , � § - ! _ c .- / _ - \ UUUWF _ | � \ \ / 2 « ^ 2 y ° � 2 � « ` 2 � - 51 / \ � ------------ F==]F== --------- � \ } � : / | P �- --- —� ; 7 ■ � � \ � . : / / \ i CJJ G=. W Q 0 0.ZZ ------------ 7---------------------------- - - - I w CD Q cn ----------------------- ----------------------- o I I I m I I I I I I ¢ a I I I W I I I I ai M N I I I I � I I I o 0 M I I W 0 Q H 0 F- u)Q x I I I U q I I I y I I I y I I I ] I I I > I I I Q I I I W I I � Q hW U Q 3AV3 .0-,l .0-.01 (D a ..0-.OZ 3AV3 .A l o a I � ax o � o ° wa i CJJ G=. w 0 I LL U) �m Cl) LL 0 cc D W: Z Z) w w CD CD r r CD CD J J Q Q H H O dl O O M N V I 0 M =� 3 x o y y a w N II�-IZZ X F W F w i j „0-,OZ i rhl ]AV] ..0-,[ ¢ Q w as o w w x O o w �'o o l g � tin -+ _+� w x h I � °z it ..9 �l o ��5 -� o i „9 c� z 0 � � 0 0 0 � 3 a w a I Z N O 3 :. q =� 3 x o y y O Q O O F- � � Q w � C7 � � � O U � .�. W " zQ z oa ha � ¢ r� w .� w W � � z z � W Qo � � F � � a w N opo o�g 4� x H a o i N O c7 Z CD w � O O O O � CD w n p w Z w O w p =� 3 x o y y CD ] 0 C 0 CA Q a w c7 x O v w v� Ca � h a W � w of of � i CJJ U)ULL) N LO Cl) L _ LL 0 0 CC Y W00 W III ❑Z III Q J J >O J d I I I I Y I I III e I I I a II VIII O I � I LI) III '� II III III I�, III o- e I Ili -- -- w 1� I O- O b �y1 O-O O-y- —_ — — 17 po m s 1 0 00 - s 9 0 o m Q W I W a -o-.s, O a .a w i CJJ G=. LL U) 7 7 N W w W J 5� s - e h a� �m e i i 8m § § ani co a 3 a - ----------- o v A y � I z s s i o-- Illi �z Ili s I z w w Q I Q w x i Z w i a z ..8-.4Z N b� w v M O m M o V Cl) o w w O O a V IIII I d U I � Q I Q I � a II a 7 0,1 � w � | � § � \ ^ \ , \ ' \ : ! ` / � , § \ \ � \ � \ ° a2 \ * e q � 3 w \ \ j \ j ! - a \ \ j \ j / _ 2 \ \ � j ( / f t \ g � � � � � \ � \ z � � � / � � � | � � � , - � / � � � » : z � � � s ! , , ` ) � � § . , , ; / . , , , � - -- � \r —y� � � §( � � , § � � � ~ �. \�\ � \ � m�� § \ � !, \ \ ;!| ~ � ( � � e ; || � . : $ / � \ \ \ , \ � / ( \ � / \ M N it bA m LL O (h N U- 0 O O co, c: G: W 0 Z d W r V Q w p 0 Z w w � O N I Y'1 —_ - _ _ - CD Z Z ¢ W K O I O H N I w i a o a z I I I I I I I N II II II II II II I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 II a II M I I II I I II D I F. li I li li I U �I w' w O II N >O O> z CW7 m O p OJ O ¢ a w m o a� _ Z Z J = W J Z In � Q �"III �----------------- ------------------� >w LJ >w -� w ¢> ¢> wm wm z m „0-,91 wa N '�' o i a � � � 0 0 ¢ � o N � � � � � � � � w � � o� w p 00 — �� a� �w Z� �z 0 i � n i a � � � � � $ W ~o oils 41 =� o �I �, �I �, � �� � U W � VI �' ~ I I I �' V1 1 I I i ^ x �O .W] wO �� v¢Vi �Z �w 1 a� y �w 0 z z z >> a a F v a c¢W7 d O F x W h � z °z zQ oa N I I I � .� � I I I '� i i i � w � � � W � � z z � W Qo � a kn N W it w ^� O � O I6� z Z w Q Of cn Z Q � Q � 0 K \ w O 02 K w d Of �o �Z II I i, I � z w Z U 5 Of I O Of U cn ¢ w w I I I I I a o y y w x F a w O x F" z ❑ O Z Q v� w O x I I I W w I I I QW � a \\\\\ o _ \\ \\\ \ \\\\\\\\\ a a oa \\\\\\ \\\ o¢ F \\\\\ \\\\\\ o00 w \ \\ \\ \ o o 0 0 ° 000 o \\ s \ z z--1 ❑ ou � o 0 o oo \\\\ \ a \\\ o® © ` � Q > 2 2 \\ om o & fo'. v a \\\\\\ © 00 0� ©3 c Z \ \ U5o Q w \V A\\ z w v o \ \\ \\ \ o ca AL U w o o x t-- - --- ------ ---- ------ --- ---- ---- . .. ..... ... ........... .......... ... . .. ..... ... ........... .......... ... ... .... .... .. ... ---- ------ ....................... ..... ---------- ....................... iw O 000000000000000000000000 000000 yy cl W W of w 8 cl Nt Lu tz tb Z 0 Z D- D- D- cl Iz AL ca ZZ z < < < __j —r a; O - W O ET dt- aUl— N I w I I I , hII I II 1 i I I II 10` E` o I I rn oroq , qt � � I a i II �o< 1s i io I W P i ,� IV y � io_I las Ob4 `M }Ills' 23 ' I B�/3nan No�Q R n I s I € I -y sn ol 1 aka rqm i IJi — °s 1 ss I jas._ l t I 4 _ LL r �,m�d „0d ate- G� t' d a � f n. a jy� r d R� Y 14,AA, � - a i _.6 a - Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment 1.2 Environmental Assessment Process In 1974 the Hawaii State Legislature enacted the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, which requires State and County agencies to conduct an environmental impact analysis prior to making decisions on actions that may impact the environment. This Environmental Assessment(EA)is being conducted in accordance with Chapter 343 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), along with the implementing regulations, Title 11, Chapter 200.1, of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR). This law is the basis for the environmental impact assessment process in the State of Hawaii. An EA is necessary for this subject site as it is located within the Special Management Area (SMA) and Conservation District according to the County of Hawaii. According to Chapter 343, an EA is prepared to determine impacts associated with a proposed action, develop mitigation measures for any discovered adverse impacts, and determine whether the impacts are significant(according to the thirteen specific criteria). If a study concludes that no significant impacts would occur from implementation of the proposed action, A Finding of No Significant Impact(AFONSI)is prepared. If a study finds that significant impacts are expected to occur because of a proposed action, then an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is prepared to allow deeper investigation of impacts and allow more extensive public involvement. The following EA discusses alternatives to the proposed action, existing environment and impacts associated with the proposed action, the anticipated determination and the findings made in consultation with the State of Hawaii Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) and the expert consultants who prepared supporting studies for this EA. 39 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment 1.3 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination As part of the environmental assessment process, agency coordination and public involvement are crucial components to understand full impacts caused by the proposed project. The agencies, organizations, and individuals below have been consulted as part of the environmental assessment process. Copies of correspondence with agencies during the early consultation period can be found in Appendix E. The Draft EA was published in the June 23. 2022_ Environmental Notice. Appendix F contains written comments on the Draft EA and the responses to these comments. This FEA has been modified to reflect input received. Additional or modified text is denoted by double underlines. State: Department of Land and Natural Resources, Land Division Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands Department of Land and Natural Resources, Engineering Department of Land and Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Hawaii Department of Transportation Office of Hawaiian Affairs Na Ala Hele Trails and Access Program County: Planning Department Fire Department Police Department Department of Environmental Management Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Civil Defense Private: Surrounding Property Owners within 500 feet of the Properties Kamaile Puluole-Mitchell, Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)East Hawaii Island Representative Jordan Kea Calpito, SHPD Burial Sites Specialist Sean Naleimaile, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)Hawaii Island Archaeologist Kalena Blakemore, Hawaii Island Burial Council (HIBC)Member Consultation was also conducted near the project area with members of the Kamahele and Lui families Copies of interviews conducted during the Archaeological Inventory Survey can be found in Appendix C. 40 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment PART 2: ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Proposed Project,Alternative Sites, and Alternative Uses As previously stated, the proposed action requests the consolidation and re-subdivision of Parcels 026 and 027, to move the lot line separating Parcels 026 and 027 to the north with no increase in density. One (1) single-family residence is proposed to be built on each new lot Lot A and B). The proposed project, site and floor plans are described in Section 1.1 and are pictured in Figures 9-25 above. The proposed action has been changed to separate utilities for each parcel and remove dry stack walls to comply with all setbacks. The preliminary site plans reflect the proposed layout and placements of the dwellings and accessory buildings, which were chosen to mitigate impacts to archaeological resources, maintain setback requirements, avoid encroachment, and shoreline hazards. 2.1.1 Consolidate and Re-Subdivide According to HAR Chapter 13-5, P-10 Subdivision or Consolidation of Property (C-1), states "consolidation and re-subdivision into an equal number of lots that does not result in increased density" is a permitted activity within the Conservation District requiring a Departmental Permit. The intention behind consolidating and re-subdividing the Parcels is to avoid unnecessary removal of existing trees and shrubs, that may exceed one acre, and lead to ground disturbance on the heavily vegetated portion of Lot B. Further, this request would also allow for greater setback from the neighboring parcel to the south. A biotic survey has confirmed that this heavily vegetated area was previously cleared and is now predominantly made up of gunpowder tree (Trema orientalis), guava(Psidium sp.), autograph trees (Clusia rosea), and albizia(Falcataria moluccana). Although the existing species are mainly non-native, there is reason to believe that removing them could result in a more adverse impact to potential native or endangered species that may fly over, roost or utilize resources of the Properties despite mitigating measures. Such species may include the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat(Lasiurus cinereus semotus), or the formerly endangered Hawaiian hawk(Buteo solitarius). If the Parcels are not consolidated and re-subdivided, to use Parcel 027 for a single- family residence, the applicant Paul Pastorek would need to grade and grub portions of the heavily vegetated Parcel 027 based on the existing lot lines (see Figure 2). This would involve more than one-acre of ground disturbance and would require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit. If necessary, the NPDES permit would also require the completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Best Management Practices (BMPs) and mitigating measures can reduce the possibility of impacts to Parcel 027 if consolidation and re-subdivision is not approved, however, the potential impacts are greatly reduced under the proposed action to consolidate and re-subdivide the Parcels to move the lot line to the north, as minimal grubbing would be required. 41 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment 2.1.2 Maintain Existing Lot Lines An alternative to the proposed action to consolidate and re-subdivide is to maintain existing lot lines (Figure 2). Under this alternative, portions of Parcel 027 would need to be grubbed and graded over an area greater than one-acre. This area may be utilized by endangered species such as the Hawaiian hoary bat(Lasiurus cinereus semotus), or the formerly endangered Hawaiian hawk(Buteo solitarius). This area also serves as a buffer to an existing single-family residence to the south. Moving the line of Parcel 027 to the north will avoid unnecessary destruction of the wooded area and allow greater distance from the neighboring house to the south. The potential impacts_ though comparable to those under the proposed action involving two single-family residences_ could be more pronounced in terms of scenic views_ noise_ and air quality. This is because the single- family residence on Parcel 027 would be closer to the neighboring home to the south_ potentially intensifying these effects. 2.1.3 One (1) Single-Family Residence OCCL has indicated that the Board of Land and Natural Resources may look favorably upon one (1) single-family residence on one (1) of the lots. The purpose of requesting the two (2)residences together is consistent with the objective of characterizing the cumulative impacts of the proposed action on the area. Based on the findings of this EA, no secondary or cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of building one (1) single family residence and supporting infrastructure on each of Parcel 026 and Parcel 027. If only one single-family residence may be built on one of the Parcels_ the impacts are expected to be of the same nature as what is discussed under the proposed action_ but less in quantity and intensity_ since only one single-family_ residence will be developed under this alternative. Cumulative impacts occur when the implementation of several projects, which have individually limited impacts, combine to produce more severe impacts. No substantial government or private projects including roadways, subdivisions other commercial projects are known to be planned or occurring in this area of Puna. Several parcels are located along the same stretch of Government Beach Road between Hawaiian Paradise Park and Hawaiian Beaches, which may construct single-family residences. The impacts of building one (1) single-family residence on each lot in this remote area are minor and temporary. Minimal and short-term impacts can be expected to noise, traffic, scenic resources, air, and water quality. However, no adverse impacts would occur due to the small scale and isolated nature of the proposed project. 2.1.4 Alternatives for Pond, Art Studio, and Animal Shelter Additional alternatives include (1) omitting one or more of the proposed improvements from the project_ or(2) changing their locations. Eliminatingtquaculture pond on Parcel 027 would mitigate potential impacts on coastal resources_ water quality_ and the introduction of invasive species to nearby waterways associated with the proposed pond. However_ the opportunity to utilize an 42 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment existing low point that naturally collects water would largely be lost. With proper management and mitigating measures the aquaculture pond does not pose a significant adverse risk to any resource. An Aquaculture Pond Management Plan has been developed to specifically address this, which can be found in Appendix A. If similar shoreline setbacks are maintained_ there are no significant differences in the environmental impact of the pond's proposed location versus another location on the property. HAR Chapter 13-5 design standards_ states that all structures should be connected_ or best alternative. The proposed location of the storage/art studio is the best alternative in this situation. Separation between the storage/art studio is required due to the nature of art activities that would occur therein. Woodworking and metalworking would occur in this building. These activities have the potential to generate noise_ vibrations_ dust_ heat_ and fumes that would be disruptive to other household uses if the structures were within close proximity to each other or connected. The storage portion of the structure is intended for landscaping and yard equipment to maintain the property alonggeneral household storage (holiday decor_ keepsakes etc.). The storage/art studio has been moved closer to the proposed single-family dwelling to better align with Conservation District rules. It is now proposed to be sited approximately 100 feet from Residence B and over 130 feet from the shoreline. Theproposed location of this structure may need to be changed duringsubsequent permitting steps. If similar shoreline setbacks are maintained_ there are no significant differences in the environmental impacts of this structure's proposed location versus another location on the property. Omitting the animal shelter on Parcel 026 would inhibit the applicant's ability to graze sheep. Controlledrgrazing can serve as an eco-friendly alternative to conventional lawn maintena%ce romote biodiversity_ and reduce invasive plant species from over r Sheep are relatively low maintenance animals: therefore_ care is minimal. The shelter is proposed to maintain sheep health by providing Drotection from the elements including the sun_ wind_ and rain. The upper storage area of the animal shelter is proposed for animal supplies and equipment. It is intentionally proposed to be stored aboveground and separately from where the animals will be sheltered to keep these supplies clean and prevent the animals from accessing them. There is no alternative location that would improve the minimal potential impacts of this structure. Omitting any or all of these improvements does not significantly_ change the overall impact of the proposed action. 2.1.5 Independent Utilities Independent utilities for each of Parcel 026 and 027 is now included in the proposed action. Each property will have one (1)well for drinking water_ electric hook u _ an LP gas line and tank. All trenching will occur on the individual parcels: thus_ no trenching will cross the lot lines or setbacks. The proposed action has been changed to be more consistent with Conservation District rules and setbacks. 43 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment 2.2 No Action Under a No Action Alternative, the two (2) single-family residences would not be built, and no improvements would be made to the land. The two2 lots would remain unused by the owners. This EA considers the No Action Alternative as the baseline for this project and all environmental effects will be based off this alternative. PART 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION 3.1 Physical Environment The Properties are located on the makai side of Government Beach Road in the Conservation District of the Maku`u ahupua`a. These Properties total 10.45-acres and have nearly 1,000 feet of coastline with roughly 25-45-foot cliffs. The single-family residences would be situated at roughly 35-40 feet above sea level. Significant features of the Properties include a 50-foot littoral cinder cone, 5 embayments, and multiple sea arches and caves (Figure 30). There are no nearby sandy shoreline and no safe ocean access along the shoreline fronting the Parcels due to treacherous cliffs. The Planning Department has indicated it will recommend imposition of a condition on the landowner. its successor or assigns, through the SMA permits, that prohibit them from constructing a wood, metal or rope ladder,platform, steps, stairs, concrete pads. or any other constructed appurtenance in order to gain access to the ocean from the top of the pali of the Properties. The CIA also found no evidence of historical trails crossing the Properties. However, lateral access across the subject Properties to the shoreline will be made available to the public . No rare, threatened, or endangered species were found on the Properties. Typical flora consists of california grass (Brachiara mutica), bermuda grass (Chrysopogon spp.), honohono grass (Commelina diffusa), coconut palms (Cocos nucifera), autograph tree (Clusia rosea), guava (Psidium sp.) and bingabing (Macaranga). vexWol vy TEmb.­.t i r / E h 11 i � '71' � .1•`� . .l� F bay ,•nt 2 �•�. 3mha,menti Fi u : Aerial View of the Five (5)Embayments that make up the Subject Properties 44 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment 3.1.1 Geology, Soils, Geologic Hazards, and Climate Environmental Setting The project area is situated on the flank of Kilauea, a highly active volcano. Several historical lava flows have overlain the surrounding area in the last 1,500 years. The oldest flow, labeled "pld3" in reached the sea on what is now the northwest corner of Lot A. This flow formed a 50-foot littoral cone and widespread cinder deposits from the interaction with molten lava and seawater. This is a relatively rare formation being one of the few littoral cone deposits on Kilauea's coastline. Between 450 and 750 years ago, another sequence of lava flows surrounded the pu`u and covered the remaining portions of Lot A and B. This flow is seen as "p4o" in . A kipuka is also present mauka of the subject Properties ("p3"), which was formed during the"p4o" flows. pld3 pld3 p4o ti p3 n�r.v-m grruvafc: L+1h h6Si9 nr�y lb 21, els. W.44.W. Fi u : Geologic Map of Project Area(Trusdell et al., 2006) Although much smaller in scale, the littoral cone formation is similar to those found on the slopes of Mauna Loa, Sand Hill in Nanawale and South Points Green Sand Beach. displays a steam generated explosion of tephra in Kilauea's south flank in 1996. 45 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment a ` b C Figure : An Active Littoral Cone on Kilauea's South Flank in 1996 Geological hazards are frequent island wide, but particularly so in the Maku`u area. Located on Kilauea's East Rift Zone (ERZ), these Properties are susceptible to both lava flows and earthquakes. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, this part of Puna is defined as Lava Zone 3, on a scale ranging from 9 to 1 (least hazardous to most). Zone 3 is less hazardous than Zone 2, which is adjacent to the summit of the ERZ. Since 1800, 1-5% of Zone 3 has been covered by lava. This percentage increases with time, with roughly 15-75% coverage over the past 750 years. According to the USGS, other recent lava flows occurred on the lower East Rift Zone in 2014 and 2018. In 2014 lava from Kilauea's ERZ entered Pahoa and almost crossed the Kea`au-Pahoa Highway. The flow stopped 6 miles upslope from the coast. In 2018, after the collapse of the 46 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Pu`u `0`6 vent on April 30, magma began to propagate down rift. On May 3, eruptive fissures opened in the Lower East Rift Zone (LERZ)in the populated subdivision of Leilani Estates. On May 4, a 6.9 magnitude earthquake triggered significant fault slip and subsequent lava eruptions. By May 27, a total of 24 fissures had erupted lava between Leilani Estates and Noni Farms Road in the Puna District. Roughly two thousand residents were evacuated, and seven hundred homes were destroyed or made uninhabitable. Many businesses were either destroyed, suffered significant losses, or could not continue to operate, such as vacation rentals, farms and ranches and tour companies. Long sections of three major County roads, the Kua O Ka La Public Charter School, Ahalanui Beach Park, a portion of Isaac Hale Beach Park and the Wai`opae Marine Life Conservation District were also lost during the eruption. In addition, the Puna Geothermal Venture, which provided a substantial portion of the County's electricity, also had to be temporarily shut down due to loss of access and damage. When the eruption stopped in August 2018, a total of 13.7 square miles had been covered by lava, and 845 acres of land had been created. Although the eruption was not within proximity to the subject Properties, it shows the frequency and destruction that Kilauea East Rift Zone eruptions are capable of. After the 2018 eruption, Kilauea's activity ceased until December 2020 when an eruption sent lava fountains nearly 165 feet in the air from a fissure on the eastern side of Halema`uma`u crater. Flowing lava replaced the water that was in the basin of Halema`uma`u crater, and a new lava lake formed. Activity within the crater has ceased as of May 23, 2021. Activity resumed on September 29, 2022, and remained inside the crater until March 72023, There is currently no eruptive activity. Although Kilauea's ERZ has seen much activity in recent years, none have directly threatened the Maku`u area. Specifically, the area between Hawaiian Paradise Park and Hawaiian Beaches has not been impacted by lava for many centuries. The recent Kilauea activity in 2018, 2014 and since the 1800s, occurred to the south/southwest of the project area. According to Moore and Trusdell (1991), eleven lava flows have traveled northeast from the ERZ over the past 1,500 years. Eight of these have reached the sea, including the eruption that created the littoral cone on Lot A. Although it is very difficult to identify accurate recurrence rates, the limited data available suggests that lava flows may only travel northeast from the rift zone every 140 years. Flows that may travel northeast and reach the coastline are even less likely, occurring roughly every 200 years. In addition, flows, which have reached the coastline on the ERZ are evidently quite narrow, therefore it is safe to surmise an unlikely chance the Properties will be inundated by lava in the next few centuries. Aside from lava, the Island of Hawaii is also susceptible to earthquakes. Fletcher et al. (2002) ranks all Hawaii Island a 4 for seismic hazard intensity, which classifies it as experiencing "frequent" seismic activity. However, the USGS recently came out with a new model, which better estimates earthquake hazard probability for the Hawaiian Islands. The updated ground shaking model indicates there is a 90% chance of experiencing damaging levels of shaking during the next 100 years on Hawaii Island (Figure 33) (USGS, 2021). The most recent and notable earthquake felt in the Maku`u area measured was 6.9-magnitude and occurred in May 2018. Historically, other earthquakes originating on Kilauea's south flank in 1975 and 1989 were likely felt in the area. There is no record of earthquakes generating within close vicinity of the Properties since 1823. 47 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment 16M 1591W 158°W 157W 15M 155°W z 3 N IF Lihue Ilk 000, onoluliJ z i i Chance of slight(or greater) damaging earthquake shaking* in 100 years z o Chance population Exposure >90% 345,000 Hilo 75%-90% s,aoa Population density per k 25 Kona 50%-75% 601,000 25%-50% 397,000 25—250 z <25% 70,000 *equivalent to Modified Mercalh Intensity V[ OM, Fi u : 2021 USGS Earthquake Frequency Model for the Hawaiian Islands The shoreline is nearly 1,000 feet long and is made up of 5 embayments or coves that are lined with narrow and steep sloping cobble berms. These embayments contain sea caves and arches, which formed from complex erosion and are a result of variation in substrate durability. The 20- 30-foot cliffs above the coves on Lot A are very friable due to the composition of tephra deposits. The coastline on the southern end of the subject sites is more homogenous, and has a more stable, linear 15-foot cliff. Although it is less friable than the neighboring parcel, it is also prone to significant erosion. Wave action has created undercutting caves in embayment 4 and 5, both of which have unstable ceilings and will eventually lead to shelf collapse. Most of the Properties consist of`Opihikao series (2kllp) soil, which is highly decomposed plant material over pahoehoe lava flows. The soil is well drained and has high runoff with 2% to 20% slopes. According to the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH), the subject site is unclassified. This area receives between 120 and 200 inches of rainfall per year and has an average temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geological hazards do not pose excessive constraints on the proposed single-family residences and supporting infrastructure on the Properties. Much of the Puna District faces similar seismic risk and volcanic hazards yet remains to be the fastest growing region in the State. The Hawaiian Paradise Park subdivision is located roughly 1 mile north and Hawaiian Beaches subdivision roughly 2 miles south. Each of these areas are highly developed with single-family residences, which continue to grow at significant rates. The subject Properties have the same risk of experiencing geological hazards as any developed property in either of these subdivisions. 48 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Construction would comply with all provisions of Hawaii County Building Code including wind and seismic resilience criteria, which will further mitigate any adverse impacts. Further the proposed project is not expected to increase geological hazards due to setbacks of at least 130 feet from the shoreline. There would be no difference in impacts to geological hazards under any alternative. 3.1.2 Flood Zones and Shoreline Setting Environmental Setting: Overall Hazard Assessment There are many natural hazards that threaten life and Properties on the Island of Hawaii. Analyzing the risk of potential impacts from such hazards on the proposed action is necessary for this Environmental Assessment. Fletcher et al. (2004), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) created the "Atlas of Natural Hazards in the Hawaiian Coastal Zone" to outline the history and relative intensity of coastal hazards in Hawaii. This Atlas designates an Overall Hazard Assessment(OHA)for coastal zones based on seven hazards: tsunamis, stream flooding, high waves, storms, erosion, sea level rise and volcanic/seismic activity. An area is given an OHA rating between 1 (low) and 7 (high)based on the average risk for the seven hazards outlined above. To determine the OHA of an area, each of the seven hazards must first be independently ranked between 1 (low) and 4 (high) according to the Fletcher et al. (2004)rating system. Table 1: `Hazard Intensity_ Rank Definitions' outlines the variables used to determine risk for each hazard. Table 1: Hazard Intensity Rank Definitions Fletcher et al., 2004 Hazard Low (1) Moderately Low Moderately High High (4) (2) (3) no history of history of tsunami history of tsunami history of tsunami flooding; historical tsunami Tsunami flooding; steep flooding; steep damage; flooding; coastal zone slope historical ( coastal zone >45%) steep coastal zone slope (>45%) slope (>45%) damage; gentle sloe <45% history of no history of nondamaging abundance of historically high coastal stream flooding where streams and high flood damage on flooding and no streams reasonable basis or highlands with seasonal rainfall in gentle slope, watershed expected seasonal high atershed (>7.9 in high watershed Stream flooding due to rainfall are present per month) and rainfall history of damaging >7.9 in per Flooding low seasonal (>7.9 in per month) ( rainfall in and coastal slope floods with partial month) and no watershed (<4.9 >20%; mitigation or no mitigation efforts in per month); or or history of flood mitigation where where or improvements steep coastal damage with full slope>20/o and since last slope (>45%) mitigation since last <45/o damaging flood major flood 49 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment seasonal high waves no reasonable seasonal high High Waves basis to expect seasonal high waves 6-8 ft with waves >12 ft, high waves 4-6 ft hazardous run-up characterized by and currents rapid onset historical historical overwash overwash>10 ft no history of >10 ft on steep on moderate to overwash or minor historical slope, and/or high gentle slope overwash(<10 ft) and/or high Storms high winds and winds with localized no reason to and/or high winds (isolated cases) winds with expect them (�40 mph gust) structural damage widespread (-40 mph sustained) structural damage (-75 mphgust) long-term long-term erosion long-term stable or chronic long- accretion (>10 minor rate<1 ft/yr or term erosion >1 yr)with no erosion/accretion highly dynamic ft/yr, or beach is Erosion history of cycles with erosion erosion/accretion lost, or seawall at erosion, or fully recovered bycycles with water- line for dynamic cycles accretion low rocky significant lateral portions with consistent coasts; perched shifts in the of the tidal cycle beaches annual accretion shoreline steep coastal gentle or moderate gentle or moderate slope where rise gentle or Sea Level slope where rise slope, where rise >0.04 in/yr or moderate slope Rise (0.04 in >0.04 in/yr or steep >0.08/yr or steep = lmm) gentle slope slope where rise slope where rise where rise>0.12 where rise <0.04 >0.08 in/yr >0.12 in/yr in/yr in/yr no history of no volcanic activity limited history of frequent Volcanic/ volcanic or in historical times; volcanism UBC volcanism, Seismic seismic activity, *UBC seismic zone seismic zone factor *UBC seismic Activity *UBC seismic factor<2, minor > 2 recommended, zone factor> 2 zone factor<2 historic seismic historic seismic recommended, damage damage frequent historic damage *UBC, Uniform Building Code seismic zone factor The above definitions show that both geology and slope are important variables in determining the hazardous character of the coastal zone. According to Fletcher et al. (2004), there are nine (9) main geologic features that may increase or decrease coastal hazard risk. These include Beach (B), Stream (S), Rocky (R), Headland (H), Developed (D), fringing (ft), barrier reef(br), embayed coast(e) and wetland (w) (E ). 50 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Hererd Type: G CS T SF W S E SL VrS UHA 156 i'W Papuaa M a k u u Island of Hawaii Coastal Hazard Intensity Kahulai Wahine Mak,Nui S' Eaa Kalele Pakl Say Kipaep-- • Who Kaloli Point 71 a •a r+ a♦ b� , �, SCALE1:5000 + �tlaYa Contour Interval=90 Pi r90 35 +`• V 0 0,5 CanograPhy py Manpa IVJW�laa.Int. ++a `+♦ `•� +a, ♦ O +• O ' aEXPLANATION ` !a ♦ lw.epranaro�an�mrypea.seP ',`�a a+ `.�•`aa 9 G-Geology: 'Holes on Spec he Retards-irt the fnhodsaYmnf +• say •! •� e.eeecn:$Sireem;R-R H-Fieatllantl;13-1 pPtl ! as •! ,o`• ` •e+• `P kfniginD reel hrhamer feel;•ambayae coast;w•xe11eM +•• ♦ _ as®a CS-Coo sial Slope `• +`r•••+,`+• a� a•aa •e tAw , x a A.H n : a`• `• `a • ! a+� Auwae T-Tsunami � ra+!`a +! a`a SF-stream Floodl naa` a',Teyga` O !+a r `•a a`+ `a+ Subject Properties W-High WPws ® r raa 'i a •a+• + ~a a `! •+P S•Storms � `+. ti ra• O• ` !•++.' '�� � E-Emsfon m r as +a ra `! a as. S,L-See Level •+ !` a`• ♦+a • ,`a,a •••+ vs-Yalcanidselsmle ® `. •+a :. O� Makuup� ophi n-N.Data `+a `+ ++ '+a •�•a I5ileh % ,Rock ♦ `a �•• �`, :♦ +•• Moktropihi z Overall Hazard Assessment fOHAI `a+ O+'• !• +• p`a Poinf Low Hqn !• `! 4 +• •+Q 0 2 3 5 6 r ! as 10. Ease Cmdil:USG51:50,D00 Hilo.Nawab 561711 W733 Edgpn 1-DMA and USG51:50.000 Pahoa.Hawad 60161V W733 Edldon 1-DMA Fi u�: Overall Hazard Assessment(OHA)Map of the Pastorek Properties In this case, the Properties are located within one geologically significant zone: Rocky. These types of coastal landscapes have varying Coastal Slope (CS), which is a significant factor for determining hazard risk specifically for high waves, storm surges, sea level rise and tsunamis. A low CS can exacerbate the wave heights of these natural hazards as seen in Table 1 above. The Coastal Slope (CS) near the Properties range between roughly 20% and 45%. Taking these factors into consideration, the OHA rating of the Properties as determined by Fletcher et al. (2004)is 6 out of 7, or high. The notable hazards of this area are tsunami, storms, sea level rise and seismic/volcanic activity (Table 2: `Rating of Natural Hazards Impacting the Subs Properties Coastline'). 51 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Table 2: Fletcher et al. (2004)Rating of Natural Hazards Impacting the Subject Properties Coastline Hazard type Relative Threat Fletcher et al. Hazard Rating (1-4) Tsunami High 4 Stream Flooding Moderately High 3 High Waves Moderately High 3 Storms High 4 Erosion Moderately Low 2 Sea Level Rise High 4 Seismic/Volcanic Activity High 4 Overall Hazard Assessment High 6/7 (OHA) The OHA rating of the Properties is significant for determining impacts from natural processes and mitigating measures to preserve resources. A closer look at the geology, floodplain, water and air quality, noise and scenic resources and hazardous conditions will be addressed below. Environmental Setting:Floodplain and Tsunamis The subject Properties are located adjacent to and makai of the Government Beach Road, which puts it in the State Civil Defense Agency, Tsunami Evacuation Zone. Tsunami warning signs are situated in the area to alert residents of a tsunami alert and possible evacuation to areas mauka of the Government Beach Road. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) classifies the Properties under two different flood zones. Both proposed single- family residences are classified in Flood Zone X, which is outside of the 500-year floodplain. The coastal area of the Properties is classified as Flood Zone VE, which is within the 100-year coastal flood range (1% chance of occurring in any given year)with velocity hazard (wave action). These special flood hazard areas are seaward of the shoreline cliffs of each Property which are 30 to 45 feet above mean sea level. No development is being proposed in this area. Figure 35 and 36 shows the site-specific Flood Hazard Assessment Report, generated by FEMA. There are two notable tsunamis that have impacted the Southeast portion of Hawaii Island since 1868. On April 2, 1868, a magnitude 7.9 earthquake which occurred Southeast of Hawaii generated a roughly 20-foot wave that caused severe damage to Ka`u, which is several miles southwest of the subject Properties (NPS, 2020). On November 29, 1975, a 7.7 magnitude earthquake generated a tsunami that claimed the lives of two people in Halape, located in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, southeast of the subject Properties (USGS, 1975). 52 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment X , 41a5F ZONE X BASEMAP:FIRM BASEMAP - �o � Flood Hazard Assessment Report $ www.hawaiinfip.org SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS(SFHAs)SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY 4 THE 1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD -The 1%annual chance flood(100- FHAT Report year),also know as the base flood,is the flood that has a v chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.SFHAs includeZone A,AE, - AH,AO,V,and VE.The Base Flood Elevation(BFE)is the water surface elevation of the 1%annual chance flood. Mandatory flood insurance Property Information Notes: urchaseappliesinthesnz°nes: COUNTY: HAWAII Zone A:No BFE determined. TMK NO: (3)1-5-010:026 Zone AE:BFE determined. WATERSHED: KAAHAKINI PARCEL ADDRESS: ADDRESS NOT DETERMINED ZoneAH:Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet(usually areas of ponding); KEAAU,HI 96749 BFE determined. Zone AO:Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet(usually sheet flow on Flood Hazard Information slopingterrai n);average depths determined. FIRM INDEX DATE: SEPTEMBER 29,2017 Zone V:Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard(wave action); LETTER OF MAP CHANGE(S): NONE no BFE determined. FEMA FIRM PANEL: 1551661185F ZoneVE:Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard(wave action); BFE determined. PANEL EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 29,2017 Zone AEF: F=ay area in Zone AE The floodway is the channel of stream plus asnyadjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1%annual chance flood can be carried without increasingthe BFE. NON SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA-An area in a low-to-moderate risk THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN ATSUNAMI EVACUTION ZONE: YES flood zone.No mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply, FOR MORE INFO,VISIT:http://www.scd.hawall.gov/ but coverage is available in participating communities. THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN A DAM EVACUATION ZONE: NO Zone XS(X shaded):Areas of 0.2%annual chance flood;areas of FOR MORE INFO,VISIT:http://dlnreng.hawall.gov/dam/ 1%annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1%annual chance flood. Zone X:Areas determined to be outside the 0.2%annual chance 0 200 400 ft floodplain. Disclaimer.The Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources(DLNR)assumes no responsibility arising from the use,accuracy,completeness,and timeliness of any information contained in this report.Viewers/Users are OTHER FLOOD AREAS responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and agree to indemnify the DLNR,its officers,and employ- eesfromanyliabilitywhichmayarisefromitsuseofitsdataorinformation. Zone D: Unstudied areas where flood hazards are undeter- mined,but flooding is possible.No mandatory flood insurance If this map has been identified as'PRELIMINARY',please note that it is being provided for informational purposes purchase apply,but coverage is available in participating commu- and is not to be used for flood insurance rating.Contact your county floodplain manager for flood zone determina- nitres . tions to be used for compliance with local floodplain management regulations. Figure : Flood Hazard Assessment Report for TNM 1-5-010: 026 53 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment 118,E ZONE X J► BASEMAP:FIRM BASEMAP Flood Hazard Assessment Report i- wvvw.hawaiinfip.org SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS(SFHAs)SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE 1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD The 1%annual chance flood(100 FHAT Report year),also know as the base flood, s the flood that has a v chance of being equaled or exceeded inany gven year SFHAs nclude Zone VE.The Base Flood Elevation(BFE)is the water surface evation of the 1%annual chance flood. Mandatory flood insurance Property Information Notes: purchase applies inthese nzones : COUNTY: HAWAII Zone A:No BFE determined. TMK NO: (3)1-5-010:027 Zone AE:BFE determined. WATERSHED: KAAHAKINI PARCEL ADDRESS: ADDRESS NOT DETERMINED ZoneAH:Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet(usually areas of ponding); PAHOA,HI 96778 BFE determined. Zone AO:Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet(usually sheet flow on Flood Hazard Information slopingterrai n);average depths determined. FIRM INDEX DATE: SEPTEMBER 29,2017 Zone V:Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard(wave action); LETTER OF MAP CHANGE(S): NONE no BFE determined. FEMA FIRM PANEL: 1551661185F ZoneVE:Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard(wave action); BFE determined. PANEL EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 29,2017 Zone AEF: Floodway areas in Zone AE.The floodway is the channel of stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1%annual chance flood can be carried without increasi ng the BFE. NON-SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA-An area in a low-to-moderate risk THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN ATSUNAMI EVACUTION ZONE: YES flood zone.IN mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply, FOR MORE INFO,VISIT:http://www.scd.hawall.gov/ but coverage is available in participating communities. THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN A DAM EVACUATION ZONE: NO Zone XS(X shaded):Areas of 0.2%annual chance flood;areas of FOR MORE INFO,VISIT:http://dlnreng.hawall.gov/dam/ 1%annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot ■ or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1%annual chance flood. Zone X:Areas determined to be outside the 0.2%annual chance 0 200 400 ft floodplain. Disclaimer:The Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources(DLNR)assumes no responsibility arising from the use,accuracy,completeness,and timeliness of any information contained in this report.Viewers/Users are OTH ER F LOOD AREAS responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and agree to indemnify the DLNR,its officers,and employ- ees from any liability which may arise from its use of its data or information. Zone D: Unstudied areas where flood hazards are undeter- "ned,but flooding is possible.No mandatory flood insurance If this map has been identified as'PRELIMINARY',please note that it is being provided for informational purposes purchase apply,but coverage is available in participating commu- and is not to be used for flood insurance rating.Contact your county floodplain manager for flood zone determina- nitres. tions to be used for compliance with local floodplain management regulations. Figure : Flood Hazard Assessment Report for TNM 1-5-010: 027 54 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Environmental Setting: Sea Level Rise and Storms HAR Chapter 11-200.1 requires the environmental review process to analyze the impacts climate change may have on the proposed action. This includes identifying short and long-term effects, the level of resilience and mitigation measures including potentially beneficial alternatives. It is likely that sea level will affect the Hawaiian Islands due to a rapidly changing climate. This will exacerbate the impacts of flooding, storms, and coastal erosion. Climate change is a fundamental environmental issue that is particularly complex and far reaching. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) measured carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution began in the late 1700s. Approximately 280 parts per million (ppm)was present in the atmosphere. In 2013 carbon dioxide levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history (Tetra Tech, 2020). According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green- house gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems" (IPCC, 2014). The Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission (HCCMAC) states that sea level rise is expected due to the increase of anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas emissions into the atmosphere. Sea level rise is an inevitable outcome of global warming that will continue through many centuries even if human-generated global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were stopped today. Sea level is rising at increasing rates due to global warming of the atmosphere and oceans and melting of the glaciers and ice sheets. Rising sea level and projections of stronger and more frequent El Nino events and tropical cyclones in waters surrounding Hawaii all indicate a growing vulnerability to coastal flooding and erosion (HCCMAC, 2017). Global mean air temperatures are projected to increase by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit(°F) by the end of the century. Increases in air temperatures will subsequently lead to increased ocean temperatures, which are expected to be the highest in tropical and subtropical areas of the Northern Hemisphere. The University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program confirms that Hawaii is getting warmer. Data shows an increase in air temperature over the last 30 years of roughly 0.3 °F per decade. For Hawaii this not only means rising sea levels, but also more contrast in the wet and dry season, which may lead to more frequent and intense precipitation and flooding (Tetra Tech, 2020). The expected lifetime of the single-family residences is between 40 and 70 years. The IPCC's "business as usual" scenario predicts that global sea levels will rise by 3.2 feet by the end of the 21st century (IPCC, 2014). There are varying theories regarding when these rising levels will be felt globally. HCCMAC suggests the sea level rise of 3.2 feet can be expected by 2100, however, according to IPCC (2014) and Fletcher(2010), this level may be experienced as early as 2060. This report also states that Hawaii Island is the least vulnerable island compared to neighboring islands, but areas such as Kona, Puak6, Kapoho, and Hilo Bay may "face serious threats." The Big Island is also sinking into the Earth's mantle because of the gravitational weight of its growing volcanoes, which can magnify sea level rise substantially. Relative sea level rise is a result of the combined eustatic water rise and land subsidence. Tidal records taken in Hilo and 55 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Honolulu since 1946 show higher sea level rise on Hawaii Island, compared to Oahu. Many factors could contribute to this variability; however, the most likely explanation is subsidence. Moore and Fornari (1984) studied drowned reefs off the northwestern coast of Hawaii Island. Their studies suggested a regional rate of subsidence between 1.8 and 3 millimeters per year over 255,000 years. This data was further proven by Ludwig et al. (1991)by dating coral reefs over 475,000 years, which concluded a subsidence rate of 2.6 millimeters per year. These rates are likely to be higher for the Puna coastline where volcanic activity is much greater(Moore, 1970). Subsidence in this area will exacerbate the impact of sea level rise, which is likely to cause shoreline transgression in the next 100 years and increase coastal erosion over the next several decades (Moore and Fornari, 1984). The adverse impacts of combined eustatic water rise and land subsidence can be demonstrated in the 1975 Kalapana earthquake, which occurred on Kilauea's rift. According to Hwang et al. (2007), the seismic activity caused land in Kapoho to suddenly drop 0.8 feet. Future events of this scale and magnitude because of subsidence are very difficult to predict. Hwang et al. (2007), estimates Kapoho may be subsiding at a continuous rate of between 0.31-0.67 inches/year. This is based on remote sending data, InSAR(Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry). According to the Puna Community Development Plan, "the coastal areas of southeast Puna, as particularly evident in Kapoho, are subsiding at varying rates, up to as much as 0.7 inches per year. Extrapolated over a 50-year period—which is a reasonable lifespan for a house—the subsidence would be nearly 3 feet. As evidence of this phenomenon, many of the lots in the Kapoho area are already submerged." The subject Properties are located roughly 16 miles to the northeast of Kalapana and 9 miles northwest of Kapoho. The Properties likely have a much lower subsidence rate, due to its distance from the Kilauea rift zone and location on the supporting slopes of Mauna Loa. below shows the potential impacts of sea level rise of 3.2 feet on the Properties. No significant impacts are anticipated to these dwellings in the foreseeable future due to the high lying nature of the Properties, at a conservative 35 feet above sea level and setbacks no less than 130 feet from the shoreline. Increased wave action and sea level rise will have some effects on coastal erosion, although these rates are very difficult to forecast and are generally episodic in nature. A Coastal Erosion Study was commissioned for this proposed action, which is discussed in the following section. According to Collins et al. (2019), as outlined in an IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, climate change and subsequent sea level rise will likely increase the intensity and frequency of storms. The average intensity of tropical cyclones, the proportion of Category 4 and 5 tropical cyclones and the associated average precipitation rates are projected to increase for a 2°C global temperature rise above any baseline period (medium confidence). Rising mean sea levels will contribute to higher extreme sea levels associated with tropical cyclones (very high confidence). Coastal hazards will be exacerbated by an increase in the average intensity, magnitude of storm surge and precipitation rates of tropical cyclones. 56 - � _ 2 § ) . . � - � � - � � � \ . � \ � £ � � � � � _ \ \ � � � ~ � .. »�� - - - w Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Historically the Island of Hawaii has been viewed as largely protected from experiencing storms of this magnitude due to the presence of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. However, recent years have shown that storms such as Iselle (2014) and Lane (2018) can have very damaging effects to the island. On August 8, 2014, Hurricane Iselle made landfall in the Puna District of Hawaii County. What started as a Category 4 hurricane, Iselle made landfall as a moderate tropical storm with sustained wind speeds of 70 miles per hour. Significant damage was felt in the southeastern portions of the Big Island, especially in the Wai`6pae area, which is a coastal stretch dotted with anchialine ponds and tidepools, known as the Kapoho Tide Pools. Many homes were heavily damaged in this area. This was the most heavily damaged area, which is 9 miles northwest from the subject Parcels. Most of the southeastern portion of the Big Island experienced high winds, heavy rain, downed trees, and powerlines, cutting thousands of people off from electricity, water, and transportation for several days (Kimberlain et al., 2018). Hurricane Lane occurred in late August 2018 and brought significant damage to the Hawaiian Islands from flash flooding and mudslides. Over a four-day period, Hawaii Island received an average of 17 inches of rain and up to 159 structures were damaged, making it the wettest tropical storm to impact the Islands. Although most of the flooding impacts were concentrated to Hilo, much of the southern windward side, including Puna, experienced impacts (Beven, 2019). High waves often occur outside of hurricane conditions on Hawai`i's shorelines and can be generated by distant storms in the Northern and Southern hemisphere. The four dominant regimes responsible for large swells in Hawaii are: North Pacific Swell, Trade Wind Swell, South Swell, and Kona Storms. North swells typically occur in winter months and can range between 10 and 20 feet. In contrast, South Swells occurring in the summer only reach an average height of 4-6 feet(Fletcher et al., 2004). The Maku`u area is affected by the Northeast Trade Waves, which is linked to the Northeast trade winds and can bring high surf to the East coast of Hawaii Island roughly 75% of the year(Vitousek& Fletcher, 2008). Merrifield and Maltrud (2011) suggest that trade winds have intensified across the Pacific gradually since the early 1990's. Further, the coastline of this area faces the open ocean with no barriers such as offshore reefs or sand bars. The submarine slope descends into Puna Canyon by approximately 1,300 feet/mile for roughly 6 miles. Therefore, long fetch waves crossing the Pacific from the North and Northeast often impact this coastal area at high velocities and become a major contributing factor to coastal erosion and storm damage. These natural phenomena can bring damaging waves several times each decade (Scheffler and Lockwood, 2020). Evidence and history suggest climate change has already led to sea level rise, more intense storms, high waves, coastal flooding, and beach erosion. Erosion studies must not only consider current processes but those that may occur in the future due to expected sea level rise. Erosion rates are very difficult to quantify on Hawaii Island, especially in the southern portions of the Puna District, due to complex geological forces from Kilauea volcano. However, a discussion on the shoreline features of both Properties and historical erosion is necessary to analyze potential impacts. 58 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Environmental Setting: Coastal Erosion Study According to the Hawaii Administrative Rules, permitting of single-family residences in a Conservation District(Title 13, Chapter 5), must consider rates of erosion by conducting a certified Coastal Erosion Study (CES). Erosion must be looked at to determine the minimum shoreline setback for permitting. The Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), requires the calculation of a site-specific Average Annual Erosion Rate (AAER), based on the guidelines in the Hawaii Coastal Hazard Mitigation Guidebook(Hwang, 2005). T.E Scheffler and J.P. Lockwood Ph.D, Certified Professional Geologist(#9806), reviewed the geological features and history of the Properties, took on-site quantitative measurements, and inspected aerial and satellite imagery to calculate the AAER. The full report is attached in Appendix B and summarized below. According to Dr. Scheffler, the coastline erosion processes occurring on the Properties are dynamic. The shoreline is made up of 5 embayments, or coves, which are lined with steep sloping cobble berms and show varying degrees of erosion based on differing substrate composition. Talus accumulation, exposed cinder, slumping, sea arches, cave undercutting, and block failure are all coastal processes occurring at various rates Olt AV =Biock�alur Exposed . . =Talus accumulation —Slumping Embayment Submerged • Sea arch p3 = inimum ex#ent ofmot (hypothetical}.: ' Google Fi u : Erosion Features of the Subject Properties Shoreline There are no perched sandy beaches above the high tide line. Tephra, ash, and cinder making up the pu`u is present in embayment 1. This area is much more friable than towards the south of the Properties, which are made up of pahoehoe. Despite these differences, each cliff edge can be perilous and prone to block failures and collapse. 59 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment A simple"facies" model was constructed by Dr. Scheffler and Dr. Lockwood to assess the historical movement of the shoreline and identify areas prone to erosion (Ei ). Flow"p3" is thought to have been active roughly 1,500 years ago. At this time, pahoehoe lava flows reaching the ocean built out deltas, ponding on the gentle slope of the coast. In Stage II roughly 750 years ago, the littoral cone "pld3" was formed through high-volume "pyroducts." Dr. Scheffler estimates there was a pause in activity after the formation of the littoral cone, which was immediately subject to erosion by storm waves surging over the coastal bench. The older `Aila`au flows occurred in Stage III, which inundated the flanks of the pu`u with fresh lava and once again built ponding deltas. It is estimated that sea levels were much lower at this time, suggesting that this is when the current coastline was at its furthest seaward extent. Between Stage III and Stage IV rising sea levels and subsidence began to erode the shoreline. Stage IV represents the time since the younger `Aila`au flows, which reached the ocean southeast of the Properties. In this period wasting at the seaward edge of the cone caused slumping and faulting. Mechanical erosion continued to cut away pahoehoe and the tuff cone, which has led to the creation of sea stacks and arches. Stage 1:1,500 8P-Island accretion. Stage 11:750 BP-Littoral Cone formation P! p3 p3 JESW.L2(bedrock) p2{bedratk) A==MM]Stage 111:400 BP-'Aila'au innundation. Stage lModay Erosion and shoreline retreat. Maximum seaward advance p4 0hZp2(bedrock) 4 �� _ W1111111A p2(hedrock) :::3 Fi u : Approximation of Geological Evolution of the Maku`u Coastline Several erosive processes contribute to the current setting of the subject Properties including wave energy, drag, wind and gravity. Wave energy losses masses of rocks by compressing air within fractures, while the drag of moving water grinds smaller fragments at the shore. Wind and gravity further loosen pieces of breccia as well. These processes are exacerbated by storm surge and high tide. Dr. Scheffler and Lockwood suggest it is reasonable to believe wave action is the main cause of shoreline retreat on the subject Properties. 60 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Significant erosion processes are occurring in embayment 1, 4 and 5. shows a profile and cross-section of embayment 1 located on the north end of Lot A. According to Dr. Scheffler and Lockwood, this area of the cinder cone was not submerged by lava during the most recent <Aila<au flows. The cinder is located well-back from the waterline and is protected by a cobble beach berm and a colluvial shelf made of talus. Profile of Cave R1 Pastorek/Makuu Coastal Erosion Survey tesARCH,911512020. 2m 60 deg.(true) {8m above sea level} 2m Laminated tephra and cinder(pld3) Colluvial shelf Beach berm �► `;. 4W Sub angular,mixed boulders and cobbles • i Well rounded cobbles 4 111 Figure 40: Profile and Cross-Section of Embayment 1 dipy • l .y ei• C •� 1 c T ��� ` A Figure : Embayment 1 Looking Northeast 61 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Different erosion processes are occurring in embayment 4 and 5 where a"sandwich effect" is causing undercutting of the sea cliff(Figures 42 and 45). Embayment 4 has scouring more than 8 meters deep. Wave action has also created a steep cobble and boulder berm in this cove. The ceiling is unstable and prone to collapse. The original contact between the littoral cone and the bottom of the more recent lava flows is still visible on the roof(Figure 42). This embayment also has a sea stack, which can be seen in (13m above sea level) Profile of Cave N4 PastorWMakuu Coastal Erosion Survey 2m iesARCH,9/1512070. 50 tleg�irruel Massive,layered 2 m pahoehoe(p4ol t011011nT1 Coll ka zl Laminated lundemut 8.4 mi ephra and cinder(pld3) Wrge.andgular _ boulders Imbricated angular blocks r Subrounded cobbles and •• boulders .•_ V&hrounded L.'I'.des Fi u : Profile and Cross-section of Under-cutting in Embayment 4 AL y Figure 43: Embayment 4 contact between "p4d' flow (left) and"pldY cinder cone (right) 62 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment ::dV*` Fi u : Sea Stack within Embayment 4, Looking Northwest Embayment 5 is another example of deep undercutting and the"sandwich effect." This embayment has the deepest sea cave, which is more than 14 meters. Here the cinder later from the littoral cone"pld3" is sandwich between bedrock"p3" and lava associated with the older `Aila`au flows. Frequent wave energy occurs here. Blocks at the mouth of the cave may dissipate some of this energy however it is anticipated that the entire shelf will eventually fall. Profile of Cave#5 Pastorek/Makuu Coastal Erosion Survey tesARCH,9115!2424. 2m 60 deg.ltruel 19.7m above sea level) y 2m Massive,layered pahoehoe(poo) oWi91'�l coma Laminated (undercut tam) ephrd and cinder(pid3) qi-W611111, •sem 0.0 OW '_ _ ----- Well rounded cobbles •.�. and boulders 49 Large angular and sub angular boulders Fi u : Profile and Cross-section of Undercutting Cave in Embayment 5 63 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment w r r o`' �. k- - V. left 14 416" OWIL Fi u : Embayment 5, Looking Northwest Embayment 2 and 3 have their own unique erosive processes. The notable feature of these embayments is the sea arch located between them, which extends out into the sea Embayment 3 makes up the southern portion of the littoral cone. shows the weathering and oxidation of the upper tephra. Dr. Scheffler and Lockwood note this photo of interest as it suggests a recent collapse of the upper tephra blocks and lower hardened tephra, likely occurring within the past few decades. r ti •� Fi u�: Sea Arch Located Between Embayment 2 and 3, Looking Southwest 64 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment ,. ..• 'MIN Fi u : Embayment 3, Looking Southwest Another notable feature of Lot B is the block failure, which is situated on the southern portion of the Properties. This block is at risk of imminent failure and can be seen in below. kA a - f Figure : Pahoehoe Block Liable to Failure, View to the Northwest 65 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Environmental Setting: Coastal Erosion Rate There are many limitations to determining an Average Annual Erosion Rate (AAER)for planning purposes on the Island of Hawaii (Abbott, 2013). Some of these limitations include irregular shaped Properties, erosion occurring in multiple directions, and "hard" coasts versus "soft" linear beaches. Historical trends along coastlines show that hard coasts, which are made up of solid substrate, generally erode at slower rates than soft coasts, which consist of sand or other fine, easily transported material (Abbott, 2013). The Big Island is generally characterized by hard coasts, therefore estimates of AAER are best approached with longer term studies with a scope that extends beyond the geography of a single parcel. Ideally, regional monitoring studies would include highly accurate means of terrain mapping such as is available today with LiDAR technology (Rosser, 2005). Through analyzing aerial photography and inferential methods Dr. Scheffler and Lockwood concluded an overall AAER of 0.36 feet/year. This calculation is variable over time; its intensity is influenced by climate change factors, such as sea level rise, which is discussed above. Aerial imagery of 1954 (#1756 23135 November 12), 1965 (6270 EKL12cc-31 February 6) and 2013 (Google Earth) were examined for evidence of major changes in coastal profile and shoreline movement. Dr. Scheffler and Lockwood note several limiting factors with this methodology including shading and resolution differences, unknown tidal levels and surf conditions and orthographic projection distortion, which was not corrected. Despite these challenges, the aerial photos were able to provide a basis for minimum and maximum shoreline regress. A total of 22 transects were measured perpendicular to the coast(45 degrees) at an interval of 55 feet across the subject Properties. Measurements were taken from the south to north. A full breakdown of the transects and measured retreat distance in feet and can be found in Appendix B. The Average Annual Erosion Rate can be found using this data as summarized in Table 3: `Average Annual Erosion Rates from Aerial Imagery, below. Using Computer-Aided Design (CAD), the 1954 and 2013 shorelines can be compared O. Nath J J J 1 H 1 J J 440 feet J J =shoreline in 1954 / / =shoreline In 2013 (Parcel M} {I P, J p l / (Parcel 27i f Figure : Comparison of 1954 and 2013 shorelines of the Properties 66 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Table 3: Average Annual Erosion Rates from Aerial Imagery Average Retreat Annual Average Area Distance (feet) Erosion Rate (ft/yr) Project Area 21.1 0.36 Emba ment 1 n=5 56.3 0.95 Emba ment 2 n=3 23.7 0.40 Emba ment 3 n=2 27.1 0.46 Emba ment 4 n=2 20 0.34 Emba ment 5 n=5 1.8 0.03 An independent estimate of the AAER was also concluded using inferential methods, which analyzes the geological evolution of the area as shown in above. The model in 3-2 indicates that the maximum seaward extent of land was created by the most recent lava now (p4o). Dr. Scheffler and Lockwood observed pieces of this flow"stranded" out at sea in the form of arches and sea stacks. If a projection of the flow is created by "connecting the dots," an estimate can be made to determine how far inland the shore has migrated since that time. The same sampling transects were used as the method discussed above. According to the CES, the distance between the No's most inland exposure and its furthest extent seaward should yield a plausible erosion rate. A minimum of 0 feet and a maximum of 280 feet were estimated for the retreat. A full list of data collected for each transect can be found in Appendix B. The average AAER using this methodology can be found in Table 4: AAER Results of the Inferential Model' below. It is assumed that the `Aila`au flow impacted this area between 750 and 400 years ago. Table 4: AAER Results of the Inferential Model Interval Annual Average Erosion Rate (ft/yr) 400-year interval 0.22 750-year interval 0.12 Dr. Scheffler and Lockwood discuss the challenges of determining a highly accurate AAER since the actual rate is constantly changing. Coastlines such as the Properties are susceptible to types of High Magnitude—Low Frequency (HMLF) events. The present shoreline is not entirely stable. Portions above the undercut sea caves may be particularly susceptible to unpredictable seismic events and increasing large wave events. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Much of the Puna District is at similar risk of floodplain and coastal hazards including tsunamis, high waves, sea level rise, erosion, and volcanic/seismic activity. As discussed in Section 3.1, the OHA rating of the Properties is high, or 6 out of 7. Sea level rise, erosion and volcanic/seismic activity are the predominant hazards that could impact the Properties. However_ each building 67 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment site has been designed to miti at�pacts to and from coastal hazards by establishing shoreline setbacks no less than 130 feet from the shoreline and only proposingdevelopment rou hlg y 35 feet above sea level. Therefore, the proposed development will not be significantly impacted by coastal hazards, nor will it cause significant impacts to coastal hazards. Both Properties are in Flood Zone X, or outside the 500-year flood zone. Flood Zone VE, or 1% annual chance of a 100-year flood, is designated seaward of the shoreline. Flooding in this zone should have no impact to the proposed development, which will be located at roughly 35 feet above sea level and setbacks no less than 130 feet from the shoreline. Similarly, the proposed development will not exacerbate any flooding in either zone. Unless a mega-tsunami occurred, one that would inundate all of Hilo and Honolulu, the site is not at risk of tsunami. There are no notable streams in the area that could cause stream flooding to either Property. The Fletcher(2004)rating of 3 for stream flooding in this area corresponds to the Properties location in a watershed that can receive significant rainfall. No adverse impacts to drainage are anticipated with the proposed action. The elevation and shoreline setbacks outlined for the proposed residences takes them out of the area that would be impacted by high waves. Although wave action can contribute to more coastal erosion over time, any significant impact will occur outside of the expected lifespan of the homes (40-70 years), and well outside of the development area, which will be no less than 130 feet setback from the shoreline. The proposed residences will not be impacted by storm surge based on the elevation and distance from the shoreline. High winds may occur during storms; however, construction will comply with all provisions of Hawaii County Building Code including wind resistance criteria. Further, there are no existing trees in the proposed development area that could cause damage. As discussed above, anticipated sea level rise of 3.2 feet will not have a significant impact on the Properties, due to the conservative positioning at roughly 35-feet above sea level and no less than 130 feet setback from the shoreline. According to the CES, the main concern is that sea level rise will exacerbate erosion on the Properties' shoreline. The Applicants acknowledge that the shoreline is susceptible to episodic erosion events. The imminent block failure noted on Lot B will not impact either proposed residence. Furthermore, shelf collapse that may occur in sea caves will not have significant impact on any development due to the outlined shoreline setbacks. The highest point of the cinder cone on Lot A is along the shoreline and prone to erosion by natural forces but will not impact either proposed residence due to setbacks. These Properties have the same seismic hazard as the entire Puna District and most of the Island of Hawaii. Subsidence and seismic activity, as discussed above, is difficult to estimate. Nonetheless, the distance from eroding features on the Properties makes sudden subsidence on the coastline unlikely to impact the residences. The small-scale nature of the proposed action, and setbacks no less than 130 feet from the shoreline, largely mitigates coastal hazards from impacting the development and from the development impacting coastal hazards. 68 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Because of the expected condition in the SMA permits discussed above_ no wood_ metal or robe ladder,platform_ steps_ stairs_ concrete pads_ or any other constructed appurtenance to gain access to the ocean from the top of the pali (sea cliff)will be built on either property. 3.1.3 Water Quality Environmental Setting The proposed residences will be set back a minimum of 130 feet from the shoreline area and the proposed storage/art studio will be setback over 130 feet from the shoreline. No streams, springs or ponds are found on or near the Properties. With home construction, the primary activity with potential to affect water quality is grading. The proposed development will require relatively little grading, due to careful design. Grading and contouring will occur on approximately 0.5 acres on each lot. Impacts and Mitigating Measures A County grading permit will be required. Once grading plans are fully developed, it will be determined if a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required. This permit is necessary if more than one acre of soil is disturbed. If necessary, the NPDES permit will require the completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A list of Best Management Practices will be established to properly manage storm water runoff These BMPs may include, but are not limited to: • Minimizing soil loss and erosion by revegetating and stabilizing slopes and disturbed areas of soil. • Minimizing sediment loss by placing structural controls including silt fences, gravel bags, sediment ponds, check dams, and other barriers. • Applying sediment waddles and protective covers to soil and material stockpiles. • Gravel check dams in gutters. • Constructing and use of stabilized construction vehicle entrance, with designated vehicle wash area that discharges to a sediment pond. • Washing of all vehicles in the designated wash area before leaving the project site. • Use of drip pans beneath vehicles to trap vehicle fluid. • Performing routine inspection and maintenance of structural BMPs by trained personnel. • Properly cleaning significant leaks or spills and disposing at an approved site. The Applicants will ensure all earthwork and grading will be conducted in compliance with: (a) "Storm Drainage Standards," County of Hawaii, 1970 and as revised (b) "Flood Control," Chapter 27 of the Hawaii County Code (c) Standards and regulations of the Federal Emergency Agency (FEMA) (d) "Erosion and Sedimentation Control," Chapter 10 of the Hawaii County Code (e) Conditions of an NPDES permit, if required, and any additional Best Management Practices required by the Board of Land and Natural Resources 69 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment The original early consult letter from the Department of Public Works dated June 2. 2020 incorrectly stated that a drainage study would be required for the proposed project. However, upon further review_ DPW has determined that a drainage study is not applicable for the scope of work. A revised letter from DPW that supersedes their previous comment letter has been added to Appendix E_ Comments and Responses to Early Consultation. Any wastewater from the residences will be treated using Individual Wastewater Treatment Systems, permitted by the State of Hawaii Department of Health. All grazing will be conducted on the mauka half of Lot A. No grading or grubbing is expected for these practices. However, if ever required, the Applicants would work with the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service to ensure the best soil conservation practices are being adhered to. If, at that time, implementation of the soil conservation practices requires Conservation District Use Permits or other approvals, the Applicants would await approval before conducting the activities. The Best Management Practices created by the University of Hawaii-Manoa, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resource's Best Management Practices to Manage Non-Point Pollution in Agriculture will be used for landscaping practices (Abbas and Fares, 2009). These BMPs include short- and long-term methods to control erosion and sedimentation, soil management through cultivation, minimizing tillage, adding organic material to soils and establish ground covers. If trees are planted, holes will be dug rather than grading or tilling the area for cultivation. Since the precipitation is high in the area, little to no watering should be required, other than hand watering of new plantings and during times of relative drought. Pests will be managed through integrated pest management practices, biological control, and pesticides only when necessary. Proper handling, storage and application of pesticides must be always enforced. Upon completion, the residences will be very similar to other homes and land uses in the area. No practices on the lot are expected to contribute to sedimentation, erosion, or the pollution of coastal waters. 3.1.4 Flora and Fauna Environmental Setting:Flora Historically, the natural flora of this location reflected halophytic (salt-adapted) strand vegetation, such as grasses and shrubs, and coastal forests (Warshauer et al., 1990). This portion of the Puna shoreline was dominated by naupaka(Scaevola taccada), hala (Pandanus tectorius), `ohi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha) and nanea(Vigna marina), which thrived on recent lava flows, geologically speaking. This area has been used for commercial agriculture, ranching, and residence for many decades, which has altered the plants seen historically (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). A biotic survey conducted on both Properties found no endangered plant or animal species on either Property. Many decades of grazing have left the Properties largely comprised of introduced pasture grasses. Some of these include california grass (Brachiara mutica), bermuda grass (Chrysopogon spp.), honohono grass (Commelina diffusa) and pangola grass (Digitaria 70 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment spp). Ischaemum byrone is a state and federally listed endangered grass species that can occur in this area of the Puna shoreline. It is known to grow on pahoehoe close to the edge of sea cliffs and is only found in Hilo and Puna districts of the Big Island. This species of grass was not found at this project site, likely due to the heavy presence of pasture grasses up to the coastline with no exposed pahoehoe. Lot B has a more vegetated portion to the south, which is dominated by trees, shrubs, and ferns. In this area the understory is primarily maile scented fern (Phymatosorus grossus). Other shrubs and ferns such as owi (Stachytarpheta dichotoma), princess flower(Tibouchina urvilleana) and sword fern (Nephrolepis cordifolia) occur on both Properties. One indigenous shrub, naupaka (Scaevola taccada (sericea) was detected near the pali on Lot B, and one indigenous fern, moa (Psilotium nudum), was detected under the canopy of Lot B. Native trees are no longer present on either Parcel, but there are several introduced trees such as coconut palms (Cocos nucifera), autograph tree (Clusia rosea), guava(Psidium sp.) and bingabing (Macaranga). Common ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia) and Polynesian-introduced coconut(Cocos nucifera) are present on the coastal region of the site, which shows heavy erosion. A full list of species detected on the Properties can be found in Table 5: `Plant Species Observed on Pastorek Properties.' Each of the plant species found are very typical for the region and the island, as well as neighboring islands. Table 5: Plant Species Observed on Pastorek Properties Scientific Name Family Common Name Type Status Brachiara mutica Poaceae California grass Grass Alien Chamaecrista nictitans Fabaceae Partridge pea Grass Alien Christella dentata Thelypteridaceae Pai'iiha Grass Alien Chr so 0 on spp. Poaceae Bermuda Grass Grass Alien Clidemia hirta Melastomataceae Koster's curse Shrub Alien Clusia rosea Clusiaceae Autograph tree Tree Alien Polynesian Cocos nucifera Arecaceae Coconut palm Tree Introduced Commelina di usa Commelinaceae Honohono grass Grass Alien Di itaria spp. Poaceae Pan ola grass Grass Alien Falcataria moluccana Fabaceae Albizia Tree Alien Lantana camara Verbenaceae Lantana Shrub Alien Mac aran a Eu horbiaceae Bingabing Tree Alien Ne hrole is cordi olia Ne prole idaceae Sword Fern Grass Alien O lismenus s . Poaceae Basket grass Grass Alien Panicum spp Poaceae Panic grass Grass Alien Pas alum con u atum Poaceae Hilo grass Grass Alien Phymatosorus grossus Lauae - maile (scolo endria) Polypodiaceae scented fern Grass Alien Psidium s . M rtaceae Guava Tree Alien 71 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Psilotium nudum Psilotaceae Moa Fern Native Scaevola s . Goodeniaceae Nau aka Shrub Native Setaria gracilis Poaceae Perennial foxtail Grass Alien Stack tar heta dichotoma Verbenaceae Owi Shrub Alien Tibouchina urvilleana Melastomataceae Princess flower Shrub Alien Trema orientalis Cannabaceae Gunpowder tree Tree Alien Environmental Setting:Fauna During the biotic survey, several common birds were detected, including common myna (Acridotheres tristis), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), spotted dove (Streptopelia chinensis), Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicus) and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). The black noddy is a common seabird of the main Hawaiian Islands coastline. Their nesting habitat is commonly in crevices and caves in pahoehoe lava sea cliffs, which are present on the coastal areas of this site. Although possibly in the area, no nests or black noddy birds were spotted during the survey. It is unlikely any native or endangered forest birds would utilize these Properties due to the lack of native forests, invasive species present, and low-lying nature of the site. Although no suitable nesting trees or habitats are present on the Properties, it is not uncommon for native endangered birds to be in the general area of East Hawaii coastlines. Five animals, which may fly over, roost or utilize resource of the Properties, are the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat(Lasiurus cinereus semotus), the endangered Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), the endangered band-rumped storm petrel (Oceanodroma castro), the threatened Newell's shearwater(Puffinus auricularis newelli), and the formerly endangered Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius). Aside from birds, other introduced mammals were also found within the project area including, cat(Felis catus), pig (Sus scrofa), indian mongoose (Herpestes a. auropunctatus) and rat(Rattus spp.). Highly invasive coqui frog (Eleutherodactylus coqui)is also likely to be present, consistent with most of lowland Puna, although none were detected at the time of the survey. Impacts and Mitigating Measures No threatened or endangered species are present on the Properties. Two native plant species exist on the more heavily vegetated portion of Lot B; however, this area would remain largely untouched under the proposed request to consolidate and re-subdivide, moving the lot line to the north, with no increase in density. Otherwise, this project site is mostly comprised of introduced pasture grasses, shrubs, and ferns. The construction of the single-family residences will have little impact to native biological plant communities. Selective trimming and removal of non-native species will follow all state and federal regulations. Chapter 13-5 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules strictly prohibits the planting of invasive plant species in a Conservation District. 72 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment In compliance to these rules, landscaping plans have been modified to include 11.370 square feet on Lot A and 11,255 square feet on Lot B. Proposed flora consists primarily of native, Polynesian introduced, or fruit bearing/edible plants. All non-native plants have been evaluated for potential invasiveness. Replanting will be appropriate to the site location and will utilize flora designated as"Pono Plants." Specific plants can be found in the modified landscaping plan in Figure 25 and 26 above. Table 6: `Proposed Fruit Trees/Shrubs' lists fruit trees/shrub species and Table 7: `Proposed Flora for Landscaping' summarizes the ornamentals chosen for landscaping purposes. OCCL feedback has indicated that monkey pod trees (Samanea saman) are not allowed in the Conservation District. This tree has been removed from the landscaping plans and will not be planted on either subjectProperty. Table 6: Proposed Fruit Trees/Shrubs Fruit Trees/Shrubs Scientific Name Common Name Status Musa acuminata Banana P.I. Artocar us altilis Ulu - Breadfruit P.I. Syzygium malaccense Mountain apple P.I. Diospyros kaki Persimmon P.I. Colocasia esculenta Kalo P.I. Ananas comosus Pineapple Ipomoea batatas `Uala Sweet Potato P.I. Theobroma cacao Cacao Tree P.I. Cocos nuci era Coconut Palm P.I. C mbo o on s . Lemongrass Alien Allium spp. Alliums Alien Passiflora edulis Lilikoi Alien Citrus spp. Meyer Lemon, Orange& Lime Alien Carica papaya Papaya Alien Man i era indica Mango Alien Persea americana Avocado Alien Litchi chinensis Lychee Alien Ne helium lappaceum Rambutan Alien Artocar us hetero h llus Jackfruit Alien Annona muricata Soursop Alien Table 7: Proposed Flora for Landscaping Ornamental Trees/ShrubsNines Scientific Name Common Name Status Pandanus tectorius Hala Native Hibiscus tiliaceus Hau Native Pritchardia hillebrandii Loulu Palm Native 73 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Cibotium menziesii Ha u`u Tree Fern Native Ohi`a lehua Ohi`a Native Thes esia populnea Milo Native Cordia subcordata Kou Native Scaevola taccada Nau aka Native Wikstroemia uva-ursi Akia Native Vitex rotundi olia Pohinahina Native Ne hrole is cordi olia Ku uku a Native Hibiscus arnottianus Kokio Keokeo Native Microle is stri osa Pala alai Fern Native Sida allax Ilima Native Jac uemontia sandwicensis Pa`u o Hiiaka Native Vitex rotundi olia Pohinahina Native Gardenia bri hamii Nanu Native Hibiscus arnottianus Hibiscus Native Heliconia rostrata Heliconia Native Zingiber zerumbet Awapuhi-Soap Ginger Native Osteomeles anth llidi olia Ulei Native Baco a monnieri Ae`ae Native Cyperus laevi atus Makaloa Native Mariscusavanicus Ahuawa Native Delonix regia Royal poinciana Alien Beccario hoenix mach ascariensis Window Palm Alien Veitchiaoannis Joannis Palm Alien Ph matosorus scolo endria Lauae Fern Alien Philodendron spp. Philidendron Alien Monsterra deliciosa Monsterra Alien Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise Alien S atho lottis un uiculata Grape Scented Orchid Alien Neomarica gracilis Walking Iris Alien Cordylinefiruticosa Green Ti Alien Crinum x amabile Giant Spider Lily Alien In summary_ the following modifications have been made to the landscape plans: • Landscaped areas have been reduced by over 50 percent. • The overall number of proposed species has been reduced by 30 percent. • Six (6) alien species have been removed from all plans: o Monkey pod (Samanea samanl o Orange crownshaft palm (Areca vestiaria) o Royal Palm (Manicaria sacciferal 74 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment o Lipstick palm (Cvrtostachvs rendal o Grape scented orchid (Spathog-lottis ung-uiculatal o Philidendron (Philodendron spp.) • Three (3) native species have been added: o Hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) o Loulu Palm (Pritchardia hillebrandiil o Hapu`u tree fern (Cibotium menziesiil • New species have been chosen to reflect shorter potential heights. • A single milo tree (Thespesia populnea) is proposed on the north property line of Lot A to provide important shade for the proposed sheep. However_ nothing else will be planted on this portion of the lot to preserve ocean views and trade wind now. The trees along Government Beach Road denoted by smooth circles are existing coconut palm autograph_ and beach heliotrope trees that will not be removed. No existing or planned vegetation will be allowed to encroach onto Government Beach Road. The potential presence of native endangered birds in the area will require mitigating measures. The State listed Hawaiian Hoary Bat or `Ope`ape`a(Lasiurus cinereus semotus), may be sensitive to disturbance between June 1 and September 15, throughout which no shrubs or trees taller than 15 feet may be disturbed or removed. Although there are no suitable nesting trees for the State listed Hawaiian Hawk, or `Io (Buteo solitarius), if any tree cutting occurs between March and September, DOFAW must be consulted first. A pre-construction hawk nest search by a qualified ornithologist using standard methods must be conducted. If nests are found, no land clearing is permissible until October. The State-listed waterbirds such as Hawaiian stilt(Himantopus mexicanus knudseni). Hawaiian coot(Fulica ala)_ Hawaiian Duck(Anas wvvilliana)_ and Hawaiian Goose (Branta sandvicensis) could potentially occur at or in the vicinity of the proposed project site. It is against State law to harm or harass these species. If any of these species are present during construction_ then all activities within 100 feet(30 meters) should cease_ and the bird or birds should not be ab_broached. Work may continue after the bird or birds leave the area of their own accord. If a nest is discovered at any point_ the Hawaii Island Branch DOFAW Office will be contacted. To prevent the spread of Rapid `Ohi`a Death (ROD), the movement of plant or soil material between worksites, such as fill, must be minimized. This material may contain either fungal pathogens such as ROD, or invasive vertebrate and invertebrate pests, such as Little Fire Ants (Wasmannia auropunctata). All equipment must be sprayed with 70% alcohol before accessing and leaving the site to prevent the spread of these pathogens. Artificial outdoor lighting can cause significant disorientation to seabirds that frequently pass through the area at night. Collision or grounding of birds are potential adverse impacts if the proper mitigating measures are not taken. The Applicants will follow Hawaii County Code Chapter 14-50 to minimize the potential for disorientation of seabirds. All nighttime construction work that requires lighting should be avoided during the seabird fledging season between September 15 and December 15. None of the feral or domestic animals present on the site raise concern for conservation efforts. 75 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment No new barbed wire will be used on the Properties to prevent the potential of bats becoming ensnared and killed by such fencing flight. Actions to minimize predator presence will also be taken and include removing feral cats placing bait stations for rodents and mon og ose_ and providing covered trash receptacles. The aquaculture pond has the potential to attract vulnerable birds to areas that may host nonnative predators such as cats_ rodents_ and mongooses. To minimize predator presence_ Mr. Paul Pastorek will remove feral cats, place bait stations for rodents and mongoose_ and provide covered trash receptacles. Department of Health_ Administrative Rule Title 11_ Chapter 26_ Vector Control Section55. requires that: a. No person_ firm_ or corporation shall demolish or clear any structure_ site, or vacant lot without first ascertaining the presence or absence of rodents which may endanger public health by dispersal from such premises. b. Should such inspection reveal the presence of rodents_ the person_ firm_ or corporation shall eradicate the rodents before demolishing or clearing the structure_ site_ or vacant lot. c. The Department may conduct an independent inspection to monitor compliance or request a written report. According to the Department of Health Clean Air Branch_ "the purpose of this rule is to prevent rodents from dispersingino adjacent area from infested buildings or vacant lands during demolition or land clearing. Contractors may either hire a pest control firm or do theme themselves with a qualified employee. Rodenticides must be inspected daily and replenished as necessary to provide a continuous supply for at least one week prior to the start of any work." 3.1.5 Air Quality, Noise, and Scenic Resources Environmental Setting The air quality in the vicinity of the Properties is generally very good. The area is rural and has minimal human activity. Heavy vog has been reported in this part of the Puna District during past Kilauea eruptions. Vog is created when sulfur dioxide reacts chemically with sunlight, oxygen, dust particles and water in the air. During eruptions, the trade winds generally keep the Maku`u area free from severe conditions, however, weak winds, particularly in the winter, may result in worse atmospheric quality. Air quality related to emissions is not an immediate concern since Kilauea is not currently erupting. In the future, if another eruption were to occur, these Properties would have no worse air quality conditions than the rest of the Puna District. Noise on the site is low due to the rural nature of the area and is mainly derived from the natural sources of waves, birds, and wind. Noise will temporarily increase during construction, which will only be performed during typical work hours. No additional noise impacts are expected post construction. Goals and policies to preserve areas of natural beauty are outlined in the County of Hawaii General Plan. These standards are designed to prevent encroachment on scenic features such as 76 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment black sand beaches and tidal ponds. Scenic resources are abundant on these Properties, most notably, features such as the exposed cinder deposits, sea caves and arches. However, the General Plan does not identify any specific features of views in the ahupua`a of Maku`u. Impacts and Mitigating Measures This project would not impact air quality or noise levels in any significant way. Limited adverse effects would occur during construction. All noise restriction guidelines, outlined by the County Department of Health, will be followed. Dust during construction and standards for keeping air pollutants down will also be rigorously followed. The State of Hawaii Air Pollution Control Regulations outlined in HAR &11-60 on Fugitive Dust prohibit visible emissions of dust from construction activities at the Properties' boundary. Reasonable measures to control airborne_ visible fugitive dust from roadways are outlined in the Department of Health's Clean Air Branch Standard Comments for Land Use Reviews. These measures include_ but are not limited to: • Planning the different phases of construction_ focusing on minimizing the amount of airborne_ visible fugitive dust-generated materials and activities_ centralizing on-site vehicular traffic routes_ and locating potential dust-generating equipment in areas of the least impact. • Providing adequate water source at the site prior to start-up of construction activities: Landscaping and providing rapid covering of bare areas_ including slopes_ starting from the initialrg adinu�phase. • Minimizing airborne_ visible fugitive dust from shoulders and access roads. • Providing reasonable dust control measures during weekends_ after hours_ and prior to daily start-up of construction activities. • Controlling airborne_ visible fugitive dust from debris being hauled away_ from the proms site. These mitigating measures will be used during construction to prevent significant impacts to Government Beach During and surroundingVroperties. The proposed landscaping plans have been modified to lessen potential impacts to scenic resources_ ocean views from Government Beach Road_ and the natural flow of the tradewinds. The overall number of proposed trees has been reduced_ tree species have been changed in some areas to reflect a smaller size_ tree locations have been altered_ and there is a higher ratio of native flora. The single-family residences will be designed with aesthetically pleasing architecture and will incorporate native and endemic plant species to landscaping, which will enhance the scenic resources on the Properties. Exterior lighting will follow the appropriate guidelines to protect dark skies and seabirds. 3.1.6 Hazardous Substances, Toxic Waste, and Hazardous Conditions Environmental Setting No hazardous substances, toxic waste or hazardous conditions are expected to occur on the Properties. Both single-family residences will have their own individual wastewater systems. The proposed grazing practices also do not pose undue risk for producing hazardous substances 77 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment or toxic waste. Grazing activities will occur on less than an acre of this Parcel and will be more than 150 feet setback from the shoreline. Impacts and Mitigating Measures Following the guidelines of State and County requirements, to minimize the possibility for spills and hazardous materials, the Applicants propose the following, which are expected to be imposed as conditions of each CDUP: • Construction activities with the potential to produce polluted runoff will be limited to periods of low rainfall. • During construction, emergency spill treatment, storage, and disposal of all hazardous materials, will be explicitly required to meet all State and County requirements, and the contractor will adhere to "Good Housekeeping" for all appropriate substances, with the following instructions: o Onsite storage to minimum practical quantity of hazardous materials necessary to complete the job; o Fuel storage and use will be conducted to prevent leaks, spills or fires; o Products will be kept in their original containers unless unresealable, and original labels and safety data will be retained; o Disposal of surplus will follow manufacturer's recommendation and all regulations; o Manufacturers' instructions for proper use and disposal will be strictly followed; o Regular inspection by contractor to ensure proper use and disposal; o Onsite vehicles and machinery will be monitored for leaks and receive regular maintenance; o Construction materials, petroleum products, wastes, debris, and landscaping substances (herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers)will be prevented from blowing, falling, flowing, washing, or leaching into the ocean; and o All spills will be cleaned up and properly disposed of immediately after discovery. • Unused materials and excess fill (if any) will be properly disposed of at an authorized waste disposal site. 3.2 Socioeconomic and Cultural 3.2.1 Land Use, Socioeconomic Characteristics, and Recreation Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Both Properties are in the State Land Use Conservation District. Properties to the northwest and southeast, all makai of Government Beach Road are zoned the same. There are 5-acre lots located on the mauka side of the road. Hawaiian Paradise Park located roughly 1 mile northwest is primarily zoned A-Ia. Along Government Beach Road are various farms, cattle pastures, and single-family residences. There are no sandy beaches on the Properties or nearby. The shoreline at the end of Maku`u Drive is often used for nearshore fishing and the collection of ocean resources such as `opihi. 78 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment This area is located just over 1 mile from the subject Properties and will not be impacted by the requested action in any way. There is no safe access to the water along the shoreline fronting the Parcels due to treacherous cliffs. The Planning Department has indicated it will impose a condition on the SMA permits for the Properties that the landowner and it successors or assig=ns that prohibit the construction of a wood_ metal or rope ladder_ platform_ steps_ stairs_ concrete bads_ or any other constructed appurtenance in order to gain access to the ocean from the top of the Vali of the Properties. Further, the CIA found no evidence of historical trails crossing the Properties. However, the applicant understands and acknowledges the public's right to traverse the lateral shoreline. Lateral access across the subject Properties to the shoreline will be made available to the public along the general alignment of where a historic foot trail may have been located as discussed in Section 3.2.2. Because of the expected condition in the SMA permits discussed above_ no wood_ metal or robe ladder, platform, steps, stairs, concrete pads, or any other constructed appurtenance to gain access to the ocean from the top of the Vali (sea cliff)will be built on either Vropertv. The area would maintain its rural character and would be consistent with the surrounding area land uses and socioeconomic characteristics. Therefore, no adverse impacts are expected to recreation, socioeconomic characteristics, or land use. 3.2.2 Cultural and Historic Resources An Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) and Cultural Impact Assessment(CIA)were prepared for the Properties by Scientific Consultant Services Inc. in April 2020 and are attached as Appendix C and D. The reports were supported by research which included fieldwork, consultation of archaeological and ethnographical studies and supporting documents including maps, testimonies, and documented consultations. Environmental Setting:Historical and Cultural Background Hawaii is believed to be first inhabited by voyagers from the Marquesas around 1,000 A.D, however, recent studies have shown that initial Polynesian colonization of Hawaii Island occurred between 1220 and 1261 A.D (Rieth et al. 2011). It is believed that Hilo is likely one of the first settlements on Hawaii Island. Hilo is known to have rich marine resources accessed at Hilo Bay and additional abundant resources from the forests that descend from Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. Fresh water was available from Wailoa and Wailuku Rivers and Waiakea, Waiolama, Pukihae and `Alenaio Streams. The project area is approximately 14 miles southeast of Hilo, in the Maku`u, P6p6ki Ahupua`a. Early Hawaiian settlements incorporated new strategies and structures to adapt to their new environment. Traditional Polynesian philosophies and ideals were used to form new societal standards and structures including the principle of genealogical seniority, observance of gods, such as Kane, Ku, and Lono, the kapu system of law and order, ahupua`a land systems, and various beliefs and values that determined day-to-day protocol and lifestyle such as mana and the `aumakua(Fornander, 1969). The earliest documentation of Hilo is found in `Umi-a-Liloa's conquest of Hawaii Island in the sixteenth century, which established Hilo as a royal center for the island. In the account, `Umi-a- 79 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Liloa began his conquest of the Island of Hawaii by defeating chief Kulukulu`a, who lived in Waiakea, and the other chiefs of Hilo. `Umi-a-Liloa's son Keawe-nui-a-`Umi ruled Hamakua, Hilo and Puna. After the death of Keawe-nui-a-`Umi, the ruling kingdom was divided into three parts and was established under warring chiefs (Kamakau, 1992). In 1738 Kamehameha I was born. Chief Kalani`opu`u was the high chief during Cook's arrival in 1779. After the chief s death in 1782, his son Kiwala`o, and his nephew, Kamehameha I began to compete for control of the west side of Hawaii Island. Kamehameha won the battle of Moku`ohai against Kiwala`o in Kona, officially controlling the western half of the island. In 1791, Kamehameha, having gained control of Hilo, fought, and won a battle against his cousin Keoua at Kawaihae for control of the entire Island of Hawaii. In 1795, Kamehameha conquered Maui, Molokai, Lanai and Oahu. He also received Kauai by cession in 1810 (Kamakau, 1992). Kamehameha's son Liholiho was born in Hilo in November 1797. Waiakea was inherited by Lihiliho after Kamehameha's death. The `ili kupono of Pi`opi`o and its royal fishpond were given to his favorite wife, Ka`ahumanu (Escott and Dols, 2020). The Puna District was originally one of six chiefdoms or moku of the island of Hawaii. Puna was not a district that produced any great and powerful chiefs; the area was often controlled by chiefs and rulers from the Hilo District to the north, or the Ka`u District to the south(Cordy, 2000). Puna is historically known for its rich soils, high rainfall, and frequent volcanic activity. Many parts of the district have been covered in lava over the past 1,000 years. The coastal areas are characterized by thin soil and steep volcanic cliffs, which are met by rough and wind-blown ocean. Historic settlement patterns reflected favorable agricultural activities, which were found inland from the coast. Villages were often spread out across large areas and abundant in population (Kelly et al. 1981). The Puna District is known for its valuable products, such as hogs, gray kapa cloth (`eleuli), tapas made of mamaki bark, fine mats made of young pandanus blossoms (`ahuhinalo), mats made of young pandanus (Hala) leaves (`ahuao), and feathers of the Wo and mamo birds. Puna was also famous for its abundant ulu (breadfruit) (Ellis, 1963). Neighboring villages in the `Ola`a Ahupua`a were known for their hand made products. These two Ahupua`a were important sources of forest and agricultural products for the ruling elite in Hilo. In 1839, King Kamehameha III signed the Bill of Rights, which sought to ensure that the people's land would not be taken from them. In 1840, the first Constitution of Hawaii was enacted. In 1845, the Land Commission was created by Kamehameha III to award land claims, although this could not be done under the current feudal system of land tenure as individuals did not hold title to the land. In 1848 The Great Mahele (Land Division) established a system of private land ownership, which divided all Hawai`i's land into three classifications: Crown Lands, Government Lands and Konohiki Lands. The Keauohana, Kehena Ahupua`a was deemed Government Lands. Crown, Government and Konohiki lands remained subject to the rights of the kanaka who were in possession and cultivating the lands. As land sales between the Crown, Government and Konohiki continued, the rights of the kanaka became an issue. In 1850, the Land Commission moved to award title of land to kanaka who remained in physical possession, cultivated, or improved any portion of Konohiki Lands. These became Kuleana Lands. Very few Kuleana Land claims were made during the Mahele for Puna (McGregor, 1999). Only 19 Land Commission awards were granted in the entire Puna District. Of these, 16 awards were made in 80 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment large tracts to 10 chiefs who lived outside of Puna. The nearby ahupua`a of Kea`au was granted to William C. Lunalilo as part of Land Commission award (LCA) 8559-B. There were no LCA's made in P6p6k7i Ahupua`a, however three land grants (LG)were purchased along the coast of the Maku`u, Pop6ki, and Halona Ahupua`a. The current project site is a northeastern portion of a 171-acre parcel land grant(LG 1537)that was purchased by Kapohana in 1855 (Escott and Dols, 2020). In 1893, the Hawaiian Monarchy was over-thrown, and Queen Liliuokalani was imprisoned. The remaining Crown Lands were confiscated by the government and made a part of the public domain (Chinen, 1961). qs �•• � _ "O,n�^ 'r `�'-�. - PROJECT AREA � � �. ON r• ," f z ,n 1 p OLD GU l![ENT RU w ` oVOL Nk . } TRAIL ' •�^�I�-,�.w-—TRAIL �r i Fi u : Map of Project Area and Land Grants A significant feature of the project area is a littoral cone found on the northeastern portion of Lot A On early maps of the site, the littoral cone is labeled as Opunaha. Opunaha can be translated to "broken cluster" (Pukui et al. 1976). This name likely refers to the eroded nature of the cinder cone, likely caused by coastal surges and wave impacts. There are three trails that border the project area, two of them running mauka-makai and ending at Old Government/Beach Road, north of the project area. The third trail runs parallel to the ocean. However, there are no trails that run through the project area. Between 1845 and 1900 Hilo began to significantly change through the increased presence of foreign vessels, expansion and growth of tourism, the establishment of missions, private land ownership legalization, the presence of the whaling, cattle, and sugar industries, and the construction of Government roads and railroad lines (Kelly et al. 1981). The changes that occurred in the Hilo district began to dictate and impact surrounding districts such as the Puna 81 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment district to the south. Changes and patterns of residential locations and growth of towns and villages in the Puna district were driven by the demand for agricultural products, thus prompting settlement near land suited to commercial crops and near newly constructed roads and transportation networks. The old Puna Trail and Puna Trail (Ala Hele Puna)/Old Government Road are historic trails that connected the Hilo district to and throughout the Puna district. The old Puna trail began at the modern-day Lili`uokalani Gardens in Hilo and ended at Ha`ena. The old Puna foot trail ran along the eastern coast of the island and ran through various coastal villages. An additional trail called the Puna Trail (Ala Hele Puna), also known as Old Government Road, continued from the south end of the old Puna Trail, and continued south towards the district of Ka`u. Lass (1997) also refers to the entire route from Hilo to Ka`u as the Puna-Ka`u trail. These trails were first mapped by the Wilkes Expedition of 1804-41 (Escott and Dols, 2020). The Surveyor General of the Hawaiian Government Survey provided a general description of the area between Old Government Road and the newer upper road from Hilo to Kea`au to Pahoa in 1889. The description suggested a depopulation along most of the Puna coastal area when compared to descriptions documented by William Ellis just sixty-six years earlier. Both accounts described people living somewhat inland between the coast and inland gardens. In 1889, people were cultivating kalo, `awa, coffee and sweet potato. By 1889, it appears that very few people lived along the Old Government Road (Maly, 1999). Traditional settlements that were near coastal areas began to move inland near newer roads and transportation routes. Additionally, more people began to move inland due to the decaying condition of the coastal trails and to find paid work and to produce cash crops (sugarcane)in more fertile, inland areas. The newer inland roads that connected Hilo to Kea`au eventually extended to Volcano and is now known as Route 11. In 1881, the entire Kea`au Ahupua`a was purchased by William H. Shipman who operated cattle ranches across the island in places such as Kapoho, Waiakea, and Kea`au. Portions of Kea`au Ahupua`a were leased to the Ola`a Sugar Company in 1899. The expansion and operation of the Ola`a Sugar Company led to the construction of the sugar mill in Kea`au, numerous sugar company camps, which created and influenced modern day Kea`au as a small residential and commercial center in the district. Ola`a Sugar Company became the largest sugar cane operation in the district. It was eventually sold to American Factors (AMFAC)in 1969, who expanded production to include a bagasse and trash burning power plant that produced 12.5KW of power for Hilo Electric Light Company (HECO). By 1982, AMFAC closed Puna Sugar Company and sold it to Fiji Sugar Corporation in 1988. Shallow soils inhibited sugar cane from being grown on the subject Properties and surrounding land. The area remained largely undeveloped grasslands of invasive species until 1959 when the land north of the project area was purchased by David Watumull from W.H. Shipman Ltd. A total of 15.6 square miles was split into 8,800 lots in what is now known as Hawaiian Paradise Park(HPP) subdivision. The land along the coast near the project area vary between developed and undeveloped. The Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) and the State of Hawaii own much of the land mauka of Government Beach Road. 82 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Archaeological Inventory Survey An Archaeological Inventory Survey was conducted by Glenn G. Escott, M.A., and Thomas Dols, MA of Scientific Consultant Services Inc (SCS)in November 2019. The survey was conducted in accordance with HAR Chapter 13-284 and was performed in compliance with the Rules Governing Minimal Standards for Archaeological Inventory Surveys and Reports as outlined in HAR Chapter 13-276. According to the report by SCS, the investigation included the following procedures: 1. Conducted historical and archaeological archival research including a search of historic maps, aerial photos, written records, Land Commission Award documents, State and County Planning and Tax Records documents, and previous archaeological reports. 2. Conducted limited oral interviews with cultural informants. 3. Carried out a 100% pedestrian survey of the project area. 4. Documented all historic properties identified within the project areas. 5. Assessed all sites for significance and made recommendations for site disposition. Consultation A previous AIS conducted by Glenn Escott in 2019 required consultation of this area by the Kamahele and Lui `ohana at TMK: (3) 1-5-010:009. According to Escott, these interviews are pertinent to Properties given the close spatial connection. Consultation with Greg DeConte, Kenneth Ha, Richard Ha, June Ha, Shayne Kamahele, Puanani Mukai, and Darrell Pakele was conducted on Saturday, April 27, 2019. Glenn Escott also spoke with Sheldon Kamahele at an earlier date. The Historical land-use information gained from the interviews was largely specific to the Kamahele Property (009). However, this information provides insight into historic habitation, farming, ranching, and fishing practices in the Puna District. According to their accounts, the Kamahele `ohana grew citrus, bread fruit, taro, tomatoes, bananas, and watermelons. They also had pigs and cows on the Property. Fishing and swimming occurred frequently along the shoreline, although none of the family members were aware of any cultural practices occurring on or near the Property, aside from fishing. The Lui `ohana including Ramon Lui, Agnes Lui and Nicole Lui was consulted on Wednesday October 30, 2019. The Lui family is descended from Kea, who first owned Land Grant 1014. This land grant was a 56.4-acre property purchased in 1852. Nicole Lui recalled cultural practices associated with Maku`u Ahupua`a including dark magic. Subsistence, small scale commercial agriculture, ranching and fishing were also commonly practiced in the area. Hala was also abundant and used to weave mats. Previous Archaeological Studies Previous archaeological studies conducted along the coast of Waikahekahe, Maku`u, P6p6ki and Halona Ahupua`a by Ewart and Luscomb in 1974 determined archaeological sites were largely agricultural and habitation features such as rock walls, agricultural crock clearing mounds, enclosures, wells, and burial features. One site identified by Ewart and Luscomb in 1974 is 83 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment present within the current project area according to the Cultural Impact Study conducted by Escott and Dols (2020). This site is thought to have first been recorded as Bishop Museum Site #HA-A3-15 and was likely designated State Inventory of Historic Places (SH-IP) #50-1-45- 18986. The site is believed to be a rock mound, although no descriptive information about the site was documented by either Ewart and Luscomb or in the SHPD SIHP database. Figure 52 identifies its location within the project area. . Z / ax E E `I fide 897 .Rri uC P). E •'� - S" 18986 • ar 1 W IRaA.S15) Matsu KEY >. o 0 •', P -PROJECTAREA E.W'.1RT I.IIS('ONI81974 / •/ -EWART&LIISCOMB19T6 +� I, \ (S� 1 • - SITE CONCENTRATIONS / E 394000m E. a95000m E. z98::Om E. z97a00m E. z98000m E. WGS84 Zone SQ 3000:0-F. T'. 0 5 1 MITE 10: a 1=1u7 I=MEIIBS Fi u : Location of Coastal Sites Recorded in Ewart and Luscomb 1974 Survey Pedestrian Survey A pedestrian survey was conducted by Escott and Dols (2020)by walking a series of northwest/southeast transects spaced two to three meters apart across the entire project area. Sites were plotted with a Garmin GPSMAP64 Global Positioning System (GPS)using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)projection (Zone 5 North) and WSGS84 datum. Drawings, photographs, and descriptions were created for all the archaeological sites identified; however, no test excavations were conducted as all features within the project area are rock walls. Two archeological sites were identified including a rock wall (SIHP Site 50-10-45-18419) parallel to Government Beach Road and a property boundary rock wall (SHIP Site 50-10-45- 31185). Rock wall Site #50-10-45-18419 was previously recorded in Charvet-Pond and Rosendahl (1993) and Dircks and Rechtman (2013) surveys. 84 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Site 18419 is a pasture and Property boundary wall. The newly recorded site (Site 31185)is a rock wall along the northwest boundary of Lot A. Both sites are Historic to Modern era agriculture and ranching structures and are significant under criterion "D." The "Significance Assessment and Recommendations" for how this was determined can be found in the AIS report in Appendix C. E displays the location of both sites. r. KEY PROJECTAREA -ROCK WALL N -SITE NUMBER El -TMK BOUNDARY TNI 0 25 50 75 100 meters Figure : USGS Map Showing the Location of Archaeological Sites on Subject Properties Table 8: `Site 18149 Rock Wall Details and Description' and Table 9: `Site 31185 Rock Wall Details and Description' shows the details and description of each rock wall including dimensions, age, and condition in terms of integrity. Figures 54-58 show various portions of Site 18149 and include profile drawings created by Escott and Dols (2020). Figures 59-61 show various portions of Site 31185 and include profile drawings as well. Table 8: Site 18149 Rock Wall Details and Description Site 18419 Rock Wall Function: Pasture and Property Boundary Age: Historic Dimensions: 204.0 m long NW/SE by 1.0 m wide by 1.1 m high Condition: Moderate Integrity: Retains integrity of location, setting, materials and workmanship Surface Artifacts: None 85 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Excavation: None Site 18419 is a pasture and property boundary wall located between 40 and 50 ft(12-15 m) above mean sea level (amsl) along the southwest boundary of the project area. The rock wall is oriented northwest/southeast, parallel to Government Beach Road. The wall was previously recorded by Charvet-Pond and Rosendahl (1993) Description: as Site 18419 Feature A. Dircks and Rechtman (2013)recorded the portion of the wall that existed on Parcel 028 which has been largely obliterated by modern development activities. The minimum wall width is 0.84 m and the minimum wall height is 0.9 m. Site 18419 is core-filled. The wall is moderately weathered with some intermittent collapse and tumble along its southwest side. A few loose cobbles from the wall are on the ground approximately 0.35 to 0.45 m from the wall's base. Y IJ Fi u : Site 18418 in the Southwest Portion of the Project Area, Looking Southwest 86 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment k —� Kl 6 L .1 I� Fi u : Site 18419 Rock Wall Southwest Profile at Middle of Project Area IJ .f -0 S Fi u : Site 18419 in the Northwest Portion of the Project Area, Looking Southwest 87 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment po I -v� I Y/i a C�tfi k Y y ' C Q G m A Fi u : Site 18419 Rock Wall Southwest Profile at Northwest Portion of Project Area Y� c � t Fi u : Site 18419 at Opunaha Gate, Looking Northeast 88 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Table 9: Site 31185 Rock Wall Details and Description Site 31185 Rock Wall Function: Property Boundary Age: Historic to Modern Dimensions: 92.0 m long NE/SW by 1.1 m wide by 1.28 max height Condition: Good Integrity: Retains integrity of location, setting, materials and workmanship Surface Artifcacts: None Excavation: None Site 31185 is a rock wall (NE/SW) located between 20 and 40 ft(6-12 m) amsl along the northwest boundary of Parcel 026 (Lot A). The wall begins at the edge of Government Beach Road and extends northeast to the edge of a sea cliff. The northeast third of the wall, closest to the sea cliff, is shorter(0.4 m)in height and thinner(1.0 m)in width. Description: The wall is constructed of subangular large cobbles and angular small boulders stacked four to seven courses high and two courses wide. The wall is cobble core-filled, bi-faced and is fairly perpendicular(minimal slant toward wall centerline)to the ground surface. There is a modern panel wire fence constructed along the inside (SE side) of the wall to prevent sheep from making contact with the wall. Site 31185 has very minimal collapse, appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. t 111D. "Ics F—W11), r6 11��ti i�z. .', {a� ' frolk ` '� "q, kR+;elf M, SAID, JIc � !"91R '�.��� �rtr Ir IL Amor y � ,fir:�:►�.?�;.� `�' ��� ��� Figure : Site 31185 Southwest Portion of Wall, Looking Northwest 89 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment 1 dri Figure : Site 31185 Middle Portion of Wall, Looking Northwest u w rt c j b N- Fi u : Site 31185 Northwest Profile at Middle of Wall 90 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Escott and Dols do not recommend any further work at either Site 18419 or 31185. They are confident the AIS is sufficient to warrant this recommendation. Extensive efforts went into searching for the lateral foot trail Site 18418 within the northeast quadrant of Lot B. The trail theoretically crosses from Lot B and leads south into TMK 1-5-010: 028 to the south. However, the trail is not visible on Lot B. Escott and Dols mowed and raked the grass in the northeast quadrant of Lot B where the trail should meet Parcel 028. The ground was level, which suggested the presence of steppingstones or a raised trail. Metal rods were used throughout a one-meter grid to locate possible steppingstones or other trail elements. No such elements were located. The rock mound identified during Ewart and Luscumb (1974) known as Site #50-10-45-18986 or formerly as Bishop Museum Site #HA-A3-15, was also not present within the project area during this survey. The two rock walls identified on the Properties are similar to neighboring rock walls found during previous surveys. Some sites northwest and southwest of the project are larger complexes that have various agricultural and habitation features. It is evident that the subject Properties do not have the same diversity of features. Cultural Impact Assessment A Cultural Impact Assessment(CIA)was also prepared by Glenn Escott, M.A. and Thomas Dols, MA of Scientific Consultant Services Inc. (SCS). Act 50 (H.B. 2895, Act 50, 200) requires an assessment of cultural practices to be included in Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements and to be taken into consideration during the planning process. According to Escott and Dols (2020), "this CIA evaluates the probability of impacts on identified cultural resources, including values, rights, beliefs, objects, records, Properties and stories occurring within the project area and its vicinity." The CIA was prepared in accordance with the protocol provided in "Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts" (OEQC, 1997). Consultation SCS used a combination of archival research and interviews. Interviews are conducted in accordance with applicable state laws and guidelines. According to SCS, "letters with maps and descriptions of the project area were sent to individuals and organizations whose jurisdiction includes knowledge of the area with an invitation for consultation." Consultation was sought from: • Kamaile Puluole-Mitchell, Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)East Hawaii Island Representative. • Jordan Kea Calpito, SHPD Burial Sites Specialist. • Sean Naleimaile, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)Hawaii Island Archaeologist. • Kalena Blakemore, Hawaii Island Burial Council (HIBC)Member. • Consultation was also conducted near the project area with members of the Kamahele and Lui families during the AIS discussed above. 91 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment In addition, public notices were published in Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the Hawaii Tribune Herald, and West Hawaii Today. These notices can be found in the appendices of the CIA report. No public responses were collected from the public notices. Table 10: Individual Responses to CIA Consultation Request represents the individuals and organizations who were contacted directly for CIA consultation request. No additional information was collected outside of the recounts from the Kamahele and Lui families, which were discussed above. Table 10: Individual Responses to CIA Consultation Request Has Cultural Name Affiliation Responded Knowledge Practices Kalena Blakemore HIBC Representative Yes Some No Kamaile Puluole- Mitchell OHA East Hawaii No — — Sean Naleimaile SHPD Archaeologist No — — SHPD Burial Sites Jordan Kea Calpito Specialist Yes No — Kamahele Family Greg DeConte Member Yes Yes Yes Kamahele Family Kenneth Ha Member Yes Yes Yes Kamahele Family Richard Ha Member Yes Yes Yes Kamahele Family June Ha Member Yes Yes Yes Kamahele Family Sha ne Kamahele Member Yes Yes Yes Kamahele Family Darrell Pakele Member Yes Yes Yes Puanani Mukai Kamahele's Caretaker Yes Yes Yes Ramon Lui Kea Family Descendant Yes Yes Yes Agnes Lui Kea Family Descendant Yes Yes Yes Nicole Lui Kea Family Descendant Yes Yes Yes Consultation with the Kamahele and Lui families noted that fishing, collecting `opihi, and collecting hala leaves for weaving mats were important practices in the larger Maku`u region. No plants on the subject Properties were identified as traditionally collected by Hawaiian people. Fishing and ocean resources are accessible for traditional uses. Lateral access across the subject Properties to the shoreline will be available to the public. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Hawaii State Supreme Court's PASH and Ka Pa`akai O Ka Aina decisions require decision-makers to consider a project's impact to native Hawaiian practices and resources. Specifically, prior to making a decision, State and County agencies must identify the cultural, historical, and natural resources and associated traditional and customary practices of this site, 92 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment the impacts of the proposed project to those resources and practices, and the feasible action (i.e. mitigation measures), if any, to protect such resources and practices. Based on the findings in the AIS and CIA, no archaeological, historical, or cultural resources will be significantly impacted by the proposed action. The rock walls identified on the Properties border are in moderate and good condition. No modifications will be made to the rock wall features_ therefore, SCS does not believe the proposed action will have an adverse impact on either site. Further work is not recommended. The Na Ala Hele Trails and Access Program was consulted regarding the pre-historical lateral foot trail paralleling the coast on the adjacent parcel to the south identified as TMK (3) 1-5-010: 028. Although the archaeological review of Lot B (subject Parcel 027) did not document any physical evidence of the trail within the subject property_ special care should be given along the coastal zone. Additionally_ the trail may be considered public property per the Highways Act of 1892 (HRS Chapter 264). Na Ala Hele acknowledges that while the trail likely crossed both subject parcels_ its status as public property cannot be affirmed without any physical_ archaeological_ or cartographic proof of its existence on the parcels today. Nevertheless_ Na Ala Hele has requested that the applicants respect and preserve the general area and enable lateral access along the general alignment of where the trail may be situated. Therefore_ lateral access will be allowed across both subject parcels along the general alignment of where the trail may be. Additionally_ no development is proposed within 130 feet of the shoreline_ which the Na Ala Hele program has deemed sufficient to prevent any potential impacts to the trail. Furthermore_ Parcel 027 spans over 300 feet as per existing lot lines. With the consolidation and re-subdivision proposal, a buffer zone of 300 feet would be created between Parcel 028 (where current evidence of the pre-historic trail exists) and where proposed development activities would take place on Lot B. If the State Historic Preservation Division seeks further investigation upon review, the Applicants will comply. In addition, if any undiscovered archaeological resources are discovered on either Parcel during construction, all work will stop and SHPD will be contacted immediately for appropriate action. The historical research and responses outlined in both the AIS and CIA identified no past or ongoing cultural practices on either Parcel. However, cultural practices such as fishing and gathering of ocean resources continue to be an important practice in the wider Maku`u region. Since the Property owners will not prevent shoreline access, traditional cultural practices within the project and wider area will not be affected. Therefore, no direct adverse effect upon cultural resources, practices, or beliefs are anticipated. 93 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment 3.3 Public Roads, Services, and Utilities 3.3.1 Roads and Access Environmental Setting The sole access to the project area is via Government Beach Road_ a road-in-limbo, located between Hawaiian Paradise Park to the northwest_ and Hawaiian Beaches to the southeast. The Applicants acknowledge that althoughthe public has a right of access through this right-of-way_ it has not been maintained by any government entity in recent years. Furthermore_ there is no assurance that it will ever be subject to such maintenance. Nevertheless_ the existing Government Beach Road access is adequate for the proposed use. The Applicants have written a formal letter to OCCL acknowledging this and the inherent dangers of living near the sea and Kilauea at an isolated location (Exhibit Bl. Each parcel will be accessible via a driveway from Government Beach Road. An existing driveway exists on the north end of Lot A_ which will be extended to connect with Residence A (Figure ). The driveway would also expand to include an auto court_ or turn around area_ in front of Residence A. A new entrance and driveway_ will be constructed for Lot B_ which will serve Residence B and the storage/art studio. Both driveway_ s will be 15 feet wide and surfaced with gravel. See Figure 9 in Part 1 for specific site plans. M. e q r, r .. � :y A Figure 62: Current Driveway on Lot A 94 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Impacts, and Mitigation Measures No significant impacts to Government Beach Road are anticipated with the proposed driveway and entrances. All grubbing and grading related to these improvements will be conducted on the subject Properties. Compliance with HAR Chapter 13-5 regarding public roadways will be strictly followed at all times during construction. Government Beach Road will be accessible to local traffic and will never be blocked by machinery. 3.3.2 Public Utilities and Services Environmental Setting Electrical power will be sourced separately for each parcel using a combination of power lines via underground lines and solar panels, which will be installed on both proposed single-family residences. Water is not available to either Parcel via an existing Department of Water Supply (DWS)line. Each property will be equipped with one (1)well and water lines for the single-family residences and supporting infrastructure. Individual Wastewater Systems will be implemented for both proposed single-family residences in conformance with requirements of the State Department of Health. There are no public facilities, parks, or schools nearby that could be impacted by the proposed development. Police and fire services are available from the Pahoa station, located on Highway 130,just under 9 miles from the Properties. Impacts and Mitigation Measures There are no anticipated impacts to any public or private utilities. The proposed development will not create additional demand for any public facilities. 3.4 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Due to its small scale, the proposed project would not produce any major secondary impacts, such as population changes, or produce any measurable effects to public facilities. The proposed development is to merely build one (1) single-family residence and supporting infrastructure on each of two (2) neighboring parcels. As a result, negligible secondary impacts are expected to occur. Cumulative impacts occur when the implementation of several projects, which have individually limited impacts, combine to produce more severe impacts. No substantial government or private projects including roadways, subdivisions other commercial projects are known to be planned or occurring in this area of Puna. Several residential lots are located along the same stretch of Government Beach Road between Hawaiian Paradise Park and Hawaiian Beaches, which may construct single-family residences at any given point. The impacts of building one (1) single- family residence on each lot in this remote area are minor and temporary. 95 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Minimal and short-term impacts can be expected to noise, traffic, scenic resources, air, and water quality during construction activities. No adverse impacts would occur during construction or oberation due to the small scale and isolated nature of the proposed project. No special mitigating measures should be required other than the mitigating measures and Best Management Practices outlined in Sections 3.1.3, 3.1.5 and 3.1.6. An Aquaculture Management Plan is attached in Appendix A, which details Best Management Practices for preventing any adverse impacts to water quality during the construction and operation of aquaculture activities. 3.5 Required Permits and Approvals The following permits and approvals are required for the proposed addition of a single-family dwelling in the State Land Use Conservation District and County of Hawaii Special Management Area: County of Hawai`i: Special Management Area Permit Consolidation and Re-subdivision Permit Plan Approval and Grubbing, Grading, and Building Permits State of Hawai`i: Conservation District Use Permits Wastewater System Approvals Water Well Permits Aquaculture Pond Management Plan Approval 3.6 Consistency with Government Plans and Policies 3.6.1 Hawaii County General Plan The Hawaii County General Plan serves as a guiding document for decision-making and the implementation of goals for Hawaii Island. The plan was adopted in 1989 by ordinance and most recently revised in 2005. The General Plan uses the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map to designate land on Hawaii Island for future developments in a coordinated and reasonable manner. The LUPAG is a broad, flexible design tool to guide the direction and quality of future developments in a coordinated and manner. It indicates the general location of various land uses in relation to each other.The designation for the subject Properties is Open. Due to the importance of the General Plan in determining the suitability of land-use projects and developments, the following goals, policies, and standards that align with the proposed development are discussed below: ECONOMIC GOALS a. Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life through economic development that enhances the County's natural and social environments. 96 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment b. Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical, social, and cultural environments of the island of Hawaii. c. Provide an economic environment that allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's cultural, natural, and social environment. e. Strive for an economic climate that provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. Discussion: The proposed project is aligned with Hawaii County's natural, cultural, and social environment. The proposed construction of one (1) single-family residence on each Parcel would provide temporary employment for local construction workers and would support the economy through the purchase of construction materials from on-island suppliers. This would allow for local businesses to thrive and gain income from the proposed project. Overall, the proposed development project would stimulate and support the general economic stability and development of Hawaii Island. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GOALS a. Define the most desirable use of land within the County that achieves an ecological balance providing residents and visitors the quality of life and an environment in which the natural resources of the island are viable and sustainable. b. Maintain and, if feasible, improve the existing environmental quality of the island. c. Control pollution. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICIES a. Take positive action to further maintain the quality of the environment. i. Support programs to prevent harmful alien species from becoming established. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS a. Pollution shall be prevented, abated, and controlled at levels that will protect and preserve the public health and well-being, through the enforcement of appropriate Federal, State and County standards. b. Incorporate environmental quality controls either as standards in appropriate ordinances or as conditions of approval. c. Federal and State environmental regulations shall be adhered to. Discussion: The proposed development would not produce adverse effects on the environment or the natural resources of the region. The proposed construction of one (1) single-family dwelling on each Property would be consistent with the use of neighboring parcels, which is residential and agricultural in nature. All environmental regulations and policies pertaining to the project area would be followed, including mitigating factors if needed. 97 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE GOALS a. Protect human life. b. Prevent damage to man-made improvements. c. Control pollution. d. Prevent damage from inundation. e. Reduce surface water and sediment runoff. f. Maximize soil and water conservation. FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE POLICIES a. Enact restrictive land use and building structure regulations in areas vulnerable to severe damage due to the impact of wave action. Only uses that cannot be located elsewhere due to public necessity and character, such as maritime activities and the necessary public facilities and utilities, shall be allowed in these areas. g. Development-generated runoff shall be disposed of in a manner acceptable to the Department of Public Works and in compliance with all State and Federal laws. q. Consider natural hazards in all land use planning and permitting. r. Discourage intensive development in areas of high volcanic hazard. FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE STANDARDS a. "Storm Drainage Standards," County of Hawaii, October 1970, and as revised. b. Applicable standards and regulations of Chapter 27, "Flood Control," of the Hawaii County Code. c. Applicable standards and regulations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). d. Applicable standards and regulations of Chapter 10, "Erosion and Sedimentation Control," of the Hawaii County Code. e. Applicable standards and regulations of the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Discussion: The site of the proposed single-family residences and supporting infrastructure are in Flood Zone X, or outside of the 500-year floodplain. However, most of the Puna coastline is at some inherent risk of coastal hazards, which continues to be developed regardless of risk. The conservative shoreline setback of no less than 130 feet will mitigate any impacts to the developments from flooding, tsunamis, high waves, sea level rise, storms, and erosion. The proposed project will adhere to all regulations for drainage and flood control as determined by Hawaii County. No work_ activities_ storax or staging of materials will occur within the 40- foot minimum shoreline setback_ includingfg, animal husbandry, or minor construction. HISTORIC SITES GOALS a. Protect, restore, and enhance the sites, buildings, and objects of significant historical and cultural importance to Hawaii. b. Appropriate access to significant historic sites, buildings, and objects of public interest should be made available. 98 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment HISTORIC SITES POLICIES a. Agencies and organizations, either public or private, pursuing knowledge about historic sites should keep the public apprised of projects. b. Amend appropriate ordinances to incorporate the stewardship and protection of historic sites, buildings, and objects. c. Require both public and private developers of land to provide historical and archaeological surveys and cultural assessments, where appropriate, prior to the clearing or development of land when there are indications that the land under consideration has historical significance. d. Public access to significant historic sites and objects shall be acquired, where appropriate. Discussion: An Archaeological Inventory Survey was completed for the subject sites and surrounding project area. Two archaeological sites (boundary rock walls)were identified in the study and are significant under criteria"D." Mr. Escott and Dols do not believe these resources will be impacted by the proposed development, nor do they recommend any further work on either site. If SHPD requests further action, the Applicants will comply. Further, if any undiscovered historical, archaeological, or cultural resources are discovered during construction, all work will halt and SHPD will be contacted immediately for appropriate action. NATURAL BEAUTY GOALS a. Protect, preserve, and enhance the quality of areas endowed with natural beauty, including the quality of coastal scenic resources. b. Protect scenic vistas and view planes from becoming obstructed. c. Maximize opportunities for present and future generations to appreciate and enjoy natural and scenic beauty. NATURAL BEAUTY POLICIES a. Increase public pedestrian access opportunities to scenic places and vistas. b. Develop and establish view plane regulations to preserve and enhance views of scenic or prominent landscapes from specific locations, and coastal aesthetic values. Discussion: The proposed improvements will not adversely alter the natural beauty of the project area. Minor and temporary visual impacts may occur during construction; however, no long term or significant adverse impacts are expected. The proposed landscape plans have been modified to lessen potential impacts to scenic resources_ ocean views from Government Beach Road_ and the natural flow of the tradewinds. The overall number of proposed trees has been reduced_ tree species have been changed in some areas to reflect a smaller size_ tree locations have been altered_ and there is a higher ratio of native flora. Landscaping plans include 11.370 square feet on Lot A and 11255 square feet on Lot B and will not encroach on any setbacks. The development will incorporate specific design features, as outlined in HAR Chapter 13-5, that will blend in with the surrounding area. The residences are proposed to be attractively landscaped with native and non-invasive plants. The aquaculture pond will have negligible 99 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment impact to the scenic views of the Property. This is discussed in further detail in the management plan found in Appendix A. NATURAL RESOURCES AND SHORELINES GOALS a. Protect and conserve the natural resources from undue exploitation, encroachment, and damage. b. Provide opportunities for recreational, economic, and educational needs without despoiling or endangering natural resources. c. Protect and promote the prudent use of Hawai`i's unique, fragile, and significant environmental and natural resources. d. Protect rare or endangered species and habitats native to Hawaii. e. Protect and effectively manage Hawai`i's open space, watersheds, shoreline, and natural areas. f. Ensure that alterations to existing landforms, vegetation, and construction of structures cause minimum adverse effect to water resources, and scenic and recreational amenities and minimum danger of floods, landslides, erosion, siltation, or failure in the event of an earthquake. NATURAL RESOURCES AND SHORELINES POLICIES a. Require users of natural resources to conduct their activities in a manner that avoids or minimizes adverse effects on the environment. c. Maintain the shoreline for recreational, cultural, educational, and/or scientific uses in a manner that is protective of resources and is of the maximum benefit to the public. d. Protect the shoreline from the encroachment of man-made improvements and structures. h. Encourage public and private agencies to manage the natural resources in a manner that avoids or minimizes adverse effects on the environment and depletion of energy and natural resources to the fullest extent. p. Encourage the use of native plants for screening and landscaping. r. Ensure public access is provided to the shoreline, public trails and hunting areas, including free public parking where appropriate. u. Ensure that activities authorized or funded by the County do not damage important natural resources. Discussion: The proposed single-family residences and supporting infrastructure will be located roughly 35 feet above the sea level and setbacks no less than 130 feet from the shoreline, which will largely mitigate any water or air quality impacts to the area. Minor and short-term impacts to these resources may occur during construction, however, all state and federal rules and regulations to mitigate these impacts will be adhered to. Cleared areas will be revegetated within 30 days unless otherwise approved. See the modified landscape schedule and site map provided in Figures 26 and 27. Landscaping and general landscape maintenance will be contained within the Properties and will not extend beyond the shoreline setback area. No work_ activities_ storage or staging of materials will occur within the 40-foot minimum shoreline setback_ including fencing_, animal husbandry__ or minor construction. Although there are no sandy beaches or access to the ocean from the Properties, lateral shoreline access will be made available to the public. 100 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Puna Community Development Plan (CDP)was developed through the implementation of the 2005 County of Hawaii General Plan. CDP's are designed to translate and implement the goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan as they apply to specific communities and districts. Additionally, they serve as important framework for a community's intended outcome and vision and are often used as forum for community input in terms of land-use, availability of public resources, and overall development. The following goals outlined in the PCDP apply to the project area and proposed development: 2.1.1 Goals a. Structures and cultural sites that are significant to Puna's history and cultural traditions are preserved. c. Areas of scenic and cultural interest are accessible to the public in a manner that does not detract from their aesthetic, natural and cultural value. 2.4.1 Goals a. Exposure of development to the risks of shoreline subsidence and coastal flooding is reduced. b. Shoreline biological, historical, and cultural resources are adequately protected. 3.1.1 Goals a. Puna retains a rural character while it protects its native natural and cultural resources. b. The quality of life improves, and economic opportunity expands for Puna's residents. Discussion: The proposed development will be in line with the goals of the Puna CDP. The project area will retain its current rural character with the addition of one single-family residence on each Parcel and supporting infrastructure. Land use will be substantially similar to that of the surrounding Parcels and residences. The proposed use of the Properties would contribute to the stewardship and community building in this area and will contribute to the local economy through the support and utilization of local resources and businesses by the applicant and their family. The proposed location of construction will mitigate impacts from the coast. There are no trails crossing the subject Properties or sandy beaches fronting either Parcel. There is also no safe access to the water along the shoreline fronting the Parcels due to treacherous cliffs. The Planning Department has indicated it will impose a condition on the landowner_ its successor_ or assigns_ through the SMA permits that will prohibit the construction of a wood_ metal or robe ladder,platform_ steps_ stairs_ concrete pads_ or any other constructed appurtenance in order to gain access to the ocean from the top of the Vali of the Properties. The CIA found no historical trails crossing the Properties. However, lateral access across the subject Properties to the 101 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment shoreline will be made available. The natural and cultural resources of the site will be preserved under the proposed action. The proposed landscape plans have been modified to lessen potential impacts to scenic resources_ ocean views from Government Beach Road_ and the natural flow of the tradewinds. The overall number of proposed trees has been reduced_ tree species have been changed in some areas to reflect a smaller size_ tree locations have been altered_ and there is a higher ratio of native flora. 3.6.2 Hawaii County Zoning and Special Management Area The Properties are located in the Conservation District according to the State Land Use Classification. All aspects of the requested action are consistent with the County zoning. Both Properties lie within the Special Management Area (SMA). The existing land use and proposed action complies with provisions and guidelines outlined in Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statues (HRS), Coastal Zone Management(CZM). The proposed action is also consistent with Action 16, Session Laws of Hawaii (SLH) 2020, which amended the HRS Chapter 205A. A Special Management Area Major Use Application will be submitted to the County of Hawaii Planning Department separate of this report to explicitly address compliance with SMA rules and regulations. For this report, a summary of how the requested action is consistent with SMA guidelines is provided below. The Hawaii County Planning Department asks that this Environmental Assessment discuss consistency with Act 16, Session Laws of Hawaii (SLH) 2020, which amended the HRS Chapter 205A. According to S.B. No. 2060, "The purpose of[Act 16] is to strengthen coastal zone management policy by amending Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, to protect state beaches and to reduce residential exposure to coastal hazards." Relevant amended sections of Chapter 205A and Act 16 to the proposed project include: (c)Policies (1) Recreational resources b. Provide adequate, accessible, and diverse recreational opportunities in the coastal zone management area by: i. Protecting coastal resources uniquely suited for recreational activities that cannot be provided in other areas. iii. Providing and managing adequate public access, consistent with conservation of natural resources, to and along shorelines with recreational value. (2) Historic resources a. Identify and analyze significant archaeological resources. c. Support state goals for protection, restoration, interpretation, and display of historic resources. (3) Scenic and open space resources a. Identify valued scenic resources in the coastal zone management area. 102 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment b. Ensure that new developments are compatible with their visual environment by designing and locating those developments to minimize the alteration of natural landforms and existing public views to and along the shoreline. c. Preserve, maintain, and where desirable, improve and restore shoreline open space and scenic resources. d. Encourage those developments that are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas. (4) Coastal ecosystems a. Exercise an overall conservation ethic, and practice stewardship in the protection, use, and development of marine and coastal resources. c. Preserve valuable coastal ecosystems of significant biological or economic importance, including reefs, beaches, and dunes. e. Promote water quantity and quality planning and management practices that reflect the tolerance of fresh water and marine ecosystems and maintain and enhance water quality through the development and implementation of point and nonpoint sources water pollution control measures. (5) Economic uses b. Ensure that coastal dependent development and coastal related development are located, designed, and constructed to minimize exposure to coastal hazards and adverse social, visual, and environmental impacts in the coastal zone management area. (6) Coastal hazards a. Develop and communicate adequate information about the risk of coastal hazards. b. Control development, including planning and zoning control in areas subject to coastal hazards. c. Ensure that developments comply with requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. d. Prevent coastal flooding from inland projects. (7) Managing development a. Use, implement, and enforce existing law effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future coastal zone development. c. Communicate the potential short and long-term impacts of proposed significant coastal developments early in their life cycle and in terms understandable to the public to facilitate public participation in the planning and review process. (8) Public participation a. Promote public involvement in coastal zone management processes. (9) Beach protection a. Prohibit construction of private shoreline hardening structures, including seawalls and revetments, at sites having sand beaches and at sites where 103 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment shoreline hardening structures interfere with existing recreational and waterline activities. e. Prohibit private property owners from creating a public nuisance by inducing or cultivating the private property owner's vegetation in a beach transit corridor. f. Prohibit private property owners from creating a public nuisance by allowing the private property owner's unmaintained vegetation to interfere or encroach upon a beach transit corridor. (10)Marine and coastal resources a. Ensure that the use and development of marine and coastal resources are ecologically and environmentally sound and economically beneficial. d. Promote, research, study and understanding of ocean and coastal processes, impacts of climate change and sea level rise, marine life, and other ocean resources to acquire and inventory information necessary to understand how coastal development activities relate to and impact ocean and coastal resources. Fishing and gathering of ocean resources is a significant practice in the wider Maku`u area. Although there are no sandy beaches or safe access to the ocean from the Properties, and the Planning Department has indicated it will impose a condition on the landowner_ its successor or assigns_ through the SMA permits that will prohibit the construction of a wood_ metal or robe ladder,platform_ steps_ stairs_ concrete pads_ or any other constructed appurtenance in order to gain access to the ocean from the top of the Vali of the Properties, lateral shoreline access will be maintained. The CIA conducted on both Properties found no evidence of current or past use for cultural gathering or traditional uses. Further, no historical trail was identified on the Properties. Therefore, no adverse impacts to recreational resources are expected to occur. The development of one (1) single-family residence and supporting infrastructure on each Parcel is unlikely to have adverse impact to archaeological resources. Two sites were identified as Property boundary rock walls, which have historical value regarding agricultural practices. These rock walls are in moderate to good condition and are not expected to be impacted by the proposed development. In the event any other undiscovered archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work will halt immediately, and the State Historic Preservation Division will be contacted immediately for appropriate action. The proposed development will have minor and short-term impacts to scenic resources during the construction phase. After the development is complete, no adverse impacts to scenic or open resources are expected to occur. The proposed landscape plans have been modified to lessen potential impacts to scenic resources_ ocean views from Government Beach Road_ and the natural flow of the tradewinds. The overall number of proposed trees has been reduced_ tree species have been changed in some areas to reflect a smaller size_ tree locations have been altered_ and there is a higher ratio of native flora. Landscaping plans include 11.370 square feet on Lot A and 11255 square feet on Lot B. All structures including the two (2) single-family residences, storage/art studio, and animal structure will be built in accordance with the surrounding area and include specific design 104 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment features including earth tones and stone walls to blend into the natural environment. The proposed placement of the structures also considered the maintenance of scenic and ocean views and will have little impact to existing views across the Properties. The storage/art studio has been placed closer to the single-family_ residence on Lot B to better conform to the Conservation District rules and regulations. No adverse impacts to coastal resources are expected due to mitigating measures and Best Management Practices including proper management of storm water runoff and erosion control. The proposed single-family residences would be served by Individual Wastewater Systems in compliance with Department of Health regulations. Temporary and minor impacts to air and water quality are expected during the construction phase but will be mitigated according to all state and federal rules and regulations. All structures will be at least 130 feet setback from the shoreline, which will minimize any risk to coastal resources. The proposed storage/art studio has been moved to setback 130 feet from the shoreline and roughly_ 100 feet from Residence B. An Aquaculture Pond Management Plan is attached in Appendix A, which details specific BMPs for the proposed construction and operation of aquaculture activities. The proposed development would provide temporary employment for local construction workers and would support the local economy through the purchase of local construction materials. This would allow for local businesses to thrive and gain income. Overall, the project would stimulate and support the general economic stability and development of Hawaii Island and more specifically the Maku`u community. The single-family residences and supporting infrastructure are not expected to be impacted by significant flooding or coastal hazards. All structures will be in Flood Zone X, or outside of the 500-year flood area. Coastal hazards are inherent along the Puna coastline and are adopted by all property owners in the area. All structures will be setback at least 130 feet from the shoreline, which will mitigate many of the potential impacts, including erosion. Coastal hazards are manageable when following the proper rules and regulations, which will be adhered to by the applicant and contractor. The proposed project and use of the land would be consistent with Chapter 205A as amended by Act 16 as the proposed use would not adversely affect public access to the shoreline, scenic or open space resources, economic uses, historical resources, or recreational areas. 3.6.3 Conservation District The project area resides in the State Land Use Conservation District, Resource Subzone. All proposed use of lands in the Conservation District must be consistent with the goals and rules of this land designation. The addition of a single-family residence is identified as a permissible use of land in this Subzone according to Hawaii Administrative Rules. One (1) Conservation District Use Application (CDUA)will be prepared on behalf of Mr. Ryan Pastorek for Parcel 026 (Lot Al and one (11 CDUA will be prepared on behalf of Mr. Paul Pastorek for Parcel 027 (Lot Bl for the proposed uses of the Properties. 105 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment The application requires an evaluation of the consistency of the proposed use and its relation to the goals and rules of the Conservation District. The following criteria found on the applications are discussed and addressed below: 1. The proposed land use is consistent with the purpose of the Conservation District; The construction of one (1) single-family residence on Lot A for Mr. Ryan Pastorek and one (1) single-family_ residence on Lot B for Mr. Paul Pastorek conforms to the rules and allowable land uses in the Conservation District under HAR Chapter 13-5. A required board permit is sought out for this identified use. The proposed use will not adversely impact coastal access or public access to coastal resources that front the Properties. Lateral access across the subject Properties to the shoreline will be made available to the public. The geological features on the Parcels, specifically the littoral cone that is located on the coastline of Lot A, are significant natural resources that will not be disturbed by the proposed development. Further, the Applicants understand the unique features and cultural importance of the coastline and has committed to maintain the Properties in such a way that protects and preserves these resources. The Applicants intend to maintain the natural features of the Properties by planting native flora and preserving native fauna habitat. All state rules and regulations will be adhered to including mitigating measures and BMPs during construction, as well as through residential use when engaging in general landscape maintenance, selective trimming, and planting. The modified Aquaculture Pond Management Plan attached in Appendix A details short and long term BMPs, monitoring, and maintenance objectives for the proposed construction of the pond and operation of aquaculture activities in compliance with Conservation District rules and regulations. 2. The proposed land use is consistent with the objectives of the subzone of the land on which the use will occur; The project area lies in the Resource Subzone. According to HAR Chapter 13-5-13, the objective of the Resource Subzone is to "develop, with proper management, areas to ensure sustained use of the natural resources of those areas." The addition of a single- family dwelling on eacha>� and supporting aquaculture infrastructure on Lot B is permissible under this subzone. The proposed residences will conform to the design standards of this subzone. Further, the proposed aquaculture pond will require specific BMPs, and prompt awareness of natural resources mitigate potential impacts to these resources. This is discussed in further detail in Appendix A under the modified Aquaculture Pond Management Plan. 106 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment 3. The proposed land use complies with the provisions and guidelines contained in chapter 205A, Hawai`i Revised Statues (HRS), entitled "Coastal Zone Management,"where applicable; The proposed land use complies with the provisions and guidelines outlined in Chapter 205A, Coastal Zone Management, of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), which is addressed above in Section 3.6.2 of this Environmental Assessment. 4. The proposed land use will not cause substantial adverse impact to existing natural resources within the surrounding area, community, or region; The proposed land use will not cause substantial adverse impact to existing natural resources. The Applicants intend to utilize the land for residential purposes, which is consistent with the current land use designation. The proposed land use is compatible with the locality and surrounding areas, which support residences, small scale farming and cattle to the north and south. No adverse impacts are expected to air or water quality, scenic or other natural resources outside of temporary and minor impacts during construction. Mitigating measures and Best Management Practices will protect all existing flora and fauna, soil, shoreline, and coastal resources as discussed at length throughout this EA. Further, no significant secondary or cumulative impacts are expected with the request. 5. The proposed land use, including buildings, structures, and facilities, is compatible with the locality and surrounding areas, appropriate to the physical conditions and capabilities of the specific parcel or parcels; The proposed single-family residences conform to all design standards outlined in HAR Chapter 13-5. Minimum setbacks for lots over one acre are met for every structure on both Parcels. Independent utilities are now proposed for each parcel to comply with setback areas. Each parcel will be equipped with their own utilities_ therefore_ noagues electricity_ water line_ or landscaping will be within the setback areas. One (1)well would be required on each property_ and an additional metal pole for electrical service drop would need to be constructed on Lot A. The shoreline setback is a minimum of 65.2 feet as determined by the AAER of 0.36 ft/year outlined in the CES. All structures will be setback at least 130 feet from the certified shoreline. No work_ activities_ Storage=or staging of materials will occur within the 40-foot minimum shoreline setback_ including fencing, animal husbandry__ or minor construction. Landscaping will be placed specifically to screen structures. Several features have been implemented into the site plans to conform to design standards that blend in with the natural features of the site and provide sustainable functions. Natural design features for this residence include stone walls, natural wood patina, dark windows, and natural colored roofing. The proposed land use is residential and agricultural in nature. This land use is compatible with the locality and surrounding areas, which range from ranching to small scale agriculture and residences. 107 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Landscaping plants have been carefully selected and are all considered"Pono Plants." Further, a landscape schedule will be followed to ensure conformity with Hawaii Administrative Rules Chapter 13-5 guidelines. 6. The existing physical and environmental aspects of the land, such as natural beauty and open space characteristics will be preserved or improved upon; The proposed use of the land will aid in the preservation of the natural features of the area. The littoral cone located on the northeastern end of Lot A will remain preserved as all developments are planned to be setback at least 130 feet from the shoreline. Mr. Ryan and Paul Pastorek intends to preserve the natural beauty and open space of the land through the cultivation of native plants on the Properties and the maintenance of two (2) archaeological boundary rock walls identified during the AIS. Landscaping and general landscape maintenance will be contained within the Properties and will not extend beyond the shoreline setback area. Proposed landscaping has been reduced to approximately 11.370 square feet on Lot A and 11.255 square feet on Lot B so that more open space is preserved. No work_ activities_ storax or staging of materials will occur within the 40-foot minimum shoreline setback_ includingfg, animal husbandry_ or minor construction. 7. Subdivision of land will not be utilized to increase the intensity of land uses in the Conservation District; The request to consolidate and re-subdivide will not be utilized to increase the intensity of land use on either Parcel. Grazing will occur on less than one (1) acre on Lot A in a designated and fenced area that will be properly maintained. Each single-family residence will be landscaped with various native plants and fruit trees that are consistent with HAR Chapter 13-5 rules and regulations. Landscaped areas have been reduced to approximately 11.370 square feet and 11.255 square feet for Lot A and Lot B respectively. The proposed action to consolidate and re-subdivide the Parcels will not extend beyond the appropriate intensity of land use for either Parcel. 8. The proposed land use will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; Building one (1) single-family residence and supporting infrastructure on each Parcel will not have a substantial adverse effect on public health. As discussed, minimal and short- term impacts to air quality may occur during the construction phase, however, mitigating measures and Best Management Practices will be followed to minimize these impacts. The area is rural and there is a notable distance between neighboring homes under this proposed action. No other aspect of this development is expected to impact public health, safety, or welfare. 108 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment PART 4: DETERMINATION, FINDINGS,AND REASONS 4.1 Determination The Applicants expect that the Department of Land and Natural Resources will determine_ based on the analyses in this EA, that the proposed action will not significantly alter the environment and will accordingly issue a Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI). The Final Environmental Assessment(FEA)will outline the final determination. 4.2 Findings and Supporting Reasons Agencies must consider several factors to determine whether an Action has significant effects, as outlined in HAR Chapter 11-200.1. The following factors evaluate the sum of effects of the proposed action on the quality of the environment by considering every phase of a proposed action, the expected impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures: 1. The proposed project will not involve an Irrevocable commitment or loss or destruction of any natural, cultural, or historic resource. The proposed action will not involve an irrevocable commitment or loss or destruction of any natural, cultural, or historic resources. Earthwork is not expected to exceed one (1) acre on either Parcel 026 or 027 and will closely follow all mitigating measures and Best Management Practices to minimize impacts to natural resources. An AIS identified two (2) historical Property boundary rock walls, which are significant under criterion"D." Neither site is expected to be impacted significantly by the proposed development. All structures conform to appropriate front and side yard setbacks, which will protect the walls. No other archaeological sites were identified on the Properties. If any undiscovered resources are found during construction, all work will cease immediately, and the State Historic Preservation Division would be contacted to determine appropriate action. No cultural resources are expected to see adverse impacts as concluded in the CIA conducted on both Properties. No current or future evidence of cultural practices or gathering were found. However, lateral access across the subject Properties to the shoreline will be available to the public. 2. The proposed project will not curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment. No restriction of beneficial uses would occur under the proposed action. Both Parcels would be used for residential purposes, which is consistent with the surrounding area. The CIA did not find any current or past evidence of being used for shoreline activities or cultural practices. Lateral access across the subject Properties to the shoreline will be made available to the public. 3. The proposed project will not conflict with the States environmental policies or long-term environmental goals established by law. 109 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment The State's long-term environmental policies are set forth in Hawaii Revised Statues (HRS) Chapter 344. The broad goals of this policy are to conserve natural resources and enhance quality of life. The requested action will have no significant impact to environmental processes, nor will it impact quality of life. It is thus consistent with all elements of the State's long-term environmental policies. 4. The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on the economic welfare, social welfare, or cultural practices of the community and State. The proposed project would not have any substantial effect on economic or social welfare of the Big Island community or the State of Hawaii. The Properties would be used for standard residential purposes and agricultural practices, which is consistent with surrounding land use and character. Lateral access across the subject Properties to the shoreline will be made available to the public. An archeological field inspection found two (2) historical Property rock walls, which are significant under criterion"D." No further work to the sites was recommended. However, in the event SHPD requests more investigation after review of the AIS, the Applicants will comply with any further surveying required. No cultural resources were identified on either Property. The CIA found no evidence of the Properties being used in the past for traditional cultural practices and no specific cultural resources have been identified on the Properties. However, in the event any such resources were to be found, construction would cease immediately, and the State Historic Preservation Division would be contacted to determine appropriate action. S. The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on public health. Building one (1) single-family residence and supporting infrastructure on each Parcel will not have a substantial adverse effect on public health. As discussed, minimal and short- term impacts to air quality may occur during the construction phase, however, mitigating measures and Best Management Practices will be followed to minimize these impacts. No other aspect of this development is expected to impact public health. 6. The proposed project will not involve adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Both Properties will operate under standard residential conditions. No changes to population or effects on public facilities outside of normal residential use should occur. 7. The proposed project will not involve a substantial degradation of environmental quality. The requested action would not contribute to substantial degradation of environmental quality. As discussed, water and air quality would see minimal and short-term impacts during the construction phase only. Mitigating measures and Best Management Practices will prevent these impacts from becoming significant. The Coastal Erosion Study concluded that the shoreline has seen recent and ongoing erosive processes. A minimum 110 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment shoreline setback of 65.2 feet the shoreline was determined based on the estimated AAER of 0.36 ft/year. All structures will be setback at least 130 feet from the shoreline. The proposed development will not contribute to further erosion of the shoreline and is not expected to be impacted significantly by erosion events during the lifespan of the residences. 8. The proposed project is not one which is individually limited and will not have substantial adverse effect upon the environment or involve a commitment for larger actions. The proposed action will not have substantial adverse effect upon the environment or involve a commitment for larger actions. A grading and grubbing permit will be obtained for the developments. Mitigating measures and Best Management Practices will be strictly followed during construction to minimize potential impacts to all natural resources. A management plan for the proposed aquaculture pond can be found in Appendix A, which addresses specific Best Management Practices and mitigating measures during the construction of the pond and operation of aquaculture activities. 9. The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a rare, threatened, or endangered species, or its habitat. A biotic survey of the Properties found no rare, threatened, or endangered species. The potential presence of native endangered birds in the area means the Applicants will commit to mitigating measures. The State listed Hawaiian Hoary Bat or `Ope`ape`a (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) may be sensitive to disturbance between June 1 and September 15, throughout which no shrubs or trees taller than 15 feet may be disturbed or removed. Although there are no suitable nesting trees for the State listed Hawaiian Hawk, or `Io (Buteo solitarius), if any tree cutting occurs between March and September, DOFAW must be consulted first. A pre-construction hawk nest search by a qualified ornithologist using standard methods must be conducted. If nests are found, no land clearing is permissible until October. To prevent the spread of Rapid `Ohi`a Death (ROD), the movement of plant or soil material between worksites, such as fill, must be minimized. This material may contain either fungal pathogens such as ROD, or invasive vertebrate and invertebrate pests, such as Little Fire Ants (Wasmannia auropunctata). All equipment must be sprayed with 70% alcohol before accessing and leaving the site to prevent the spread of these pathogens. All guidelines pertaining to artificial lighting will be adhered to limit impacts to fauna. 10. The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on air or water quality or ambient noise levels. The proposed action would have minimal and short-term effects on air quality and ambient noise levels during construction. Mitigating measures will be strictly followed to reduce impacts to both during this phase. If maximum permissible levels are exceeded, the contractor will consult with the Department of Health and determine whether a permit is necessary. If approved, the Properties will contain one (1) single family residence each. 111 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Both Properties will operate with standard noise levels acceptable to the Conservation District. Negligible impacts to water quality should occur by following the mitigating measures and Best Management Practices as outlined in section 3.1.3. 11. The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on or be likely to suffer damage by being located in an environmentally sensitive area such as a flood plain, tsunami zone, sea level rise exposure area, beach, erosion prone area, geologically hazardous land, estuary,fresh water, or coastal waters. The single-family residences and supporting infrastructure are not expected to be impacted by significant flooding or coastal hazards. All structures will be in Flood Zone X, or outside of the 500-year flood area. Coastal hazards are inherent in this area from the Puna coastline and are adopted by all property owners in the area. All structures will be setback at least 130 feet from the shoreline, which will mitigate many of the potential impacts from coastal hazards, including erosion. Coastal hazards are manageable when following the proper rules and regulations, which will be adhered to by the Applicants and contractor. 12. The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas and viewplanes, during day or night, identified in county or state plans or studies. The proposed development will have minor and short-term impacts to scenic resources during the construction phases. After the development is complete, no adverse impacts to scenic or open resources are expected to occur. The proposed landscape plans have been modified to lessen potential impacts to scenic resources_ ocean views from Government Beach Road_ and the natural flow of the tradewinds. The overall number of proposed trees has been reduced_ tree species have been changed in some areas to reflect a smaller size_ tree locations have been altered_ and there is a higher ratio of native flora. All structures including the two (2) single-family residences, storage/art studio, and animal structure will be built in accordance with the surrounding area and include specific design features such as earth tones and stone walls to blend into nature. Placement of the structures have also considered the maintenance of scenic and ocean views. The storage/art studio has been placed approximately 100 feet from the proposed single-family residence on Lot B to be more consistent with Conservation District rules and regulations. Additionally_ itis now sited over 130 feet setback from the shoreline. 13. The proposed project will not require substantial energy consumption or emit substantial greenhouse gases. The proposed action will not require substantial energy consumption or emit substantial greenhouse gases. The Applicants intend to build one (1) single-family residence and supporting infrastructure on each adjacent Parcel. Conscious design will be incorporated into the structures, which will promote a reduction in energy output and consumption. Solar panels will also be used as a renewable energy source. 112 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment REFERENCES Abbas, F., and A. Fares. 2009. Best Management Practices to Manage Non-Point Pollution in Agriculture. University of Hawaii-Manoa, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resource (CTAHR). Abbott, Thorne. "Shifting shorelines and political winds—The complexities of implementing the simple idea of shoreline setbacks for oceanfront developments in Maui, Hawaii." Ocean & coastal management 73 (2013): 13-21. Beven, J. and Wroe, D. 2019. Hurricane Lane (EP142018). National Hurricane Center, Central Pacific Hurricane Center, Tropical Cyclone Report. Chinen, J.J. 1961. Original Land Title in Hawaii. Published privately in Honolulu, Hawaii. Coastal Geology Group. 2013. Hawaii. University of Hawaii at Manoa, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology. Retrieved from: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/publications/ hawaiiCoastline/hawaii.html. Collins M. et al., 2019: Extremes, Abrupt Changes and Managing Risk. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.-O. Portner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson- Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegria, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer(eds.)]. In press. Cordy, R. 2000. Exalted Sits the Chief. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). 2011. Flood Zone Definitions. State of Hawaii. Retrieved from: https:Hdlnreng.hawaii.gov/nfip/wp-content/uploads/sites /11/2014/11/Flood-Zone-Definitions.pdf. Ellis, W. 1963. Journal of William Ellis. Honolulu Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd, Honolulu. Escott, G and Dols, T. 2020. An Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for a 10.45-acre Property in P6p6ki Ahupua`a, Puna District, Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Fletcher, C. H., Boyd, R., Neal, W. J., and Tice, V. 2010. Living on the Shores ofHawaii Natural Hazards, the Environment, and our Communities. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Fletcher, C. H., Grossman, E. E, Richmond, B. M. and Gibbs, A. E. 2004.Atlas ofNatural Hazards in the Hawaiian Coastal Zone. U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Series Map I-2761, scale 1:50,000. Fletcher, C.H., Romine, B.M., Genz, A.S., Barbee, M.M., Dyer, Matthew, Anderson, T.R., Lim, S.C., Vitousek, Sean, Bochicchio, Christopher, and Richmond, B.M., 2012, National assessment of shoreline change: Historical shoreline change in the Hawaiian Islands: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1051, 55 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1051. 113 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Fornander. 1969. An Account of the Polynesian Race: Its Origin and Migrations. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc. Gagne, W., and L. Cuddihy. 1990. "Vegetation," pp. 45-114 in W.L. Wagner, D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer, eds., Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. 2 vols. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission. 2017. Hawaii Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Report. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. and the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, under the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Contract No: 64064. Hawaii County Planning Department. 2005. General Plan, County of Hawai`i. Hilo. Hawaii County Planning Department. 2008. Puna Community Development Plan. Hilo. Heliker, C. 1990. Volcanic and Seismic Hazards on the Island of Hawaii. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 19.2: V88/10. Hwang, D.J., and Brooks, B., 2007, Coastal subsidence in Kapoho, Puna, Island and State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii, 44 p. Hwang, D. J., 2005, Hawaii Coastal Zone Mitigation Handbook: Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program, DBED, State of Hawaii, 216 pp. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer(eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. Kimberlain, T., Brennan, M., and Wroe, D. 2018. Hurricane Iselle (EP092014). National Hurricane Center, Central Pacific Hurricane Center, Tropical Cyclone Report. Kamakau, S.M. 1992. Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. Kelly, M., B. Nakamura, and Dorothy Barrere. 1981. Hilo Bay: A Chronological History, Land and Water Use in the Hilo Bay Area, Island of Hawaii, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kipuka Database, 2020. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Retrieved from: http://kipukadatabase. com/kipuka/. Lass, Barbara. 1997. Reconnaissance Survey Along the Old Government Road, Kea`au, Puna, Island of Hawaii. Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii-Hilo, Hawaii. Ludwig, K. R., Szabo, B. J., Moore, J. G., & Simmons, K. R. (1991). Crustal subsidence rate off Hawaii determined from 234U/238U ages of drowned coral reefs. Geology, 19(2), 171-174. 114 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment Maly, Kepa. 1999. The Historical Puna Trail- Old Government Road (Kea`au Section) Archival- Historical Documentary Research, Oral History and Consultation Study, and Limited Site Preservation Plan Ahupua`a of Kea`au, Puna District, Island of Hawaii. Copy on file at Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei, Hawaii. McGregor, D. 1999. Ethnohistory of Puna. Social Press in Hawaii, Vol. 39. Merrifield, M.A., and Maltrud, M., 2011, Regional sea level trends due to a Pacific trade wind intensification, Geophysical Research Letters (on-line), DOI: 1029/2011GLO49576. Moore, J. G. and Fornari, D. J., 1984, Drowned reefs as indicators of the rate of subsidence of the Island of Hawaii: Journal of Geology, v. 92, p. 752-759. Moore, J. G., 1970, Relationship between subsidence and volcanic load, Hawaii: Bulletin of Volcanology, V. 34, pp. 562-576. National Park Service (NPS). 2020. 1868 Eruption of Mauna Loa. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Retrieved from: https://www.nps.gov/havo/learn/nature/mauna-loa-1868.htm. Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System (PACIOOS) (2020). Sea Level Rise: State of Hawaii Sea Level rise Viewer.An interactive mapping tool in support of the State of Hawai`i Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Report. Retrieved from: https://www.pacioos.hawaii.edu/ shoreline/slr-hawaii/. Pukui, M., S. Elbert and E. Mo' okini. 1976 Place Names a Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Ramalho, Ricardo S., et al. "Coastal evolution on volcanic oceanic islands: A complex interplay between volcanism, erosion, sedimentation, sea-level change and biogenic production." Earth- Science Reviews 127 (2013): 140-170. Rieth, Timothy M., Terry L. Hunt, Carl Lipo, and Janet M. Wilmshurst. 2011. The 13th Century Polynesian Colonization of Hawaii Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2740-2749. Rosser, N. J., et al. "Terrestrial laser scanning for monitoring the process of hard rock coastal cliff erosion." Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 38.4 (2005): 363- 375. Tetra Tech. 2020. County of Hawaii Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Prepared for County of Hawaii Civil Defense Agency. Trusdell, Frank, Edward W. Wolfe, and Jean Morris (2006) https:Hpubs.usgs.gov/ds/2005/144/ Digital Database of the Geologic Map of the Island of Hawai`I; U.S. Geological Survey, Data Series 144, version 1.0. 115 Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District atMaku`u Final Environmental Assessment United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. New USGS Model Shows Earthquake Hazard Probability for Hawaiian Islands. Retrieved from: https://www.usgs.gov/news/featured- story/new-usgs-model-shows-earthquake-hazard-probability-hawaiian-islands. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. Kilauea 1955 Lower East Rift Zone Eruption in Lower Puna. Retrieved from: https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/kilauea/kilauea-1955-lower-east- rift-zone-eruption-lower-puna. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Sea Grant College Program. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in Hawai`i-A summary of climate change and its impacts to Hawai`i's ecosystems and communities. UNIHI-SEAGRANT-TT- 12-04. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Seismic HazardMaps for Hawaii. By F.W. Klein, A.D. Frankel, C.S. Mueller, R.L. Wesson and P.G. Okubo. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1975. 1975 Earthquake in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Retrieved from: https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/1975-earthquake-hvnp. Vitousek, S. and Fletcher, C.H. 2008. Maximum Annual Recurring Wave Heights in Hawaii. Pacific Science. University of Hawaii Press. Vol 62, no. 4:541-553. Warshauer, F., Jacbi, J., and Price, J. 2009. Native coastal flora and plant communities in Hawaii: Their composition, distribution, and status. Hawaii Cooperative Studies Unit Technical Report HCSU-014. University of Hawaii at Hilo. 116 Exhibit A HAR Chapter 13-5 Exhibit 4 1994 vs. 2011 MDA Requirements Single Family Residential Standards: September 6, 1994 Minimum Lot Size: 10, 000 square feet Exceptions : 1 ) kuleana 2 ) nonconforming use Minimum Setback: For lots 10, 000 square feet to one acre: Front: 15 feet Sides: 15 feet Back: 15 feet For lots over one acre: Front: 25 feet Sides: 25 feet Back: 25 feet Exceptions : Site characteristics and lot shape may be a factor in adjusting minimum setbacks when so determined by the board. Maximum Developable Means the total floor area Area: in square feet allowed under the approved land use. The floor area computation shall include: all enclosed (on three sides minimum, with floor or roof structure above) living areas; above grade decks in excess on 4 ' -0" in width; garage or carport; swimming pools, saunas or other developed water features (excluding naturally existing ponds, tidepools, etc. ) ; play courts; or any other standing structures, which are accessory to the approved land use. 5-40 Chapter 13-5 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 4 Single Family Residential Standards: 2011 Earth Science, and Technology, or evidence that the erosion rate is zero. TABLE 1 : AVERAGE LOT DEPTH If the 100 101 121 141 161 181 average feet to to to to to lot depth or 120 140 160 180 200 is : less feet feet feet feet feet Then the minimum 40 50 60 8 90 setback feet feet feet e feet distance is . Maximum Developable Area (MDA) : Metotal floor area in iq e 7et allowed under the ipapproved land use. The floor area computation shall clude: all floor areas under roof, including first, second, and third story areas, decks, pools, saunas; garage or carport, and other above ground structures . For lots up to 14, 000 square feet, the maximum developable area is 25 per cent of total lot area. For lots over 14, 000 square feet to one (1) acre, the maximum developable area is 3, 500 square feet. 3 of 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: D913D927-206C-4BEC-B7DB-E0670F80EE68 Exhibit B Ryan Pastorek and Paul Pastorek 533 Fernwood Pacific Drive Topanga, California 90290 October 24, 2023 Michael Cain, Administrator State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 Dear Mr. Cain, We are writing to formally acknowledge your letter dated September 15, 2023, in which you expressed concerns about our proposed single-family residences on TMK (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 in Maku`u, Puna. We understand and appreciate that the isolated location of the properties along Government Beach Road poses some unique challenges, including the road's status as a road-in-limbo and the potential dangers of the area's exposure to natural elements and seismic hazards. We are fully aware of the inherent dangers associated with living near the ocean and in proximity to Kilauea volcano. Additionally, we acknowledge that the remote location lacks municipal services and may have limitations in terms of emergency response time. We share your commitment to ensure the safety and welfare of residents in the event of an emergency. We acknowledge that under such circumstances, we as residents in the area would need to take necessary precautions and actions to ensure our own well-being. We have carefully considered the potential risks and benefits of the proposed development. While we are aware of the challenges associated with the area's remote location, we feel that the benefits outweigh the risks and wish to proceed with the permitting process. Once again, we appreciate the concerns raised and your commitment to addressing them responsibly. Thank you for your patience and collaboration with this project. Mahalo, Ryan Pastorek and Paul Pastorek DocuSigned by: DocuSigned by: e" P016rct E69CFF59C9OA454F9.. aaoRFn�F�na�nna Ryan Pastorek Paul Pastorek FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District at Maku`u, Popoki Ahupua`a Appendix A Modified Aquaculture Pond Management Plan Table of Contents I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................4 a. Project Location and Setting ...............................................................................................4 b. Goals and Objectives of Aquaculture Pond.........................................................................9 II. Description of Proposed Aquaculture Activities and Supporting Facilities.............................9 III. Assessment of Affected Natural Environment and Resources.................................................13 a. Existing Site Conditions....................................................................................................13 I. Existing Land Use ................................................................................................13 ii. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................13 iii. Coastal Conditions and Resources.......................................................................13 iv. Flora and Fauna....................................................................................................14 v. Archaeological, Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................15 vi. Recreational resources..........................................................................................16 vii. Scenic Resources..................................................................................................17 b. Assessment of Potential Environmental Threats...............................................................17 IV. Assessment of Natural Hazards...................................................................................................18 V. Description of Best Management Practices (BMPs)..................................................................18 a. Short-Term BMPs (During Implementation)....................................................................18 b. Long-Term BMPs (Following Implementation/Ongoing Operations) .............................19 I. Temperature .........................................................................................................20 ii. pH.........................................................................................................................20 iii. Feed/Dissolved Nutrients .....................................................................................21 iv. Dissolved Oxygen ...............................................................................................21 v. Effluent Management ..........................................................................................22 vi. Integrated Pest Management ...............................................................................22 vii. Aquatic Weed and Algae Control ........................................................................23 viii. Accidental Escape/Unintentional Introduction ....................................................24 ix. Fish Die Off .........................................................................................................24 VI. Schedule and Sequence of Activities...........................................................................................25 a. Project Schedule and Sequencing of Actions ...................................................................25 VII. Plans for Ongoing Monitoring and Maintenance......................................................................25 VIII. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................26 IX. References......................................................................................................................................30 2 Tables Table 1: Examples of Organism Damage to Aquatic Vegetation .................................................22 Table 2: Project Schedule and Sequencing of Actions .................................................................24 Table 3: Example Spreadsheet for Water Oualitv .........................................................................26 Table 4: Example Spreadsheet for Stocking Tlapia......................................................................27 Table 5: Example Spreadsheet for Harvesting Tlapia..................................................................27 Table 6: Example Spreadsheet for Tilapia Feeding Schedule.......................................................28 Figures Figure 1: Regional Location Map ...................................................................................................5 Figure2: Tax Map Key Map ..........................................................................................................6 Figure 3: Consolidation and Re-subdivision Map...........................................................................7 Figure 4: Detailed Aquaculture Pond Site Map ..............................................................................8 Figure 5: Aquaculture Pond Setbacks Map ..................................................................................10 Figure 6: Cross-Section of Aquaculture Pond ..............................................................................12 Figure 7: Example of the Secchi Disk Visibility Test...................................................................24 Exhibi s Exhibit A: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Practice Standard: Aquaculture Pond (Code 3971 Exhibit B: Pond Sealing or Lining— Compacted Soil Treatment(Code 520) Exhibit C: Pond Sealing or Lining, Geomembrane or Geosy_ nthetic Clay_ Liner(Code 521) Exhibit D: Pond (Code 3781 3 I. INTRODUCTION The Aquaculture Management Plan has been modified to reflect comments received on the Draft Environmental Assessment. All alterations and additions are denoted by a double underline. A. Project Location and Setting The proposed aquaculture pond would be located on TMK (3) 1-5-010: 027 in the State Conservation District, Resource Subzone of Puna, Maku`u, P6p6ki, Ahupua`a County of Hawaii. Mr. Paul Pastorek is the `applicant' for this parcel's CDUA and Aquaculture Management Plan. The project area is located roughly 8 miles southeast of Kea`au and 1 mile south of the Hawaiian Paradise Park(HPP) subdivision. The location and TMK map of the property is included in Figures 1-2. A separate applicant, Mr. Ryan Pastorek owns the adjacent parcel to the north identified as TMK (3) 1-5-010-026. A request for parcels 026 and 027 to be consolidated and re- subdivided to move the lot line separating the parcels to the north is included with the land use applications associated with the proposed project(including an Environmental Assessment, Conservation District Use Applications and Special Management Area (Major) Applications). Parcel 027 is currently 3 acres and is proposed to become 6.402 acres (Lot B) and parcel 026 is currently 7.45 acres and is proposed to become 4.048 acres (Lot A). The proposed consolidation and re-subdivision map can be seen in Figure 3. This management plan will provide property details based on the proposed consolidation and re-subdivision lot lines; thus "property" will herein be referring to the proposed Lot B. The applicant intends to construct a fresh-water earthen aquaculture pond to sustainably grow and harvest taro and tilapia for personal and family consumption. The pond is planned to be sited approximately twenty-seven (27)feet from the proposed property line_ which includes the minimum side yard setback of twenty-five (25)feet plus an additional two (2)feet of separation from the pond slope. The pond will sit roughly 90 feet north of Government Beach Road. See Figure 4 for a detailed site plan. There is a low point in the topography of this region of the site where water naturally collects. Therefore, this location was chosen strategically to account for natural drainage and to prevent drainage issues. Elevations of the property range between 35 and 40 feet above sea level. The property coastline is made up of embayments, sea arches, and caves with 35-40-foot sea cliffs. There is no safe ocean access along the shoreline fronting the parcel due to these treacherous cliffs nor is there a sandy shoreline nearby. Previous clearing and extensive grazing have left most of the property comprised of invasive pasture grasses such as California grass (Brachiara mutica), Bermuda grass (Chrysopogon spp.), and Honohono grass (Commelina diffusa). This is the primary vegetation found in the proposed location of the aquaculture pond. Coconut palms (Cocos nucifera), Ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia) and Naupaka (Scaevola sp.) are present along the shoreline. 4 N 00 W r_ ^' l0 _W T O O tO V Cl Cl) ,17 r n N LO N Z 'a 0 N N M 0 co O N N N U) G7 R � 0 T 6f E d I N � u C4 n nR�3i�. c y v� R N � O .R. R h N F N 01 R ea r � a ' '0—Fr i • Yf ♦ ` !r M ♦ r zIn ti is o a Q w ' L !� �pak' �.^SNA M1m:31 rot (OI, e� n 21J MKI g " H V Y.1 all p NU CYC pp �e ?4 QA S Yf Y v � E d'OW � Ue 5 ste q s m M �- / F cd e` uM QPV 2e p0 Y — S ~Y - o< e° gg� / N �p C "V ijY Pjt n o d 0 � a u v NI: _ I W-, 2 em �9 � e � eo Z O wy. O60Q; d �7 W It � _i�1 9 r — I- J.. qa� not 1 an o w z zd d d 0 O 0Ow EE ir Ir OQQ d � � Z Q Q J } J Q Q J Q D W W w 0¢C Q Z U C7 ------------------- Z Z QZZLL O O OQJ 0 �gd Z w 0- F-W F-F J W j Q o V Q 2 �O O IO --------------- - -—-—-—-—-—-— __—_—_—_—_—_—_— Q Z - __ - - W W W Q Z - N Q 'a�4 M J V Q Q J, Ed W Z J W } F- U) N d d 00 W W d d O The property is layered pahoehoe, with `Opihikao series (2kllp), which is highly decomposed plant material with 2 to 20% slopes. This soil type is well drained and has high runoff. No water features such as streams, springs, anchialine ponds are found on or near the property; flood risk is low and is not anticipated to impact the aquaculture pond or the larger property. B. Goals and Objectives of Aquaculture Pond Mr. Paul Pastorek is planning to establish a 3,541 square-foot earthen aquaculture pond to sustainably grow and harvest kalo (Colocasia esculenta) and tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus). The proposed aquaculture pond has been strategically placed to address existing ponding that occurs on the subject property. Therefore_ the location of the pond has been planned according to the natural topography and drainage of the site to protect natural resources and minimize the potential impacts to the environment and surrounding area. To meet this goal, the operation and management of the aquaculture pond have the following obj ectives: • Produce a clean, aesthetically pleasing, and natural looking aquaponic system. • Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are aimed at producing healthy and sustainable products, while minimizing potential environmental impacts. • Implement a regular drainage program to maintain water quality and flora and fauna health. • Recycle water by utilizing effluent as nutrient-rich irrigation for all landscaped areas. • Create a simple irrigation and draining system to minimize unnecessary trenching and to prevent erosion and sedimentation. • Teach children and family members traditional methods of aquaculture farming. Conservation Practice Standards (CPS) outlined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCSI were used to establish Best Management Practices. These include Aquaculture Pond (Code 397) (Exhibit A)_ Pond Sealing or Lining—Compacted Soil Treatment(Code 520) (Exhibit B)_ Pond Sealing or Lining, Geomembrane or Geosy_ nthetic CIU Liner(Code 521) (Exhibit Cl_ and Pond (Code 378) (Exhibit Dl. IL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AQUACULTURE ACTIVITIES AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES The aquaculture pond will be located approximately 90 feet north from Government Beach Road and at least 33 feet from any other structure on the property. A site plan of the pond setbacks can be seen in Figure 5. The proposed pond will be excavated with a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope. This slope aims to prevent excessive emergent aquatic weed infestation. The soil from excavation will be used for the embankments, which will be stabilized with gravel and grass to prevent erosion and sedimentation. All the excavated soil will be used to build up the topographical `low' end to create the basin. The cut and fill volumes of soil will be balanced. A sand laver will be put down to stabilize and smooth the bottom of the pond_ which will then be overlain by a PIDPE liner to prevent seepage. A final planting soil layer will be placed for the proposed aquatic vegetation. Figure 6 shows a cross-section of pond with these proposed elements. 9 \ \\ N�. pro o \\\\\\\\ a o z _ gID w o w m _ a s =e ew o3 a e W \\\\\\\\\\\ a a N J 0 3 0 o 10 010o \\ \\\ sI S 01 o- \\V AA� � w -- - .00 a - - - 10 vv --U -r� ----- ------------------ wl =1 — \\\ o F \ a3z 3 I U \ a a U \\\\\\\ o d - o °o I m w 0. clw \ \\\\ \ so °o Of W - - i Q ¢Wx i W z Of o \\\\\\\\\\\\\V Q a a o AL U 0 a I Z = Y Q This area can experience between 120 and 200 inches of rainfall per year. A stabilized spill way must also be established to account for periods of high rain, which may lead to overflow. A grass waterway, which directs spillage away from embankments will maintain the water level at a safe level below the embankment and will prevent erosion and sedimentation (See Figure 4). The aquaculture pond will utilize water from the proposed water well and will be filled by an inlet located at the south end of the pond. The outlet will be located at the opposite north end. Positioning the inlet and outlet at opposite ends of the pond will allow for sufficient water retention of new water and facilitates mixing during water exchange. The pond will be approximately 12 feet deep and contain 115,000 gallons or 15,000 cubic feet of water. The frequency of effluent discharge and/or complete drainage will vary depending on several factors such as climate, water quality, nutrient loading, and general health of flora and fauna. Best Management Practices outlined in this Management Plan are tailored to prevent excessive effluent and water changes to conserve water use. The objective of establishing a pond of this size is to account for all effluent to be utilized for irrigating landscaped areas, which will total 11.370 square feet on Parcel 026 and 11,255 square feet on Parcel 027. The soils on the site are rapidly permeable and are not likely to experience rapid ponding if effluent is high in volume or if the pond is drained completely. Evidence suggests that most dissolved nutrients, organic materials, and suspended solids are found in the last 10-15% of water discharged from ponds during complete drainage. All draining activity will be done at a controlled rate based on BMPs, climate conditions and soil saturation levels, and will be closely monitored for the entire duration of draining operations. An important objective is to establish a simple irrigation and drainage system that will minimize unnecessary trenching. To accomplish this goal, a central distribution line will be established for all plumbing purposes. Hoses can be attached to this line as needed for irrigating landscaped plants. A 25 square foot equipment enclosure will be sited next to the pond to accommodate all maintenance and irrigation activities. An approximately 160 square foot floating platform is also proposed for the purposes of cleaning, general maintenance, and harvest. It can be difficult to perform these activities from the embankments. Safety is also a concern as exposed pond liners on the embankments can be slippery when wet. Safety provisions must be put in place in the event someone was to fall into the pond. The floating platform would provide an easy route to safety. Permanent rungs can also be attached on the side of the pond as an additional safety measure; however, the floating platform serves a larger purpose beyond safety and is also necessary for efficient and sustainable maintenance and monitoring practices. See the site plan in Figure 4 for the proposed location of these improvements. The applicant intends to raise common tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus), as this species can tolerate temperature changes, lower dissolved oxygen, higher ammonia, and nitrite levels, are more disease resistant, and grow rapidly. Kalo (Taro)will also be grown throughout the pond at appropriate depths, which will benefit from the natural fertilization from the tilapia, eliminating the need to add fertilizer from external sources. 11 z� Jo —7 =o zoom �z .e, /vvvv/vvvv/vvvv/vv, Q NXx •rT�I \\\\\\\ NX \\\ \/ Avv�<yyo N� v� vv v vvvvv vv vv vv v / lHill N O \ N 0 ////// 7 O / Z 1-,- 0 Q LL III �'�%\'/�%\ LO _ ",N r N U \\ W 'NN (n vvvwvv/v � �_ ,�vvvv Z O J O _ /VA/VA/VA/ E J 0 II � O O \\ NNN N !i`ir1i�/ O I— %/ 6 \\ /\"N m 0 .�0.6 I 7i�Y�`i� QO J N O O O W (n NX� \/N N Q=(n W �N x\'\�Ty/ \\\\\\\\\\ \/\ // /\ x O _ xxx�\\l'o>'X \ \/\\//% O jam/j�/j�\ C ��T, %%'%' \\\\\\\ . I vw�iw v �ivw/ivy v/v/v/vw/vw/ N-1 /v/ v/v/vv /vv/vv/vv/v I VIII vOvv00000 �I //v/v/vw/vw/v i'� i �I 0/vv a M ' v N III. ASSESSMENT OF AFFECTED NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES A. Existing Site Conditions i. Existing Land Use The property has been cleared previously and used for grazing. The coastline fronting the property has distinct embayments characterized by dynamic erosion and is inaccessible due to treacherous cliffs. Much of the property, except for the coastline, has primarily non-native and invasive pasture grasses that typically dominate disturbed areas of Puna. Currently the property is vacant and unused. Previously used grazing structures and fencing have since been removed from the property. Wire fencing remains between property 026 and 027 as well as along the property line with Government Beach Road. ii. Geology and Soils The lava flows of this area are all derived from Kilauea volcano's East Rift Zone. Several historical lava flows have overlain the surrounding area in the last 1,500 years. The oldest flow reached the sea on the northwest corner of the property and formed a 50-foot littoral cone (pu`u) and widespread cinder deposits from the interaction with molten lava and seawater. Between 450 and 750 years ago, another sequence of lava flows surrounded the pu`u and covered the remaining portions of the property. The property is layered pahoehoe, with `Opihikao series (2kllp) soil, which is highly decomposed plant material with 2 to 20% slopes. This soil type is well drained and has high runoff. No water features such as streams, springs, anchialine ponds are found on or near the property; flood risk is low and is not anticipated to impact the aquaculture pond or the larger property. iii. Coastal Conditions and Resources There are no perched sandy beaches above the high tide line. Tephra, ash, and cinder make up the pu`u that is present in the first embayment. This area is much more friable than the south end of the property, which is made up of pahoehoe. The shoreline is made up of 5 embayments, or coves, which are lined with steep sloping cobble berms and show varying degrees of erosion based on differing substrate composition. Talus accumulation, exposed cinder, slumping, sea arches, cave undercutting, and block failure are all coastal processes occurring at various rates. Several erosive processes contribute to the current setting of the subject property including wave energy, drag, wind, and gravity. A Coastal Erosion Study (CES)was conducted by T.E Scheffler and J.P. Lockwood Ph.D, Certified Professional Geologist(#9806), which determined In Average Annual Erosion Rate (AAER) of 0.36 feet per year. This report can be found in Appendix B of the Environmental Assessment. The proposed pond will be setback roughly 260 feet from the shoreline and will not be at risk of erosion processes (Figure 5). 13 The coastal and marine flora and fauna are typical of the Puna area, with limited coral but a variety of fish and invertebrates. Fishing occurs frequently at the end of Maku`u Drive, approximately 260 feet north of the property. The public can utilize shoreline resources on the property as lateral shoreline access will not be affected. iv. Flora and Fauna A biotic survey conducted on the property found no native or endangered flora or fauna. Many decades of grazing have left the property largely comprised of introduced pasture grasses. Some of these include California grass (Brachiara mutica), Bermuda grass (Chrysopogon spp.), Honohono grass (Commelina diffusa) and Pangola grass (Digitaria spp). Common ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia) and Polynesian-introduced coconut(Cocos nucifera) are present on the coastal region of the site. Each of the plant species found are typical for the region and the island, as well as neighboring islands. The location of the proposed pond is made up only of alien pasture grasses, therefore, no native flora will be impacted by the construction or operation of the pond. Several common birds were detected, including common myna (Acridotheres tristis), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), spotted dove (Streptopelia chinensis), Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicus) and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). The black noddy is a common seabird of the main Hawaiian Islands coastline. Their nesting habitat is commonly in crevices and caves in pahoehoe lava sea cliffs, which are present on the coastal areas of this site. Although not detected during the survey, it is possible for the black noddy to be in the area or to establish a nest in the vicinity of the property. Although no suitable nesting trees or habitats are present on the property, it is not uncommon for native and endangered birds to be in the general area of East Hawaii coastlines. Five animals, which may fly over, roost or utilize resource of the property, are the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat(Lasiurus cinereus semotus), the endangered Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), the endangered band-rumped storm petrel (Oceanodroma castro), the threatened Newell's shearwater(Puffrnus auricularis newelli), and the formerly endangered Hawaiian hawk(Buteo solitarius). It is possible common and/or seabirds may utilize the pond for resources at times. No adverse impacts are anticipated if this were to occur. Aside from birds, other introduced mammals were also found within the project area including, cat(Felis catus), pig (Sus scrofa), indian mongoose (Herpestes a. auropunctatus), and rat(Rattus spp.). Highly invasive coqui frog (Eleutherodactylus coqui)is also likely to be present, consistent with most of lowland Puna, although none were detected at the time of the survey. Kalo (taro) (Colocasia esculenta)will be planted throughout the aquaculture pond at appropriate depths and will be cultivated for personal and family use. Native groundcover species of Ae`ae (Bacopa monnieri) Makaloa (Cvperus laevi a�tusl_ 14 and Ahuawa (Mariscus iavanicus)will be planted around the aquaculture pond to stabilize the embankments. Mr. Paul Pastorek will consistently monitor the pond for use by native or endangered bird species. If any such species are spotted on the property and/or utilizing resources from the aquaculture pond_ all management work(including chemical treatment)will cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resources_ Department of Fish and Wildlife (DOFAW)will be contacted immediately for appropriate action. Action to minimize predator presence will also be taken and includes removingcats_-placing bait stations for rodents and mongoose_ and providing covered trash receptacles. V. Archaeological, Cultural, and Historical Resources An Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) and Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA)was prepared for the Properties by Scientific Consultant Services Inc. in April 2020 and are attached as Appendix C and D of the EA. The Archaeological Inventory Survey was conducted by Glenn G. Escott, M.A., and Thomas Dols, M.A of Scientific Consultant Services Inc (SCS)in November 2019. The survey was conducted in accordance with HAR Chapter 13-284 and was performed in compliance with the Rules Governing Minimal Standards for Archaeological Inventory Surveys and Reports as outlined in HAR Chapter 13- 276. As a result of the survey, two archeological sites were identified including a rock wall (SIHP Site 50-10-45-18419)parallel to Government Beach Road, and a property boundary rock wall (Site 50-10-45-31185). Rock wall 18419 is 204 meters long NW/SE, 1 meter wide and 1.1 meters high. It is located roughly between 40 feet above mean sea level along the west boundary of the property. This rock wall is in moderate condition with some intermittent collapse and tumble along its southwest side. This rock wall is located over 400 feet south of the proposed aquaculture pond and will not be impacted by operation. Figures of Site 18419 can be found in the Environmental Assessment on page 78 and 79. The property boundary rock wall 31185 is 92 meters long NE/SW, 1.1 meters wide and 1.28 high. It is located between 20 and 40 feet above mean sea level along the northwest boundary of the property. The wall begins at the edge of Government Beach Road and extends northeast to the edge of a sea cliff. The wall is in good condition and is roughly 45 feet away from the closest point of the wall. Both sites are Historic to Modern era agriculture and ranching structures and are significant under criterion "D". The"Significance Assessment and Recommendations" for how this was determined can be found in the AIS report in Appendix C of the EA. Escott and Dols do not recommend any further work at either Sites 18419 or 31185 found on the property. 15 What was believed to be a rock mound was previously discovered in 1974 on the property and is known as Bishop Museum Site #HA-A3-15. It was likely designated SIHP #50-1-45-18986. No evidence of the mound remains present today. Along the shoreline to the south, and outside of the property boundary, is a historical trail known as Site 18418. Extensive efforts went into searching for the mauka-makai trail Site 18418 on property 027; however, no evidence of the trail was found. The Na Ala Hele Trails and Access Program was consulted regarding the pre- historical lateral foot trail paralleling the coast on the ad'ai cent parcel to the south identified as TLV (3) 1-5-010: 028. Although the archaeological review of Lot B Ls=u=bJ=ect Parcel 027) did not document any physical evidence of the trail within the subject property_ special care should be given along the coastal zone. Additionally_ _ the trail may be considered public property per the Highway_ s Act of 1892 (HRS 2641. The Na Ala Hele acknowledges that while the trail likely crossed both subs parcels_ its status as public property cannot be affirmed without any Vhvsical_ archaeological_ or cartographic proof of its existence on the parcels today. Nevertheless_ Na Ala Hele has requested that the applicants respect and preserve the general area and enable lateral access along the general alignment of where the trail may be situated. Therefore_ lateral access will be allowed across both subject parcels along the general alignment of where the trail may be. Additionally_ no development is proposed within 130 feet of the shoreline_ which the Na Ala Hele program has deemed sufficient to prevent any Votential impacts to the trail. Furthermore_ Parcel 027 spans over 300 feet as per existing lot lines. With the consolidation and re-subdivision proposal_ a buffer zone of 300 feet would be created between Parcel 028 (where current evidence of the pre-historic trail exists) and where development activities would take place on Lot B. A Cultural Impact Assessment(CIA)was also prepared by Glenn Escott, M.A. and Thomas Dols, M.A of Scientific Consultant Services Inc. The historical research and responses outlined in the CIA identified no past or ongoing cultural practices on the property. However, cultural practices such as fishing and gathering of ocean resources continue to be an important practice in the wider Maku`u region. Since the property owner will not prevent shoreline access, traditional cultural practices within the project and wider area will not be affected. Based on the findings in the AIS and CIA, no archaeological, historical, or cultural resources will be significantly impacted by the proposed aquaculture pond. 16 vi. Recreational Resources Fishing and gathering of ocean resources is a significant practice in the wider Maku`u area. The shoreline at the end of Maku`u Drive is often used for nearshore fishing and the collection of ocean resources such as `opihi. This area is located just over 1 mile from the subject property and will not be impacted by the planned aquaculture pond. There is no safe access to the water along the shoreline fronting the parcel due to treacherous cliffs. However, lateral shoreline access will be maintained and access across the property to the shoreline will be available to the public through a designated contact number. vii. Scenic Resources Scenic resources on the property include features such as the exposed cinder deposits, sea caves and arches. The topography along Government Beach Road fronting the property is lower compared to other portions of the site. This naturally restricts views of the coastal area from the road. Most scenic opportunities are provided by walking out to the shoreline. Access across the subject property to the shoreline will be available to the public through a designated contact, which members of the public can call when they wish to access the shoreline fronting the property. The pond is proposed to be situated in a naturally occurring "low" spot according to the property's topography, which will limit if not eliminate visual impacts from Government Beach Road. The pond will also not impede on ocean views or block Tradewinds coming in from the coast. The planting and harvesting of Kalo (taro) will be included in the proposed aquaculture plan, which is a Polvnesian- Introduced species. Outside of the pond, aesthetically pleasing features and architecture will be incorporated into the larger area of the property, which will enhance scenic resources. B. Assessment of Potential Environmental Threats The most significant natural resources in the area are the coastal resources. The main environmental concern of aquaculture ponds is effluent, or waste discharge. The aquaculture pond is proposed to be setback 260 feet from the shoreline at its closest point. There are several mitigating measures that will be put into place to properly handle effluent, prevent any overflow from entering and impacting coastal resources, and to maintain high water quality of the pond. With the implementation of short- and long-term Best Management Practices, there is low risk for environmental threat. The flora and fauna survey found no native, threatened, or endangered species on the property. The property is dominated by non-native and invasive pasture grasses. The aquaculture pond is proposed to farm taro, which is a Polynesian Introduced species and culturally significant aquaculture plant. Fauna in the area is largely made up of common bird species. The black noddy is a common seabird of the main Hawaiian Islands coastline. Their nesting habitat is commonly in crevices and caves in pahoehoe lava sea cliffs, which are present on the coastal areas of this site. Although possibly in the area, no nests or black noddy birds were spotted during the survey. It is unlikely any native or 17 endangered forest birds would utilize the property or pond due to the lack of native forests, invasive species present, and low-lying nature of the site. Therefore, the proposed aquaculture pond is not likely to result in any adverse biological impacts to the surrounding flora and fauna. IV. ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL HAZARDS The subject property is located makai of Government Beach Road, which puts it in the State Civil Defense Agency, Tsunami Evacuation Zone. Tsunami warning signs are situated in the area to alert residents of a tsunami alert and possible evacuation to areas mauka of the Government Beach Road. The floodplain status for the Island of Hawaii is determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which produces the National Flood Insurance Program's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). According to these resources, the property is in Flood Zone X, or outside the 500-year floodplain. Flood Zone VE, or 1% annual chance of a 100-year flood, is designated seaward of the shoreline. Flooding in this zone should have no impact to the proposed aquaculture pond, which will be located at roughly 35 feet above sea level and setback 260 feet from the shoreline. There are no notable streams in the area that could cause stream flooding on the property and impact the proposed aquaculture pond, nor are any adverse impacts to drainage anticipated. The elevation of the aquaculture pond and setback from the shoreline put it well outside of the area that may be impacted by high waves, storm surge, sea level rise, or erosion. The entire Island of Hawaii is rated 4 in terms of seismic hazard intensity, which is classified as "frequent" seismic activity. The USGS recently came out with a new model, which better estimates earthquake hazard probability for the Hawaiian Islands. The updated ground shaking model indicates there is a 90% chance of experiencing damaging levels of shaking during the next 100 years on Hawaii Island. The coastline of the project site is prone to various rates of erosion based on several natural processes. The Coastal Erosion Study determined an Annual Average Erosion Rate (AAER) of 0.36 feet/year. Subsidence is experienced on much of the Puna coastline; however, the highest rates are localized closer to Kilauea's east rift zone, which is much further southeast from the subject property. The aquaculture pond is proposed to be located at least 260 feet from any area of active erosion at its closest point. Coastal erosion is therefore not anticipated to have any impact on the proposed pond. The property is situated in Lava Zone 3, on a scale ranging from 9 to 1 (least hazardous to most). Zone 3 is less hazardous than Zone 2, which is adjacent to the summit of the ERZ. Since 1800, 1- 5% of Zone 3 has been covered by lava. This percentage increases with time, with roughly 15- 75% coverage over the past 750 years. V. DESCRIPTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) A. Short-Term BMPs (During Implementation) The implementation of the aquaculture pond will require the excavation of the pond, establishing a central distribution line for irrigation/drainage, stabilizing the embankments, and directing overflow away from embankments. The primary threats to 18 the environment during these activities would be from the potential for erosion and sedimentation. The Best Management Practices to be implemented during this period include: • Minimize the total amount of land disturbance required. • Excavate the pond, spillway and plumbing during the "dry" season to minimize sediment runoff(May— October). • Excavate/construct embankments at 2:1 slope, which will add stability, minimize erosion, and deter emergent weeds from taking hold. • Remove all stumps_ trees_ roots_ and other debris. • Fill and smooth existing channels and depressions in the pond area using sand. • Apply a HDPE liner to seal the pond and to prevent excessive seepage and limit nutrient transport to groundwater. Utilize the criteria in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Pond Sealing or Lining, Compacted Soil Treatment Guidelines (Code 520) and eomembrane Liner (Code 521) (Exhibit B and Q. • Apply gravel and grass to the embankments to stabilize from erosion/sedimentation. • Establish vegetation on all exposed soil surfaces that have been disturbed. Use other protective methods if soil or climatic conditions preclude the use of vegetation. • Construct a grass waterway to direct any overflow away from the embankments. The spillway must have sufficient capacity to remove a 10-Year 24-hour direct rainfall amount in 48 hours or less. A minimum 8-inch diameter pipe must be used. The levee around the excayawd = pond must meet the requirements for embankments in NRCS CPS Pond (Code 378) (Exhibit Dl. • Embankments should be convex to allow rain runoff. Provide a minimum width of 10 feet between the outside and top of the embankment. • Check the soil in the pond and drainage area for harmful environmental contaminants before filling and remediate if necessary. B. Long-term BMPs (Following Implementation/Ongoing Operations) Best Management Practices are crucial for the ongoing operation of the aquaculture pond to minimize the potential environmental and health impacts. The implementation of BMPs will help reduce the potential movement of sediments, nutrients and pesticides/fungicides, or other potential pollutants, while maximizing the efficient use of resources and optimizing aquaculture production. Water quality is an important component of aquaculture health. Different components of water quality can include temperature, pH, dissolved nutrients, and dissolved oxygen, all of which should be consistently monitored. The BMPs outlined below look at water quality variables, effluent management, pest management and aquatic vegetation management, Each BMP will also require ongoing data collection, record keeping and monitoring to ensure their implementation is continuously effective. 19 i. Temperature Tilapia is a warm water fish and Kalo is a tropical plant that also requires warm temperatures. Both species prefer water temperatures between 75- and 86-degrees Fahrenheit for optimal health and water quality. For tilapia, warmer water has less capacity to hold as much dissolved oxygen as cooler water, and animals can use up to twice as much oxygen when the water temperature rises above their comfortable levels. Temperature maintenance is also crucial to prevent disease incidence within the Kalo population. Temperature fluctuations in ponds is driven by thermal stratification. Since water density decreases with increasing temperature_ surface water and deeper waters do not mix well. This creates a condition known as thermal stratification where discrete lavers of water are separated from each other. Thermal stratification takes place naturally_ every day. In the evening, surface waters cool and mixin o two lavers begins again. Mixing the hottest parts of the day can be enhanced through natural wind flow and aeration tools to help cool surface waters. Since the site is near the ocean, coastal breezes will help maintain water temperature at appropriate levels naturally. The pond is also specifically designed so the length runs parallel to the direction of the Tradewinds. This will naturally increase the surface area accessible to wind. However_ additional aeration methods will be used in the event of excessive and prolonged sun exposure that raises temperatures above the optimal range. Temperature will be monitored daily_ to make necessary adjustments. ii. pH VH indicates whether the water is neutral_ basic_ or acidic. The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14. Water with a pH value below 7 is acidic and above 7 is basic. Healthy pH levels for a fresh-water pond are between 6 and 9. Growth of aquatic species including both tilapia and Kalo will slow if levels drop below 6. If a pH of below 4 or above 11 are reached, then death may occur. Natural changes in pH are likely to occur throughout the day based on photosynthesis and carbon dioxide generated from flora and fauna. Generally, pH levels increase during the day and decrease at night. Efforts to maintain pH balance will be incorporated into routine maintenance activities. Since the proposed pond will be in contact with soil for Kalo production_ liming can be used to prevent swings in pH and enhance the effects of fertilization and add calcium and magnesium_ which are important for fish physiology. pH will be measured using a pH meter daily_ to monitor and document fluctuations. Considerable fluctuations in pH can occur when phytoplankton levels are too high. See below for details on how to maintain phytoplankton populations. If significant and prolonged changespH are experienced and cannot be remedied then a complete water change may be warranted if there is excessive fish die off. 20 iii. Feed/Dissolved Nutrients There are three main compounds that can reach toxic concentrations in aquaculture systems: ammonia, nitrite, and hydrogen sulfide. These compounds are found in most aquatic environments and can reach toxic levels when stocking densities and feed/feeding rates are not balanced. Levels of these compounds must be monitored and checked daily along with feedin r Feeding rates and schedule is crucial for maintaining water quality, as uneaten food and metabolic processes can result in high oxygen demand. The efficient use of feeds and proper feeding practices will reduce excess nutrients in effluent. Much of the nitrogenphosphorus added to the aquaculture pond as feed or fertilizer remains after harvest. Methods to lesson nutrient loading will be adopted and include: • Using high quality_ feed and good feeding practices to limit waste broduction. • Minimizing water exchange to limit effluent volume. Feed Conversion Rate (FCR) can be calculated by the amount of feed needed to produce one kg of growth in tilapia. The lower the FCR the more efficient the feed is. Keeping accurate records of the amount of feed and the growth rate of the tilapia will determine a feed conversion rate. Feeds will also be spread as evenly as possible throughout the pond to maximize the likelihood of food to be utilized. Water temperature and pH levels are needed to calculate toxic ammonia levels_ since ammonia levels will rise as temperature and pH rise. The daily cycle of pH will cause subtle changes to ammonia levels_ beingthe in the afternoon when pH and temperature are the highest. This is a normal fluctuation and doesn't necessarily represent toxicity. A toxic level of ammonia will remain elevated over time. High ammonia levels are often a direct result of high feeding rates. Toxic levels should be immediately reduced by cutting back on feed or exchanging water completely_ if necessary. iv. Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen is one of the most important water quality variables in aquaculture. It can be affected by temperature and poor water quality including nutrient loading and algae blooms. If any of these factors increase, the capacity of water to hold dissolved oxygen decreases. Dissolved oxygen can be managed through proper water management and planning, as was discussed individually above. High dissolved oxygen levels can also be achieved through photosynthesis and water circulation from wind or aeration. The long axis of the proposed pond will be positioned parallel to the direction of the trade winds to utilize natural wind energy for circulation. However, aerators will be used in the event there are periods of little to no wind. Common types of aerators include vertical pump, air 21 injectors or propellers. Optimal dissolved oxygen levels range between 5 and 9 mg/L or 3 to 5 parts per million. Aeration guidance can be found in the NRCS Agricultural Engineering Technical Note No. AEN-3_ "Aeration of Ponds used in Aquaculture." Maintaining a healthy phytoplankton population is also crucial for dissolved oxygen levels. This will be discussed further below. V. Effluent Management Discharge of aquaculture effluent is regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Permit, which may be required for the proposed pond. Water changes (including complete discharge)will be performed routinely to maintain water quality and effluent. The following BMPs will be adhered to when releasing effluent: 1. Water will be discharged slowly to minimize the number of suspended materials found in discharge. 2. Seining will be limited during the release of water to prevent more suspended solids being added into the effluent discharge. 3. Tilapia will be concentrated into a harvest basin before discharge is complete to allow suspended material to settle before fully draining the pond. 4. All effluent will be used for landscape irrigation, which will be distributed throughout the site from hoses attached to a central distribution line. 5. Introduce incoming water as far away from the outlet drain as practical to prevent the rapid removal of fresh water from the pond. vi. Integrated Pest Management Pest management may become a concern in the proposed production of Kalo (taro). Table 1 describes potential pest activity_ _ which may occur and examples of organisms responsible for damage,e. Table 1: Examples of Organism Damage to Aquatic Vegetation Activity in Relation to Plants Examples of Organisms Chewing leaves, stem, fruit Grasshoppers, beetles, caterpillars, slugs Sucking plant sap Aphids, leafhoppers, whiteflies, scales, thri s, mites Boring, tunnels Leafminer, weevils, twig borers, root borers, caterpillars Galls on plants Gall wasp, erinose mites Egg-laying Fruit flies Waste Product Contamination Cockroaches, caterpillars, ants, aphids, whiteflies Transmit Plant Disease Aphids, leafhoppers, thris Integrated Pest Management(IPM)is a holistic approach to pest management that can reduce the use of pesticides that have the potential to harm the environment. IPM practices include physical_ biological_ and chemical controls. Implementing an effective IPM program will reduce the number of chemical applications and 22 rates required to control pests. The following are IPM practices that can be adopted: • Add beneficial bacteria to the pond to help metabolize excess nutrients and reduce the likelihood of severe algae blooms and aquatic weed infestations. • Use appropriate biological controls such as insect predators to the tares best to control population numbers. • Implementing effective insect identification. • Removal and eradication of affected plants. vii.Aquatic Weed and Algae Control The aquaculture pond is proposed to be 12 feet deep to prevent excessive sunlit from reaching the bottom of the pond leading to the establishment of vegetation. However_ if left unmanaged_ surface vegetation can spread to deep water. Manual and chemical control methods will be adopted to control surface vegetation and potential algae outbreaks. The following Best Management Practices will be followed: • Manual removal will be utilized first and foremost and done reularly before vegetation becomes dense enough to move to the bottom of the • Chemical treatments will only be used if necessary_ _ using aquatic appropriate herbicide. • Only small portions of the pond will be treated at a time. • Submerged etation and arae will be treated early in the growing season whenever possible. • Nutrient levels will be checked following each chemical treatment to ensure water quality is still at optimal levels. Phytoplankton is an important organism within a pond ecosystem. In balance phytoplankton populations maintain healthy oxygen levels throughout the water. If phytoplankton is scarce_ oxygen levels will be too low_ and if overabundant_ too high. The Secchi Disk Visibility test is an easy and important tool to measure phytoplankton abundance in the aquaculture pond (Figure ). The Secchi disk is 15-25 centimeters (cml with black and white quadrants. It is attached to a calibrated stick that measures visibility once submerged into water. The depth at which the Secchi disk disappears is considered the "Secchi disk visibility." There is a direct correlation between phytoplankton abundance and Secchi disk visibility. If the disk disappears between 30 and 45 cm_ the abundance of phytoplankton is healthy and dissolved ox en levels are safe. However_ if the disk disappears at a depth less than 30 cm_ the bloom is excessive and remedial efforts are likely needed. If visibility is greater than 45 cm_ the bloom is scarce and dissolved oxygen levels are likely too low. 23 14L ; ........... . ............... � . W Figure 7: Example of the Secchi Disk Visibility Test In the event of an excessive algae bloom_ remedial efforts should be adopted including manual removal and cleaning of debris. If the bloom is unmanageable and has significantly altered the overall water quality and health of the pond_ then a complete drain and water exchange may be warranted. viii. Accidental Fscane/tJnintentional Introductions The Department of Land and Natural Resources_ Division of Aquatic Resources urges efforts are taken to prevent the accidental escape and/or unintentional introduction of Mozambique Tilapia into natural aquatic habitats_ especially inland bodies of water or ponds without established populations of non-native fishes. The design of the pond will prevent the escape of non-native or otherwise harmful species to adjacent areas and surface water bodies. Durin water exchanges/complete drains_ the healthy fish population will be carefully caught and transferred to a tank before reintroducing to the aquaculture pond. There are no nearby streams or freshwater bodies on the subject property. The pond is proposed roughly 260 feet from the shoreline and naturally placed in an area of low topography. These factors make an unintentional introduction of tilapia to a natural aquatic habitat very unlikely. ix. Fish Die Off The aquaculture pond will be monitored daily for dead fish. Any dead fish will be removed immediately and buried to be used as fertilizer for the soil. Water quality 24 will be checked and recorded after anv deceased fish have been found. In the event of a mass fish die off all dead fish will be removed and buried_ and a complete water exchange will be completed. VI. SCHEDULE AND SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES A. Project Schedule and Sequencing of Actions Table 2: Project Schedule and Sequencing of Actions Action Time Frame (Weeks/Months) Excavating the pond and spillway 1 Month Gravel/Grass on Embankment 2 Weeks Plumbing Central Line, Inlet/Outlet 2 Weeks Laying Sand and HDPE liner 2 Weeks Emergent Vegetation/Pest/Fungi Control Ongoing Water Quality Monitoring and Maintenance Ongoing Water Level Maintenance Ongoing Water Changes/Effluent Discharge/Irrigation Ongoing Soil Conditions including Chemical Buildup and Nutrient Deficiencies Ongoing Tila ia/Kalo Stggkin and Harvesting Ongoing VII. PLANS FOR ON-GOING MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE Regular and ongoing monitoring of the water quality, fish and plant health, and site conditions are essential components to ensure environmental resources are not impacted. The areas to be monitored on a regular basis as part of the aquaculture operations include the following: • Frequent monitoring of water quality variables including temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrient loading, and pH, ammonia, nitrite, and hydrogen sulfide. • Oxygen meters, VH meters_ automated temperature recorders and refractometers will be used. • Monitoring water levels, potential seepage issues, and maintenance of grass waterway. • Record keeping of feeding rates (frequency and amount) as well as even feeding technique. • Control emergent vegetation in pond and maintain stabilizing vegetation on embankments. • Routine water changes and discharging of effluent as irrigation for landscaped plants following the BMPs outlined in Section V, B. • Maintenance of grass waterway/sbillway. • Monitor for pest infestations and implement Integrated Pest Managementpractices to control unwanted populations. 25 Tables 3-5 are examples of daily and/or monthly spreadsheets to monitor water quality_ stocking; and harvesting for tilapia and Kalo. In addition, regular maintenance of the equipment associated with the operation of the aquaculture pond is necessary to maintain safe environmental conditions. The areas that require special attention in terms of regular inspection and maintenance of equipment include: • Central distribution line for draining/irrigation. • Hoses/Vibes/valves to be used for irrigation. • Inlet and outlet. • Sand layer/HDPE lining. • Aeration tools and meters to measure water quality. VIII. CONCLUSION The applicant is well educated on sustainable aquaculture farming practices and on the Best Management Practices necessary to operate and maintain a fresh-water earthen pond. The establishment of this pond will allow for personal and family use and to teach others traditional methods of aquaponic farming. 26 o _o o Fj U z 0 x o � Qo a � 3 o � a un � Q Table 4: Example Spreadsheet for St cking Tila is Jan Feb March Aril May June Stocking Date Number of Fish Stocked Species Source Obtained Sample Number Total Weight Average Weight %Body Weight Gained Length to Weight Ratio Total Monthly Feed Harvest Frequency Loss Frequency Table 5: Example Spreadsheet for Harvestin Tila is Jan Feb March Aril May June Date of Harvest Start time of Harvest Method of Harvest Duration of Harvest Number of Fish Harvested Harvest Frequency Number of Fish Lost Loss Frequency Overall Condition of Fish Notes for Future Harvest 28 Table 6: Example Spreadsheet for Tilapia Feeding Schedule Month Day Time Number of Fish Present Feed Amount Feed Tecnhique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Monthly Totals: IX. REFERENCES Howerton, R. 2001. Best Management Practices for Hawaiian Aquaculture. University of Hawaii Sea Grant Extension Services. Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture Publication No. 148. Keala, G., Hollyer, J., & Castro, L. 2007. Loko I`a: A Manual on Hawaiian Fishpond Restoration and Management. University of Hawai`I at Manoa, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. USDA NRCS. 2020. Aquaculture Pond (Code 397), Conservation Practice Standard. Washington, D.C. https://www.blogs.nres.usda.gov/Intemet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/16/ nreseprdl559470.pdf USDA NRCS. 2011. Agricultural Engineering Technical Note (Title 210), Agricultural and Biological Engineering, No. AEN-3, Aeration of Ponds Used in Aquaculture. Washington, D.C. https:Hdirectives.sc.egov.usda.gov. Wurts, W.A. and M.P. Masser. 2013. Liming Ponds for Aquaculture. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center publication No. 4100. Stoneville, MS. 30 USDA Exhibit A - United States Department of Agriculture 397-CPS-1 Natural Resources Conservation Service CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD AQUACULTURE POND CODE 397 (ac) DEFINITION Awater impoundment for farming of freshwater and saltwater organisms including fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and aquatic plants. PURPOSE This practice is used to accomplish one or more of the following purposes: • To provide a favorable aquatic environment for aquaculture crops • To reduce or manage nutrient-enriched and pathogen-laden discharges CONDITIONS WHERE PRACTICE APPLIES This practice applies to all impoundments created by excavation or earthen embankments that store water and are managed for aquaculture purposes. This practice does not address other types of aquaculture containers addressed by NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Fish Raceway or Tank (Code 398). CRITERIA General Criteria Applicable to All Purposes Aquaculture ponds may be embankment ponds that intercept and store surface runoff water, or off- channel impoundments or excavated ponds that are filled by pumping ground water, or diverting spring or stream flows. Ponds may be constructed with a bare-earth bottom, or may be lined with a less-pervious (compacted earth) or impervious liner material (geomembrane, geosynthetic clay, concrete). Protect the site from flooding, sedimentation, and nonsediment contamination. Check the soils in the pond area and contributing drainage area for harmful chemicals and remediate if necessary. If pH is unsuitable for desired aquaculture crops and where the water will be in contact with earth, apply lime to acid soils to achieve a neutral condition or the desired pH level for best production. When multiple ponds are planned, arrange each pond so that it can be managed independently of the others to facilitate harvesting and the control of parasites and disease. Design all ponds to prevent the escape of nonnative or otherwise harmful species to adjacent surface water bodies. Establish vegetation on all exposed soil surfaces that have been disturbed. Use other protective methods if soil or climatic conditions preclude the use of vegetation. Where the embankment of the pond is used as a road for harvesting, feeding, and management, and is nonpublic, the minimum top width of the embankment is 14 feet. Utilize the criteria in NRCS CPS Access Road (Code 560)for road design. NRCS reviews and periodically updates conservation practice standards. To obtain the current NRCS, NHCP version of this standard, contact your Natural Resources Conservation Service State office or September 2020 visit the Field Office Technical Guide online by going to the NRCS website at https://www.nres.usda.gov/and type FOTG in the search field. USDA is an equal opportunity provider,employer,and lender. 397-CPS-2 Water supply Any available water source may be used if the quality and quantity are adequate. Open water sources can introduce biosecurity risks such as aquatic pathogens. Runoff from upstream drainage basins, especially basins including agricultural or industrial sites, can also introduce contaminants. If water is pumped from rivers and streams or other sources where fish, invasive mollusks, pesticide residue, fish disease, and parasites may be introduced, include filters, screens, disinfection by ultraviolet or other means, or a combination thereof as needed in the pumping system. Design intake screens for fish protection at the point of withdrawal in accordance with all applicable Federal and State requirements. Establish incoming flow rates using evaporation rates, stocking densities, and cultured species requirements. Water quality Aerate water entering the pond to increase dissolved oxygen and dissipate harmful gases, if needed. The minimum needed dissolved oxygen level in ponds is typically 3 to 5 parts per million, but varies by species. Include supplemental aeration within the aquaculture ponds, as necessary, to maintain desired dissolved oxygen. Aeration guidance is found in NRCS Technical Note (Title 210),Agricultural and Biological Engineering,Agricultural Engineering No.AEN-3, "Aeration of Ponds Used in Aquaculture." Evaluate the water temperature and water chemistry for the species requirements and the planned production level. Introduce incoming water as far away from outlet drain as practicable to prevent the rapid removal of fresh water from the pond. Provide for the collection, harvest, and utilization of wastes from the cultured organisms. Make provisions for any needed treatment of water released downstream to ensure that the State-designated use of the receiving waters is not degraded from the aquaculture impoundment structure. Discharge of aquaculture effluent to surface waters is regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The applicable criteria differ depending on what species will be grown, existing conditions of the receiving water body, and the size of the operation. Early consultation with the regulating agency is advised. Land application of nutrient-enriched discharge water must meet the criteria in NRCS CPS Nutrient Management (Code 590). Pond size and depth Construct the pond to the recommended size and depth for the species to be grown. Pipes and conduits Install pump discharge through embankments and levees above expected high water level. Make provisions to prevent pump and motor vibrations from being transmitted to discharge conduits. Protect earth surfaces from turbulent water at pipe inlets and outlets. Provide adequate cross section of interior embankments constructed for division of water or to direct water flow for circulation to ensure stability and function for their intended purpose. Drains All ponds must have facilities for complete as well as partial drawdown. Turn-down pipes, quick-release valves, bottom-water release sleeves, pumps, or other devices for water level control and pond management are to be included in the design and construction of the impoundment. For conduit design and seepage control meet the requirements in NRCS CPS Pond (Code 378). Pond bottom Where organisms are harvested by seining, smooth the pond bottom and remove all stumps, trees, roots, and other debris. Fill and smooth existing channels and depressions in the pond area. Deepen the edges of the pond to provide at least 3 feet of water. Slope the pond bottom to the outlet at a gradient of at least 0.2 feet per 100 feet. Where crawfish are harvested by trapping, complete clearing and removal of trees, stumps, and other vegetation is not required. NRCS, NHCP September 2020 397-CPS-3 Liners Where necessary to prevent excessive seepage and to limit nutrient transport to ground water, install a liner compatible with the environmental needs of the desired aquatic organisms. Utilize the criteria in NRCS CPS Pond Sealing or Lining -Compacted Soil (Code 520), Pond Sealing or Lining - Concrete (Code 522), or Pond Sealing or Lining -Geomembrane or Geosynthetic Clay Liner(Code 521). Facility access, safety, and security Make provisions for access to the site as well as access for operation and maintenance. Ramps for equipment access must have a grade of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. Include appropriate safety features to aid people who may fall into the pond and install devices to prevent such accidents. Install fences as necessary to exclude livestock and unwanted traffic and to protect crops from predators that can deplete production and transfer pathogens. Netting over the production area can also help prevent predation. Watershed ponds Watershed ponds are filled by runoff from surrounding land and usually consist of an embankment across a drainageway. Design earthfill dams and embankments to meet the requirements in NRCS CPS Pond (Code 378). Levee ponds Levee ponds are established by excavating and constructing an embankment around their outer perimeter that excludes outside runoff. Levee ponds are usually filled by pumped water. Levee ponds require either an auxiliary spillway or a principal spillway pipe installed with sufficient capacity to remove a 10-year 24- hour direct rainfall amount in 48 hours or less. Use a minimum of an 8-inch diameter pipe. The levee around the excavated pond must meet the requirements for embankments in NRCS CPS Pond (Code 378). Provide for embankment settlement in levee construction to meet the minimum freeboard requirements. All levees or berms should be convex to allow rain runoff. Provide a minimum berm width of 10 feet between the outside toe of levee and top of bank of outlet drainage ditch. Modification of existing aquaculture ponds Existing aquaculture impoundments must be evaluated to determine improvements necessary to ensure structural stability and safety, adequacy for the intended aquatic organisms, and potential discharge or seepage issues impacting water quality. Evaluate according to the NRCS National Engineering Manual (Title 210), Part 501, Subpart B, "Repair and Rehabilitation." CONSIDERATIONS Contact the State fishery agency or appropriate State university or research institution for recommendation on pond size, water depths, and adapted commercial aquatic species. General guidance for pond size, water depths, and other aspects of aquaculture pond design and operation may be found in the References section at the end of this document. Literature addressing the state of aquaculture science for specific species can be found in professional association journals, including the "Aquacultural Engineering Journal," the "North American Journal of Fisheries Management," and the "North American Journal of Aquaculture." Consider lining the pond bottom and interior side slopes for improved disease control (earthen surfaces can harbor disease organisms), easier harvesting, waste removal, seepage control, and limiting nutrient transport to ground water. Much of the nitrogen and phosphorous added to the aquaculture pond as feed or fertilizer remains after harvest. Consider methods to lessen the nutrient loading of discharges by— Using high quality feed and good feeding practices to limit waste production. • Minimizing water exchange to limit effluent volume. NRCS, NHCP September 2020 397-CPS-4 • Capturing rainfall by maintaining storage volume to reduce pond overflow. • Treating effluents by using constructed wetlands, sedimentation lagoons, or detention in drainage canals or ditches. For ponds where water will be in contact with earthen material, liming can enhance the effect of fertilization, prevent swings in pH, and add calcium and magnesium which are important in animal physiology. Other planning considerations include the following: • The visual design of ponds should be carefully considered in areas of high public visibility and those associated with recreational fishing. • Consider the effects on the volume of downstream flow or aquifers that might cause undesirable environmental, social, or economic effects and contribute to water table decline from heavy pumping. • Measures to avoid depredation by birds and other animals should be included in the design. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Plans and specifications for constructing aquaculture ponds describe the site-specific requirements for applying the practice to achieve its intended purpose. As a minimum the plans and specifications include— • A site location map with topographic information. • Site plans drawn to scale showing existing and proposed site features, including the pond(s), water supply and effluent piping and associated components, predator control system, and access roads. • Typical cross sections of the pond(s)showing the elevations and dimensions. • Structure size, location, material type, and elevations. • Liner type, thickness, and installation method, if required. • Disposal of any excess excavated material. • Location and type of fence, if required. • Areas to be vegetated and vegetative specification. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Prepare a written site-specific operation and maintenance plan for the system. As a minimum provide for inspection, operation, and maintenance of— • Vegetation. • Pipes. • Valves. • Spillways. • Roads. • Liner. • Other structural parts of the system. REFERENCES Tucker, C.S. 1999. Characterization and Management of Effluents from Aquaculture Ponds in the Southeastern United States. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Publication No. 470. Stoneville, MS. NRCS, NHCP September 2020 397-CPS-5 Schwarz, M.H., et. al. 2017. Good Aquacultural Practices. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Publication No. 4404. Stoneville, MS USDA NRCS. 2011. Technical Note (Title 210),Agricultural and Biological Engineering,Agricultural Engineering No.AEN-3,Aeration of Ponds Used in Aquaculture. Washington, D.C. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov. USDA NRCS. 2017. National Engineering Manual (Title 210), Part 501, Subpart B, Repair and Rehabilitation. Washington, D.C. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov. Wurts, W.A. and M.P. Masser. 2013. Liming Ponds for Aquaculture. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Publication No. 4100. Stoneville, MS. NRCS, NHCP September 2020 USDA Exhibit B United States Department of Agriculture 520-CPS-1 Natural Resources Conservation Service CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD POND SEALING OR LINING - COMPACTED SOIL TREATMENT Code 520 (ft2) DEFINITION A liner for an impoundment constructed using compacted soil with or without soil amendments. PURPOSE This practice is installed to reduce seepage losses from impoundments constructed for water conservation and environmental protection. CONDITIONS WHERE PRACTICE APPLIES This practice applies where— • In-place natural soils have excessive seepage rates, and • An adequate quantity and type of soil suitable for constructing a compacted soil liner without amendments is available, or • An adequate quantity and type of soil suitable for treatment with a soil dispersant or bentonite amendment is available for an amended soil liner. CRITERIA General Criteria Applicable to All Soil Liners. Design Seepage Requirements. Design a compacted soil liner for a waste storage impoundment to reduce specific discharge (unit seepage)to rates specified in the National Engineering Handbook (NEH), Part 651, Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook (AWMFH), Chapter 10, Appendix 1 OD, or rates mandated in State regulations, if they are more restrictive. Lower specific discharge rates must be used if required by regulatory authorities, and may be used at the discretion of the designer even if no such lower limit exists. Laboratory testing of compacted soil liner material for a waste storage impoundment is required to document the specific discharge to meet the design seepage threshold. Design a compacted soil liner for a clean water pond to reduce seepage to a rate that will allow the pond to function as intended. Liner filter compatibility. Design a compacted soil liner that is filter-compatible with the subgrade on to which it is placed to prevent loss of the liner soil into larger openings in the subgrade material. NEH, Part 633, Chapter 26, Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters, provides criteria on filter compatibility. Liner Thickness. The minimum thickness of the finished compacted liner must be the greater of— • The liner thickness required to achieve a specific discharge (unit seepage) design value, or NRCS reviews and periodically updates conservation practice standards. To NRCS, NHCP obtain the current version of this standard, contact your Natural Resources May 2016 Conservation Service State office or visit the Field Office Technical Guide. USDA is an equal opportunity provider,employer,and lender. 520-CPS-2 • A liner thickness required by State regulations, or • The minimum liner thickness as shown in table 1. Table 1. Minimum liner thickness by design storage depth. Design Storage Liner Thickness Depth (ft) (in) <_16 12 16.1-24 18 24.1-30 24 Liner Construction. Use methods described in the AWMFH, Appendix 1 OD, for liner construction. Properly seal all protrusions through the liner, such as pipes. Liner Protection. Protect the soil liner against damage caused by the effects of water surface fluctuations, desiccation and cracking, wave action, rainfall during periods when the liner is exposed, water falling onto the liner from pipe outlets, agitation equipment, solids and sludge removal activity, animal activity, penetrations through the liner, and any other activity capable of causing physical damage to the liner. A protective soil cover may be used to protect the soil liner from desiccation or erosion. The soil cover will be of a soil type, thickness, and density that is resistant to erosion and desiccation. Under severe conditions, a protective soil cover may not adequately protect the liner from desiccation. For example during long periods, of hot, low-humidity condition, a soil cover constructed with very high plasticity soils may experience damage. Under severe conditions, additional design measures such as installation of a geomembrane in conjunction with the soil cover may be required. Side Slopes. The side slopes of the impoundment should be 3H (horizontal) to 1 V(vertical) or flatter to facilitate compaction of soil on the slopes when the "bathtub" method of construction is used, as described in AWMFH, Appendix 1 OD. Slopes as steep as 2H to 1 V can be considered if the "stair-step" method of construction as described in appendix 1 OD of the AWMFH is used. Steeper side slopes can be designed for isolated areas if the slope is protected. Foundation. For waste storage impoundment, foundation conditions for compacted soil liners, including the location and proximity of groundwater and bedrock, will be designed in accordance to Conservation Practice Standards (CPSs) Waste Storage Facility(Code 313) and Waste Treatment Lagoon (Code 359). The liner design will include measures to protect against damage to the soil liner due to uplift water pressures if a seasonal high water table occurs at a level above that of the lowest potential level of liquid in the impoundment. Examples of protective design measures are the use of perimeter drains to lower the water table, maintaining minimum liquid depth in the impoundment, and using liners thick enough and heavy enough to resist uplift water pressures. Evaluate the foundation for conditions such as karstic bedrock,joints, and other discontinuities of the underlying bedrock to determine the appropriateness for a compacted soil liner. Additional Criteria for Soil Dispersant Treatment Dispersant Materials. The dispersant must be tetrasodium pyrophosphate (TSPP), sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP), or soda ash unless laboratory tests using other dispersant types are used in the design. Application Rate. For waste storage impoundments, conduct laboratory permeability tests using a dispersant of the same quality and fineness as that proposed for use. To meet the liner design threshold, NRCS, NHCP May 2016 520-CPS-3 use the application rate and the number and thickness of compacted soil lifts specified in the geotechnical laboratory report. For clean water ponds, in the absence of laboratory tests or field performance data on soils similar to those to be treated, apply dispersant at a rate equal to or greater to the amount lined in table 2. Install the liner with a maximum 6-inch-lift thickness. Table 2. Minimum Dispersant Application Rates for Clean Water Ponds. Minimum Application Rate Dispersant Type per 6-inch lift thickness (lbs./100 ftz) Polyphosphate 7.5 (TSPP, STPP) Soda Ash 15 Safety. During dispersant handling, application and mixing, personnel onsite must wear masks and goggles for protection against dispersant dust. Additional Criteria for Bentonite Treatment Bentonite Material. The bentonite must be a sodium bentonite with a free swell of at least 22 milliliters as measured by ASTM Standard Test Method D5890, unless laboratory tests using other bentonite types are used for design. Application Rate. For waste storage impoundments, conduct laboratory permeability tests using bentonite of the same quality and fineness as that proposed for use. To meet the liner design threshold, use the application rate and number and thickness of compacted soil lifts specified in the geotechnical laboratory report. For clean water ponds, in the absence of laboratory tests or field performance data on soils similar to those to be treated, apply the bentonite at a rate equal to or greater to the amount listed in table 3. Install the liner with a maximum of 6-inch-lift thickness. Table 3. Minimum Bentonite Application Rates for Clean Water Ponds. Pervious Soil Minimum Application Rate Description (lbs./ftz) per 1-inch Lift thickness Silts (ML, CL-ML) 0.375 Silty Sands (SM, SC- SM, SP-SM) 0.5 Clean Sand (SP, SW) 0.625 Safety. During bentonite handling, application and mixing, personnel on site must wear masks and goggles for protection against bentonite dust. CONSIDERATIONS Consider maintenance access safety and slope stability when selecting inside side slopes for design. NRCS, NHCP May 2016 520-CPS-4 Consider using a composite liner system, including a geomembrane and/or geosynthetic clay liner for sites that have liquid depths greater than 24 feet. Consider installing a 12-inch protective soil cover over the compacted soil liner. In areas where the liner can potentially be damaged or scoured by agitation, pumping, or other equipment access, consider installing a concrete pad over the liner. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Prepare plans and specifications for a compacted soil liner for a pond or a waste storage impoundment that describe the requirements for applying the practice to achieve its intended purpose. As a minimum, include— • Soils investigation, including subgrade. • Soil amendment requirements, as needed. • Quantities of soil liner material and soil cover material, as needed. • Quantity and gradation of filter material, as needed. • Compaction requirements. • Supplemental practices, such as geomembrane, as needed. • Construction and material specifications. • Safety requirements. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Maintenance activities required for this practice consist of those operations necessary to prevent and/or repair damage to the compacted soil liner. This includes, but is not limited to— • Excluding animals and equipment from the treated area. • Repairing damage to the liner; restoring the liner to its original thickness and condition. • Removing roots from trees and large shrubs at first appearance. REFERENCES USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook (AWMFH). USDA-NRCS, Washington, D.C. National Engineering Handbook, Part 633, Chapter 26–Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters. NRCS, NHCP May 2016 USDA Exhibit C United States Department of Agriculture 521-CPS-1 Natural Resources Conservation Service CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD POND SEALING OR LINING - GEOMEMBRANE OR GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER Code 521 (ft2) DEFINITION A liner for an impoundment constructed using a geomembrane or a geosynthetic clay material. PURPOSE This practice is applied to— • Reduce seepage losses from an impoundment for water conservation. • Protect soil and water from contaminants. CONDITIONS WHERE PRACTICE APPLIES This practice applies where in-place natural soils have excessive seepage rates. CRITERIA General Criteria Applicable to Purposes. Design. The structure to be lined must meet all applicable NRCS standards. All inlets, outlets, ramps, and other appurtenances may be installed before, during, or after the liner placement, but must be done in a manner that does not damage or impair the proper operation of the liner. Design and install the liner in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. The installer or manufacturer must certify that the liner installation meets the material and installation requirements of the plans and specifications. Follow manufacturer's recommendations with regard to protection from weather and ultraviolet exposure. Materials. Geomembrane and geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) materials must meet the requirements in table 1. Table 1 – Liner Materials Type Name Minimum Thickness Wastewater mil Clear Water mil HDPE High Density Polyethylene 60 30 LLDPE Linear Low-Density Polyethylene 40 30 LLDPE-R Reinforced Linear Low-Density Polyethylene 36 24 PVC Polyvinyl Chloride 40 1 30 NRCS reviews and periodically updates conservation practice standards. To NRCS, NHCP obtain the current version of this standard, contact your Natural Resources October 2017 Conservation Service State office or visit the Field Office Technical Guide. USDA is an equal opportunity provider,employer,and lender. 521-CPS-2 Type Name Minimum Thickness Wastewater mil Clear Water mil EPDM Ethylene Propylene Diene Terpol mer 45 45 FPP Flexible Polypropylene 40 30 FPP-R Reinforced Flexible Polypropylene 36 24 PE-R Reinforced, Slit— Film, Woven Polyethylene NR 24 GCL Geos nthetic Clay Liner 0.75 lbs./square foot NR—Not recommended 1 mil= 1/1000 inch Geomembrane materials must meet the criteria in NRCS National Engineering Handbook(NEH),Part 642,Chapter 3, "Material Specification 594—Geomembrane Liner." GCL materials must meet the criteria in NRCS NEH,Part 642, Chapter 3,"Material Specification 595—Geosynthetic Clay Liner." Safety. Include appropriate safety features in the design to minimize the hazards of the completed pond structure. Use warning signs, fences, ladders, ropes, bars, rails, and other devices, as appropriate, to ensure the safety of humans, wildlife, and livestock. Underliner drainage and venting. Design the drainage and venting system beneath the geomembrane liner based on subsurface conditions such as soil type and groundwater levels. Liners used for waste storage require venting at the top of slope and a drainage system if the invert elevation of the pond is within 2 feet of the seasonal high water table. Hydrostatic pressures from fluctuating groundwater levels or leakage through the liner may cause the liner to float. Gas production and buildup beneath the liner due to the presence of organic material in the soil or leachate leakage through the liner may cause gas to accumulate, resulting in bubbling of the liner. Incorporate a drainage and venting system when conditions exist that may result in floating of the geomembrane liner. Ponds with an underliner drainage system must have a bottom slope of at least 1 percent. Groundwater and leakage detection. If a soil investigation indicates that the groundwater level may be near the invert elevation of the pond, install groundwater monitoring wells to verify the expected water table location. Use NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Monitoring Well (Code 353). In some situations, monitoring wells may need to be installed for a year or more to determine the groundwater levels and gather enough information to properly determine the required flow capacity of the drainage system. If the monitoring wells indicate a seasonal high water table within 2 feet of the pond invert, install subsurface or other type of drainage to control the potential uplift pressures. A liner used for waste storage must have a leak detection line to a free outlet or observation well. Sites with granular subbase material require a secondary liner across the bottom and around the leak detection line to assure leakage is detected. The maximum permeability rate of the secondary liner is 1 x10-4 cm/sec. Gas venting. All pond liners with anchor trenches require venting near the top of the side slopes. Design and install venting in accordance to the manufacturer's recommendations, with a spacing not to exceed 20 feet between vents. Investigate the need for additional venting beneath wastewater pond liners as part of the design. If the investigation determines the potential of gas buildup under the liner, the liner must be vented in accordance to the manufacturer's recommendations. Site conditions conducive to gas production include sites which have been subject to long-term seepage of animal waste into the foundation soil, sites with naturally occurring organics in the soil, or fine-grained foundation soils where fluctuating groundwater levels may trap gases present in the soil. If site conditions are determined to be conducive to gas production, the bottom of the liner must include features to allow gas to flow along the bottom and up the side slopes to the liner vents in the crown. Cushion. Place a cushion layer beneath the liner if the subgrade particles contain sharp angular stones that could damage the liner or if particles greater than 3/8 inch for geomembrane liners and 1/2 inch for GCLs are exposed on the surface. The cushion may be a 10-ounce-per-square-yard or heavier NRCS, NHCP October 2017 521-CPS-3 nonwoven geotextile or a layer at least 6 inches thick of soil meeting the particle size and shape requirements of the subgrade. Geotextile cushion material must meet the requirements of the Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI)Test Method GT12(a). Follow the manufacturer's recommendations for any additional protective measures. Subgrade preparation. Prepare the subgrade to conform to manufacturer's recommendations. The subgrade materials must be free from sharp, angular stones, and the surface free from oversized particles, or any objects that could damage the liner. If angular particles are present, treat the subgrade by placing a cushion layer between the subgrade and the liner. The subgrade surface must provide a smooth, flat, and unyielding foundation for the liner. No standing water, mud, vegetation, snow, frozen subgrade, or excessive moisture may be present at the time of liner placement. Liner protection. Protect liners from mechanical damage from all sources, including equipment access points and agitation operations. If pond management plans indicate locations where agitation operations may result in abrasion or other mechanical damage to the liner, provide protective measures. Measures to ensure the integrity of the liner include increasing the liner thickness above the minimum values listed in table 1 or providing protective ramps and aprons at agitation locations. For GCL liners, analyze the wastewater, subgrade soil, and cover soil to ensure that undesirable cation exchange (calcium and magnesium for sodium)will not occur in the GCL. Anchorage. Anchor the liner to prevent uplift due to wind or slippage down the side slope, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Penetrations. Install penetrations through the liner in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Penetrations associated with waste storage must be watertight. Cover soil. Cover PVC liners and GCLs with a minimum of 12 inches of soil measured perpendicular to the finished surface. Cover soil may be used on other liners but is not required unless essential for the proper performance, protection, and durability of the installation. Do not use cover soil that contains sharp, angular stones or any objects that could damage the liner. The maximum allowable particle size of soil cover material is 3/8 inch for geomembrane liners and 1/2 inch for GCLs. Use cover materials that are stable against slippage down the slope under all operational and exposure conditions, such as rapid drawdown or saturation by precipitation or snowmelt. Place cover soil within 24 hours after placement of the liner to minimize the potential for damage from various sources, including precipitation, wind, and ultraviolet light exposure. Cover soil for GCLs must provide uniform confinement pressure as recommended by the manufacturer. Do not install a drainage layer or venting system beneath a GCL, as they could compromise the liner. CONSIDERATIONS Designs for waste storage facilities should consider leakage through the liner due to liner damage. Giroud and Bonaparte (1989) recommends designing the drainage system based on a frequency of one hole (0.16 square-inch) per acre of surface area. Therefore, drainage and venting systems are strongly recommended for all waste storage facilities. Minimize the number of penetrations through the liner for pond management appurtenances. Detail the trenching and backfilling of pipes to prevent charging of the underside of the liner with subsurface water. For HDPE liners associated with waste water with penetrations over 2 inches in diameter, consider using concrete pads matching the slope with embedded channels to connect the liner, instead of manufactured boots. NRCS, NHCP October 2017 521-CPS-4 PVC geomembranes are not recommended for aquatic production. The stabilizers in the PVC liner material leach out and may be harmful to aquatic species. Consult with manufacturers before selecting a geomembrane material used for aquatic production. Where access is needed, consider installing concrete ramps with embedded channels to connect the liner. Pond corners are typically good locations for concrete ramps due to the flatter slopes. Consider placing the access ramp at a corner location. If the entire waste storage pond is lined and access is needed on the bottom, consider placing concrete over the liner, bedded with geotextile. Consider the use of a geosynthetic such as a geonet or geocomposite under the liner to facilitate collection, drainage of liquids, and venting of gas. If geocomposite materials are used for drainage and/or venting, use materials recommended by the manufacturer in the system design. Use GRI Standard GCB, "Standard Guide for the Allowable Flow Rate of a Drainage Geocomposite" to determine the allowable flow rate of the geocomposite. Slope the pond bottom a minimum of 1 percent to permit positive flow of the liquids or gases. In most cases, the geocomposite will serve both purposes of drainage and venting. For large impoundments, the bottom may need to be sloped in multiple directions in order to decrease the required drainage and venting flow travel distances. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Prepare plans and specifications for a geomembrane or GCL for a pond or a waste storage impoundment that describe the requirements for applying the practice to achieve its intended purpose. As a minimum, include— • Layout of the containment structure, collection points, waste transfer locations or pipelines, and topography of the site. • Soils investigation and subgrade details, including tolerances on smoothness of the finished grade. • Required properties of selected liner, geosynthetics, and cushion materials. • Quantities of liner materials, cover soil, and geosynthetic materials as needed. • Subsurface drainage and venting details. • Construction and material specifications. • Safety requirements for installed liner. • Details of liner installation, seaming requirements, and requirements for attachments and appurtenances. • Minimum qualifications of installers and quality control testing requirements. • Warranty requirements, if desired. • Fence and signage requirements, if required. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Prepare a plan for O&M of the liner and structure consistent with the purposes of the type of liner chosen, intended life, safety requirements, and design criteria. Include site-specific information regarding design capacity and liquid level of the structure and repair procedures for liner material. Maintenance activities required for this practice consist of those operations necessary to prevent and repair damage to the geomembrane or GCL. These include, but are not limited to— • Excluding animals and equipment from the treated area. • Repairing damage to the liner and restoring the liner and cover to its original thickness and condition. • Removing roots from trees and large shrubs at first appearance. • Monitoring leak-detection system. • Protecting the liner during filling and agitation procedures. NRCS, NHCP October 2017 521-CPS-5 Provide guidance on items to inspect periodically, including— • Visible portions of the liner for tears, punctures, or other damage. • Liner interface with inlets, outlets, ramps, or other appurtenances for damage. • Liquid level in the structure. • Ballooning of the liner indicating presence of gas beneath the liner. REFERENCES ASTM D 5887-09, Test Method for Measurement of Index Flux Through Saturated Geosynthetic Clay Liner Specimens Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter. ASTM D 5890-11, Test Method for Swell Index of Clay Mineral Component of Geosynthetic Clay Liners. ASTM D 5891-02(2016), Test Method for Fluid Loss of Clay Component of Geosynthetic Clay Liners. ASTM D 5993-14, Test Method for Measuring of Mass Per Unit of Geosynthetic Clay Liners. ASTM D 6102-15, Guide for Installation of Geosynthetic Clay Liners. ASTM D 6214-98(2013), Test Method for Determining the Integrity of Field Seams Used in Joining Geomembranes by Chemical Fusion Methods. ASTM D 6392-12, Test Method for Determining the Integrity of Nonreinforced Geomembrane Seams Produced Using Thermo-Fusion Methods. ASTM D 6497-02(2015), Guide for Mechanical Attachment of Geomembrane to Penetrations or Structures. ASTM D 7176-06 (2011), Specification for Non-Reinforced Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)Geomembranes Used in Buried Applications. ASTM D 7272-06 (2011), Test Method for Determining the Integrity of Seams Used in Joining Geomembranes by Pre-manufactured Taped Methods. ASTM D 7408-12, Specification for Non Reinforced PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) Geomembrane Seams. ASTM D 7465-15, Specification for Ethylene Propylene Diene Terpolymer (EPDM) Sheet Used in Geomembrane Applications. Daniel, D.E., and R.M. Koerner. 1993. Technical Guidance Document: Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Waste Containment Facilities. EPA/600/R-93/182 (NTIS PB94-159100). Geosynthetic Research Institute, GRI Standard GCB, Standard Guide for the Allowable Flow Rate of a Drainage Geocomposite. Geosynthetic Research Institute, GRI Test Method GT12(a)–ASTM Version, Test Methods and Properties for Nonwoven Geotextiles Used as Protection (or Cushioning) Materials. Geosynthetic Research Institute, GRI Test Method GM13, Standard Specification for Test Methods, Test Properties and Testing Frequency for High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)Smooth and Textured Geomembranes. Geosynthetic Research Institute, GRI Test Method GM17, Standard Specification for Test Methods, Test Properties and Testing Frequency for Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) Smooth and Textured Geomembranes. NRCS, NHCP October 2017 521-CPS-6 Geosynthetic Research Institute, GRI Standard GM18, Standard Specification for Test Methods, Test Properties and Testing Frequencies for Flexible Polypropylene (fPP and fPP-R) Nonreinforced and Reinforced Geomembranes. Geosynthetic Research Institute, GRI Test Method GM19, Standard Specification for Seam Strength and Related Properties of Thermally Bonded Polyolefin Geomembranes. Geosynthetic Research Institute, GRI Test Method GM21, Standard Specification for Test Methods, Properties, and Frequencies for Ethylene Propylene Diene Terpolymer (EPDM) Nonreinforced and Scrim Reinforced Geomembranes. Geosynthetic Research Institute, GRI Test Method GM25, Standard Specification for Test Methods, Test Properties and Testing Frequency for Reinforced Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE-R) Geomembranes. Giroud, J.P., and R. Bonaparte. 1989. Leakage through liners constructed with geomembranes—Part 1. Geomembrane Liners. In Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 8, pgs. 27-67. Koerner, R.M. 2005. Designing with Geosynthetics, 5th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Engineering Handbook, Part 642, Specifications for Construction Contracts. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Conservation Practice Standard Monitoring Well (Code 353). NRCS, NHCP October 2017 USDA Exhibit D - United States Department of Agriculture 378-CPS-1 Natural Resources Conservation Service CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD POND CODE 378 (no) DEFINITION Awater impoundment made by constructing an embankment, excavating a dugout, or a combination of both. In this standard, NRCS defines ponds constructed by the first method as embankment ponds and those constructed by the second method as excavated ponds. Ponds constructed using a combination of the excavation and embankment methods are classified as embankment ponds if the depth of water impounded against the embankment at the auxiliary spillway elevation is 3 feet or more above the lowest original ground along the centerline of the embankment. PURPOSE This practice is used to accomplish one or more of the following purposes: • Store water for: • Livestock • Fish and wildlife • Recreational use • Fire control • Erosion control • Flow detention • Improve water quality CONDITIONS WHERE PRACTICE APPLIES This practice applies to all excavated ponds. It also applies to embankment ponds that meet all criteria for low-hazard potential dams as listed below: • The failure of the dam will not result in loss of life, damage to homes, commercial or industrial buildings, main highways, or railroads, or in interruption of the use or service of public utilities. • The product of the storage times the effective height of the dam is less than 3,000 acre-feetz. Storage is the capacity of the reservoir in acre-feet below the elevation of the crest of the lowest auxiliary spillway or the elevation of the top of the dam if there is no open channel auxiliary spillway. The effective height of the dam is the difference in elevation, in feet, between the lowest open channel auxiliary spillway crest and the lowest point in the original cross section taken on the centerline of the dam. If there is no open channel auxiliary spillway, use the lowest point on the top of the dam instead of the lowest open channel auxiliary spillway crest. • The effective height of the dam is 35 feet or less. NRCS reviews and periodically updates conservation practice standards. To obtain the current NRCS, NHCP version of this standard, contact your Natural Resources Conservation Service State office or July 2022 visit the Field Office Technical Guide online by going to the NRCS website at https://www.nres.usda.gov/and type FOTG in the search field. USDA is an equal opportunity provider,employer,and lender. 378-CPS-2 CRITERIA General Criteria Applicable to All Ponds Plan, design, and construct the pond to comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Notify landowners and/or contractor of their responsibility to locate all buried utilities in the project area, including drainage tile and other structural measures. The landowner is also required to obtain all necessary permits for project installation prior to construction. Design a minimum sediment storage capacity equal to the design life of the structure, or provide for periodic cleanout. Protect the drainage area above the pond to prevent sedimentation from adversely affecting the design life. Design measures necessary to prevent serious injury or loss of life according to the requirements of NRCS National Engineering Manual (NEM) (Title 210), Part 503, "Safety." Seed or sod the exposed surfaces of earthen embankments, earth spillways, borrow areas, and other areas disturbed during construction in accordance with the criteria in NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Critical Area Planting (Code 342). When necessary to provide surface protection where climatic conditions preclude the use of seed or sod, use the criteria in NRCS CPS Mulching (Code 484)to install inorganic cover material such as gravel. Cultural resources Evaluate the existence of cultural resources in the project area and any project impacts on such resources. Provide conservation and stabilization of archeological, historic, structural, and traditional cultural properties when appropriate. Site conditions Select or modify the site to allow runoff from the design storm to safely pass through a natural or constructed auxiliary spillway, a combination of a principal spillway and an auxiliary spillway, or a principal spillway. Select a site that has an adequate supply of water for the intended purpose through surface runoff, ground water, or a supplemental water source. Water quality must be suitable for its intended use. Reservoir Provide adequate storage volume to meet user demands for all intended purposes.Account for sedimentation, season of use, evaporation loss, and seepage loss when computing the storage volume. Additional Criteria for Embankment Ponds Geological investigations Use pits, trenches, borings, and reviews of existing data or other suitable means of investigation to characterize materials within the embankment foundation, auxiliary spillway, and borrow areas. Classify soil materials using ASTM D2487-17e1, "Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System)." Determine from the investigations if problem soils exist at the embankment pond site for defensive design measures. Problem soils, include but are not limited to dispersive clays, collapsible soils, soft clays, expansive clays, low internal erosion resistance soils, loose coarse-grained soils, high soluble content soils, and caliche soils. Foundation cutoff Design a cutoff of relatively impervious material under the dam and up the abutments as required for preventing seepage. Locate the cutoff at, or upstream from, the centerline of the dam. Extend the cutoff deep enough to intercept flow and connect with a relatively impervious layer. Combine seepage control with the cutoff as needed. Use a cutoff bottom width adequate to accommodate the equipment used for excavation, backfill, and compaction operations. Design cutoff side slopes no steeper than one horizontal to one vertical. NRCS, NHCP July 2022 378-CPS-3 Seepage control Include seepage control if— Foundation cutoff does not intercept pervious layers. • Seepage could create undesired wet areas. • Embankment stability requires seepage control. • Special problems require drainage for a stable dam. Filter zones may be required in some embankment designs to address the problem of cracking and internal erosion of the embankment for sites with problematic conditions such as dispersive clays, steep abutments, and other issues. Control seepage with— Foundation, abutment, or embankment filters and drains. • Filter diaphragms. • Reservoir bottom blanketing. • A combination of these measures. Top width Table 1 provides the minimum top widths for dams of various total heights. Total height is the vertical distance between the settled top of the dam and the lowest elevation at the downstream toe. Design a minimum width of 16 feet for one-way traffic and 26 feet for two-way traffic for the top of a dam used as a public road. Design guardrails or other safety measures where necessary and follow the requirements of the responsible road authority. For dams less than 20 feet in total height, maintenance considerations or construction equipment limitations may require increased top widths from the minimum shown in table 1. Table 1. Minimum Top Width for a Dam. Total Height of Dam Top Width (feet) (feet) Less than 10 6 10-14.9 8 15-19.9 10 20-24.9 12 25-35 15 Side slopes Design each side slope with a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter. Design the sum of the upstream and downstream side slopes with a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical or flatter.As required, design benches or flatten side slopes to assure stability of all slopes for all loading conditions. Flatter slopes may be required for stability for some problematic embankment or foundation soils such as highly plastic embankment soils or very soft clays. Downstream or upstream berms can be used to help achieve stable embankment slopes. Slope protection Design special measures such as berms, riprap, sand-gravel, soil cement, or use special vegetation as needed to protect the slopes of the dam from erosion. Use NRCS Engineering Technical Release (TR) 210-56, "A Guide for Design and Layout of Vegetative Wave Protection for Earth Dam Embankments," and TR-210-69, "Riprap for Slope Protection against Wave Action," as applicable. NRCS, NHCP July 2022 378-CPS-4 Freeboard Design a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard between design high-water flow elevation in the auxiliary spillway and the top of the settled embankment. Design a minimum 2 feet of elevation difference between the crest of the auxiliary spillway and the top of the settled embankment when the dam has more than 20 acre drainage area or more than 20 feet in effective height. Design a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard above the peak elevation of the design hydrograph to the top of the settled embankment when the pond has no auxiliary spillway. Settlement Increase the height of the dam by the amount needed to ensure that the settled top elevation of the dam equals or exceeds the design top elevation. Design a minimum settlement allowance of 5 percent of the total height of the dam associated with each dam cross section, except where detailed laboratory soil testing and settlement analyses or experience in the area shows that a lesser amount is adequate. Principal spillway A pipe with needed appurtenances shall be placed under or through the dam, except where rock, concrete, or other types of lined spillways are used, or where a vegetated or earth spillway can safely handle the rate and duration of the design flow. Design a minimum of 6-inches difference between the crest elevation of the auxiliary spillway and the crest elevation of the principal spillway when the dam has a drainage area of 20 acres or less. Design a minimum of 1 foot difference when the dam has a drainage area of over 20 acres. Provide an anti-vortex device to handle pressure flow in the principal spillway pipe. Design the inlet and outlet to function for the full range of flow and hydraulic head anticipated. Design adequate pipe capacity to discharge long-duration, continuous, or frequent flows without causing flow through the auxiliary spillway. Design a principal spillway pipe with a minimum inside diameter of 4 inches. Design pipe with a minimum inside diameter of 1-1/4 inches for water supply pipes or for pipes used for any other purpose. Design pipe using ductile iron, welded steel, corrugated steel, corrugated aluminum, reinforced concrete (precast or site-cast), or plastic. Do not use cast iron or unreinforced concrete pipe if the dam is 20 feet or greater in total height. Design and install pipe to withstand all external and internal loads without yielding, buckling, or cracking. Design rigid pipe for a positive projecting condition. Design flexible pipe according to the requirements of NRCS National Engineering Handbook (NEH) (Title 210), Part 636, Chapter 52, "Structural Design of Flexible Conduits." Design connections of flexible pipe to rigid pipe or other structures to accommodate differential movements and stress concentrations. Design and install all pipes to be watertight using couplings, gaskets, caulking, water stops, or welding. Design joints to remain watertight under all internal and external loading, including pipe elongation due to foundation settlement. Design a concrete cradle or bedding for pipe if needed to reduce or limit structural loading on the pipe and improve support of the pipe. Design outlet structures, such as cantilever pipe outlet sections and impact basins, to dissipate energy as needed. Corrosion protection Provide protective coatings for all steel pipe and couplings in areas that have traditionally experienced pipe corrosion or in embankments with saturated soil resistivity less than 4,000 ohm-cm or soil pH less than 5. Protective coatings may include asphalt, polymer over galvanizing, aluminized coating, or coal tar enamel. NRCS, NHCP July 2022 378-CPS-5 Ultraviolet protection Use ultraviolet-resistant materials for all plastic pipe or provide coating or shielding to protect plastic pipe exposed to direct sunlight. Cathodic protection Provide cathodic protection for coated welded steel and galvanized corrugated metal pipe where soil and resistivity studies indicate that the pipe needs a protective coating and where the need and importance of the structure warrant additional protection and longevity. If the original design and installation did not include cathodic protection, consider establishing electrical continuity in the form of joint-bridging straps on pipes that have protective coatings.Add cathodic protection later if monitoring indicates the need. Internal erosion Install filter diaphragms for internal erosion control or anti-seep collars to reduce hydraulic gradient along the pipe extending through the embankment with inverts below the peak elevation of the routed hydrograph when the effective height of the dam is 15 feet or greater. Filter diaphragms Design the filter diaphragm according to the requirements of 210-NEH, Part 628, Chapter 45, "Filter Diaphragms." Locate the filter diaphragm immediately downstream of the cutoff trench, but downstream of the centerline of the dam if the foundation cutoff is upstream of the centerline or if there is no cutoff trench. To improve filter diaphragm performance, provide a drain outlet for the filter diaphragm at the downstream toe of the embankment. Protect the outlet from surface erosion and animal intrusion. Ensure that the filter diaphragm functions both as a filter for adjacent base soils and as a drain to intercept seepage. Materials for the filter diaphragm must meet the requirements of 210-NEH-Part 633, Chapter 26, "Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters". Anti-seep collars can be used where the following soil and site conditions apply: • Embankment soils are documented to be non-dispersive by crumb testing or evidence that the site is located in geologic formations that are known to be non-dispersive. • Soils tests show that embankment soils have a plasticity index (PI) equal to or greater than 15. • The water content of the soils at the time of construction is such that a 1/8-inch diameter thread 1/2- inch long may be rolled out on a flat surface without breaking or falling apart. • Natural or excavated ground slopes transverse to the embankment centerline in the vicinity of the conduit are no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. • Laboratory or field tests show that the foundation soils left in-place under the embankment and principal spillway are medium to very stiff in saturated consistency or medium dense to very dense depending on if these soils are cohesive or cohesionless, respectively. When using anti-seep collars in lieu of a filter diaphragm, ensure a watertight connection to the pipe. Limit the maximum spacing of the anti-seep collars to 14 times the minimum projection of the collar measured perpendicular to the pipe, or 25 feet, whichever is less. Locate anti-seep collars no closer than 10 feet apart. Use a collar material that is compatible with the pipe material. Design the collars to increase the seepage path along the pipe within the fill by at least 15 percent. Trash guard Install a trash guard at the riser inlet to prevent clogging of the pipe, unless the watershed does not contain trash or debris that could clog the pipe. Pool drain Provide a pipe with a suitable valve to drain the pool area if needed for proper pond management or if required by State law. The designer may use the principal spillway pipe as a pond drain if it is located where it can perform this function. NRCS, NHCP July 2022 378-CPS-6 Auxiliary spillways Adam must have an open channel auxiliary spillway, unless the principal spillway is large enough to pass the peak discharge from the design hydrograph and the trash that comes to it without overtopping the dam. The minimum criteria for acceptable use of a closed pipe principal spillway without an auxiliary spillway consists of a pipe with a cross-sectional area of 3 square feet or more, an inlet that will not clog, and an elbow designed to facilitate the passage of trash. Design the minimum capacity of a natural or constructed auxiliary spillway to pass the peak flow expected from a total design storm of the frequency and duration shown in table 2, less any reduction creditable to the principal spillway discharge and detention storage. Design the auxiliary spillway to safely pass the peak flow through the auxiliary spillway, or route the storm runoff through the reservoir. Start the routing either with the water surface at the elevation of the crest of the principal spillway or at the water surface after a 10-day drawdown, whichever is higher. Compute the 10-day drawdown from the crest of the auxiliary spillway or from the elevation attained from impounding the entire design storm, whichever is lower. Design the auxiliary spillway to pass the design flow at a safe velocity to a point downstream where the flow will not endanger the dam. A constructed auxiliary spillway consists of an inlet channel, a control section, and an exit channel. Design the auxiliary spillway with a trapezoidal cross-section. Locate the auxiliary spillway in undisturbed earth or in-situ rock. Design stable side slopes for the material in which the spillway is to be constructed. Design a minimum bottom width of 10 feet for dams having an effective height of 20 feet or more. Design a level inlet channel upstream from the control section for the distance needed to protect and maintain the crest elevation of the spillway. If necessary, curve the inlet channel upstream of the level section to fit existing topography. Design the exit channel grade according to 210-NEH-628, Chapter 50, "Earth Spillway Design,"or with equivalent procedures. Structural auxiliary spillways Design chute spillways or drop spillways according to the principles set forth in 210-NEH, Part 650, "Engineering Field Handbook"; and 210-NEH, Section 5, "Hydraulics"; Section 11, "Drop Spillways"; and Section 14, "Chute Spillways." Design a structural spillway with the minimum capacity required to pass the peak flow expected from a total design storm of the frequency and duration shown in table 2, less any reduction creditable to the pipe discharge and detention storage. Additional Criteria for Excavated Ponds Runoff Design a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard above the peak elevation of the design hydrograph. Design a pipe and auxiliary spillway that meets the capacity requirements of table 2. Consider runoff flow patterns when locating the excavated pond and placing the spoil. Side Slopes In the excavated area, design side slopes that are no steeper than one horizontal to one vertical. Inlet Protection Protect the side slopes from erosion where surface water enters the pond in a natural or constructed channel. Excavated material Place the material excavated from the pond so that its weight does not endanger the stability of the pond side slopes and so that the soil will not wash back into the pond by rainfall. Dispose of excavated material in one of the following ways: • Uniformly spread to a height that does not exceed 3 feet, with the top graded to a continuous slope away from the pond. • Uniformly place and with side slopes assuming a natural angle of repose. Place excavated material NRCS, NHCP July 2022 378-CPS-7 at a distance equal to the depth of the pond, but not less than 12 feet from the edge of the pond. • Shape to a designed form that blends visually with the landscape. • Provide for low embankment construction and leveling of surrounding landscape. • Haul material offsite. Table 2. Minimum auxiliary spillway capacity Drainage area Effective height of Detention storage Minimum design stormz (acre) dam'(feet) (acre-feet) Minimum duration Frequency (years) (hours) 20 or less 20 or less < 50 10 24 20 or less > 20 < 50 25 24 > 20 all < 50 25 24 All others lall all 150 124 '. Defined above in "Conditions where Practice Applies." 2. Select rain distribution based on climatological region. CONSIDERATIONS Visual Resource Design Carefully consider the visual design of ponds in areas of high public visibility and those associated with recreation. The shape and form of ponds, excavated material, and plantings are to relate visually to their surroundings and function. Shape the embankment to blend with the natural topography. Shape the edge of the pond so it is generally curvilinear rather than rectangular. Shape excavated material so the final form is smooth, flowing, and fitted to the adjacent landscape rather than angular geometric mounds. If feasible, add islands to provide visual interest and attract wildlife. Fish and Wildlife Locate and construct ponds to minimize the impacts to existing fish and wildlife habitat. When feasible, retain trees in the upper reaches of the pond and stumps in the pool area. Shape upper reaches of the pond to provide shallow areas and wetland habitat. If operations includes stocking fish, use NRCS CPS Fishpond Management (Code 399). Watering ramp When wildlife or livestock need access to stored water, use the criteria in NRCS CPS Watering Facility (Code 614)to design a watering ramp. Vegeation Stockpile topsoil for placement on disturbed areas to facilitate revegetation. Consider selecting and placing vegetation to improve fish habitat, wildlife habitat, and species diversity. Water Quantity Consider effects on components of the water budget, especially— NRCS, NHCP July 2022 378-CPS-8 • Effects on volumes and rates of runoff, infiltration, evaporation, transpiration, deep percolation, and ground water recharge. • Variability of effects caused by seasonal or climatic changes. • Effects on downstream flows and impacts to the environment such as wetlands, aquifers, and social and economic impacts to downstream uses or users. Water Quality Consider the effects of— Erosion and the movement of sediment, pathogens, and soluble and sediment-attached substances that runoff carries. • Short-term and construction-related effects of this practice on the quality of downstream watercourses. • Water level control on the temperature of downstream water to prevent undesired effects on aquatic and wildlife communities. • Wetlands and water-related wildlife habitats. • Water levels on soil nutrient processes such as plant nitrogen use or denitrification. • Soil water level control on the salinity of soils, soil water, or downstream water. • Earth moving potentially uncovering or redistributing toxic materials. • Livestock grazing adjacent to the pond. Consider fencing to prevent livestock activities having direct contact with the pond and dam. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Prepare plans and specifications that describe the requirements for applying the practice according to this standard.As a minimum, include— • A plan view of the layout of the pond and appurtenant features. • Typical profiles and cross sections of the principal spillway, auxiliary spillway, dam, and appurtenant features, as needed. • Structural drawings adequate to describe the construction requirements. • Requirements for establishing vegetation or other ground surface protection, as needed. • Safety features. • Site-specific construction and material specifications. • Utility location and notification requirements. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Prepare an operation and maintenance plan for the operator. As a minimum, include— Periodically inspect all structures, earthen embankments, spillways, and other significant appurtenances. • Promptly repair or replace damaged components. • Promptly remove trash from pipe inlet and trash rack. • Promptly remove sediment when it reaches predetermined storage elevations. • Periodically remove trees, brush, and undesirable species. • Periodically inspect safety components and immediately repair if necessary. • Maintain vegetative protection and immediately seeding bare areas, as needed. • Pevent the establishment of woody vegetation on constructed embankment fill and around spillway NRCS, NHCP July 2022 378-CPS-9 appurtenances. REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials.ASTM D2487-17e1, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). West Conshohocken, PA. DOI: 10.1520/D2487-17E01 USDA NRCS. 2019. Engineering Technical Releases, TR-210-60, Earth Dams and Reservoirs. Washington, D.C. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.coa v/ USDA NRCS. 2008. National Engineering Handbook (Title 210), Part 628, Dams. Washington, D.C. htti)s://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ USDA NRCS. 2017. National Engineering Handbook (Title 210), Part 633, Soil Engineering. Washington, D.C. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ USDA NRCS. 2008. National Engineering Handbook (Title 210), Part 636, Structural Engineering. Washington, D.C. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.coa v/ USDA NRCS. 2012. National Engineering Handbook (Title 210), Part 650, Engineering Field Handbook. Washington, D.C. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.coa v/ USDA NRCS. 2017. National Engineering Manual (Title 210). Washington, D.C. htti)s://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov NRCS, NHCP July 2022 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District at Maku`u Appendix B Coastal Erosion Study and Shoreline Assessment ^ Timothy E.Scheffler,Ph.D. CSole Proprietor-Principal Archaeologist services C T 08}34588 Volcano, $2agnroaHl 9�6m85 COASTAL EROSION AND SHORELINE HAZARDS STUDY FOR THE "OPUNAHA FARM" - PASTOREK PROPERTY Maku'u Ahupua'a, Puna District, Island of Hawai'i TMK: (3) 1-5-10:026 and 027. Prepared by: Timothy E. Scheffler and John P. Lockwood Prepared for: Ryan Pastorek c/o Kern &Associates 194 Wiwoole St, Hilo, HI 96720 October 22, 2020 This page left blank Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Executive Summary A geological survey of the Opunaha property was conducted in order to calculate a site-specific Average Annual Erosion Rate (AAER), identify any erosion prone areas, and evaluate the risk posed by other potential coastal hazards. This survey has been prepared in support of a Conservation District Use Permit Application(CDUA) and Environmental Assessment(EA) being prepared for the owner, Ryan Pastorek by John Pipan, Planning Administrator at Kern & Assoc. John P. Lockwood, Ph.D, Certified Professional Geologist(#9806), served as Principal Investigator. The owner intends to develop a single-family dwelling and barn and continue the farm uses on the property. The geological history of the prominent littoral cone at Maku'u and surrounding lava flows are explained. Historical photos of the coastline are evaluated for measureable changes. We conclude with an overall AAER of 0.36 feet/year for the subject property. We emphasize this rates'variable nature over time and the influence of sea level rise on its intensity. i Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Property Location and Physical Setting...................................................................................... 3 GeologicalBackground .................................................................................................................. 6 Marine Conditions and Wave Climate............................................................................................ 8 FieldInspection Results.................................................................................................................11 Lithology................................................................................................................................... 14 Structure.................................................................................................................................... 14 The Evolution of the Opunaha/Maku'u Coast.............................................................................. 17 ErosionProcesses.......................................................................................................................... 20 Quantification of Erosion Rate ..................................................................................................... 23 Historic Aerial Photos (Photogrammetric Analysis)................................................................. 23 InferentialMethods................................................................................................................... 26 DiscussionofAAER..................................................................................................................... 28 Effects of Subsidence and Sea Level Rise (SLR) on Shoreline................................................ 28 General Coastal Zone Hazards...................................................................................................... 31 Summary....................................................................................................................................... 33 ReferencesCited........................................................................................................................... 34 ii Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. List of Figures Figure 1 Subject properties, the"Opunaha Farm" TMK (3) 1-5-10:026 and 027.......................... 1 Figure 2 Portion of USGS, 1:50,000 scale Big Island with property boundaries in red.................. 3 Figure 3 Google image (January 21, 2013)with project area boundary in red. ............................. 4 Figure 4 Portion of Geologic Map (Trusdell et al. 2006)with project area in red. ........................ 6 Figure 5 Bathymetric Map (SOEST).............................................................................................. 8 Figure 6 Frequency and magnitude of waves affecting Hawaii (www.soest.hawaii.edu).............. 8 Figure 7 Tidal data for Hilo Bay(in ft.)........................................................................................ 10 Figure 8 Portion of USGS 1:24,000 topographic map, project area in red....................................I I Figure 9 Opunaha study area with features mentioned in text...................................................... 12 Figure 10 Profile and cross-section of coastline at Embayment I................................................ 15 Figure 11 Profile and cross-section of coastline at Embayment 4................................................ 16 Figure 12 Profile and cross-section of coastline at Embayment 5................................................ 17 Figure 13 Geological evolution of the Maku'u coastline (vertically exaggerated, scale approximate). ................................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 14 1954 aerial photo of the Opunaha property (cf. with Figure 3).................................... 24 Figure 15 Comparison of Shorelines, 1954 and 2013...................................................................25 Figure 16 Projected sea-level rise for Hilo, HI (www.corpsclimate.us/ccaceslcurves.cfm)......... 30 List of Photographs Photo 1 Overview of coastline (Embayment 3), view northwest. .................................................. 5 Photo 2 An active littoral cone (Photo by Keszthelyi , L. -1996-02-23, USGS)............................ 7 Photo 3 Embayment 1, view northeast(cf. Figure 10). ................................................................ 12 Photo 4 Sea arch between embayments 2 and 3, view southeast.................................................. 13 Photo 5 Sea stack within embayment 4, view northwest.............................................................. 13 Photo 6 Embayment 5, view northwest(cf. Figure 12)................................................................ 14 Photo 7 Embayment 4; Contact between poo (left, above) and pld3 (right) at rear of cave......... 16 Photo 8 Internal morphology of the Maku'u tephra cone, view south-southeast......................... 19 Photo 9 Embayment 3, view to the southwest.............................................................................. 21 Photo 10 Large pahoehoe block liable to failure, view to the northwest(noted in Figure 9).......22 List of Tables Table 1 Ages of geological units discussed in the text (Trusdell et al. 2006)................................. 6 Table 2 Summary of shoreline retreat measurements along twenty-two "transects". .................. 26 Table 3 Average Annual Erosion Rates......................................................................................... 26 Table 4 Measurements based on the general inferential model.................................................... 27 Table 5 Results of the general inferential model. ......................................................................... 27 Table 6 Summary of potential sea level rise. ................................................................................ 29 Table 7 Summary of coastal hazards present at the Opunaha property. ....................................... 31 iii Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Introduction Hawaii Administrative Rules concerning Conservation Districts (Title 13, Subtitle 1, Chapter 5, adopted August 12, 2011) state that applicants for Single Family Residential construction in coastal Conservation Districts must consider rates of coastal erosion affecting their properties in order to determine minimum shoreline setbacks for permitting. DLNR established a requirement that the Average Annual Coastal Erosion Rate must be determined, based on formal "Coastal Erosion Studies"which are to be carried out following the guidelines in the Hawaii Coastal Hazard Mitigation Guidebook(Hwang 2005). This report satisfies these requirements. This report documents the nature and rate of observable shoreline erosion at the Opunaha Farm property. The subject property consists of two TMK's (3) 1-5-010: 26 and 27, a total of 10.45 acres with nearly 1,000 feet of ocean frontage (see Figure 1). The conclusions are based on quantitative measurements and observations obtained through field inspection, aerial photography, satellite imagery, and review of the geologic literature. * • •rr YeR 74-4 Ac{ 26 . � 7. r rte Figure I Subject properties,the"Opnnaha Farm"TMK(3) 1-5-10:026 and 027. Changes in the coastline over time are the product of a complex and long-term interplay between powerful geological forces, particularly so in Hawaii. The combined effects of volcanism, erosion, sedimentation, sea-level change, island subsidence, and even bio-genic (ie. reef- building)production over millennia will influence the nature and durability of the coast as we now see it. These processes of both construction and destruction must be accounted for in any evaluation of coastal dynamics (Ramalho, et al., 2013). Volcanic action, mostly new lava flows, build out the island, and then coastlines retreat as mass wasting, marine and fluvial erosion reshape the landscape. The Hawaiian Islands subside at variable rates as well, accelerating the process. This is a very difficult process to quantify and summarize, especially on the younger of the Hawaiian Islands which, in their youth, may not yet have reached a long-term, stable 1 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. equilibrium. Thorne Abbott(2013)reviews several problematic aspects in determining the AAER for planning purposes. These difficulties in measuring erosion rates on lengths of coastline on Maui, apply directly to the Big Island. The difficulties include issues with irregular shaped properties and erosion in multiple directions but also the problematic nature of erosion- resistant hard coasts as opposed to soft linear beaches, where shorelines can suddenly change because of the movement of sand (Abbott 2013:17). These estimates are best approached with longer term studies of a scope that extends beyond a single parcel. Ideally, regional monitoring studies would include highly accurate means of terrain mapping such as is available today with LiDAR technology(Rosser 2005). Despite these drawbacks, it is possible to derive empirically based and quantitative estimates of erosion rates. This report also seeks to delineate any erosion-prone or otherwise hazardous areas along this small section of coastline as well. As used throughout this report, the"shoreline" denotes the highest wash of waves and is usually defined by the line of permanent vegetation, whereas, the "coastline" is a more general term used in this report for the most seaward edge of land at high tide. 2 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Property Location and Physical Setting The Opunaha Farm Property is located between the"Old Government Beach Road" and the sea. It is near the ancient village of Maku'u in lower Puna District. The property is 1.2 miles south of Maku'u Drive (see Figure 2). A notable feature of the property is the high pu'u (hill)that fills the greater part of the northwest portion and parcel 26. The unique landform, a 50 foot tall, domed, "littoral cone" can be seen on the USGS topographic map (Figure 8), cwni ► Wit- - :- i Nita ;rri Pbinr i - r T � :r• !f �rka[v Opwal C~ } 3T aiskas r lee r. rto PlunSusal ny SUBJECT PROPERTY ki Co 1. - ` • Ko" 001 350 )► ' Y� Pihps A WA1lC it I;sI! ►y,rL �� ►�1 � �� r Pi{A Figure 2 Portion of USGS 1:50,000 scale Big Island with property boundaries in red. There are no perched sandy beaches above the high tide line. Instead the small scalloped series of embayments or coves are lined with narrow relatively steeply sloping cobble berms (see Photo 1). These embayments, containing sea caves and arches are the result of variation in substrate durability. In particular the tephra, ash and cinder material making up the pu'u is far more friable than surrounding pahoehoe. These and other significant erosional features are itemized and detailed further below(see Figure 9 and Results section). 3 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. The cliff edges above these coves can be perilous. This contrasts with parcel 27.As one moves south away from the tephra deposits the coastline becomes more homogenous, forming a relatively linear 15 ft. high pali(cliff). These edges are also precipitous and while less friable, also prone to block failures and collapse. Google Figure 3 Google image(January 21,2013)with project area boundary in red. 4 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. r� -41 kk-i 7 T f;, ice• '� ��` "` a �' ,#- ,� �• Photo 1 Overview of coastline(Embayment 3),view northwest. 5 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Geological Background The geological units underlying the subject property are illustrated below in Figure 4. Understanding the sequence of geological events on site provides a fundamental framework from which inferences concerning erosion rates are based. rr ■ 000 nage 1j 1010-rerraroJ tr nage G 2020 Ma-Ir'r-hnokigk_ - Figure 4 Portion of Geologic Map(Trusdell et al.2006)with project area in red. Lava Flows Littoral Year B.P. Cones 200 p4y 400 p4 p4o pld4 750 p3 pld3 1500 Table 1 Ages of geological units discussed in the text(Trusdell et al.2006). The base of the sea cliffs and sea stacks are the oldest exposed lava on the property. The scale of the geological map in Figure 4 is too large show this unit, now exsposed only as a strip at low tide. This lava flow, "p3" is also exposed mauka (ie. landward) of the Property as an isolated kipuka(a remnant patch of older flow surrounded by younger material). Where this flow reached the sea violent steam explosions formed a littoral cone and widespread cinder deposits on top of it(Unit"pld3")resulting from the interaction of molten lava with seawater(see Figure 6 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. 13). Then between 450 and 750 years ago another sequence of lava flows surrounded the pu'u ("p4o") inundating its flanks. Most recently the properties low lying areas were again covered by the continued, and wide spread, 'Aila'au lava flows with an estimated age of 200-350 years ago (Unit"p4"). The Unit"pld3"represents relatively rare littoral cone cinder deposit. It is one of few littoral cone formations on Kilauea's coastline. Due to Kilauea's frequent activity in historic times, these formations are well described (Moore and Ault 1965). The process has also been described for the larger scale but similar littoral features of Mauna Loa volcano (Jurado-Chichay, Rowland and Walker 1996). Sand Hill in Nanawale is a similar feature formed in 1840, as are the 80 meter high Pu'u Hou(1868) at Ka Lae and Pu'u Mahana also at South Point giving rise to the famous "Green Sand Beach". Photo 2 shows steam generated explosions of tephra on Kilauea's south flank in 1996. In the first twelve years of the Pu'u O'o eruption now fewer than 11 littoral cones (none higher than ten meters) formed and met their demise in Kamoamoa. Note the pahoehoe flows nearing the ocean seaward of the cone. The timing and volume of subsequent flows contribute to a dynamic interplay between rock and water. r'a Photo 2 An active littoral cone(Photo by Keszthelyi,L.-1996-02-23,USGS). 7 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Marine Conditions and Wave Climate The coast of this part of the Puna District faces the open ocean with no submerged barriers such as offshore reefs or sand bars. The submarine slope is approximately 1,300 feet/mile for a distance of roughly 6 miles, descending into the deep water Puna Canyon. Figure 5 Bathymetric Map(SOEST) The extremely long fetch of waves crossing the Pacific creates a situation where big, long period swells rising to significant heights slam into the island's flank. Large waves reaching the coast are predominantly related to trade wind conditions, though the coastline is also exposed directly to the largest North Pacific swells (Figure 5). �pPpIF{ SWELL. r 45* tiQ 9r ti 0051201 qS 9 Annual Signficant VV4ve Height O c N 51003 11• (•v 1 1✓ ti9 ' s'a R�wA►+ s147' 0 100 M SD�THERhi W �40 100 km Figure 6 Frequency and magnitude of waves affecting Hawaii(www.soest.hawaii.edu). The coastline at the Opunaha property faces approximately 45 degrees east of true north. This is 8 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. significant relative to typical incoming waves. Note on Figure 6 that the largest waves of all come from the north-north-east, north or north-north-west direction. These North Pacific swells can reach significant heights of 20+ ft. and are a major contributor to coastal erosion and storm damage. It is beyond the scope of this study to quantify changes in storminess or significantly higher wave heights due to climate change. A precise forecast of these positively contributing variables is impossible. However, their potential effects on erosion are considered in our conclusions below. Rising sea surface temperatures in Hawaiian waters could, for example, influence hurricane storm tracks impacting the islands (Businger, 1998). The recurrence and intensity of wave energy focused on the coastline is obviously a critical factor in the discussion of erosion along any coast. Merrifield and Maltrud (2011)noted that trade winds have intensified across the Pacific gradually since the early 1990s, e.g. The intensification of trade winds and accompanying sea level rise is more pronounced in western Pacific waters, relative to other regions in the World Ocean, with some rates of rise as much as three times the global average. The probability and impact of sea level rise associated with climate change at the subject property is discussed in a separate section. For tropical waters, the incidence of"one-in-ten year" extreme waves impacting shorelines may double or triple as a consequence of the wind intensification described above (Wang et al. 2014). Substantial wave height increases—by as much as 40%--have also been observed along some Pacific shores, though to what extent this relates to climate change or pulsating phenomena as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is unclear (e.g.—Ruggiero and others, 2010). Hypothetically, the incidence of hurricanes in the eastern Pacific may actually decrease with warming climate, but the strongest storms will likely become even more intense (e.g.--Grinsted, 2012; Holland and Bruyere,2013). Tidal conditions for this part of the island are summarized in Figure 7. These are based upon data collected in nearby Hilo Bay, the closest continuously monitored tidal station to the property. The magnitudes of these relative elevations are an important reference for assessing the importance of any measured changes or, in particular their impacts outside the normal range. 9 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Datums for 1617760,Hila, Hilo Bay,Kuhia Say, HI AN figures in feet relative to station datum 6.5 6 GHQ=0.43 MHW-s_a 5.5 — MSL-5.07 DTL 5.12 MrL 5.06 7MN:1.67 �-MLW:4-22 4 MLLW:3-92 QLQ-Q-3 I Il 3.5 datums Figure 7 Tidal data for Hilo Bay(in ft.). The mean range of tidal change (MN) is 1.67 ft. with a Great Diurnal Range (GT) of 2.4 ft. Tidal heights are given as positive and negative values relative to the Mean Lowest Low Water(3.92 ft.) and Mean Highest High Water (6.32 ft.). Understanding the tidal variation throughout the year is important as any instantaneous "snapshot" of the coastline at a given tide can be misleading on the whole. The effects of tides are dependent on beach slope. For example, 2.4 ft. of tide will move the tideline 24 ft. horizontally on a 10% slope. This can have dramatic effects, changing the location and breadth of active weathering. 10 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Field Inspection Results The shoreline is legally defined in Hawaii as "the upper reaches of the wash of the waves, other than storm and seismic waves, at high tide during the season of the year in which the highest wash of the waves occurs, usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation growth, or the upper limit of debris left by the wash of the waves, ..." (HAR §13-5-2). Given the complexity of interacting volcanic and coastal formation processes, in order to assess the historical and prehistorical movement of the shoreline and identify areas prone to erosion, a simple sedimentary"facies"model was constructed(Figure 13). This is a recommended means of assessing complex geomorphic situations in Hawaii and the goal towards which our field methods were oriented. For example, Felton (2002)uses this method to distinguish storm derived and tsunami emplaced debris, describe the potential mobility of any beach deposits and their nature, account for isostatic changes and quantify other depositional processes. At the Opunaha Property, efforts were made to evaluate the grain size and roundness/sphericity of eroded materials, evaluate the matrix and macro-mineralogical composition of lava flows present, and evaluate geomorphology and the associated sedimentary structures (boulder beach, shoreline berm, reworked storm deposits, etc.)horizontally, within the project area and vertically at the shoreline. Figure 9 illustrates the major features observed on the subject property relevant to these dynamic processes. Five embayments referred to in the text are labeled and other erosional structures discussed below are indicated in the key. ■ WO • MakUU •` (Site) r� T' Figure 8 Portion of USGS 1:24,000 topographic map,project area in red. 11 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. 44 _�lockfailure accumulationExposed cinder(pld3) Ok Talus Slumping # Embayment Submerged remnants of ■ ; 4 =Minimum extent of"p4v" r::. L` V MU � (hypothetical) ~, .., Earth - Figure 9 Opnnaha study area with features mentioned in text. # Jx :a q ,, a 6�m- Photo 3 Embayment 1,view northeast(cf.Figure 10). 12 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. II �� fl w r � Photo 4 Sea arch between embayments 2 and 3,view southeast. AM ..: IN AkW ..= s - I Photo 5 Sea stack within embayment 4,view northwest. 13 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. s•. ,m..- 46- 4 6- } 47 Photo 6 Embayment 5,view northwest(cL Figure 12). Lithology Lava flows can often be distinguished by their mineralogy. The three main geological units described in the background above present themselves distinctly at the coast. Rock samples were collected of the flows that make up the mostly submerged pahoehoe bench ("p3", visible as a toe at the base of the sea stack in Photo 5) and those that compose the younger higher sea cliff ("p4o") at the southeast. These were examined with low magnification hand-lens. The younger stacked layers of lava are typical fine, vesicular tholeiitic basalts, in this case almost devoid of olivine and containing abundant but very fine plagioclase crystals. The formations (represented by"pldY) are typical of hydrovolcanic eruptions described for Kilauea volcano's littoral cones (Mattox and Mangan 1997). The nature of these deposits and those seaward, which are not illustrated on the geologic map are key to our interpretations. These rocks were also sampled for laboratory examination. Within the tephra matrix of cinder and ash, several angular inclusions were noted. These are fragments of rock torn from the "throat" of the vent and thrown up with the cinder and piled on top of itself. Structure These sedimentary analyses and textural comparisons are key to interpretation of the profile data and facies model presented below. The varied minerology, texture and type of rock from each geologic unit responds differently to erosive forces of wave action, abrasion, etc. These different capacities to withstand degradation create beautiful and instructive morphologies. To assess the extent and impact of these forces on the rock landscape, several scaled stratigraphic profiles were drawn (Figures 10, 11 and 12). 14 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Profile of Cave#1 Pastorek/Makuu Coastal Erosion Survey te5ARCH.9/15/2020. 2m {8m above sea level} 60 dam'ftniel 2m Laminated tephra and cinder(pld3) Colluvial shelf Beach berm Ak Sub angular,mixed boulders and cobbles • �- Well rounded cobbles Figure 10 Profile and cross-section of coastline at Embayment 1. Figure 10 is a profile of the sea cliff at the north end of the property. Here the cinder cone was not submerged by later lavas. The friable cinder sits well back and above the water line protected by both a broad cobble beach and berm and by its own colluvial talus that armors its base. Figure 11, by contrast, shows major undercutting of the sea cliff. Embayment 4 suffers from deep scouring, back in excess of 8 meters. In this instance a tephra lens is buried under several meters of subsequent lava. The original contact between the top of the littoral cone and the bottom of the more recent flow is still visible on the roof of the cave and at its margins (see Photo 7). Wave action has created quite a steep cobble and boulder beach at this location. It is also clear from the large angular blocks that the ceiling is unstable. 15 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. 0 3 m above sea level) Profile of Cave#4 Pastorek/Makuu Coastal Erosion Survey tesARCH,911512Q2D- 2m 60 deg.(true) -Y Massive,layered 2 m pahoehoe(p4c) [os giro)Conte] Laminated (undercut 8.4 m) ephra and cinder(pld3) W_*16 Large,a ndgu lar *44 boulders Imbricated angular 4 �•- blocks Sub rounded cobbles and boulders Well rounded cobbles Figure 11 Profile and cross-section of coastline at Embayment 4. y. I Photo 7 Embayment 4; Contact between p4o(left,above)and pld3(right)at rear of cave. 16 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Profile of Cave#5 Pa sto re k/Mak u u Coastal Erosion Survey tesARCH,911512020. 2m 60 deg.[true] [9.7m above sea level] 2m Massive,layered pahoehoe(p4o) ortig'�t cortacs Laminated (undercut lam) ephra and cinder(pld3) tii iF. Well rounded cobbles and boulders MF � Large angular and sub angular boulders Figure 12 Profile and cross-section of coastline at Embayment 5. Another example of the"sandwich effect" can be seen in Figure 12, a profile of the deepest sea cave at embayment 5. Again, the softer ash layer(pld3) is sandwiched between bedrock(p3) and a later lava flow(p4). In this case the undercutting is upwards of 14 meters.At embayment 5 the tephra lens is thinner and closer to sea level. Rounded cobbles inside the cave indicate frequent wave energy.Angular blocks accumulating at the mouth may dissipate some of this force, eventually, this entire shelf will fall. The Evolution of the Opunaha/Maku'u Coast Based on the above examination of the structure and geometry of lava flows and distribution of other deposits across the site, the following model of the evolution of the Opunaha coastline was constructed. This model and the events it chronicles, provides us with a necessary framework from which to make quantifiable estimates of overall erosion rates. 17 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Stage 1:1,500 BP-Island accretion. Stage 11:750 BP-Littoral Cone formation p3 Lin0& p3 - p2{bedrock} 2{bedra[k} Stage 111:400 BP-'Aila'au innundation. Stage IV:Today Erosion and shoreline retreat. pld3JMaxim um seawardadvance P40 P3 5cea p2{bedrock p2(bedrock) Figure 13 Geological evolution of the Maku'u coastline(vertically exaggerated,scale approximate). Our hypothetical reconstruction of geological events is shown in Figure 13. The stage is set 1,500 years ago with a long lived and active "p3'flow into the sea. The island is accreting as lobes of pahoehoe build out deltas, ponding on the gentle slope of the coast. In Stage II, stable high volume production consolidates into a system of pyroducts, efficiently delivering hot magma directly to the water interface. This instigates the formation of the littoral cone, where the concentrated flow enters the sea. After formation of the cone, "pld3" and cessation of this flow, we propose there was a pause. The littoral tuff cone was immediately subject to erosion by storm waves surging over the coastal bench and probably scouring any associated 'a'd. 18 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. t, .r, -04 f r+� Oki Jj- .''"•/'fir I• J .d ' .tai - :c• r w - A: r - •� [� }. ** r` ..rte '. t-7' .. +ray �-..�{ rte. '/y.• 1�' S , ti -_► '�• sir - '�i� �f•�- �'",,jam-` "Ar ... Photo 8 Internal morphology of the Maku u tephra cone,view south-southeast. Photo 8 is an important view that shows changes in internal tuff cone morphology. The explosive activity that formed the cone was initially dominated by coarse spatter and bombs that decrease rapidly in size southward, away from ocean entry(to north). The eruption then abruptly changed to production of steady fountaining that produced the upper well-bedded ash layers. That probably happened when a stable channel or pyroduct fed lava into the ocean In stage III the emplacement of Kilauea lavas ("p4o") is renewed. These older 'Ai La'au flows were impounded by the littoral explosion berm along coast, but slowly filled in around the pu'u and again, built ponded coastal deltas.At the time (more than 1,000 years before the present), sea levels were much lower. We suggest that this is when the current"coastline"was at its furthest seaward extent.At this stage rising sea levels and subsidence of the island began to erode these shorelines back. Stage IV represents the time since the younger 'Aila'au flows ("p4y")reached the ocean southeast of the property. In this period wasting at the seaward edge of the cone causes slumping and faulting (indicated on Figure 9). Subsequent mechanical erosion has cut away more pahoehoe and is also eating into the tuff cone. These processes are accelerated with sea level rise and coastal subsistence (these processes are not illustrated for simplicity). However this erosion gives rise to the current shoreline, leaving some more ridged remnants (sea stacks and arch supports)behind. 19 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Erosion Processes Coastlines can be classified, generally, into"soft" and"hard,"depending upon whether they consist of sands and related fine, easily transportable sediments or of solid less easily weathered substrate. Almost all shoreline change studies focus on soft coasts, including quite recently within the Hawaiian Islands (e.g.—Anderson et al., 2015). Available data for hard coastlines are otherwise scarce. Several key processes are at work contributing to erosion of the subject property and all typical hard coasts. Wave energy impacting the bluff loosens masses of rock by compressing air within fractures, while the drag of moving water abrasively grinds smaller fragments at the shore. Wind and gravity can loosen free pieces of breccia as well. Storm seas timed with extreme tides can be especially erosive. There is no way to definitely quantify the relative contributions of these processes, though it is reasonable to say that the energy released by wave action is probably the main cause of shoreline retreat at this locality. Different portions of the shoreline are more or less prone to erosion as a result of the volcanic forces that shaped them in combination with the marine conditions. In this case, the unique combination of physical forces creates a variety of erosional formations. These features are illustrated on Figure 9 and are described below. Several critical erosional features have already been mentioned and described. An isolated but important one is shown in Photo 10. This massive block which is visible in Figure 9 as well, is in imminent danger of failure. It is a good example of how stochastic process characterize the erosion of these hard coasts. These features together serve to qualify the extent, type and likelihood of both stochastic and gradual geologic processes. Next we turn to the attempt to quantify these processes and the speed at which they are at work. 20 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. FIE je - �z "v'' ice•- i rte. .�' :. �: e i•-^ f Photo 9 Embayment 3,view to the southwest. Photo 10 is a good view of the southern slope of the tuff cone, showing surface oxidation and weathering of upper tephra. The photo is of interest because it shows collapse of coherent upper tephra blocks after undermining of lower less indurated(black)tephra. The collapse must've been pretty sudden—the young coconut palms in the center might have been carried downslope with collapse. This collapse must have taken place relatively recently(past few decades?) because otherwise the palms (and those tephra blocks)would have been eroded away by storm waves (this conclusion was confirmed after examination of the 1954 aerial photo). Note how angular the pahoehoe blocks are in the foreground. They haven't been moved around much since collapse of the pahoehoe flow that used to protect cone from erosion—they've not been moved laterally along shore. In fact, now they serve as very good armor to dissipate incoming storm wave energy. 21 c«a +nkrveyoftE "O a aProperty", ku';Ahu a'a,Puna District,mw+ « � � \\ ƒ : 5 < ~ . . « �.. .y, , . ., Photo 10 Lar7 ppo h e&o k liable to failure,view to menorthwest(noted m Ap«9 22 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Quantification of Erosion Rate Historic Aerial Photos (Photogrammetric Analysis) Aerial imagery was examined for evidence of major changes in coastal profile or shoreline movement during historic times. The oldest image found included one captured by the Navy in 1954 (#1756 23/35, on 12 November) of the Maku'u coastline. A 1965 photo (6270 EKL12cc-31 on 6 February) in a USDA series was also examined and both were compared to a 2013 Google Earth image. The scale of the photos and the precision of even digital measurements presented some confounding factors. When enlarged to an appropriate scale for our analysis, each pixel on the 1965 photo was in excess of 10 ft. The larger scale 1954 image was even more"grainy"with pixels equivalent to 15 ft. or more. Both images were acquired at the highes resolution available, 600 dpi. Shading and resolution differences can easily obscure important smaller-scale details such as the shifting of a boulder here or modest collapse of a ledge there. Unknown differences in tidal level and surf conditions at the times individual photography was obtained also contribute to the lack of precision. The average diurnal range of tides is 1.67 ft.; on a beach with a slope of 30% (1:3)this translates to a change of approximately 5 ft. of horizontal distance, adding another confounding variable to our photogrammetric methods. 23 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. North Roo ft. Figure 14 1954 aerial photo of the Opnnaha property(cf.with Figure 3). Despite its limits,the available aerial photo data provides some basis for a minimum and a maximum range of shoreline regress. In addition, problems with orthographic projection and distortion were not corrected for. Imagery registered over this period of 63 years, however, shows measureable changes. Digital photos were imported into a CAD program to allow for the detailed tracing of the shoreline. The CAD capacity was used to reference each photo geographically to one another. Each layer and the shoreline's from 1954 and 2013 were then compared and differences measured (see Figure 15). 24 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. North / / 400 feet / / =shoreline in 1954 / - =shoreline in 2013 (Parcel 26) �77� / hyo / / / / (Parcel 27) Figure 15 Comparison of Shorelines,1954 and 2013. A summary of the resulting measurements is provided in Table 1,below. Recall that a probably photogrammetric error of+/- 15 ft is likely. The measurement of the difference in horizontal distance between the two shoreline tracings was estimated to the nearest .lmm. These measurements were taken according to a systematic- random sampling design. In this procedure distances were measured perpendicular to the coast (45 degree true) at an interval of every fifty feet across the subject property. This resulted in a sample of 22 measurements along the coastline of the project area form south(TMK 27)to north (TMK 26).. Transect Measured Retreat No. Distance(feet) 1 -4.3 2 15.05 3 4 -4.3 5 6 -2.15 7 8 4.3 9 10 6.88 11 12 18.49 25 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. 13 14 19.78 15 19.35 J 16 19.35 17 3 2.25 18 45.15 19 20 58.05 21 79.55 22 55.9 Table 2 Summary of shoreline retreat measurements along twenty-two"transects". Negative distances (at transects 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7) are a result of methodological error, the qualitative contributors of which are discussed above. The close match of the shoreline along the southeastern portion corroborates field observations indicating that erosion is minimal here, especially the southeastern most 200 ft. of parcel 27. If we assume the actual erosion along this segment in the last 59 years was negligible, or zero, we can refine the estimate of error to be between 2 and 6.5 ft. Multiple Annual Average Erosion Rate's (AAER) can be produced by this method: Average Retreat AAERate Distance(feet) (ft/yr) a (n= 21.1 0.36 Embayment 1(n=5) 56.3 0.95 Embayment 2(n=3) 23.7 0.40 Embayment 3 (n=2) 27.1 0.46 ' Embayment 4(n=2) 20.0 0.34 Embayment 5 (n=5) 1.8 0.03 Table 3 Average Annual Erosion Rates Inferential Methods Using the evolutionary framework and developmental assumptions of the geological facies model presented above (Figure 13), a second, independent estimate of the AAER can be made. In order to do so, we rely on the accurate but imprecise dating of the lava flow events documented on site. While this method is a bit"gross", the results are informative. Distances were measured digitally from the same (2013) aerial photos along the same sampling "transects". First we can assume, as our model indicates, that the maximum seaward extent of land was created by the most recent lava flow (p4o). We also observe remnant pieces of this flow "stranded" out at sea(the arches apices, the sea stacks, e.g.). If we project this ancient flow front by connecting the dots, so to speak, we can then estimate how far inland the shore has migrated since that time. The distance between p4o's most inland exposure and its furthest seaward 26 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. appearance over the time since that eruption should yield a plausible erosion rate. The projection of the ancient shore is shown on Figure 9 and resulting measurements are summarized in Table 4. Transect Feet of No. retreat 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 43 7 70.09 8 86 9 83.85 10 60.2 11 109.65 12 120.4 1320.4 14 124.7 15 16 53.75 17 18 187.05 19 206.4 20 215 21 208.55 22 184.9 Table 4 Measurements based on the general inferential model. A minimum of 0 ft. and a maximum change of 208 ft. were estimated for the retreat. The 'Ailaau flow series (p4o to p4y) was a long lived and geographically widespread event and it's precise date at this locality of difficult to gauge. However, we can bracket the timespan between 750 and 400 years ago to arrive at a potential minimum and maximum figure. 400 year AAER interval (ft/yr) 750 year AAER interval (ft/yr) Table 5 Results of the general inferential model. 27 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. This method results in an AAER of a minimum of.12 ft./year(over a 750 year interval); and a maximum of.22 ft./year (if"p4o" is in fact closer to 400 years old). The mid-point of this estimate yields a rate of.17 ft./year. While somewhat different than the previous estimate using historic photos, they do match in order of magnitude, thus reinforcing our confidence in the accuracy of each. Discussion of AAER These methods of erosion rate calculation are somewhat problematic because the actual rate is constantly changing with conditions. Over geologic time coastlines will go through periods of relative stability followed by rapid change, especially on a young dynamic coast like Kilauea volcanos. In general Big Island coasts are characterized by rapid post-eruption evolution, slowing when new equilibria are reached only to be re-accelerated with the next volcanic episode. The situation can be described as one of punctuated equilibria. It is likely that the Opunaha shoreline would be nearing a stable equilibrium, but for climate change. Sea levels rise will have dramatic consequences for future erosion rates. We turn to a discussion of the importance of this near-certainty, below. Effects of Subsidence and Sea Level Rise (SLR) on Shoreline Predicting Sea Level Rise (SLR) is a notoriously difficult task. Hwang et al. (2007)use a figure of 0.16 inches per year in their assessments of present-day SLR for Oahu, but an overall global rise in sea level of 40 inches by the end of the 21St century has been proposed by Fletcher(2010) and others, that translates in to almost one-half inch per year (0.44 in/yr over 90 years). SLR for any particular area depends heavily on local factors (water temperatures, ocean currents, salinity, etc. Anderson and others (2015)predict a doubling of current SLR rates for Hawaii within 30 years. Sea level rises' effect on the erosion of sandy beaches has been predicted to be two orders of magnitude greater than the amount of rise. This general prediction is borne out by mathematical models of the interaction between sea level and sedimentary equilibria(Braun 1962). In a confirmation of these theoretical effects based on the evaluation of continental scale historical data sets, Zhang et al. (2004) conclude that there is a"multiplicative association"between climate change, resultant sea level rises, and coastal erosion. Their modeling leads them to conclude that the effect of coastal erosion, already severe in the 20th C., will be much worse in the 21St. While their discussion focuses on sandy beaches, the theory holds for hard coasts as well—though the magnitude and response times would differ. A"worst-case" eustatic sea-level rise estimate of 78 inches by the end of this century(.96 in/yr) is given by Pfeffer(2008). Solomon(2007) estimates the rise at 40 inches, a more conservative estimate and in-line with Fletcher's (2010) estimate above. The greatest rate of SLR will take place during the second half of this century according to recent modelling (e.g.--Cazenave and Le Cozannet, 2014). Total sea level, of course, is a result of the combined changes in elevation of both water and land. Therefore, we must distinguish between eustatic and isostatic change. Eustatic changes 28 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. are due to a greater or lesser volume of water in the oceans globally which is affected by global warming. Isostatic changes are locally affected by crustal movements and land subsidence or accretion. The Big Island of Hawaii is sinking into the Earth's mantle because of the gravitational isostatic load of its growing volcanoes. A subsidence rate of(0.08 - 0.12 inches per year) related to isostatic sinking has been determined by submersible studies of drowned reefs off west Hawaii (Moore and Fornari 1984). However, that rate must be higher for the Puna coastline, where volcanic loading activity is greater(Moore 1970). Coastline subsidence can be accelerated by sudden events such as the 1975 Kalapana earthquake that caused land in Kapoho to suddenly drop 9.6 inches (based on Hawaii Volcano Observatory(USGS) data in Hwang and Brooks (2007). Such episodic seismic induced subsistence is impossible to anticipate or measure. On the basis of InSAR(Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry)remote sensing data, Hwang and Brooks (ibid.) state that the coastline at Kapoho may be subsiding at a continuous rate of between .31 —.67 in/yr. Rates of subsidence at the subject property, 5 miles to the north of the East Rift Zone, are necessarily much lower as a result of that distance from Kilauea's tectonically active rift. The potential changes in eustatic SLR must be added to predicted isostatic changes in crustal subsidence rates for easternmost Puna. These changes are summarized in Table 6, below. MINIMUM MAXIMUM LWAI in r Land subsidence-positive isostatic 0.31 0.67 change (Hwang and Brooks 2007). Global Sea-level rise-positive eustatic 0.44 0.96 change (Fletcher 2010, Solomon 2007 and Pfeffer 2008). Sea-level rise (sum) 0.75 Table 6 Summary of potential sea level rise. Future combined sea level change and land subsidence is likely to cause significant shoreline transgression in this area over the long term (100 years-scale). These changes will probably slowly and episodically increase the erosive action of storm waves over the next several decades. Anderson and others (2015) studied this phenomenon in the context of low-lying"soft" coasts (beaches)throughout the Hawaiian Islands and concluded that average rates of shoreline recession would double by the year 2050, and increase to 2.5 times present and historically measured values by 2100, with shoreline retreats of as great as 190 ft. possible at some beaches. The relevancy of this study to"hard" substrates across the Big Island and in Puna is unclear. This is something to consider in planning. Army Corps models of SLR for the islands come to similar conclusions with at least a foot and possibly as many as 5.5 feet of SLR by the end of the 21st Century(see Figure 16). 29 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Relative Sea Level Change Projections-Gauge:1617760,Hilo:Hilo Bay:Kuhio Bay,HI(0510112014) 6 0 USAGE Low 0 USAGE Int 0 USACE High 5 J CO 4 2 w 3 C U M 2 1 0 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 Year Figure 16 Projected sea-level rise for Hilo,HI(www.corpsclimate.us/ccaceslcurves.cfm). 30 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. General Coastal Zone Hazards In a national assessment of coastal vulnerability conducted by Woods Hole for the United States Geological Survey, six variables were examined in the construction of an alternate, "Coastal Physical Vulnerability Index" or, CVI (Thieler Hammer-Klose 2000). These include mean tidal range, coastal slope, rate of relative sea-level rise, shoreline accretion and erosion rates, mean wave height and geomorphology. The geomorphology, calculated erosion rate, mean tidal range and coastal slope variables can be considered in this case as moderate, while two of the factors listed might cause some concern, sea-level rise and significant wave events. More to the point is the importance of a holistic treatment of coastal vulnerability. Hwang (2005)recommends that all hazards facing coastal areas should be considered when planning for land-use zoning in Hawaii, and not just erosion. Fletcher et al. (2002:150) calculated island-wide hazards assessments for Hawaii's coastlines. These hazards are rated on an ascending scale from I (low)to 4 (high). The specific risk levels for this area of Puna and the Opunaha property are shown below (see Table 7): Hazard Type Risk Level Tsunami(1- 4 Stream Flooding(1-4) 3 3 Storms(1-4) 4 Erosion(1-4) 2 Sea Level Change(1-4) 4 Volcanic/Seismic(1-4) 4 Overall Hazard Assessment(1-7) 6 Table 7 Summary of coastal hazards present at the Opnnaha property. Sea Level Rise has been discussed above at length, correspondingly the risk level at the property for future higher water is 4. Elevated risks associated with"Volcanic/Seismic"hazard types are due to the Maku'u coast's susceptibility to lava flows and the periodic morphological changes caused by Kilauea's active East Rift Zone (ERZ). Kilauea's south flank has generated many historic earthquakes and despite a current pause in eruptive activity, it will feel them in the future as well. For example, three more recent earthquakes in 1954, 1975 and 1989 registered 6.5, 7.2 and 6.1 on the Richter scale of magnitude (not to mention the most recent M=5.4 and 6.9 pair of tremblors that hit May 4, 2018 -which was felt strongly in this area). A hazard intensity rank of 4 indicates "frequent" seismic activity and recommends for a UBC seismic zone factor of>/= 2 (Fletcher et al. 2002:3). Other volcanic hazards include the threat of inundation by lava flows. The Opunaha property lies in a USGS defined hazard Zone 3 (Wright et al. 1992). It is a fair distance from the active East Rift Zone or summit of Kilauea(Zone 1). There is a possibility of tsunami (seismically generated"tidal"-waves)threatening this coastline. A hazard rank of 4 reflects this fact. The high rating is a result of the historical occurrence of 31 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. tsunami as well as the low slope of the coastline. Exceedingly large "tidal waves" generated by local or wide ranging Pacific-Rim volcanic movements can severely impact this region. Data are available for historic tsunami heights from Hilo as well as from Cape Kumukahi (the property lies approximately half-way between the two). In 1946 a tsunami reached 26 ft above normal sea level in Hilo and 19 ft. at Cape Kumukahi. In 1957, waves of 13 and 12 ft. (respectively) were recorded at these locations. One of the largest tsunami of modern time to hit the island came in 1960 when a 35 ft. high wall of water, focused by Hilo Bay, completely decimated the low-lying coastal areas of Hilo. The effects of a tsunami are highly variable, dependent on both local and extra-regional factors. For example, on the southeast shore this wave amounted to only 13 ft in height (Fletcher et al. 2002:7). Sea cliff heights across the property range from 8 to 13 meters above sea level (26—43 feet).The coastal plain behind the pali has a slope of only 2% (a gradient of 1:50). Therefore, for every one foot of vertical wave height above the elevated cliff, wave run-up could be as much as 50 ft. horizontally. Recall that significant wave heights of 6 meters (20 feet) are not uncommon (see Figure 6). This does not account for additional surge and momentum. There is, however, no indication or historic recording of the 1960 tsunami or any previous one overrunning the property area. It is, however, for this reason that Fletcher's sea-level change risk rating is 3-4 for the reference area of Maku'u. Fletcher et al. (ibid.) also rank the property relatively high in risk for high wave damage (3) and storm impacts (4). As discussed above, this portion of the Hawaiian island is subject to rapidly building swells of greater than 12 ft. in height that occur with seasonal frequency. The storm risk ranking of 4 indicates that over-wash of the shoreline should be expected. The 3 rating for stream flooding corresponds to the properties location in a watershed which can receive greater than 7.9 inches of rain per month and has few mitigation measure in place in the event of a flood (Fletcher et al. 2002:3). No evidence of past flooding was observed, although water can be expected to pond for short periods in low-lying areas. This fact has implications for soil conservation. Terrestrial erosion is seen as a moderate concern in the project area, with a rank of 2. There is relatively little soil development on the property, given its geologic youth. Attention should be paid to the maintenance of ground cover and vegetation to conserve the thin topsoil as much as possible from occasional strong runoff events. Overall, the Opunaha property is in a relatively risky zone, with a myriad of hazards to contend with. Fletcher et al. rank this area with an overall hazard assessment (OHA) of"high" - 6 on a scale of 7. 32 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Summary The Opunaha property, like all land on Kilauea volcano is unique in character due to the specific physical setting and historical impacts of volcanic activity molded over the eons by the action of the ocean. As a hard rock coast, it is difficult to assess in the same terms used for the many beaches and soft sand shorelines of the older islands of Hawaii. Hard coastlines are at one extreme of a "sensitivity scale" in this regard - they are slow responding systems (Hansom 2001). Coastlines such as those at the Opunaha Farm are susceptible to particular types of High Magnitude—Low Frequency(HMLF) events. For coasts on this end of the sensitivity scale"low frequency"needs to be better defined. Given the probability of significant sea level rise, the frequency can be expected to increase. Two independently derived erosion rate estimates (min. and max.) were calculated based on historical and geological data. These were derived empirically and treated in as quantitative a manner as the data permitted. We arrive at a final AAER for the Opunaha Property of between 0.36 and 0.17 feet per year. This range represents the average annual rate based on estimated changes measured over large spans of time. The actual erosion rate for any given year may vary greatly based on extreme weather or geologic events that could impact the coastline at any given time. The annual erosion rate could change dramatically, especially in face of the changing climate conditions. The present shoreline is not entirely stable, in particular those portions above the undercut sea caves which may be particularly susceptible to unpredictable seismic events and increasing large wave events. For these reasons we recommend the larger figure (AAER= 0.36 ft./year)be used for setback determination. 33 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. References Cited Abbott, Thorne. "Shifting shorelines and political winds—The complexities of implementing the simple idea of shoreline setbacks for oceanfront developments in Maui, Hawaii." Ocean & coastal management 73 (2013): 13-21. Anderson, T.R., C.H. Fletcher, M.M Barbee, L.N. Frazer, and B.M. Romine. 2015, Doubling of coastal erosion under rising sea level by mid-century in Hawai'i Natural Hazards v. 78 (1):75 Bruun, Per. 1962, "Sea Level Rise as a Cause of Shore Erosion."Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division; 88.1,pp. 117— 132. Businger, S., 1998, poster, Hurricanes in Hawaii; Hurricane and Extreme Weather Phenomena Symposium; Center for the Study of Active Volcanoes, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, hht://www.soest.hawaii/edu/MET/Faculty/businger/poster/hurricane Cazenave, A., Le Cozannet, G., 2014, Sea level rise and its coastal impacts, Open-Access American Geophysical Union Journal of Earth's Future, DOI: 10.1002/2013EF000188 Clague, D.A., Hagrstrum, J.T., Champion, D. E., and Beesoin, M. H. 1999, Kilauea summit overflows—their ages and distribution in the Puna District, Hawaii: Bull. Of Volcanology, v.61, n. 2, pp 363-381. Felton, E.Anne. "Sedimentology of rocky shorelines: 1.A review of the problem, with analytical methods, and insights gained from the Hulopoe Gravel and the modern rocky shoreline of Lanai, Hawaii." Sedimentary Geology 152.3-4 (2002): 221-245. Fletcher, C. H. , Grossman, E. E, Richmond, B. M. and Gibbs,A. E., 2002, Atlas of Natural Hazards in the Hawaiian Coastal Zone: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Series Map I-2761, scale 1:50,000. Fletcher, C. H., Boyd, R.,Neal,W. J., and Tice,V., 2010, Living on the Shores of Hawaii— Natural Hazards, the Environment, and our Communities: University of Hawaii Press, 371 pp. Grinsted, A., Moore, J.C., Jevrejeva, S., 2012, Projected Atlantic hurricane storm threat from rising temperatures, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 5369-5373 Hall,Adrian M., James D. Hansom, and Jack Jarvis. "Patterns and rates of erosion produced by high energy wave processes on hard rock headlands: The Grind of the Navir, Shetland, Scotland." Marine Geology 248.1-2 (2008): 28-46. Case study, hard coast... Hansom, J. D. "Coastal sensitivity to environmental change: a view from the beach." Catena 42.2-4 (2001): 291-305. Hard coast response to environmental change -not nil... Holcomb, R.T., 1987, Eruptive history and long-term behavior of Kilauea Volcano, in Decker, R.W., Wright, T.L., and Stauffer, P.H., Volcanism in Hawaii, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1350, USGPO, Washington D.C., volume 1, pp. 261-350 34 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Holland, G., and Bruyere, C.L., 2013, Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change, Journal of Climate Dynamics (on line): DOI: 10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0 Hwang, D. J., 2005, Hawaii Coastal Zone Mitigation Handbook: Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program, DBED, State of Hawaii, 216 pp. Hwang, D.J., and Brooks, B., 2007, Coastal subsidence in Kapoho, Puna, Island and State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii, 44 p. Jurado-Chichay, Zinzuni, Scott K. Rowland, and George PL Walker. "The formation of circular littoral cones from tube-fed pahoehoe: Mauna Loa, Hawai'i." Bulletin of Volcanology 57.7 (1996): 471-482. Lim, Michael, et al. "Erosional processes in the hard rock coastal cliffs at Staithes,North Yorkshire." Geomorphology 114.1-2 (2010): 12-21. Mattox, Tari N., and Margaret T. Mangan. "Littoral hydrovolcanic explosions: a case study of lava—seawater interaction at Kilauea Volcano." Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 75.1-2 (1997): 1-17. Merrifield, M.A., and Maltrud, M., 2011, Regional sea level trends due to a Pacific trade wind intensification, Geophysical Research Letters (on-line), DOI: 1029/201 1GL049576 Moore, J. G. and Fornari, D. J., 1984, Drowned reefs as indicators of the rate of subsidence of the Island of Hawaii: Journal of Geology, v. 92, p. 752-759. Moore, J. G., 1970, Relationship between subsidence and volcanic load, Hawaii: Bulletin of Volcanology, V. 34, pp. 562-576. Moore, James G., and Wayne U.Ault. 1965 "Historic Littoral Cones in Hawaii."Pacific Science Vol. XIX Moore, R. B. and Trusdell, F.A., 1991,Geologic Map of the Lower East Rift Zone of Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii: U. S. Geological Survey Misc. Investigations Series, Map I-2225, Scale:1:24,000. Owen, S., Burgmann, R., 2006, An increment of volcano collapse: Kinematics of the 1975 Kalapana, Hawaii earthquake, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, vol. 150, pp. 163-185 Pfeffer, W. T., Harper, J.T., O'Neel, S., 2008, Kinematic constraints on glacier contributions to 21rst-century sea level rise, Science, 321 (5894),pp. 1340-1343 Ramalho, Ricardo S., et al. "Coastal evolution on volcanic oceanic islands:A complex interplay between volcanism, erosion, sedimentation, sea-level change and biogenic production." Earth- Science Reviews 127 (2013): 140-170. 35 Coastal Erosion Survey of the"Opunaha Property",Maku'u Ahupua a,Puna District,Hawai i. Rosser,N. J., et al. "Terrestrial laser scanning for monitoring the process of hard rock coastal cliff erosion." Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 38.4 (2005): 363- 375. Ruggiero, P., Komar, P.D., Allan, J.C., 2010, Increasing wave heights and extreme wave projections; the wave climate of the Pacific Northwest, Journal of Coastal Engineering, vol. 57, pp. 539-552 Solomon, S. S., 2007, The Physical Basis: Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 1009 p. Swanson, D.A., Rose, T. R., Fiske, R. S., and McGeehin, J. P., 2012, Keanakako`i Tephra produced by 300 years of explosive eruptions following collapse of Kilauea's caldera in about 1500 CE: Journal Of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 215-216,No. 2, pp. 8-25. Thieler, E. R. and E. S. Hammer-Klose . 2000a. National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the US Pacific Coast. Woods Hole, MA: United States Geological Survey(USGS), Open File Report 00-178 Trusdell, Frank, Edward W. Wolfe, and Jean Morris (2006) htt2s://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2005/144/ Digital Database of the Geologic Map of the Island of Hawai`I; U.S. Geological Survey, Data Series 144, version 1.0. Vitousek, S., Fletcher, C.H., 2008, Maximum annually recurring wave heights in Hawaii, Pacific Science, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 541-553 Wang, X.L., Feng, Y., and Swail, V.R., 2014, Changes in global ocean wave heights as projected usingf CMIP5 simulations, Geophysical Research Letters (on line), DOI:1002/2013GLO58650 Wright„T L., Chun, J.Y.F., Esposo, Joan, Heliker, C., Hodge, J., Lockwood, J. P., and Vogt, S. M., 1992, Map showing Lava-flow Hazard Zones, Island of Hawaii: U.S. Geological Survey, Misc. Field Studies Map MF-2193, 1:250,000. Zhang, Keqi, Bruce C. Douglas, and Stephen P. Leatherman. "Global warming and coastal erosion.” Climatic change 64.1-2 (2004): 41. 36 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District at Maku`u Appendix C Archaeological Inventory Survey SCS Project Number 2420-1 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY REPORT FOR A 10.45-ACRE PROPERTY IN POPOKI AHUPUA`A, PUNA DISTRICT, HAWAII ISLAND, HAWAII [TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026 & 0271 Prepared By: Glenn G. Escott, M.A. Thomas Dols, M.A. MAY 2020 DRAFT Prepared for: Opunaha, LLC 533 Fernwood Pacific Drive Topanga, CA 90290-3209 SCIEWFIFIC CONSULTANT SERVICES Inc. MAW AIi„ 1347 Kapi`olani Boulevard, Suite 408 Honolulu,HI 96814 Hawaii Island Office: PO Box 155 Kea`au,HI 96749 This Page IntentionallLeft Blank ABSTRACT Under contract to property owner Opunaha, LLC, Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) conducted an archaeological inventory survey(AIS) of 10.45 acres of land [TMK: (3) 1-5- 010:026 & 027] located in P6p6k7i Ahupua`a, Puna District, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii. The property address is 15-2193 Old Government/Beach Road. The property is bounded on the east by the Pacific Ocean, the west by Old Government/Beach Road, on the north and south by residential properties. The property owner is proposing to build a single family dwelling on the property. The AIS study was conducted as supporting documentation for a Special Management Area (SMA) permit application and construction permit application. Prior to fieldwork, a search of geological maps, aerial photos, historical maps, historical documents, and archaeological reports was conducted. Pedestrian survey and site recording was conducted in November, 2019 by SCS Senior Archaeologists Glenn Escott M.A. and Suzan Escott, B.A., and SCS Archaeologist Thomas Dols M.A. Two archaeological sites were identified, including a rock wall SIHP Site 50-10-45-18419) parallel to Old Government/Beach Road and a property boundary rock wall (Site 50-10-45- 31185). The sites are the remains of Historic to Modern era agriculture and ranching. Both of the sites are significant under criterion "d" as they are likely to yield information important to history of ranching in the area. Information recorded at the sites during the current study has adequately ascertained the age and function of the sites and documentation contained in this report is sufficient to warrant no further work at both sites. This report contains background information outlining the project area environmental and cultural contexts, a presentation of previous archaeological work within the study area and in the immediate vicinity, an assessment of expected archaeological patterns, an explanation of project methods, project findings, significance assessments, recommendations and the proposed project effect. I TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................I LISTOF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... III LISTOF TABLES........................................................................................................................IV INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION............................................................................................. 1 METHODS ................................................................................................................................. 1 CONSULTATION...................................................................................................................... 6 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................................... 7 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS......................................................................... 14 PRE-CONTACT ACCOUNTS OF SOUTH HILO AND PUNA DISRTICTS....................... 14 TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO QUIET LAND TITLES.......................... 18 CHANGING RESIDENTIAL AND LAND-USE PATTERNS (1845-1865) ......................... 20 THE PUNA TRAIL AND OLD GOVERNMENT ROAD...................................................... 20 SUGARCANE, RAILROADS AND COMMERCE................................................................ 23 MODERNLAND USE............................................................................................................. 24 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS........................................................... 25 RECENT STUDIES IN POPOKI AND SURROUNDING AHUPUA`A............................... 38 CONSULTATION........................................................................................................................ 43 EXPECTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL PATTERNS....................................................................... 44 RESULTS OF FIELDWORK....................................................................................................... 45 SITE18419 ROCK WALL................................................................................................ 45 SITE31185 ROCK WALL................................................................................................... 52 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 57 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 60 REFERENCESCITED................................................................................................................. 62 11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawaii Showing Location of Project Area(National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)................... 2 Figure 2: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Project Area and TMK Parcels (Keaau Ranch Quadrangle. ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic and County of Hawaii Planning Department, 2019). ............................................................ 3 Figure 3: TMK: (3) 1-5-010 Map Showing Location of Project Area (County of Hawaii PlanningDepartment, 2019)...................................................................................................4 Figure 4: Aerial Photograph Showing Project Area, Keaau, HI, Zone 5 North. (ESRI, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and USGS)...................... 5 Figure 5: Photograph of Sea Cliff at the Northeast Edge of the Project Area, Looking Northwest. ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 6: Photograph of Sea Cliff at Middle of the Project Area, Looking Southeast.................. 9 Figure 7: Photograph of Littoral Black Cinder Cone at Middle of the Project Area, Looking South. .................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8: Photograph of Littoral Black Cinder Cone at Middle of the Project Area, Looking South. .................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 9: Photograph of Project Area Parcel 026 Grass in Foreground and Parcel 027 Trees at Background Left, Looking South. ........................................................................................ 12 Figure 10: Photograph of Project Area Parcel 026 Grass, Looking West Toward Government BeachRoad........................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 11: Portion of Map of the Island of Hawaii Showing the Locations of Project Area and PlaceNames (Wall 1886). .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 12: Portion of Map of Hawai`I Showing Project Area and Surrounding Place Names (Donn 1901).......................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 13: Portion of Map of Puna District Showing Locations of the Project Area and Land Grants (Moragne 1903)......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 14: Location of Project Area and Old Government Road from Hilo Bay through Puna District on Portion of Registered Map 424 Drawn by the Wilkes Expedition of 1840-1841. ............................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 15: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map (Kea`au Ranch Quad) Showing Location of Coastal Kea`au Ahupua`a Previous Archaeological Studies (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). ............................................... 26 Figure 16: Map of Lass (1997) Project Area Location................................................................. 29 Figure 17: Map of Lass (1997) Project Area Site Locations and Site Plan View Drawings....... 30 Figure 18: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map (Kea`au Ranch Quad) Showing Location of Coastal Sites Recorded in Ewart and Luscomb (1974) (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). .......................................................... 35 Figure 19: Site 18975 Plan View Map (Ewart and Luscomb 1974:24)....................................... 37 Figure 20: Map Showing Recent Previous Archaeological Studies in Maku`u and Surrounding Ahupua`a (Adapted from Dirks Ah Sam and Rechtman 2013:11)....................................... 39 Figure 21: Archaeological Site Plan Map Showing Sites Recorded in Dirks Ah Sam and Rechtman (2013)................................................................................................................... 41 III Figure 22: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Archaeological Sites Documented in Escott(2019) (Kea`au Ranch Quadrangle. ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic and Hawaii County Planning Department, 2013). ............................ 42 Figure 23: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Archaeological Sites (Kea`au Ranch Quadrangle. ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic and Hawaii County Planning Department, 2013). ..................................................................... 46 Figure 24: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Archaeological Sites (Kea`au Ranch Quadrangle. ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic and Hawaii County Planning Department, 2013). ..................................................................... 47 Figure 25: Photograph of Site 18419 in the Southeast Portion of the Project Area, Looking Southwest.............................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 26: Site 18419 Wall Southwest Profile at Middle of Project Area...................................49 Figure 27: Photograph of Site 18419 in the Northwest Portion of the Project Areal Looking Southwest.............................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 28: Site 18419 Wall Southwest Profile at Northwest Portion of the Project Area........... 51 Figure 29: Photograph of Site 18419 at Opunaha Ranch Gate, Looking Northeast.................... 53 Figure 30: Photograph of Site 31185 Southwest Portion of Wall Looking Northwest. .............. 54 Figure 31: Photograph of Site 31185 Middle Portion of Wall Looking Northwest. ................... 55 Figure 32: Site 31185 Wall Northwest Profile at Middle of Wall............................................... 56 Figure 33: Photograph of Mown/Cut Grass in Northeast Quadrant of Parcel 027 near Trail Site 18418, Looking Northeast. ................................................................................................... 58 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Site Summaries of Barbara Lass (1997) Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey........ 31 Table 2: Inventory of Waikahekahe and Maku`u Ahupua`a Archaeological Sites (Ewart and Luscomb1974). .................................................................................................................... 36 Table 3: Previous Archaeological Studies in Maku`u, Popoki and Halona Ahupua`a................ 38 Table 4: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified Within the Project Area.......................... 40 Table 5: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified Within the Project Area.......................... 45 Table 6: Site Significance and Recommended Treatments. ........................................................ 61 IV INTRODUCTION PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION Under contract to property owner Opunaha, LLC, Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) conducted an archaeological inventory survey(AIS) of 10.45 acres of land [TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026 & 027] located in P6p6ki Ahupua`a, Puna District, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii (Figure 1 through Figure 4). The property address is 15-2193 Old Government/Beach Road. The project area is located approximately eight miles southeast of Kea`au town and just south of Hawaiian Paradise Park(HPP)residential subdivision. The property is bounded on the east by the Pacific Ocean, the west by Old Government/Beach Road, on the north and south by residential properties. The property owner is proposing to build a single family dwelling on the property. The AIS study was conducted as supporting documentation for a Special Management Area(SMA)permit application and construction permit application. The property owner's point of contact for the project is Mr. Zendo Kern. Mr. Kern can be contacted by phone at(808)-333-3393 or by email at zendo@zendokern.com. METHODS The archaeological inventory survey was undertaken in accordance with Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§13-2 84 and was performed in compliance with the Rules Governing Minimal Standards for Archaeological Inventory Surveys and Reports contained in Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§13-276. The investigation included the following procedures: I. SCS conducted historical and archaeological archival research including a search of historic maps, aerial photos, written records, Land Commission Award documents, State and County Planning and Tax Records documents, and previous archaeological reports. 2. SCS conducted limited oral interviews with cultural informants. 3. SCS carried out a 100% pedestrian survey of the project area. 4. SCS documented all historic properties identified within the project areas. 5. SCS assessed all sites for significance and made recommendations for site disposition. 1 e 13oa 1E. v94000m E. 106 vo0m E. IS--F. 130—E. X42--E, IS4"If E. :56—,E- a70---E. 190—E WG584 Zane SQ 321--F l� HAWAII ry lHAWAO COI z 6R H 7:�` z h .4 PROJECT AREA 11 U �,� i 17 1T I �.�eaacsf.E.i=u ✓ / e Z G __- - - - - _ _ -_--_— ---_------ i 509 Zone 4Q e16—E. v9P—E. 107--E. x29--E, X311—E. X43coop,E. X551--E, 267--E. z79000m E. 191—C, v03--E, a19--E. 3y \� 0 5 le 15 3A :3 eti3es .0 i0. .10 elk, Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawaii Showing Location of Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 2 o se , 2 � « / � ] \ . a � � ) / / . k § t / ƒ 2 Q § k ./ 4� ) ® ■ � w 0 7 Cd � . u 2 � 0 � � o � � W § o � I El •§ Q � G 2 § � 2 � � m w � £ k » 2 # _ � d A r E 5511 r' T� 1! u Lo $ a' fir' �;t�©'+ 4��t�, •� C�j a�s�4u ��� I � J � !., •cd S� h yo �m h F- o U �s F Cd w 4- 1 v�.b aEl a fl w V� Cd 9 iar—1 y� tY ki ai 0 C7 an Q a� U O cd cd Q an cd M O N W i O z x Cd �' QI w r cn Q Z cn x cn '0 aCd T^ •c Q� W �I Irl ill rQ� V Prior to fieldwork, a search of geological maps, aerial photos, historical maps, historical documents, Hawaii County Planning records, and previous archaeological reports was conducted. A pedestrian survey was conducted in November, 2019 by SCS Senior Archaeologists Glenn Escott, M.A. and Suzan Escott, B.A., and SCS Archaeologist Thomas Dols, M.A. The fieldwork took a total of 64 person-hours to complete. A series of northwest/southeast transects spaced two to three meters apart were walked across the entire project area. Ground cover consisted of grass, scattered trees and some low ferns and bushes. Ground visibility was good. Glenn Escott was the principal investigator and project director for the AIS study. Sites were plotted with a Garmin GPSNIAP64 Global Position System(GPS) using Universal Transverse Mercator(UTM)projection (Zone 5 North) and WSGS84 datum. Written descriptions, scale plan view drawings, and photographs were generated for all of the archaeological features identified. Color photographs were taken of individual site features using a 25 cm long north arrow scale divided into 10 cm black and white increments. There were no subsurface test excavations conducted as the only archaeological features within the project area are rock walls. CONSULTATION Members of the Kamahele and Lui `ohana were interviewed by SCS for an AIS study(Escott 2019)two properties northwest (150 meters) of the current project area. The interviews were conducted to document cultural and historical information pertinent to the Kamahele property as well as in the broader area. The content of the interviews is pertinent to the current study given the close spatial relationship between the Kamahele property(Parcel 009) and the current project area (Parcels 026 & 027]. This report contains background information outlining the project area environmental and cultural contexts, a presentation of previous archaeological work conducted nearby, current survey expectations based on the previous work, descriptions of all sites documented during the AIS field work, and significance assessments and recommendations. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project area is situated on level to moderately sloping land at 0.0 to 50.0 feet (0.0-15.0 m) above mean sea level (amsl) (see Figure 2). The project area substrate is a Kilauea lava flow dated between 750 and 1,500 years ago (Wolfe and Morris 1996). Soil in the project area is `Opihikao series (rOPE) extremely rocky muck overlaying pahoehoe lava (Sato 1973:43). The soil is thin and well drained with 3%to 25% slopes. The seaward edge of the project area is 20 to 30 foot high cliffs (Figure 5 and Figure 6). There is no easy access to enter the ocean except by climbing down the cliff face. There is a low littoral black cinder cone located along the sea cliff in the middle of Parcel 026 (see Figure 2 and Figure 4). The seaward side of the cone is eroded(Figure 7 and Figure 8). The cinder cone slopes gently to southwest and is covered by grass grazed by sheep and goats. The remainder of the project area is pahoehoe coastal flats with grasses, low shrubs and scattered trees (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Tree species in the southeast portion of the project area (Parcel 027) include autograph (Clusia rosea), gunpowder(Trema orientalis), Moluccan albezia(Falcataria moluccana), bingabing (Macaranga mappa), and guava(Psidium sp.) (Starr 2013). There are also intermittent coconut palms (Cocos nucifera) along the coastline. Rainfall in the project area is between 120 and 200 inches per year. Natural drainage in the area runs from west to east. 7 r z a � t U GJ 'r r Sti U O U pp fol bio cn 0 _ o 0 w +1 1 } � r IWO 1114't d ti • • _ � W e �1 7 e. -A 4 IA _ `Nr• - _ j • � p 6 t � 1 • it ^t jk r JI' ,s { a� .r O 4- O cd N U O � N 0 �6 U ct y g`� ct cd rl A x �K eeF`e ''•' ��'` O N '1 '2A,77" J w r A 4 I`�.—� �• � 'yam y� s�� T�' �i 14 Y O w ;;�_� �" �:W'. e�"..F3f�. 1 � _ f e ,q �� ' 2 g,ffiA' *"N'4 Cd �; �, O �-•, - �_- �,: � `r.g' � � v�4 � r _y; a/ � i�w a � �" �Y '�' ''y �, S. a - -+ a s. �'�_a•r � e.___ --` C'.` 1 s ;� �r [�. Z r � �"'- '`� �:�+�• :-r�,may' .�_� '.� -. �� -. _ � Z� _ � * _ _v°• � f, -� � _ 3 M 4_ .�. , �: a � � �� r r =s�� � !'� '� � i�' � r 'L �S � •`� N -`�' O _ -��� �- y, __ A r I i � A w�=r i����'r }-i t � r. Y � I� -_ " � �u -� � _ _ � _ ¢� U i �� GJ Ii_ � :� i O f � =_ :��i C - Y ���� �`� � - ��°iii' �°'c W m _f--.T.- �, �,4 _ � ,` � t��'� ;gid is �_ � ,�o �� w HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS Many archaeologists believe that Hawaii Island was first settled around A.D. 1,000 by people sailing from the Marquesas (Athens et al. 2014; Dye 2011; Kahn et al. 2014; Kirch 2011; Kirch and McCoy 2007; Mulrooney et al. 2011; Reith et al. 2011; Wilmhurst et al. 2011a and 2011b). An article published in the Journal of Archaeological Science reviewing radiocarbon dates recovered at archaeological sites on the Island of Hawaii suggests that, by relying on only carbon samples from short-lived plant remains, the most reliable dates point to initial Polynesian colonization of Hawaii Island occurring between A.D. 1220 and 1261 (Rieth et al. 2011:2747). Hilo was, by most estimates, one of the first settlements on the Island of Hawaii. The rich marine resources of Hilo Bay and the gently sloping forests of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea provided abundant resources. Fresh water was available from the Wailoa and Wailuku rivers and smaller streams such as Waiakea, Waiolama, Pukihae, and `Alenaio. The current project area is located in P6p6k71 Ahupua`a, Puna District, roughly twenty kilometers southeast of Hilo (Figure 11 and Figure 12). P6p6k71 Ahupua`a is located between Waikahekahe and Keonepoko Ahupua`a in Figure 11. PRE-CONTACT ACCOUNTS OF SOUTH HILO AND PUNA DISRTICTS The earliest account of Hilo appears in `Umi-a-Liloa's (1600-1620) conquest of the Island of Hawaii, which establishes Hilo as a royal center by the sixteenth century. In the account, `Umi-a-Liloa began his conquest of the Island of Hawaii by defeating chief Kulukulu`a, who lived in Waiakea, and the other chiefs of Hilo (Kamakau 1992:16- 17). `Umi-a-Liloa's second son, Keawe-nui-a-`Umi, ruled Hamakua, Hilo, and Puna from his residence at Hilo (ibid. 34). It was from Hilo that he waged war on the Kona chiefs and unified the island. Keawe-nui-a-`Umi's descendants single handedly continued rule for many generations from Hilo. After the death of Keawe-nui-a-`Umi the kingdom was divided into three parts and was established under warring chiefs; Hilo was ruled by Kumalae-nui-pu`awa-lau and his son Makua (ibid. 45). It was during the period of time that Kamehameha I was born. Kalani`6pu`u's grandson, Keoua Kuahu`ula and nephew Kamehameha vied for control over the six chiefdoms constituting the island kingdom and Keoua conquered Hilo chief Keawe-mau-hili and harvested the benefits for a short time only to be vanquished by Kamehameha I late in 1791. 14 x CL o � 00 00 lH-a p CA 7:) r£', Ij•'s`. +' C�j }rtl r' t-I < 5.t•Ir �.�: 'l1 , ys yi• F��'n r ':I :y�� .'C.5 �:J..,� r �q�y"," � •p� � � L 1 1 �1 1.r r y I. - r�, I >t _ 3� CI y -,,�l - r�w'� r N �d ��Mr �t • ttl,v�`I,I r'rr:� ��ir •+;�;L, ,rl�t'S 5j/e� ;�c r�o-✓ e 'fi'�e •O r r Fa a c�r� 1_11f• r��' ext ; ,Ser �5f 7� ��Lr -� d •(�. 5. c. r e-,ic // � �-/ � i, 0,4 _ to v ray r: ..,t•.f Q ''� 'a i'"'• '`4••? { �r ." fi:.r \,�?y �2''k:: O g> - ..\ t^ >>:., .�'. =%,': .- ►.I E" Q l 'a" •�/�:` ,ray..,,!; w cr-.:. !J`ira, Ir ,r,lrl�/� '/xjr ,// // i7/yQu.+ a.','• s;�' V a # A • � r .'°� Fe �Cy/ � ^ta7 fir!+ s„ rI! / u` - r -Gd� Fr .. � �{ 8 - �� r `�' L X111' tl,•r 5 .. � W � aL., /... {,��, .�'!//. �:-; S r�3{ / �\ •{.. 1 Y r r�1. f ■ ��r t r,..f � � Qt a ,e �'iA�xsl '�i/'I/1//fi'l//..,.1/.f�I> t`g1'� N ue,atur, ,�-?it �r�.�- j .r! rd 's •° "•s;cz'"`,; tir;+ll�s/ H n _ I I n ?S II dR �R�t�� `''�� Y 4� g4 �/t .I^ .r�i+ „`$P�./ //r,/.•./ /�• - .�,fir • •�Ar,•�y,, 1eQPr � O ,+LkIr �ci'-err•�•.�. �i�// yl/4_ �yI ,S' ff S a L f b " .4 4lr'.x ° ,� ,,� .y l••+E.'n.,'V t F, i� a a"`:,�,,� e t$ L r S �s'�'�y�.tri�:��-�F�,�s�re C'` �;�'�•� ;, -C..rS 1sJ 7L U a:,' - �Cdj en1`�•r '1t�_ r � 'iiei�4i`rt" £ ',S`+ - r.-fi'{.a`h d ?`' aa-�r ' 'iia I-4 ra 'A rt. ;4r}'�'..+� � 7.:,� ,t,�'�" ..P �yy '�' /��✓YuE .✓,h•�¢7 j ^ N n ' 9 r Cd `•�,e+ .1 I�.' 2 4x+ r � `:v;. '`•�_ A i�y�'aicr �,, age- cL71 I a n BY^Pgs a it tyr •,h e ` # ice •v,,,tl 1ti�1sc� �'' � 4. r �4`},a�.f a�r�s ,t `j11 ,vl tvtl4` � ;C %' •���•r.Ftc'.a� �r_..• o O •' I �'�>� ��,a.h'='r�(`"Y�:�.t+j",�"�� r •'�'�'_ O ao !�+ ,��•. o: 4r" - i ��\'�' `1��?11 1�4T�4�£i!l orf/!�1 M j� �y.-l l ?C '-ye it r- o, V� 17 p ' J r' AO y 1 Q 0 • � b- 0 A d l o � afq zr a / t � Kamehameha's son Liholiho was born in Hilo in November 1797 (Kamakau 1992:22). Waiakea was inherited by Lihiliho after Kamehameha's death. The `ili kupono of Pi`opi`o and its royal fishpond were given to his favorite wife, Ka`ahumanu. Situated along the windward coast of Hawaii Island, Puna is a verdant and abundant district with good rainfall and rich soils (see Figure 11). However, it is also subject to volcanic eruptions and has been covered by new lava in many places over the last 1,000 years (Cordy 2000:17, and 22). Much of the district's coastal areas have thin soils, and there are no good deep water harbors. The ocean along the Puna coast is often rough and wind-blown. As a result of these two factors, settlement patterns in Puna tend to be dispersed and without major population centers. Villages in Puna tend to be spread out over larger areas and often are inland, and away from the coast, where the soil is better for agriculture (ibid. 45). The lack of population centers also had an effect on the development of a hierarchy of district rulers. Puna was often not strongly tied together by a tight web of allegiances between ah`i and konohiki. As a result, Puna was often conquered and ruled by stronger district leaders in Hilo or Ka`u (Kamakau 1992:17 and 77). Puna District was famous for its valuable products, including "hogs, gray kapa cloth(`eleuli), tapas made of mamaki bark, fine mats made of young pandanus blossoms (`ahuhinalo), mats made of young pandanus leaves (`ahuao), and feathers of the Wo and mamo birds" (ibid.106). Puna was also famous for its abundant ulu (breadfruit). Kea`au and neighboring `Ola`a Ahupua`a were well known for their valuable natural and hand-made products. Both ahupua`a were located along the southern boundary of South Hilo District(see Figure 11). The two ahupua`a were often the source of forest products for the Hilo's ruling elite. Moreover, Kea`au cut `Ola`a off from the ocean, so that families living along the coast in Kea`au often traded marine resources for upland forest products from family members living in small communities in upland `Ola`a. 17 Historical accounts pertaining to lands of the project area region are scarce but provide some information on traditional residence patterns, land-use, and subsistence. William Ellis passed through P6p6k71 Ahupua`a in 1823 while travelling along the coastal trail from Kilauea to Waiakea Ahupua`a, Hilo (see Figure 12). Ellis'journey took him along the coast past the project area. Ellis did not describe the region of Maku`u or P6p6k71 Ahupua`a, but stopped in a small inland village in Honolulu Ahupua`a, and rested in the shade of a canoe house along the coast of Waiakahiula Ahupua`a(Ellis 1963:294- 295),roughly 3.5 to 5.0 km southeast of P6p6k71. Honolulu Village and a nearby village were inland and small, and the population was dispersed. Ellis also described a village, likely Hd'ena, in Kea`au Ahupua`a, north of P6p6k71 (see Figure 12). The village was large and populous with an abundance of taro, sweet potato and sugarcane gardens (Ellis 1963:296). He suggested the area was made more fertile by a flowing stream where he quenched his thirst. TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO QUIET LAND TITLES With the Mahele of 1848 and the two Acts of 1850, authorizing the sale of land in fee simple to resident aliens and the award of kuleana lands to native tenants, land tenure in Hawaii arrived at a significant turning point(Chinen 1961:13). The ahupua`a of Kea`au was granted to William C. Lunalilo as part of Land Commission award (LCA) 8559-B. There were no Land Commission awards made in P6p6k71 Ahupua`a. Three small Land Grants (LG)were purchased along the coast in Maku`u, P6p6k71, and Halona Ahupua`a (Figure 13). LG 1013 was purchased by D.W. Maiau, LG 1014 was purchased by Kea, and LG 1537 was purchased by Kapohana. The current project area is the northeast portion of 171.0 acres of land (LG 1537)purchased by Kapohana in 1855. The littoral cone was used as a triangulation station by early western map makers, and is labeled Opunaha in Figure 13. Opunaha is literally as "broken cluster" (Pukui et al. 1976:172) and likely refers to the eroded littoral cinder cone. There are two mauka- makai trails and one trail parallel to the ocean depicted in Figure 13. One of the mauka- makai trails ends at Old Government/Beach Road just mauka of the current project area. There are no trails depicted within the current project area. 18 .p A M n 3. ISI z r a � r fib- q���` � f •� -•gyp. ,� 1' �.y •L O CHANGING RESIDENTIAL AND LAND-USE PATTERNS (1845-1865) Between 1845 and 1900, traditional land-use and residential patterns began to change drastically. In particular, the regular use of Hilo Bay by foreign vessels, the growth of tourism, the presence of the whaling industry, the establishment of missions in the Hilo area, the legalization of private land ownership, the introduction of cattle ranching, the introduction of sugar cane cultivation, and the construction of Government Roads and railroad lines all brought about changes in settlement patterns and long- established land-use patterns (Kelly et al. 1981). Much of the change in residential location and the growth of towns in Puna District were driven by the availability of arable land suited to commercial crops and the location of newly constructed roads. The traditional travel route through Puna was along the coast (see Figure 11 and Figure 14). The trip was made along a foot trail that led through the coastal and near coastal villages. That trail lead from the modern day Lili`uokalani Gardens area to Ha`ena along the Puna coast. The trail is often called the old Puna Trail and/or Puna Road. There is an historic trail/cart road that is also called the Puna Trail (Ala Hele Puna) and/or the Old Government Road that continues from the south end of the Puna Trail through Waiakahiula Ahupua`a heading to points south. Lass (1997) also refers to the entire route from Hilo to Ka`u as the Puna-Ka`u trail. THE PUNA TRAIL AND OLD GOVERNMENT ROAD There is an historic trail that leads from the modern day Lili`uokalani Gardens in Waiakea to Ha`ena along the Puna coast. The trail is often called the old Puna Trail and/or Puna Road. There is an historic trail/cart road that is also called the Puna Trail (Ala Hele Puna) and/or the Old Government Road that continues from the south end of the Puna Trail heading to points south. Lass (1997) also refers to the entire route from Hilo to Ka`u as the Puna-Ka`u trail. Whatever name the trail/cart road alignment is called by, it likely incorporated segments of the traditional Hawaiian trail system often referred to as the ala loa or ala hele (Hudson 1932:247, Kuykendall 1966:23-25, Lass 1997:15, and Maly 1999:5). Lass suggests the fill length of the Puna Trail, or Old Government Road, might have been constructed or improved just before 1840 (Lass 1997:15). The trail was called the Old Government Road, or Ala Nui Aupuni(Maly 1999:5). The alignment was first mapped by the Wilkes Expedition of 1804-41 (see Figure 14). 20 . +•�����rfI/�'�� ��� _rl�r`fir//�/'� f�I �••� _ � • /// / III �*`v� .1 f;`is!.��� �� •I. ,/•l/ 1 +f �•Rfr y /r � i "' V-ti fJr w. ,r/1,./��,.-.r.. ,i�sy .�Yi. -.++•��.': - :�,• X1,7•yr.s � r /i •. �7r :., w�r�, :�. tri".+;] ry+..,� .,� /rte ;-- _' .,,� ` _�.: .1J.,}i�� .• ..�"•.i{ � w �;i�r••;,?" t, r it I .fr ''4. �' 'j .:� ,'. j'`r+"�'i�r��"a J�,b. a F`y"`1: ,",• NJ �" I � !! II r1 _ r1t.F"7:__��� ���r �. �•7r' T�•� J1 MW '�� � ' f�� � � � �A'i�• •r'•t�ly '��•�'q ��� •I•' .�r���:•� � U O ;�y,4' al•. � p.., ' / �1'� �JI,'.1 .i ; ,,1t�rf.L:r,: ., �;I'%i•.Cf;�s i�� O F' ,^ ,}} ���'J ,S' ! i G 11 f•'�^r ' ., "a r � L,iL.�%. i f,rj j^"�.� • � R+ .a .r i a j ti .i.- ,��" �'GLS,`;�J�is�[ 1L yh1k , !F4j /}�•j ircct * i:'f 7 •1•" ''J�+'A •'TilA t'}4 U rt W ,� r. •, 1 Y 1a�'Iy }(W� J 1,�1 ;n�• I ] �l1 1 '/ J {l '//7r, �..�',r''`'•,,;-' i '" �y l;,.ti,' '1 ', �'1 i :'lt i •{ly"• r _ y� u • r o �l'+ f / n. �• ,� .Cfj t. �•' I` r. i w J�: f s.� t 4- n-•• rw � - ! .'i f'. �-1 ri:!+! ..�' „ ;„k 7�•,.�,� ' •7 t?';i �� •'�``T+lr{y�� '�^f t r;.�,t -XOX Z4f1f t •' {r.••V � {S'hJ �''!,j' 1 � 'v'Sr'�•}y4"I'M,�ry�. 1 r i,L+1,h��vfF�j31.��./r���ti 5•-� N y„ �' •wai ,•.. • f/ � � 11�{f. L�:.J. '1.M 'LtL �'�• '"+�C'� 1�]r4���� F r+. \4•�+ t,Y � � y4 ��N' '*��� �,'r� �j[��• L.��� t'` 4,1�,� ,�;�!'}'`�f.lG? tt��:f��.'J�,�.,�Y',r` •� V-`♦ \ l - rt J, �� 1.! �'I,JIJ!//J f, ';•. !.1 �w�� 1.• ,f r��.1 LA• r�� � �y U 39/ �� � A��: •'�� J ,;S�y�l'U'rF.,��1�I�+L/rr��.�� — iti.'6�t t p � ct ct (•[•J1`i?a. ;A. i'VI jf�• 'ti 'Jfj~.�ie�i i �.N•�f.�i�p{�La,..r.- Ms,}?�C����yJpt� �•�1� a V� rf s. t,,�C� ``'1y r//�£ �r'r �yr�.�f]► , ;� *+�.y r Yi���. i T�� .-+ CF•i .��/• Jam;" �41 �i,y�f �" `,. � `t°y. :�t�+r � �� � p ,"�'O, '�Ilr%f �+`�°��y ,,yy���►�4 �r:�i�{�1I-{. -�r �+�, ►� �t y .�ti..:,•�,�.�a:'S(i�y�r•�� J•,�+�lrr � '�;L111J,�1�/�f,s'��`f� � ~ - :�. .' r ,] Gr'••',i�r�y'e�•'��+�/* O '�f++r��f �` �•y�,t f �y—�•{ - f`�� •�•``�'�. '� � �a+ ��� � ,sem r ����'J� fj�j� s� �'�'ra � . LLsyr.� � -�1f�� r�1��* _' U r••' '> ��.1��y i+�;7�•n5's. i /r�l�{�-11�1� � _-�����L�. f..' 1.`-4 i i..��r r�f r ~ �;1�'L�rr•�.fli .!��_, � �ii'')I �I�'==��� "`'c�`'Z� •,7*��'r�:�,��`� �x � Q `'IgL�U� �Irr;r� :A.- '€ 11Lf1.•�}r�1r���i sr•;. � tr +t_ '/ .' `S;+ r3r�, �.'�'• � t:wa - �'J'� :�;a1 ^-T. ,y;���[YYi'��f f f �1�. Ir•�...:C�'4�ii '.Tr�� � �R''� �'I � A general description of the area between the Old Government Road and the newer upper road from Hilo through Kea`au to Pahoa was recorded in 1889 by the Surveyor General of the Hawaiian Government Survey. The description affords a glimpse into inland and coastal settlement patterns and land use. The first settlement met with after leaving Hilo by the sea coast road, is at Keaau, a distant 10 miles where there are less than a dozen inhabitants; the next is at Makuu, distant 14 miles where there are a few more, after which there is occasionally a stray but or two, until Halepuaa and Koae are reached, 21 miles from Hilo, at which place there is quite a village; thence to Kaimu there are only a few scattered settlements here and there. A good many of those living along the lower road have their cultivating patches in the interior, along or within easy accessibility to the new road (Alexander 1891, cited in Maly 1999:107). The 1889 description contrasts with Ellis' in which he described numerous villages just sixty-six years earlier. The 1889 description suggests depopulation along the majority of the Puna near-coastal area. In both descriptions, the people in this area appear to have lived somewhat inland, between the coast and the inland gardens. In 1889 people were cultivating small patches of kalo, `awa, and coffee as well as other food items in the inland gardens. The patches were placed in pockets of soil in holes amidst the lava flows. Additionally, sweet potatoes were grown on rock mounds. By 1889, it appears that very few people lived along the Old Government Road(Maly 1999:6). The Surveyor General stated, The old sea coast road cannot be kept in repair with the means now at its disposal and its condition each year is becoming more unsafe and ruinous, there is but little travel over it; it has been shown that there is little land capable of cultivation or development either side of it and whatever travel there is now over it would soon be entirely diverted to the upper road (Alexander 1891, cited in Maly 1999:107). The new road being constructed from Hilo through Kea`au to Pahoa was designed to allow access to the more arable inland areas. People who traditionally had lived along the Puna coast were moving toward Hilo and into the more fertile upland areas of Puna in 22 order to find paid work and to produce cash crops for local markets and for export. In particular, people began to work in the inland areas to grow sugarcane. The same was true of the trail from Hilo, through Kea`au, and on to Kilauea Crater(Volcano Road). An improved Volcano Road was built from Hilo to Kilauea between 1889 and 1893 partly to accommodate tourism, but also to increase access to forest products and agricultural land. Numerous small field parcels belonging to the `Ola`a Sugar Company and the `Ola`a Coffee Company were located along this route. The improved Volcano Road is Route 11, though it has been straightened and improved several times since its initial construction. The modern history of land-use in Kea`au Ahupua`a is tied to the development of commercial agriculture and the construction of transportation routes. The potential to use Kea`au's rich arable land for commercial prospects was recognized as early as the 1870s when it was leased for coffee growing and for cattle grazing. In 1881, the entire ahupua`a was purchased at auction by Samuel Damon, William H. Shipman, and E. Elderts from trustees of the deceased William C. Lunalilo Estate. Shipman bought out the two partners within three years of purchasing the land. William H. Shipman operated a cattle ranch in Kapoho Ahupua`a and was the owner of the Waiakea Stock Ranch. Shipman was also co-owner of the Shipman Meat Market, later the Hilo Meat Company. Shipman leased portions of Kea`au Ahupua`a to the `Ola`a Sugar Company beginning in 1899. It was the development of`Ola`a Sugar Company fields, the construction of the sugar mill in Kea`au, and the construction of the numerous sugar company camps, that created modern day Kea`au town as a small commercial and residential center. SUGARCANE, RAILROADS AND COMMERCE The `Ola`a Sugar Company, established in 1899, became the largest sugarcane plantation and milling operation in Puna District. By the 1950s the `Ola`a Sugar Company was in debt and sugar production and sales were stagnant. The company stockholders changed the company name to the Puna Sugar Company, Ltd. and sold off land to invest in new equipment and upgrade their facilities. By 1966, the company was debt free and making a good profit. American Factors (AMFAC)bought out the minority shareholders in 1969 and Puna Sugar Company became a subsidiary of AMFAC. 23 AMFAC expanded sugarcane processing in the 1970s through new extraction facilities upgrades at the mill in Kea`au (Ola`a Mill) and by building a 15KW bagasse and trash burning power plant next to the mill. Hilo Electric Light Company(HECO) agreed to purchase 12.5KW of power for their customers. Puna Sugar Company, like many other sugar companies, struggled in the late 1970s and early 1980s due to changes in the sugar market that made sugar production less profitable. By the start of 1982, AMFAC had decided to close Puna Sugar Company. The work of selling off assets and preparing severance packages took three full years. The sugar mill was sold to Fiji Sugar Corporation in 1988 and the power plant operation taken over HECO. MODERN LAND USE The project area and surrounding lands were not used for growing sugarcane as the soil is too shallow. The area remained primarily unaltered and undeveloped grasslands with a large variety of introduced and invasive species. The land north of the current project area, 15.6 square miles in total, was purchased by David Watumull from W.H. Shipman, Ltd in 1959. The land was subdivided into nearly 8,800 lots within the newly created Hawaiian Paradise Park(HPP) subdivision. Currently, the land along the coast near the project area is primarily privately owned. Some of the lots have homes on them and others are still undeveloped. Some of the lands further mauka of Old Government/Beach Road are owned by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) and the State of Hawaii. Parcel 026 has rock walls and barb, panel and electric wire fence, and has been used as pasture for sheep and goats for many years. Parcel 027 is undeveloped and is partially wooded. 24 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS The majority of previous archaeological studies near the project area have been conducted on lands along the coast(Figure 15) and in Kea`au Ahupua`a, slightly inland, west of the project area. There are six coastal Kea`au archaeological studies conducted northeast of the current project area (Ewart and Luscomb 1974, Hammatt 1978, Hudson 1932, Lass 1997, Stokes 1919, and Thrum 1908). Two literature reviews, one with oral interviews, were also conducted for coastal Kea`au Ahupua`a(Maly 1999, McEldowney 1979a and 1979b). Thrum(1908) and Stokes (1919)were the first to record sites in Puna District. They recorded heiau in the Puna area but none near the Old Government Road (OGR) or the current project area. Hudson (1932) conducted an archaeological suvery of the east Hawaiian coast. Eighty-five sites were recorded between Hilo and Cape Kumukahi. Hudson described the excellent condition of the portion of the OGR between Kea`au and Kapoho. He documented several sites in Ha`ena including a fishpond, a ko`a (fishing shrine) with an upright stone, and another site with two upright stones. Clark(1985), in his book on Hawaii Island beaches noted that the site Hudson (1932) had recorded with two upright stones was still present, but that only one stone remained upright. The ko`a recorded by Hudson could not be relocated during a more recent survey of the area(Lass 1997). Ewart and Luscomb (1974) conducted an archaeological reconnaissance survey along a 16-mile proposed road corridor from the Hilo-Puna district boundary to the south edge of the Hawaiian Beaches subdivision (see Figure 15). The north half of the project corridor was approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile inland from the coastal cliffs and ran parallel to the coast. The south half of the project corridor, from just south of MY Bay to the southern terminus, ran along the coast. 25 z87—E. =9H1—E. z9Ln._°TE. =92'10^E- =93°oemE. WGsa9 zone SQ—1—E. ,CP a. 0 E l'� HATIMATT 19,e 4 --- - e �- -_-_ O B.PJ-•r E � e � / I C'+,PNY�LLacOMe layR � L I e � � a � ' a ARERHZIMAT>: r I" K E lA t J KEY `uHryLIaE:,RllAll `I 1 -``I I /� � �,` elves p-xltevlousl.v REcneeln f Alit HAEOLWftRL VIT E z87—E" 188—E 'U9-1-L, '90°°E. '91°°°^E. '92e° 1 %93—E. WG584 Zane 5Q'941—L. IP q�®i[EI� Ippe HIHeS Figure 15: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map (Kea`au Ranch Quad) Showing Location of Coastal Kea`au Ahupua`a Previous Archaeological Studies (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 26 Thirty sites were documented in the Kea`au Ahupua`a portion of the survey corridor(Ewart and Luscomb 1974:14). The majority of sites documented in Kea`au Ahupua`a were clustered in the northern portion of the study corridor, and along the OGR south of Ha'ena. Site types included rock walls (n=10), complexes (n=9), enclosures (n=6), a platform(n=1), a rock shelter(n=1), a rock mound (n=1), and L-shape enclosure (n=1), and a modified outcrop (n=1). The age and function of sites was not determined during the brief reconnaissance survey. The authors recommended a Phase I archaeological survey, suggesting that any future study should focus on variations in prehistoric settlement patterns as they relate to varying coastal topography(Ewart and Luscomb 1974:47). In particular, future study should focus on resources availability and settlement patterns. Resources determining settlement include ground water availability and ocean access for canoes. Hammatt (1978) conducted an archaeological recconnaissance survey in the northeast corner of Kea`au Ahupua`a, approximately two miles north of the current project area(see Figure 15). Twenty seven archaeological and/or historical sites were documented along the coast(Hammatt 1978:3). Sites were classified as either stone structures including walls, platforms, enclosures, heiau and small shelters; cultural deposits, mainly midden and other habitation remains; or places of historical significance. All of the stone structure sites, with the exception of two sites interpreted as heiau (Site 6475 and Site 6476), were assessed to be in poor condition and were not recommended for further study. Sites containing midden were recommended for preservation and the historically significant sites were recommended for preservation with interpretive signage. The report also recommended vegetation clearing and resurvey of the coastal portion of the project area to identify additional sites. McEldowney(1979a and 1979b) conducted a literature review of east Hawaii that included the OGR. This work compiled known sites such as the Hd'ena complex (50-HA-Al-65) and the fishpond at Hd'ena (50-HA-Al-64). The OGR was referred to as the "Hilo to Puna trail" and was not given a site number. McEldowney noted it as Historic a Historic era site but suggested it likely was constructed from a pre-Contact era trail. 27 Barbara Lass (1997) conducted an archaeological reconnaissance survey along the OGR from Hd'ena south (Figure 16 and Figure 17). The study corridor covered approximately three miles of coastline from Hd'ena to Hawaiian Paradise Park(HPP) subdivison. The south end of the study corridor is located approximately '/z mile (0.8km) north of the end of Beach Road. The reconnaissance survey was conducted as part of a proposal to construct a public hiking trail along the OGR. Lass documented 15 archaeological sites (Table 1), including the OGR(Site#50- 10-36-21273). Several sites outside of the project area corridor were identified during the survey, including a heiau near MY Bay, a possible residential complex near Site#50-10- 36-21266, and names scratched into pahoehoe at MY Bay. Lass recommended that a hiking trail wold not negatively impact the archaeological sites along the OGR and could be a useful resource for educating the public about the history and archaeology of the area. Lass's research determined the Old Government Road was under construction around 1868 and the portion within her project area was first referenced in 1869 when a Puna road supervisor planned to work on five miles between Waikahekahe (possibly referenced as Wekahika by Wilkes) and Hd'ena. From researching the road construction documents, Lass states: After 1881 when the new Puna road was completed, the section of Old Government Road between Hilo and Ha`ena was probably used less often and perhaps even largely abandoned except for casual or local use. The section of Old Government Road within the project area and to the south, however, was not only apparently still used but was probably an important transportation route; otherwise, the new connecting road between the Volcano Road and Kea`au would presumably not have been built(Lass 1997:22). The majority of the sites documented along the OGR by Lass were interpreted as agricultural features and later military features. Lass concluded Site#50-10-36-21264 may correspond with Site Al-27 as documented by Ewart and Luscomb (1974) and Site A1-17(Ewart and Luscomb 1974) may correspond to either/all of Site#50-10-36-21259, 21260, and/or 21261. 28 Figure 1. Project Location r I +�+.auA. nOnOr� 4 ! w a 1Lihulu4 �\ elAlJ KMA /Yb b O h Wahlrw M.Ma Nul I ft. LA f aIAP LOCATON t5 r N +1 � ]1►T' a5 1 c' rx v• z� 7� 4 ' �+ APPROXIMAT=ME Ul OEC'.tNATIDN 1922 0 1000 2000ftef 1 n 0 200 400 600me4era (Portion of 1980 USGS Kcwu Raocb: :,� _ O l.5'quadrangle map. T C% 'Kaaau Ranch,Hawaii' Kalele 3 v o ROJECT AREA y 1 � l Q-3 0 r x..04 rq Q-7 •�r a 9 e Pab Bay "r o y q° r ct\��(v� Klpeepae �.$ w 1 Figure 16: Map of Lass (1997) Project Area Location. 29 i 1 I sa cvas-:1:r. r 10.1213.31111 4 C� 9o-l0-S41l717 0-10.741151, 1 a•141+-71 Nu, f in le.7l•x1111 -�� so-lw►-:I:aa � '- .4.1 SFIO.7 F117It fa-I a•]6.713d1 1 f Tl?]t31311 1-k-43111I"a 1&1 64Y31:17% �,121F]F71IfT 5D-1 O.]f•71If3 ..s 4 Sato-]d•21]d9 r .aww4 alA[ 4 i � III "Pte 2. Site Location Map with some Site aetvrh 1 _f r F-I Figure 17: Map of Lass (1997)Project Area Site Locations and Site Plan View Drawings. 30 cj 81 o 75 75 o 75 04 •y � •y " � � � °� ?? '�' .� � '� .� � '� � ani `� o p4 U —Q Q z °' -� 3 �? a� ,� � F" � •o ,� ani ,�°' �,� ,�°' �,� ° � ani ,� � � `r' 0 4, 0 4, Cn p oma, ° ° . oar o 0 � � ° � to a� U N ( p M U O O DD '� ,0Cd O -c:s Ooh o Cd Orn dQ C p O 00 bn C 6 O p Cd -� ai � .� � on °�' � on N ,� � •'mon p. � � � O o � � 01 � � C) O � a� X00 ° O O M O N r-.� �--� ,s..' Q Q1 tr) 03 Cd 70. Y cd O [� y y " H � � 3 3 � U 00 U rl �p M E� V1 ph N N N N N N N N ,x � •fib '� � � � ,� � -� '" � y '� ° '� o '° o ito •- ° a� ' ° p oa 3j • O ani a� 's8) p ° o o�n p °' " 3 ani " D st o o w° o ? p � �° � a o O O ol� cd O M N F Q1 tN .� U s 1 O x �D �D x x x 0 � o c. C13 F � ca O U 1.0 �o a c N_ N_ N_ N_ V1 � N N N N N N N Kepa Maly(1999) conducted historical and archival research, previous archaeological research and collected oral interviews for Kea`au Ahupua`a and the Kea`au portion of the Puna Trail (the Old Government Road), specifically TMK: (3) 1-6- 001. Maly determined the agricultural sites reported by Lass (1997) were probably constructed during the pre-Contact era and modified in the 1800s when cattle began to damage gardens and house gardens. Maly argued that the types of sites present in the overall area, such as habitation, enclosures, near-by heiau, possible burials and agriculture, suggest the coastal area surrounding the OGR are the remains of coastal settlements. The oral history component of his study supported this conclusion. He concured with Lass that the use of the OGR as a public hiking trail would help foster a better historical understanding of coastal Kea`au Ahupua`a. Maly recommended preservation treatments for the trail, including not paving the OGR, making the public aware it is illawful to damage or disrespect archaeological and cultural sites, an ongoing effort to consult with lineal and cultural descendents concerning future preservation treatments and access. Maly's study also added to Lass's archaeological work through interviews and research to present a deeper understanding of the previously recorded archaeological sites. Maly determined that Site 21267 is one of two early Historic era schools in Kea`au Ahupua`a (School Grant 4, Lot 18). Schools at that time were enclosed by rock walls to keep animals out of the school yard where students cultivated gardens (Maly 1999 citing an 1865 letter from Hitchcock to Bishop). According to interviews collected by Maly,rock wall Site 21269 was used as both a boundary between the Shipman and Fisher's properties and for ranching purposes. There was once a gate in the wall that crossed the OGR corridor. The wall continued to the ocean. Oral interviews indicated that Site 21270 was part of the Fisher's chicken farm complex (1923-1942). The feature may have been part of processing activities. It was located under one of the long chicken houses. Maly's interviews stated that Site 21272 was used during WWII primarily as a camp site and Roy Blackshear noted outhouses were possibly built over them. John Ka`iewe stated that, when he was younger, the site was used as a shelter by fishermen. The flat area on the makai side of Site 21272 contains stones which may be remnants of a previous site. 33 Ewart and Luscomb (1974)recorded 22 archaeological sites along the coast of Waikahekahe, Muku`u, Pop6ki, and Halona Ahupua`a (Figure 18 and Table 2). Sites identified in P6p6k7i and Halona Ahupua`a to the south were documented in Maku`u Ahupua`a in the report. Sites were clustered on either side of Beach Road and consisted of agricultural and habitation complexes. Sites included rock walls, small enclosures and agricultural rock clearing mounds. Coastal Waikahekahe and Maku`u archaeological sites were primarily agricultural and habitation complexes containing rock walls, agricultural crock clearing mounds, rock walls, enclosures, pavements, platforms, rock lined wells, and burial features. The sites appear to be primarily pre-Contact to Historic in age. Site 18975 is a possible heiau complex (see Figure 18 and Figure 19). The site concentrations recorded south and west of the current project area are primarily walls, enclosures, terraces and rock mounds. The archaeological features are associated with pre-Contact to Historic era habitation and agriculture. A single site was identified within the current project area during the Ewart and Luscomb (1974) survey. The site was first recorded as Bishop Museum Site#Ha-A3-15, and was likely designated SIHP #50-1-45-18986. The site appears to be a rock mound though neither Ewart and Luscomb (1974)nor the SHPD SIHP database contain any descriptive information about the site. There were no other archaeological sites or features identified on the current project area. 34 \ ƒ .§ � wm = me = «z e _, _ N 11000t,J r 7 � f / r &© i S \ \ \0 \ 2 \ cn e U � r 2 ! / � § z o u / � S 7 § § k [ cd .2 zsz / q q � P4 o Cn d ECd Cd Cd ' © .} • . ' �z ® � ` U to ¥ to - ` ' . / \ .o ■ � % . . ' . \ / . \ / \ ./z z , • � . � . � 5 . 2 0 � _ o w wopoggize 2 r�: a L7 �7 w �7 Z � v� C7zzw � z � za �7zz z � � za N � � U O O 21 CG W U •o o�n o�n o�n � � ° ,�, � � o � �, o a1 _ U -� mani .. ° u Q ° v� � � � O O O � � O •� (Z M A xx 7r,xw3wxx3H xx3 3 axx x a x a� ct M U 75 � U 75 o �b �b o �b �b �b �b �' • o p.� p. p 12O O O O O O y O O O O O cn O ,� � ULJxUU � U � UaLJLJx � cQLJxUxaa W a H a � N � O � 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 a> O N � �A afY T SCATTERED aU6:LE AND YOSSIOLE BUT `a1 r YEaY CRUDE WALLS 1 `� ^.'`���■ "rr� ,tip;■ Ruea�F ► LARGE _- ► MOULDER �()� — kpklk0 �I L �•r �� MOULDER NUMERS STONEOLINED RU66LE N fi OUTCROP,.► HOLES �o o f KEY KAPOHO— KEAUKAHA SURVEY ommom TERAAEE/PLATFORA FACING Ha-A2-3 Dec. 1973 SM FREE-STAWDJNG WALL _AA_' RUSOLE 4 lOH► % FEATURE 00. Figure 19: Site 18975 Plan View Map (Ewart and Luscomb 1974:24). 37 RECENT STUDIES IN POPOKI AND SURROUNDING AHUPUA`A Nineteen archaeological studies have been conducted in Maku`u, Popoki and Halona Ahupua`a(Table 3 and Figure 20). The studies were conducted in the upland and coastal regions surrounding the current project area and shed light on pre-Contact to Historic land use. The most striking feature of the studies is the low distribution of archaeological sites documented in the upland project areas. Aside from lava tubes containing pre-Contact era habitation features and burials, only three archaeological features were documented in the upland project areas. Upland features included a possible ceremonial complex (enclosure, platform, rock wall, and rock wall), a rock mound and an agricultural terrace. The lack of sites in the uplands is consistent with early written accounts documenting traditional habitation areas along the coast to a little over one mile inland. Table 3: Previous Archaeological Studies in Maku`u, Popoki and Halona Ahupua`a. Author/Date Type of Study Ahu ua`a Barrera&Lerer 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey Maku`u Bordner 1977 Reconnaissance Survey Maku`u Chaffee& Spear 1993 Burial Testing Maku`u Clark et al. 2007 Archaeological Inventory Survey Popoki Clark et al. 2008 Archaeological Inventory Survey Maku`u Charvet-Pond&Rosendahl Archaeological Inventory Survey Maku`u,Halona, 1993 Popoki Conte et al. 1994 Archaeological Inventory Survey Maku`u,Halona, Po oki Desilets&Rechtman 2004 Archaeological Inventory Survey Maku`u,Halona, Popoki Dirks Ah Sam&Rechtman Archaeological Inventory Survey Popoki 2013 Hudson 1932 Archaeological Survey Various Ewart&Luscomb 1974 Reconnaissance Survey Various Komori&Peterson 1987 Cultural&Biological Resource Various Survey McEldowney& Stone 1991 Archaeological/Environmental Various Survey Yent 1983 Archaeological Survey Maku`u Rechtman 2003 Archaeological Assessment Maku`u,Halona Rosendahl 1989 Field Inspection Maku`u,Halona, Popoki Spear et al. 1995 Data Recovery Maku`u Dircks&Rechtman 2013 Archaeological Inventory Survey Popoki Escott 2019 Archaeological Inventory Survey Maku`u 38 Charuei-Pond and Rosondahl 1093 f 1 MK:3-1-5-10: 91 I Rusendghl 1989(TIMK:3-1-5-10:28)and Dirks Ah Sam&Rechtman 2013 13arrera 1990:Chaffee sed Shear 1993;Spearet al. 1995 JM -3-1-5.10:33}� 1 Did Govemunen t Road Clarketal.2008JMK,3-1-5-10:321 J Project Area Hudsun 1932:Ewart and 1-usuomb 1974 Clark et al,:00[TM.K 3->-S-10:2? is Smith 1995field 27.23 �� J (llihbard letter datcd August 14, 1995) .o Komori and Petersen 1957 l 1 N] ilets aa6 Rechtman 2(04 1 �Conte etal. 1494 Bordner 1977 •rrr r Pent 198 w McEldowney and Stone 1993 0 I I i I Stale in k i Ionic ers Figure 20: Map Showing Recent Previous Archaeological Studies in Maku`u and Surrounding Ahupua`a (Adapted from Dirks Ah Sam and Rechtman 2013:11). 39 Komori and Peterson(1987) conducted a cultural and biological resources survey along a corridor roughly 2.5 to 3.0 kilometers (1.55 to 1.86 miles) from the coastline. Five agricultural complexes, habitation and burial platforms, burial and refuge caves, and petroglyphs were documented within the project area. All of the sites are pre-Contact to early post-Contact era in age. Dircks Ah Sam and Rechtman(2013) conducted an archaeological inventory survey directly southeast of the current project area (Figure 21) in Pop6k7i and Halona Ahupua`a [TMK: (3) 1-5-010:028]. This study yielded the recordation of a pre-Contact coastal trail segment(Site 18418) and a Historic rock wall (Site 18419). The rock wall (Site 18419)was interpreted as a pasture boundary and continues into the current project area. The trail (Site 18418)was initially recorded in Parcel 029 by Charvet-Pond and Rosendahl (1993), who noted that the trail continued northwest along the coastline and into Parcel 028. Dircks and Rechtman(2013)recorded a 10.0 m segment of the elevated coastal trail in the southeast portion of Parcel 028. No other trail remnant was observed possibly due to high density ground vegetation and modern disturbance. Site 18418 was recommended for preservation. Escott(2019a)recorded five archaeological sites on a project area 150 meters northwest of the current project area (Table 4 and Figure 22). Site#50-10-45-7476, 18980 and 18987 were previously recorded in Ewart and Luscomb (1974). The three previously identified sites include a cement foundation at the Kamahele House (Site 7476), an agricultural complex (Site 18980) and the family burial plot (Site 18987). Two newly recorded sites include the rock wall along the boundary of Parcel 009 (Site 31111) and a short rock wall segment (Site 31112) in the southeast corner of the project area. Site 18981 recorded in Ewart and Luscomb (1974) is two modern petroglyphs and is not a historic property. Table 4: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified Within the Project Area. SIHP#50-10- SITE TYPE SITE FUNCTION SITE AGE 45: 7476 Kamahele House Habitation Historic era 18980 Complex(Agriculture) Rock walls and rock Pre-Contact to early post- mounds Contact era 18987 Burials Historic graves Historic era 31111 Rock Wall Property Boundary Historic era 31112 Rock Wall Road edge Historic era 40 Q 10 24 N :ray Scale in meters o° oc � Sill['Site 18419 Feature Mala forest Chain (unbulldoaed) Pte W' Row of ' bulldozed l cobbles Old +r gate Hullduxed �t � � area Autograph tree Grass Dirt road yet ■ f�X +' ■ S1HP Site 'i 19418 Stone t: r r y L` (Feature A) Barbeque Grass Ironwood and [t norele . autograph trees k torindarion slabs SIHP Site 18419 Feature A Cleared,,-, scetiork ® a . Grassi - naufxrka OCepn Cliff LF Hala Rock wall —K— Barbed wire Fence i Coconut tree Down slope r',;-" Edge of treeline Figure 21: Archaeological Site Plan Map Showing Sites Recorded in Dirks Ah Sam and Rechtman (2013). 41 z 0 N • • i / Auwae z • SITE AND TYPE E 7476 Historic House g 18980 Complex 18987 Burials 31111 BoundaryWall " 31112 Wall Segment 8980 1112 31-11 7 KEY ❑ -ESCOTT 2019 PROJECT -CURRENT PROJECT Z -TMK BOUNDARY • -ARCHAEOLOGY SITE N • -BURIAL SITE TN 0 250 500 750 meters m E 298000m E 299000m E Figure 22: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Archaeological Sites Documented in Escott(2019) (Kea`au Ranch Quadrangle. ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic and Hawaii County Planning Department, 2013). 42 In general, archaeological studies conducted along the coastline in this region documented clusters of pre-Contact to early Historic habitation and agricultural sites including enclosures, platforms, rock walls, rock mounds, burials, petroglyphs, rock lined springs and water catchments, and remnant trail segments. CONSULTATION Members of the Kamahele and Lui `ohana were interviewed by SCS for an AIS study(Escott 2019)two properties northwest(150 meters) of the current project area. The interviews were conducted to document cultural and historical information pertinent to the Kamahele property as well as in the broader area. The content of the interviews is pertinent to the current study given the close spatial relationship between the Kamahele property(Parcel 009) and the current project area (Parcels 026 & 027]. Consultation with the Kamahele `ohana was conducted at the property on Saturday April 27, 2019. Seven individuals, including Greg DeConte, Kenneth Ha, Richard Ha, June Ha, Shayne Kamahele, Puanani Mukai, and Darrell Pakele attended and were interviewed. In addition, SCS Senior Archaeologist Glenn Escott spoke to Sheldon Kamahele at an earlier date on the property. The Historical land-use information gained from the interviews was largely specific to the Kamahele property at [TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 009]. However, this information provides some insight into Historic era habitation, farming, ranching, and fishing practices in the Puna District. The Kamahele `ohana grew citrus, bread fruit, taro, tomatoes, bananas, and watermelons on Parcel 009. The Kamahele `ohana also kept pigs and cows on the property. Family members remembered most fondly fishing and swimming along the shoreline. They remembered that there was a shallow spring along the northwest edge of the property that was dug out to make a shallow well with a pump. None of the family members were aware of any cultural practices, other than fishing, that occurred on the property or near Parcel 009. 43 Consultation with the Lui family was conducted at the property on Wednesday October 30, 2019. Mr. Ramon Lui, his wife Agnes and daughter Nicole were present. The Lui family is descended from Kea who first owned L.G. 1014. L.G. 1014 was a 56.4 acre property purchased in 1852. Parcel 009 is the southeast corner of the land grant. Nicole Lui spoke briefly about well-known cultural practices associated with Maku`u Ahupua`a, dark magic in particular. The people that lived in Muku`u were known to be accomplished practitioners of the "dark arts". Members of both families pointed out that Maku`u and Popoki Ahupua`a are very far from Historic and Modern era population centers. It always seemed to take a long time driving along unpaved roads through the woods to arrive and that added to the feeling of being somewhere remote. Subsistence and some small scale commercial agriculture, ranching and fishing were commonly practiced in the area. Hala was abundant and was used to weave mats. The farm and ocean provided good subsistence and other necessary items could be purchased in town, either Pahoa or Kea`au. EXPECTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL PATTERNS Based on previous archaeological studies, historical research and previous consultation it is expected that pre-Contact to early Historic habitation, agricultural and ranching features will be located on the current project area. The features will likely include rock walls, rock clearing mounds, and possible enclosures. It is also possible that coastal trail Site 18418 might continue onto the current project area. 44 RESULTS OF FIELDWORK Two archaeological sites (Site#50-10-45-18419 and Site 31185)were identified in the project area(Table 5, Figure 23 and Figure 24). Rock wall Site#50-10-45-18419 was previously recorded in Charvet-Pond and Rosendahl (1993) and Dircks and Rechtman(2013). Site 18419 is a possible pasture and property boundary wall. The newly recorded site (Site 31185) is a rock wall along the northwest boundary of Parcel 026. Table 5: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified Within the Project Area. SIHP#50-10-45: SITE TYPE SITE FUNCTION SITE AGE 18419 Rock Wall Possible Pasture Boundary Historic 31185 Rock Wall Property Boundary Historic SITE 18419 ROCK WALL FUNCTION: Pasture and Property Boundary AGE: Historic DIMENSIONS: 204.0 m Long NW/SE by 1.0 m wide by 1.1 m high CONDITION: Moderate INTEGRITY: Retains integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 18419 is a pasture and property boundary wall located between 40 and 50 ft(12-15 m) amsl along the southwest boundary of the project area(see Figure 23 and Figure 24). The rock wall is oriented northwest/southeast, parallel to Old Government/Beach Road. The wall was previously recorded by Charvet-Pond and Rosendahl (1993) as Site 18419 Feature A. Dircks and Rechtman(2013)recorded the portion of the wall that existed on Parcel 028 which has been largely obliterated by modern development activities. The wall is constructed of angular and subangular cobbles and small boulders stacked five to seven courses high and two courses wide (Figure 25 through Figure 28). The wall is 204.0 m long (NW/SE)by 1.0 m wide with a maximum height of 1.1 m. The minimum wall width is 0.84 m and the minimum wall height is 0.9 m. Site 18419 is faced on its northeast and southwest sides and is core-filled. The wall is moderately weathered with some intermittent collapse and tumble along its southwest side. A few loose cobbles from the wall are on the ground approximately 0.35 to 0.45 m from the wall's base. 45 0095,.! 6 , to ¢ § � § � \ � \ C�j � 4 �au o r C�j p. / to ��. to � E � 2 � #go- � cn / � § C�j C�j o t to l 2 § L 4 [ c �D •- _ k / \ / . § � 2 ® „ G � $ � � Q 6 d U S". N GJ � � N cd O Q bJJ � O � CIJ CIJ CIJ Cd cd � U CJ a s � O c :� Cd U Cd Cd O � 0.' N W — If. - v� o N v �k zs O o Ln Cj � Q ri r" N N En �I W AF !+� Veit �elm s C „�4- Y C,'Vll- Surface V �cv 6 _ a} ' 00 kk � � I t I. 6�. F t' is � •• !" x' .- .� ,` � , a +� 1 Site���($,,face FeatureWad Surface Subfeature Unit Subsurface Feature Scale ' y INS _ s � Jl'/tel � h �I There is a 4.3 m wide opening in the wall towards its northwest terminus that functions as a gated driveway to Opunaha Ranch (Figure 29). Wall Site 18419 continues northwest along Old Government/Beach Road. The southwest terminus of wall Site 31185 abuts the northeast face of Site 18419 at the west corner of the project area. Site 18419 is a Historic era wall constructed along Old Government/Beach Road. It likely functioned to keep farm animals off of the road. Site 18419 is only slightly altered and is in good condition. No further work is recommended at Site 18419. SITE 31185 ROCK WALL FUNCTION: Property Boundary AGE: Historic to Modern DIMENSIONS: 92.0 m Long NE/SW by 1.0 m wide by 1.28 max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Retains integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 31185 is a rock wall (NE/SW) located between 20 and 40 ft (6-12 m) amsl along the northwest boundary of Parcel 0026 (see Figure 23 and Figure 24). The wall begins at the edge of Old Government/Beach Road and extends northeast to the edge of a sea cliff. The northeast third of the wall, closest to the sea cliff, is shorter(0.4 m) in height and thinner(1.0 m) in width. Site 31185 is 92.0 m wide (NE/SW)by 1.1 m wide and has a maximum height of 1.28 m. The wall is constructed of subangular large cobbles and angular small boulders stacked four to seven courses high and two courses wide (Figure 30 though Figure 32). The wall is cobble core-filled, bi-faced and is fairly perpendicular(minimal slant toward wall centerline)to the ground surface. There is a modern panel wire fence constructed along the inside (SE side) of the wall to prevent sheep from making contact with the wall. Site 31185 has very minimal collapse, appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. Site 31185 is a property boundary marker, likely built in the Historic or Modern era. No further work is recommended at Site 31185. 52 �j• .l tr �JI I`�. I ♦ l �f ti ° - ..fix y 41 4.1 71 cz C� cz cz 7t CA 0 r[r 4 I low 1 CIS Apt A I I II � ° Ir low i fix. W� -�; , ', by �� Jj]� a �► ',mow "' •,. i 3 � o I cw, Site7S—lSurface Feature Surface5ubfeature Unit Subsurface Feature Scale 20Gv-i Ilk ix- �I 1 G �y t o A CONCLUSION A concerted effort was made to search for mauka-makai trail Site 18418 within the northeast quadrant of Parcel 027. The trail crosses Parcel 028 near the level flat above the coastal cliff(see Figure 23 and Figure 24). The trail alignment is not visible on the ground surface toward the northwest property boundary where it meets the southwest boundary of the project area(Parcel 027). SCS mowed and raked off the grass in the northeast quadrant of Parcel 027 where it meets Parcel 028 (Figure 33). The ground surface there was level and without deformation to suggest the presence of a raised trail or stepping stones below the ground surface. SCS then used metal rods to probe beneath the ground surface in an effort to locate possible stepping stones or constructed trail elements. The probes were used in a one meter grid pattern within the northeast quadrant of Parcel 027. Soil in this portion of the project area was thin (5-10 cm thickness) and overlay pahoehoe bedrock. There were no stepping stones or constructed trail elements located on Parcel 027. It is possible the trail continued across Parcel 027 on the ground surface without the need to construct a formal trail surface or corridor. Site #50-10-45-18986 (Bishop Museum Site #Ha-A3-15), a rock mound identified during the Ewart and Luscumb (1974) archaeological survey was not present within the project area during the current survey. There is a small rectangular concrete slab in the area where Site 18986 was identified. The foundation is a modern slab with a tarp frame constructed on it. There is also a fire pit and an electric fence corral at the same location, near the northeast terminus of the modern driveway. Two archaeological sites were identified in the project area (Site #50-10-45- 18419 and Site#50-10-45-31185). Rock wall Site#50-10-45-18419 was previously recorded in Charvet-Pond and Rosendahl (1993) and Dircks and Rechtman (2013) and is a Historic era rock wall that originates in Parcel 0028 and extends into the current project area parallel to Old Government/Beach Road. Site 18419 likely functioned as a pasture and property boundary wall. Historically, the area in and around Pop6k7i Ahupua`a was used by ranches as grazing lands. The wall's core-filled architecture is consistent with Historic ranch wall construction methods (Dircks and Rechtman 2013). 57 'a I n ' _ 4 e•• � t^ Ai 1 1 r I1 • The newly recorded site (Site#50-10-45-31185) is a property boundary rock wall along the northwest boundary of the project area. The wall tracks ne/sw and separates Parcel 0025 from Parcel 0026. Site 31185 and Site 18419 are both characteristically Historic core- filled boundary walls. The sites identified in this study represent early to mid 19th Century ranching features. Both rock walls kept cattle safely in-pasture and off of neighboring properties and the public road. The two walls recorded within the project area are similar to rock walls recorded on neighboring properties. Previous archaeological studies have recorded dispersed clusters of habitation and agricultural sites along either side of the Old Government/Beach Road (see Figure 18). Some of the sites recorded northwest and southwest of the project area are larger complexes that include numerous habitation and agricultural features. There are not as many or the diversity of features within the current project area. 59 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS The two archaeological sites (Sites 18419 and T1) identified during the AIS study were assessed for significance as outlined in Hawaii Administrative Rules §13-284-6. To be significant, a historic property shall possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and shall meet one or more of the following criteria [§13-284-6(b)]: (a) It must be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or be considered a traditional cultural property [§13- 284-6(b)(1)]. (b) It must be associated with the lives of persons significant in the past property [§13- 284-6(b)(2)]. (c) It must embody distinctive characteristics of a type,period, or method of construction, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction property [§13-284-6(b)(3)]. (d) It must have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history property [§13-284-6(b)(4)]. (e) Have an important value to native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the State due to associations with cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due to associations with traditional beliefs, events, oral accounts--these associations being important to the group's history and cultural identity property [§13-284-6(b)(5)]. Both sites (Site 18419 and Site 31185) are significant under criterion "d" as they are likely to yield, or have yielded, information important to history(Table 6). All of the sites have yielded information important to understanding early Historic to early Modern era agricultural and ranching practices along the coast in Puna District. The rock walls contain information regarding the construction of ranching and property boundary walls. 60 Table 6: Site Significance and Recommended Treatments. SIHP#50-10-45: TYPE FUNCTION AGE CRITERIA TREATMENT 18419 Rock Wall Ranching Historic d No Further Work 31185 Rock Wall Property Boundary Historic d No Further Work No further work is recommended at Sites 18419 and 31185. Information collected during the AIS study and recorded in this AIS report is sufficient to warrant no further work. 61 REFERENCES CITED Athens, J., T. Reith, and T. Dye 2014 A paleoenvironmental and archaeological model-based age estimate for the colonization of Hawaii. American Antiquity, 79(4):144-55. Alexander, W.D. 1891 Interior Department Records. Subject File: Roads and Interior Department - Land Files. Cited in Maly 1999. Campbell, S.M. and P.M. Ogburn 2004 Register of the Puna Sugar Company/ `Ola`a Sugar Company, `Ola`a, Hawaii, 1897 - 1997. The Hawaiian Planters'Association Plantation Archives at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaiian Collections, Honolulu. http://www2.hawaii.edu/—speccoll/p_puna.html. Charvet-Pond, A., and P. Rosendahl 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey Vaughan Residential Parcel (TMK: 3-1-5- 10:29). Lands of Maku`u, Popoki, and Halona, Puna District, Island of Hawaii. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Report 1240-092093. Prepared for Susan Kay Vaughan, Kea`au, Hawaii. Clark, J. R. K. 1985 Beaches of the Big Island. University of Hawai`i Press, Honolulu. Chinen, J.J. 1961 Original Land Title in Hawaii. Published privately in Honolulu, Hawaii. Cordy, R. 2000 Exalted Sits the Chief. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Dircks Ah Sam, A. &B. Rechtman. 2013 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 0028, Popoka Ahupua`a, Puna District, Hawai`i Island, Hawai`i. ASM Affiliates, Inc., Hilo, HI. Donn, J.M. 1901 Hawaii Territory Survey, Hawaii Map. Dye, T. 2011 A model-based age estimate for Polynesian colonization of Hawaii. Archaeology in Oceania, 46:130-38. Ellis, W. 1963 Journal of William Ellis. Honolulu Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd, Honolulu. 62 Escott, G. 2013 An Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for the Kea`au HMSA Site in Kea`au Ahupua`a, Puna District, Hawai`i Island, Hawai`i[TMK: (3) 1-6-002:004, 006, and 0071. SCS report#1472 prepared for Hawaii Medical Service Association, Honolulu. Escott, G. 2014 Request for Determination for Proposed Grubbing of Approximately 9.251 Acres of W.H. Shipman, LTD Land in Kea`au Town, Kea`au Ahupua`a, Puna District, Hawaii Island [TMK (3) 1-6-143:018 & 042]. SCS letter report prepared for W.H. Shipman Ltd., Kea`au. 2017 Archaeological Field Inspection Letter Report for a 9.1-Acre Portion of a 15.624- Acre Parcel of W.H. Shipman, LTD Land in Kea`au Town, Kea`au Ahupua`a, Puna District, Hawaii Island [TMK (3) 1-6-003:122 (por.)]. SCS letter report prepared for W.H. Shipman Ltd., Kea`au. 2018 An Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for W.H. Shipman Kea`au Town Property in Kea`au Ahupua`a, Puna District, Hawai`i Island, Hawai`i. SCS report#1840-2 prepared for W.H. Shipman, Ltd, Kea`au. 2019 An Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for a 13.436-Acre Property in Kea`au, Maku`u Ahupua`a, Puna District, Hawaii Island, Hawai`i[TMK(3) 1-5- 010:0091. SCS report #2340 prepared for Kamahele Farms, LLC., Kea`au, HI. ESRI 2013 Arc GIS Explorer. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, Ca. Ewart,N. E. and M.L.K. Luscomb 1974 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Proposed Kapoho-Keaukaha Highway, District of Puna, Island of Hawai`i. For Sam O. Hirota, Inc. and Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii. Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Google Earth 2019 Google Earth Imagery. Google Earth. Mountain View, Ca. Hammatt, H.H. 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Kings Landing Subdivision, Kea`au, Puna, Island ofHawai`i. Report 14-141. For Hawaiian Paradise Park Corporation. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Hudson, A.E. 1932 The Archaeology of East Hawai`i. MS, Bernice P. Bishop Museum. 63 Hurst. G., and A. Schilz 1994 Archaeological Survey of the Kea`au Pdhoa Road, Kea`au Town Section, Project no. 130B-01-92, Puna, Hawaii[TMK: (3) 1-6-031. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc., Honolulu. Kamakau, S.M. 1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. Kahn, J., Rieth, P. Kirch, J. Athens, and G. Murakami 2014 Re-dating of the Kuli`ou`ou rockshelter, Oahu, Hawaii: Location of the first radiocarbon date from the Pacific Islands. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 123(1):67-90. Kelly, M., B. Nakamura, and Dorothy Barrere 1981 Hilo Bay:A Chronological History, Land and Water Use in the Hilo Bay Area, Island of Hawai`i, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kirch, P.V. 2011 When did the Polynesians settle Hawaii? A re-view of 150 years of scholarly inquiry and a tentative answer. Hawaiian Archaeology, 12:3-26. Kirch, P.V. and M. McCoy 2007 Reconfiguring the Hawaiian Cultural Sequence: Results of re-dating the Hdlawa dune site (MO-Al-3), Molokai Island. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:385-406. Kuykenddall, R.S. 1966 The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume II.• 1854-1874, Twenty Critical Years. University of Hawaii Press. Lass, Barbara 1997 Reconnaissance Survey Along the Old Government Road, Kea`au, Puna, Island ofHawai`i. Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai`i- Hilo, Hawaii. Loo, V.H. and W.J. Bonk 1970 A Historical Site Study and Evaluation of North Hawaii. Manuscript. Prepared by Anthropological Research International for Department of Planning, County of Hawai`i. Lydgate, J.M. 1875 Map of Puna, Etc., Hawaii. Hawaiian Government Survey Map. Registered Map 0568. 64 Maly, Kepa 1996 Historical Documentary Research and Oral History Interviews: Waiakea Cane Lots(12, 13, 17, 18, 19,20, and 20-A). Kumu Pono Associates,Hilo, Hawai'i. On file at State Historic Preservation Division,Kapolei,Hawaii. 1999 The Historical Puna Trail- Old Government Road(Kea`au Section) Archival-Historical Documentary Research, Oral History and Consultation Study, and Limited Site Preservation Plan Ahupua`a of Kea`au, Puna District, Island of Hawai`i. Copy on file at Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei, Hawaii. McEldowney, H. 1979a Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design: Lave Flow Control Study, Hilo, Hawai`i. For U.S. Army Engineers Division, Honolulu. Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 1979b Inventory of Archaeological and Historical Resources: Lava Flow Control Study, Hilo, Hawai`i. For U.S. Army Engineers Division, Honolulu. Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. McGerty, L., and R. Spear 2000 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed K.S.B.E. East Hawai`i Campus, Kea`au Ahupua`a, Puna District, Island of Hawai`i [TAM: 1-6-03:por. 121. Scientific Consultant Services, Inc., Honolulu. Mulrooney, M, S. Bickler, M. Allen, and T. Ladefoged 2011 High-precision dating of colonization and settlement in East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:E 192-E 194. National Geographic, Topo! 2003 Seamless USGS Topographic Maps on CD-ROM, Hawaii. National Geographic Holdings, Inc. Washington, D.C. Pukui, M., S. Elbert and E. Mo' okini 1976 Place Names a)Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu Rieth, Timothy M., Terry L. Hunt, Carl Lipo, and Janet M. Wilmshurst 2011 The 13th Century Polynesian Colonization of Hawaii Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2740-2749. Sato, H, W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro 1973 Soil Survey of the Island of Hawaii, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, In Cooperation with the University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. 65 Starr Environmental 2013 Botanical and Faunal Surveys in the State of Hawaii. Makawao. www.starrenvironmental.com. Stokes, J.F.G. 1919 Heiaus of Hawaii. Manuscript Department of Anthropology. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Thrum, T. G. 1908 Heiau and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908, pages 38-47. Waihona Aina Corporation 2000 The Mahele Database, Waihona.com. Walker, A., K. Maly, and P. Rosendahl 1997 Historical and Archaeological Research for the Proposed Kea`au High School Site, Land of Keaau, Puna District, Island of Hawaii[TMK: 1-6- 03:por. of 3, 15, & 841. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc., Hilo. Wilkinson, S., A. Mitchell, and H. Hammatt 2010 Draft Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for the Kea`au-Pdhoa Road Widening Project, Kea`au Ahupua`a to Waiakahiula Ahupua`a, Puna District, Hawai`i Island TMK: (3) 1-5 (various plats and parcels); 1-6 (various plats and parcels). Cultural surveys Hawaii, Inc., Kailua. Wilkinson, S., R. Runyon, and H. Hammatt 2008 Archaeological Monitoring Report for Kea`au Middle School, Hawai`i Inter-Island DOE Cesspool Project, Kea`au Ahupua`a, Puna District, Island of Hawai`i TMK: (3) 1-6-002:001 and 1-6-003:059. Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Kailua. Wilmhurst, J., T. Hunt, C. Lipo, and A. Anderson 2011a High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:1815-20. 201 lb Reply to Mulrrooney et al.: Accepting lower precision radiocarbon dates results in longer colonization chronologies for East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:E195. Wall, W. 1886 Map of the Island of Hawaii. Hawaiian Government Survey, Registered Map #1438. 1927 Map of Puna Forest Reserve. Hawaiian Territory Survey, Registered Map #2753. 66 Wilkes Expedition 1841 Map of Part of the Island of Hawaii, Sandwich Islands. Registered Map 0424. Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris 1994 Geological Map of the Island of Hawaii. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigations Series. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 67 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District at Maku`u Appendix D Cultural Impact Assessment SCS #2421 CIA-1 A CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR A 10.45-ACRE PROPERTY IN KEA`AU, POPOKI AHUPUA`A, PUNA DISTRICT, HAWAII ISLAND, HAWAII [TMK: (3) 1-5-010:00261 & [TMK: (3) 1-5-010:00271 Prepared By: Glenn G. Escott, M.A. and Thomas Dols, M.A. APRIL 2020 DRAFT Prepared for: Opunaha, LLC 533 Fernwood Pacific Drive Topanga, CA 90290-3209 SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANT SERVICES Inc. _Mini 1347 Kapi`olani Boulevard, Suite 408 Honolulu,HI 96814 Hawaii Island Office: PO Box 155 Kea`au,HI 96749 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................I LISTOF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................II LISTOF TABLES........................................................................................................................ III INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 7 ARCHIVALRESEARCH.................................................................................................. 8 INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY...................................................................................... 8 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................................. 10 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS......................................................................... 17 PRE-CONTACT ACCOUNTS OF SOUTH HILO AND PUNA DISRTICTS............... 17 TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO QUIET LAND TITLES.................. 21 CHANGING RESIDENTIAL AND LAND-USE PATTERNS (1845-1865) ................. 23 THE PUNA TRAIL AND OLD GOVERNMENT ROAD.............................................. 23 SUGARCANE, RAILROADS AND COMMERCE........................................................ 26 MODERNLAND USE..................................................................................................... 27 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS........................................................... 28 RECENT STUDIES IN POPOKI AND SURROUNDING AHUPUA`A....................... 32 CULTURAL INFORMANT INTERVIEWS............................................................................... 40 KAMAHELE FAMILY CONSULTATION....................................................................40 LUI FAMILY CONSULTATION.................................................................................... 41 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................42 CIA INQUIRY RESPONSE......................................................................................................... 43 CULTURAL ASSESSMEMNT................................................................................................... 44 REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................. 45 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC NOTICES AND AFFIDAVITS........................................................... 50 I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawaii Showing Location of Project Area(National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)...........2 Figure 2: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Project Areas and TMK Parcels (Keaau Ranch Quadrangle. ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic and County of Hawaii Planning Department, 2019).................................. 3 Figure 3: TMK: (3) 1-5-010 Map Showing Location of Project Area (County of Hawaii Planning Department, 2019)........................................................................................... 4 Figure 4: Aerial Photograph Showing Project Areas, Kea`au, HI, Zone 5 North, 298310 m E, 2166660 m N. (Google Earth, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and USGS)......................................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Photograph of Sea Cliff at the Northeast Edge of the Project Area, Looking Northwest. ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 6: Photograph of Sea Cliff at Middle of the Project Area, Looking Southeast................ 12 Figure 7: Photograph of Littoral Black Cinder Cone at Middle of the Project Area, Looking South............................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 8: Photograph of Littoral Black Cinder Cone at Middle of the Project Area, Looking South............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 9: Photograph of Project Area Parcel 026 Grass in Foreground and Parcel 027 Trees at Background Left, Looking South. ................................................................................ 15 Figure 10: Photograph of Project Area Parcel 026 Grass, Looking West Toward Government BeachRoad................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 11: Portion of Map of the Island of Hawaii Showing the Locations of Project Area and Place Names (Wall 1886). ............................................................................................ 18 Figure 12: Portion of Map of Hawai`I Showing Project Area and Surrounding Place Names (Donn 1901).................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 13: Portion of Map of Puna District Showing Locations of the Project Area and Land Grants (Moragne 1903)................................................................................................. 22 Figure 14: Location of Project Area and Old Government Road from Hilo Bay through Puna District on Portion of Registered Map 424 Drawn by the Wilkes Expedition of 1840- 1841. ............................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 15: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map (Kea`au Ranch Quad) Showing Location of Coastal Sites Recorded in Ewart and Luscomb (1974) (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)........................................ 29 Figure 16: Site 18975 Plan View Map (Ewart and Luscomb 1974:24)....................................... 31 Figure 17: Map Showing Recent Previous Archaeological Studies in Maku`u and Surrounding Ahupua`a (Adapted from Dirks Ah Sam and Rechtman 2013:11)............................... 33 Figure 18: Archaeological Site Plan Map Showing Sites Recorded in Dirks Ah Sam and Rechtman(2013)........................................................................................................... 35 II Figure 19: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Archaeological Sites Documented in Escott (2019) (Kea`au Ranch Quadrangle. ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic and Hawaii County Planning Department, 2013). ..... 36 Figure 23: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Archaeological Sites (Kea`au Ranch Quadrangle. ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic and Hawaii County Planning Department, 2013). ............................................................. 38 Figure 24: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Archaeological Sites (Kea`au Ranch Quadrangle. ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic and Hawaii County Planning Department, 2013). ............................................................. 39 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Inventory of Waikahekahe and Maku`u Ahupua`a Archaeological Sites (Ewart and Luscomb1974). ............................................................................................................ 30 Table 2: Previous Archaeological Studies in Maku`u, P6p6ki and Halona Ahupua`a................ 32 Table 3: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified Within the Project Area.......................... 34 Table 4: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified Within the Project Area.......................... 37 Table 5: Individuals Responses to CIA Consultation Request.................................................... 40 III This Page Intentionally Let Blank IV INTRODUCTION Under contract to property owner(s) Opunaha, LLC, Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) conducted a Cultural Impact Assessment(CIA) for the lands of TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026 and 027 located in Np6k7i Ahupua`a, Puna District, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii(Figure I through Figure 4). The property address is 15-2193 Old Government/Beach Road. The project area is located approximately eight miles southeast of Kea`au town and just south of Hawaiian Paradise Park(HPP) residential subdivision. The property is bounded on the east by the Pacific Ocean, the west by Old Government/Beach Road, on the north and south by residential properties. The property owner is proposing to build a single family dwelling on the property. The AIS study was conducted as supporting documentation for a Special Management Area (SMA) permit application and construction permit application. The property owner's point of contact for the project is Mr. Zendo Kern. Mr. Kern can be contacted by phone at(808)-333-3393 or by email at zendo@zendokern.com. The Constitution of the State of Hawaii clearly states the duty of the State and its agencies is to preserve, protect, and prevent interference with the traditional and customary rights of native Hawaiians. Article XII, Section 7 requires the State to "protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua`a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778" (2000). In spite of the establishment of the foreign concept of private ownership and western-style government, Kamehameha III (Kauikeaouli)preserved the people's traditional right to subsistence. As a result, in 1850 the Hawaiian Government confirmed the traditional access rights to native Hawaiian ahupua`a tenants to gather specific natural resources for customary uses from undeveloped private property and waterways under the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 7-1. In 1992, the State of Hawaii Supreme Court, reaffirmed HRS 7-1 and expanded it to include, "native Hawaiian rights...may extend beyond the ahupua`a in which a native Hawaiian resides where such rights have been customarily and traditionally exercised in this manner" (fele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw.578, 1992). 1 -13-00-E. 194-00-E. 0600a-E. 1180001 E. 230coa-E. 2420001E. x54oan-E. 266voa-E. 2781-1 E. 90oou-E. WC564 Zane 5Q 321-00-E. I i E H A W A I I z i tHAWAII COI M z ` � •Pa°,fie., .. ZN R H. N'A i - z WY 4n•..� '.' � I � E PROJECT AREA IV A II 1 - wwly m,,.x.wa0n P. i 584 Zone 4Q 916000-E. 195000-E. '0701.0-E. X19--E. X31000-E. 1431-1E. �551com E, =67000-E. X79000-E. X91000-E. 303000-E. 019000-E. �I\ 0 5 le 15 :A :S ellles 7 1 9 IS Sf 27 30 75 -00k. Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawaii Showing Location of Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 2 00959IZ U a a CC Cd GJ U O � N U � Q Cr � dq 9 ! lrJ U P-i Cd o R •� 'Jl � U M O � � � O � O • 6 N �' sw O n a � o +-' N g � w N � GA � w a 3 7 [ A i ¢ 3 O NO Lo ,� i /Crd-j� S pH %epi Cd h o i � YJJ �{ o nA e -- � 1 J �ofl Ld Ll M 11 y pHl� RB. � 'Ory3Y �fs vi «yss� � yn FSI M O N cd W dq O O z 0 N W 0 M 00 N z N �4.1 x � c 'o W � o H v p O a F N an �J o Cd O �I Act 50, enacted by the Legislature of the State of Hawaii (2000)with House Bill 2895, relating to Environmental Impact Statements, proposes that: ...there is a need to clarify that the preparation of environmental assessments or environmental impact statements should identify and address effects on Hawai`i's culture, and traditional and customary rights... [H.B. NO. 2895]. Act 50 requires state agencies and other developers to assess the effects of proposed land use or shoreline developments on the"cultural practices of the community and State" as part of the HRS Chapter 343 environmental review process (2001). Its purpose has broadened, "to promote and protect cultural beliefs, practices and resources of native Hawaiians [and] other ethnic groups, and it also amends the definition of `significant effect' to be re-defined as "the sum of effects on the quality of the environment including actions that are...contrary to the State's environmental policies...or adversely affect the economic welfare, social welfare, or cultural practices of the community and State" (H.B. 2895, Act 50, 2000). Thus, Act 50 requires an assessment of cultural practices to be included in the Environmental Assessments and the Environmental Impact Statements, and to be taken into consideration during the planning process. The concept of geographical expansion is recognized by using, as an example, "the broad geographical area, e.g. district or ahupua`a" (OEQC 1997). It was decided that the process should identify `anthropological' cultural practices, rather than `social' cultural practices. For example, limu (edible seaweed) gathering would be considered an anthropological cultural practice, while a modern-day marathon would be considered a social cultural practice. According to the Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts established by the Hawaii State Office of Environmental Quality Control: The types of cultural practices and beliefs subject to assessment may include subsistence, commercial, residential, agricultural, access-related, recreational, and religious and spiritual customs. The types of cultural resources subject to assessment may include traditional cultural properties or other types of historic sites, both manmade and natural, which support such cultural beliefs (OEQC 1997). 6 This Cultural Impact Assessment involves evaluating the probability of impacts on identified cultural resources, including values, rights, beliefs, objects, records, properties, and stories occurring within the project area and its vicinity(H.B. 2895, Act 50, 2000). METHODOLOGY This Cultural Impact Assessment was prepared in accordance with the methodology and content protocol provided in the Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts (OEQC 1997). In outlining the "Cultural Impact Assessment Methodology", the OEQC states: ...information may be obtained through scoping, community meetings, ethnographic interviews and oral histories... (1997). The report contains archival and documentary research, as well as communication with organizations having knowledge of the project area, its cultural resources, and its practices and beliefs. This Cultural Impact Assessment was prepared in accordance with the methodology and content protocol provided in the Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts (OEQC 1997). The assessment concerning cultural impacts should address, but not be limited to, the following matters: (1) a discussion of the methods applied and results of consultation with individuals and organizations identified by the preparer as being familiar with cultural practices and features associated with the project area, including any constraints of limitations with might have affected the quality of the information obtained; (2) a description of methods adopted by the preparer to identify, locate, and select the persons interviewed, including a discussion of the level of effort undertaken; (3) ethnographic and oral history interview procedures, including the circumstances under which the interviews were conducted, and any constraints or limitations which might have affected the quality of the information obtained; (4) biographical information concerning the individuals and organizations consulted, their particular expertise, and their historical and genealogical relationship to the project area, as well as information concerning the persons submitting information or interviewed, their particular knowledge and cultural expertise, if any, and their historical and genealogical relationship to the project area; (5) a discussion concerning historical and cultural source materials consulted, the institutions and repositories searched, and the level of effort undertaken, as well as the particular perspective of the authors, if appropriate, any opposing views, 7 and any other relevant constraints, limitations or biases; (6) a discussion concerning the cultural resources,practices and beliefs identified, and for the resources and practices, their location within the broad geographical area in which the proposed action is located, as well as their direct or indirect significance or connection to the project site; (7) a discussion concerning the nature of the cultural practices and beliefs, and the significance of the cultural resources within the project area, affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project; (8) an explanation of confidential information that has been withheld from public disclosure in the assessment; (9) a discussion concerning any conflicting information in regard to identified cultural resources, practices and beliefs; (10) an analysis of the potential effect of any proposed physical alteration on cultural resources, practices or beliefs; the potential of the proposed action to isolate cultural resources, practices or beliefs from their setting; and the potential of the proposed action to introduce elements which may alter the setting in which cultural practices take place, and; (11) the inclusion of bibliography of references, and attached records of interviews, which were allowed to be disclosed. Based on the inclusion of the above information, assessments of the potential effects on cultural resources in the project area and recommendations for mitigation of these effects can be proposed. ARCHIVAL RESEARCH Archival research focused on a historical documentary study involving both published and unpublished sources. These included legendary accounts of native and early foreign writers; early historical journals and narratives; historic maps and land records such as Land Commission Awards, Royal Patent Grants, and Boundary Commission records; historic accounts, and previous archaeological project reports. INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY Interviews are conducted in accordance with applicable state laws and guidelines. Individuals and/or groups who have knowledge of traditional practices and beliefs associated with a project area or who know of historical properties within a project area are sought for consultation. Individuals who have particular knowledge of traditions passed down from preceding generations and a personal familiarity with the 8 project area are invited to share their relevant information. Often people are recommended for their expertise, and indeed, organizations, such as Hawaiian Civic Clubs, the Island Branch of Office of Hawaiian Affairs, historical societies, Island Trail clubs, and Planning Commissions are depended upon for their recommendations of suitable informants. These groups are invited to contribute their input, and suggest further avenues of inquiry, as well as specific individuals to interview. If knowledgeable individuals are identified, personal interviews are sometimes taped and then transcribed. These draft transcripts are returned to each of the participants for their review and comments. After corrections are made, each individual signs a release form, making the information available for this study. When telephone interviews occur, a summary of the information is often sent for correction and approval, or dictated by the informant and then incorporated into the document. Key topics discussed with the interviewees vary from project to project, but usually include: personal association to the ahupua`a, land use in the project's vicinity; knowledge of traditional trails, gathering areas, water sources, religious sites; place names and their meanings; stories that were handed down concerning special places or events in the vicinity of the project area; evidence of previous activities identified while in the project vicinity. In this case, letters with maps and descriptions of the project area were sent to individuals and organizations whose jurisdiction includes knowledge of the area with an invitation for consultation. Consultation was sought from Kamaile Puluole-Mitchell, Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)East Hawaii Island Representative; Jordan Kea Calpito, SHPD Burial Sites Specialist; Sean Naleimaile, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) Hawaii Island Archaeologist; and Kalena Blakemore, Hawaii Island Burial Council (HIBC)Member. Consultation was also conducted near the project area with members of the Kamahele and Lui families. If cultural resources are identified based on the information received from these organizations and/or additional informants, an assessment of the potential effects on the identified cultural resources in the project area and recommendations for mitigation of these effects can be proposed. Public notices (Appendix A)were published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the Hawaii Tribune Herald, and West Hawaii Today. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project area is situated on level to moderately sloping land at 0.0 to 50.0 feet (0.0-15.0 m) above mean sea level (amsl) (see Figure 2). The project area substrate is a Kilauea lava flow dated between 750 and 1,500 years ago (Wolfe and Morris 1996). Soil in the project area is `Opihikao series (rOPE) extremely rocky muck overlaying pahoehoe lava(Sato 1973:43). The soil is thin and well drained with 3%to 25% slopes. The seaward edge of the project area is 20 to 30 foot high cliffs (Figure 5 and Figure 6). There is no easy access to enter the ocean except by climbing down the cliff face. There is a low littoral black cinder cone located along the sea cliff in the middle of Parcel 026 (see Figure 2 and Figure 4). The seaward side of the cone is eroded(Figure 7 and Figure 8). The cinder cone slopes gently to southwest and is covered by grass grazed by sheep and goats. The remainder of the project area is pahoehoe coastal flats with grasses, low shrubs and scattered trees (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Tree species in the southeast portion of the project area(Parcel 027) include autograph (Clusia rosea), gunpowder(Trema orientalis), Moluccan albezia(Falcataria moluccana), bingabing (Macaranga mappa), and guava(Psidium sp.) (Starr 2013). There are also intermittent coconut palms (Cocos nucifera) along the coastline. Rainfall in the project area is between 120 and 200 inches per year. Natural drainage in the area runs from west to east. 10 ® }. J f ^y -r K= I fy c r s • • t v . '. -42. l 4 '. ` - •sem �r 1l .1 • 1 � 1 ( c` f_ It ;4 • J l F,7t `'i- f • Pr �e P-i T v 1 1 N p? c � 3 'o .. Y a a - _S • j `fir Ir h-i f.*,4 j1[l N4 c _ F _ SM1�• m� iJ x ;ate O x" cd a, Mt N Zk h+-1 IT Y k tailap �` f n r cd w k W N � O .4 N ct N I f Y -� 03 N #' m p /pcctt 4 E L•.:j�f�,��+y,'�uy uy� ����.... FAY V N � ;'►� rock O 4 II 4.1 � w HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS Many archaeologists believe that Hawaii Island was first settled around A.D. 1,000 by people sailing from the Marquesas (Athens et al. 2014; Dye 2011; Kahn et al. 2014; Kirch 2011; Kirch and McCoy 2007; Mulrooney et al. 2011; Reith et al. 2011; Wilmhurst et al. 2011a and 2011b). An article published in the Journal of Archaeological Science reviewing radiocarbon dates recovered at archaeological sites on the Island of Hawaii suggests that, by relying on only carbon samples from short-lived plant remains, the most reliable dates point to initial Polynesian colonization of Hawaii Island occurring between A.D. 1220 and 1261 (Rieth et al. 2011:2747). Hilo was, by most estimates, one of the first settlements on the Island of Hawaii. The rich marine resources of Hilo Bay and the gently sloping forests of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea provided abundant resources. Fresh water was available from the Wailoa and Wailuku rivers and smaller streams such as Waiakea, Waiolama, Pukihae, and `Alenaio. The current project area is located in P6p6k71 Ahupua`a, Puna District, roughly twenty kilometers southeast of Hilo (Figure 11 and Figure 12). P6p6k71 Ahupua`a is located between Waikahekahe and Keonepoko Ahupua`a in Figure 11. PRE-CONTACT ACCOUNTS OF SOUTH HILO AND PUNA DISRTICTS The earliest account of Hilo appears in `Umi-a-Liloa's (1600-1620) conquest of the Island of Hawaii, which establishes Hilo as a royal center by the sixteenth century. In the account, `Umi-a-Liloa began his conquest of the Island of Hawaii by defeating chief Kulukulu`a, who lived in Waiakea, and the other chiefs of Hilo (Kamakau 1992:16- 17). `Umi-a-Liloa's second son, Keawe-nui-a-`Umi, ruled Hamakua, Hilo, and Puna from his residence at Hilo (ibid. 34). It was from Hilo that he waged war on the Kona chiefs and unified the island. Keawe-nui-a-`Umi's descendants single handedly continued rule for many generations from Hilo. After the death of Keawe-nui-a-`Umi the kingdom was divided into three parts and was established under warring chiefs; Hilo was ruled by Kumalae-nui-pu`awa-lau and his son Makua (ibid. 45). It was during the period of time that Kamehameha I was born. Kalani`6pu`u's grandson, Keoua Kuahu`ula and nephew Kamehameha vied for control over the six chiefdoms constituting the island kingdom and Keoua conquered Hilo chief Keawe-mau-hili and harvested the benefits for a short time only to be vanquished by Kamehameha I late in 1791. 17 x CL o � „•nrui'y "'•�I.7 e I � - r41, 1S'e'�C r£', Ij•'s`. � ' +' -.I �. lT '.i=: j C�j VI r' � < 5.t•Ir �.�: 'l1 , ys yi• F��'n r ':I :y C.5 •p� � � v 1 1 �1 1.r r y I. - r�, I >t _ 3� CI y -,,�l - r�w'� r N �d ��Mr �t • ttl,v�`I,I r'rr:� ��ir •+;�;�, ,rl�t'S 5j/e� ;�c r�o-✓ e 'fi'�e •O r r Fa a c�r� ! 1� 1_11f•r P: JQJQ ,Ser �5f 7� ��Lr -� d •(�.c. r e-,ic // � �-/ � d P'� g t+-I 174" \'�`'*�1S1r Z '� r�r'�.•�J d a 1: �r _ to v ray r: ..,t•.f Q ''� 'a i'"'• '`4••? { \,�? g> - ..\ t^ >>:.,�.�'.�=%,': �.- ►.I E" Q l 'a" �•�/�:` ,ray..,,!;�w cr-.:. !J`ira, a � �� ,�m,Y 0. �' -�f' Q � (~ Li ,r,l rl�/� '/xjr�,// // i7/yQ�u.+ a.'�,'•��s;�' V p �{ 9 �`� r `� ` .111. tl,.r 5 .. � W � at'r• 1... {,�j, .r,�l/1. !j:-j S r�9{ / �\ •{.. 1 Y r ry. f ■ r t r,..f Qt a ,e �'iA�xsl '�i/'I/1//fi'l//..,.1/.f I> tv N rd 's •° s;cz'"`,; tir;+ll�s/ r����y ij/ ,. t/ii..// r--, I I , II r +3l 1 rt �"• "�!'L �� /%Y/r/r.,:.. F u��//% , � H n _ WR F�.r/ //r,/.•./ /�• - .�,fir • ll' /O 4+a f+ �,. ,� ��`£��ityr'Cr,.:� ��,',+�ci'-err•�•.�. �i�// yl/4_ �yI ,S' UA VIE, lr .x ° ,� ,,� .y l••+E.'n.,'V t F, i� a"`:,�,,� - i jY'� t' ; l�o+�Frf x'14-1�A�� � :'� �s'�'�y�.tr�:��-�F�,�s�re C'` �;�'�•� ;,� � v, ,� � 'fgrS 1 �C'I 1`�•r '1t�_ r � 'iiei rt" £ ' + - r.-fi'{.a`h d ?`' a 'iia I-4 €��y'�{'j�`T ,try w lei ra 'A rt. ;4r}'�'..+� � 7.:,� ,t,�'�" ..P �yy '�' /��✓YuE .✓,h•�¢7 j ^ N no Cd fi T-� ,,� `•�,e+ .1 I�.' 2 4x+ r � `:v;. '`��_ A i�y�'avcr �,, a"�g�- .%� c��L71i•• ''I �. ,� ,a n.BY"^Pgs 'a''it.^: tyr-•.h c• �I �"� �` �� #'� �i� •v,,,tl � 1 �ti�1's�c� •�. .::�-�-�';? =sa�rs'�riay � �_y t+-I �'' � 4. r �4`},a�.f a�r�s ,t `j11 ,vl tvtl4` � ;C %' •���•r.Ftc'.a� �r_..• o O ��SY�'r°r ��4'�. ��fn+_a r � � 11.N.��++ •' I �'�>� ��,a.h'='r�(`"Y�:�.t+j",�"�� r •'�'�'_ O 4. T; Ow,� 3 0 \ \�`; �\\, �"1�1lllfllFJ11•f�!�''�F� �` .// a+ r rAll h IN � ll ir 1 H � a \� ;�s G� 7;1� tt Kamehameha's son Liholiho was born in Hilo in November 1797 (Kamakau 1992:22). Waiakea was inherited by Lihiliho after Kamehameha's death. The `ili kupono of Pi`opi`o and its royal fishpond were given to his favorite wife, Ka`ahumanu. Situated along the windward coast of Hawaii Island, Puna is a verdant and abundant district with good rainfall and rich soils (see Figure 11). However, it is also subject to volcanic eruptions and has been covered by new lava in many places over the last 1,000 years (Cordy 2000:17, and 22). Much of the district's coastal areas have thin soils, and there are no good deep water harbors. The ocean along the Puna coast is often rough and wind-blown. As a result of these two factors, settlement patterns in Puna tend to be dispersed and without major population centers. Villages in Puna tend to be spread out over larger areas and often are inland, and away from the coast, where the soil is better for agriculture (ibid. 45). The lack of population centers also had an effect on the development of a hierarchy of district rulers. Puna was often not strongly tied together by a tight web of allegiances between ah`i and konohiki. As a result, Puna was often conquered and ruled by stronger district leaders in Hilo or Ka`u (Kamakau 1992:17 and 77). Puna District was famous for its valuable products, including "hogs, gray kapa cloth(`eleuli), tapas made of mamaki bark, fine mats made of young pandanus blossoms (`ahuhinalo), mats made of young pandanus leaves (`ahuao), and feathers of the Wo and mamo birds" (ibid.106). Puna was also famous for its abundant ulu (breadfruit). Kea`au and neighboring `Ola`a Ahupua`a were well known for their valuable natural and hand-made products. Both ahupua`a were located along the southern boundary of South Hilo District(see Figure 11). The two ahupua`a were often the source of forest products for the Hilo's ruling elite. Moreover, Kea`au cut `Ola`a off from the ocean, so that families living along the coast in Kea`au often traded marine resources for upland forest products from family members living in small communities in upland `Ola`a. 20 Historical accounts pertaining to lands of the project area region are scarce but provide some information on traditional residence patterns, land-use, and subsistence. William Ellis passed through P6p6k71 Ahupua`a in 1823 while travelling along the coastal trail from Kilauea to Waiakea Ahupua`a, Hilo (see Figure 12). Ellis'journey took him along the coast past the project area. Ellis did not describe the region of Maku`u or P6p6k71 Ahupua`a, but stopped in a small inland village in Honolulu Ahupua`a, and rested in the shade of a canoe house along the coast of Waiakahiula Ahupua`a(Ellis 1963:294- 295), roughly 3.5 to 5.0 km southeast of P6p6k7i. Honolulu Village and a nearby village were inland and small, and the population was dispersed. Ellis also described a village, likely Hd'ena, in Kea`au Ahupua`a, north of P6p6k71 (see Figure 12). The village was large and populous with an abundance of taro, sweet potato and sugarcane gardens (Ellis 1963:296). He suggested the area was made more fertile by a flowing stream where he quenched his thirst. TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO QUIET LAND TITLES With the Mahele of 1848 and the two Acts of 1850, authorizing the sale of land in fee simple to resident aliens and the award of kuleana lands to native tenants, land tenure in Hawaii arrived at a significant turning point(Chinen 1961:13). The ahupua`a of Kea`au was granted to William C. Lunalilo as part of Land Commission award (LCA) 8559-B. There were no Land Commission awards made in P6p6k71 Ahupua`a. Three small Land Grants (LG)were purchased along the coast in Maku`u, P6p6k71, and Halona Ahupua`a (Figure 13). LG 1013 was purchased by D.W. Maiau, LG 1014 was purchased by Kea, and LG 1537 was purchased by Kapohana. The current project area is the northeast portion of 171.0 acres of land (LG 1537)purchased by Kapohana in 1855. The littoral cone was used as a triangulation station by early western map makers, and is labeled Opunaha in Figure 13. Opunaha is literally as "broken cluster" (Pukui et al. 1976:172) and likely refers to the eroded littoral cinder cone. There are two mauka- makai trails and one trail parallel to the ocean depicted in Figure 13. One of the mauka- makai trails ends at Old Government/Beach Road just mauka of the current project area. There are no trails depicted within the current project area. 21 .p A M 3. ISI a � r -•gyp. ,� 1' �.y •L O CHANGING RESIDENTIAL AND LAND-USE PATTERNS (1845-1865) Between 1845 and 1900, traditional land-use and residential patterns began to change drastically. In particular, the regular use of Hilo Bay by foreign vessels, the growth of tourism, the presence of the whaling industry, the establishment of missions in the Hilo area, the legalization of private land ownership, the introduction of cattle ranching, the introduction of sugar cane cultivation, and the construction of Government Roads and railroad lines all brought about changes in settlement patterns and long- established land-use patterns (Kelly et al. 1981). Much of the change in residential location and the growth of towns in Puna District were driven by the availability of arable land suited to commercial crops and the location of newly constructed roads. The traditional travel route through Puna was along the coast(see Figure 11 and Figure 14). The trip was made along a foot trail that led through the coastal and near coastal villages. That trail lead from the modern day Lili`uokalani Gardens area to Ha`ena along the Puna coast. The trail is often called the old Puna Trail and/or Puna Road. There is an historic trail/cart road that is also called the Puna Trail (Ala Hele Puna) and/or the Old Government Road that continues from the south end of the Puna Trail through Waiakahiula Ahupua`a heading to points south. Lass (1997) also refers to the entire route from Hilo to Ka`u as the Puna-Ka`u trail. THE PUNA TRAIL AND OLD GOVERNMENT ROAD There is an historic trail that leads from the modern day Lili`uokalani Gardens in Waiakea to Ha`ena along the Puna coast. The trail is often called the old Puna Trail and/or Puna Road. There is an historic trail/cart road that is also called the Puna Trail (Ala Hele Puna) and/or the Old Government Road that continues from the south end of the Puna Trail heading to points south. Lass (1997) also refers to the entire route from Hilo to Ka`u as the Puna-Ka`u trail. Whatever name the trail/cart road alignment is called by, it likely incorporated segments of the traditional Hawaiian trail system often referred to as the ala loa or ala hele (Hudson 1932:247, Kuykendall 1966:23-25, Lass 1997:15, and Maly 1999:5). Lass suggests the fill length of the Puna Trail, or Old Government Road, might have been constructed or improved just before 1840 (Lass 1997:15). The trail was called the Old Government Road, or Ala Nui Aupuni(Maly 1999:5). The alignment was first mapped by the Wilkes Expedition of 1804-41 (see Figure 14). 23 - +•�����rfI/�'�� ��� _rl�r`fir//�/'� f�I �••r _ � .1 f;`is!.��� �� rI. ,/•r�� 1 f f�� r�•Rfr y �r � T "' V-ti fJr w. ,r/1,./��,.-.r.. ,i�sy .�Yi. -.++•��.': - :�,• X1,7•yr.s � I�/i •. :., w�r�, :�. tri".+;] ry+..,� .,� ', � � � ,���� •r -.••'.��IFIL '• +'II'': � r'+\Ll`ti�'/],I!]'r��� /�� /rte ;-- _' .,,� ` _�.: .1J.,}i�� .• ..�"•.i{ � w �;i�r••;,?" t, rr f .fr_ '4. �'f 'j .� ,'. j'`r �'i�,��"aJ�,b. a F'Y" : '•rJ S"-i ' / �1'� �ll,'.+ .i ; ,,1t�rf.L:r,: ., �;I'%i•.Cf;�s i�� O F' .^ ,}} ���'J ,S' MW G f•'�^r ' ., "a r � L,iL.�%. i f,rj j^"�.� • � R+ .a .r i a j ti .i.- ,��" ` /,, .,�+►. rfi '" 6u. {� cd r i:'f l •1•'�` ''r�+'A •'TilA �, 'y71fM J�+�' r.({fU •� 1 // [ / `°L, ,� r. •, 1 Y 1 aI'Iy }(WW I 1,�1 ;n�• I ] 1 '/ J {l '//7r, :..�',r''`'•,,;-' i '" �yl;,.ti,' 'l�, ,y.{1 3 'If•, �'1 i : t �4 •i�y .�� r , „ o �l'+ f / n. �•'• ,� .Crj t. �•' I` r. i w J�: 1 s.� t 4- n-•• � - I .'i __, ! J'S•,�Lw..�% „ ;{{„kJ ' 7�•,�,� ' �� t?�;i �� t,,?�rr �. '7�L^FY 'r�,� _ ''�j�f1f t .' r�.�`3� t��{��fJ 1.1 � 7t r-�' i,L+1rhvfFj31��./roti 5 N y„ •wai ,•..~ .lit f/ 1 1�{f. L�:.J. '1.M 'LtL '�• '+_ ,ID �\ 41, n iir•1f'r � •• a ; ,rits . t' :t4-�'�-Ct, L j' lit o .Y ItiN' "* f,'r ���r L�',�+ t'` „ -- 4 ' P '`�rT4 T j,,2? tt� ::'..'JJ��,,� SrS'',f�• 1 J, 1.10 �r rJ'!/�1 f. ;, J� �� 1.• ..r/jf „�r;L k�"j• rs7Jr 4 ,.;Sy�UJ•,��1�I�r.'/r%�.�� ''F '-=�� .,� •r"++ .,,, q}•tom �� :.�••�. � � a> O ,•#:� „1S\•ti.'f,1iYN1JJJ•__lfr.f�r •,i" Fi' ',��:.: �'1 �'��w .��f.�,'f�_ +r >•, ', re 40 Ct cz ,: (•'[•J1`i?a. � ���,(v�j�}�.d ''�`I .'i'1��"" =_tet ... ,..•�Y `;art�� JCi-r' � 1, �4 � � jf�• 'ti 'Jfj~.�ie�i i �.N•Kf. i*p{�La,..r.- Ms ���yJpt� �•�1� a rA rf s. t,,�C� ``'1y r//�£ �r'r �yr�.�f]► , ;� *+�.y r Yi���. i T�� .-+ CF•i ,'yN��►�4 l r: - {mfr• . $� ►� , �t y .�.�ti.._,•�,� a 'S(iy�r.� �, J• + lrr ;L111f�1�/f s `f �f++ref �`i �•y ,t f y—��{ •�•``�' a+ ct s� r '�'��rJ� fj�j� rr 'r'�'r"a � . LLsyr.� � -�;f�� r�1 f•Lr* _' U r••' Ak '> ��.1� y i+�;7�•n5's. i /r l{�-111 _-� �rL. f•,' 1.`-4i i..� r 4- r ~ �;1�'L�rr•�.fli .!��_, � �ii'')I 'Fill 10= '=��� "`'c�`'Z� •,7*��'r�:�,��`� �x � Q `'IgL�U� Irr;r :A.- € 11Lr1.•�}r sr•; tr +t_ / .' `S;+ r3r�, �.'� ,y; u[YYi'��f f f �1 Ir•�...:C�'4�ii '.Tr �R'' �'I A general description of the area between the Old Government Road and the newer upper road from Hilo through Kea`au to Pahoa was recorded in 1889 by the Surveyor General of the Hawaiian Government Survey. The description affords a glimpse into inland and coastal settlement patterns and land use. The first settlement met with after leaving Hilo by the sea coast road, is at Keaau, a distant 10 miles where there are less than a dozen inhabitants; the next is at Makuu, distant 14 miles where there are a few more, after which there is occasionally a stray but or two, until Halepuaa and Koae are reached, 21 miles from Hilo, at which place there is quite a village; thence to Kaimu there are only a few scattered settlements here and there. A good many of those living along the lower road have their cultivating patches in the interior, along or within easy accessibility to the new road (Alexander 1891, cited in Maly 1999:107). The 1889 description contrasts with Ellis' in which he described numerous villages just sixty-six years earlier. The 1889 description suggests depopulation along the majority of the Puna near-coastal area. In both descriptions, the people in this area appear to have lived somewhat inland, between the coast and the inland gardens. In 1889 people were cultivating small patches of kalo, `awa, and coffee as well as other food items in the inland gardens. The patches were placed in pockets of soil in holes amidst the lava flows. Additionally, sweet potatoes were grown on rock mounds. By 1889, it appears that very few people lived along the Old Government Road(Maly 1999:6). The Surveyor General stated, The old sea coast road cannot be kept in repair with the means now at its disposal and its condition each year is becoming more unsafe and ruinous, there is but little travel over it; it has been shown that there is little land capable of cultivation or development either side of it and whatever travel there is now over it would soon be entirely diverted to the upper road (Alexander 1891, cited in Maly 1999:107). The new road being constructed from Hilo through Kea`au to Pahoa was designed to allow access to the more arable inland areas. People who traditionally had lived along the Puna coast were moving toward Hilo and into the more fertile upland areas of Puna in 25 order to find paid work and to produce cash crops for local markets and for export. In particular, people began to work in the inland areas to grow sugarcane. The same was true of the trail from Hilo, through Kea`au, and on to Kilauea Crater(Volcano Road). An improved Volcano Road was built from Hilo to Kilauea between 1889 and 1893 partly to accommodate tourism, but also to increase access to forest products and agricultural land. Numerous small field parcels belonging to the `Ola`a Sugar Company and the `Ola`a Coffee Company were located along this route. The improved Volcano Road is Route 11, though it has been straightened and improved several times since its initial construction. The modern history of land-use in Kea`au Ahupua`a is tied to the development of commercial agriculture and the construction of transportation routes. The potential to use Kea`au's rich arable land for commercial prospects was recognized as early as the 1870s when it was leased for coffee growing and for cattle grazing. In 1881, the entire ahupua`a was purchased at auction by Samuel Damon, William H. Shipman, and E. Elderts from trustees of the deceased William C. Lunalilo Estate. Shipman bought out the two partners within three years of purchasing the land. William H. Shipman operated a cattle ranch in Kapoho Ahupua`a and was the owner of the Waiakea Stock Ranch. Shipman was also co-owner of the Shipman Meat Market, later the Hilo Meat Company. Shipman leased portions of Kea`au Ahupua`a to the `Ola`a Sugar Company beginning in 1899. It was the development of`Ola`a Sugar Company fields, the construction of the sugar mill in Kea`au, and the construction of the numerous sugar company camps, that created modern day Kea`au town as a small commercial and residential center. SUGARCANE, RAILROADS AND COMMERCE The `Ola`a Sugar Company, established in 1899, became the largest sugarcane plantation and milling operation in Puna District. By the 1950s the `Ola`a Sugar Company was in debt and sugar production and sales were stagnant. The company stockholders changed the company name to the Puna Sugar Company, Ltd. and sold off land to invest in new equipment and upgrade their facilities. By 1966, the company was debt free and making a good profit. American Factors (AMFAC)bought out the minority shareholders in 1969 and Puna Sugar Company became a subsidiary of AMFAC. 26 AMFAC expanded sugarcane processing in the 1970s through new extraction facilities upgrades at the mill in Kea`au (Ola`a Mill) and by building a 15KW bagasse and trash burning power plant next to the mill. Hilo Electric Light Company(HECO) agreed to purchase 12.5KW of power for their customers. Puna Sugar Company, like many other sugar companies, struggled in the late 1970s and early 1980s due to changes in the sugar market that made sugar production less profitable. By the start of 1982, AMFAC had decided to close Puna Sugar Company. The work of selling off assets and preparing severance packages took three full years. The sugar mill was sold to Fiji Sugar Corporation in 1988 and the power plant operation taken over HECO. MODERN LAND USE The project area and surrounding lands were not used for growing sugarcane as the soil is too shallow. The area remained primarily unaltered and undeveloped grasslands with a large variety of introduced and invasive species. The land north of the current project area, 15.6 square miles in total, was purchased by David Watumull from W.H. Shipman, Ltd in 1959. The land was subdivided into nearly 8,800 lots within the newly created Hawaiian Paradise Park(HPP) subdivision. Currently, the land along the coast near the project area is primarily privately owned. Some of the lots have homes on them and others are still undeveloped. Some of the lands further mauka of Old Government/Beach Road are owned by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) and the State of Hawaii. Parcel 026 has rock walls and barb,panel and electric wire fence, and has been used as pasture for sheep and goats for many years. Parcel 027 is undeveloped and is partially wooded. 27 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS Ewart and Luscomb (1974)recorded 22 archaeological sites along the coast of Waikahekahe, Muku`u, Popoki, and Halona Ahupua`a(Figure 15 and Table 1). Sites identified in Popoki and Halona Ahupua`a to the south were documented in Maku`u Ahupua`a in the report. Sites were clustered on either side of Beach Road and consisted of agricultural and habitation complexes. Sites included rock walls, small enclosures and agricultural rock clearing mounds. Coastal Waikahekahe and Maku`u archaeological sites were primarily agricultural and habitation complexes containing rock walls, agricultural crock clearing mounds, rock walls, enclosures, pavements, platforms, rock lined wells, and burial features. The sites appear to be primarily pre-Contact to Historic in age. Site 18975 is a possible heiau complex (see Figure 18 and Figure 19). The site concentrations recorded south and west of the current project area are primarily walls, enclosures, terraces and rock mounds. The archaeological features are associated with pre-Contact to Historic era habitation and agriculture. A single site was identified within the current project area during the Ewart and Luscomb (1974) survey. The site was first recorded as Bishop Museum Site#Ha-A3-15, and was likely designated SIHP #50-1-45-18986. The site appears to be a rock mound though neither Ewart and Luscomb (1974)nor the SHPD SIHP database contain any descriptive information about the site. There were no other archaeological sites or features identified on the current project area. 28 c, ct W -Goo "TZ -PPO TZ -009 TL -PP9 TZ -499 w G.) L F k + a G o a x 1 y♦ 1 \ /j CA U O Id � O Q p J G r— E GJ 0 -- L g R O aW � az LU cd ct '.. R C�jIF o ch ,U—I CA fig. p iLn w O cd a� r�: a L7 �7 w �7 Z � v� C7zzw � z � za �7zz z � � za N � � U O O 21 CG W U •o o�n o�n o�n � � ° ,�, � � o � �, o _ U -� m ani .. ° ° vC,J O O O O O O O •� (ZO O O O A xx 7r,xw3wxx3H xx3 3 axx x a x a� ct M U 75 � U 75 o �b �b o �b �b �b �b �' • o 12 O O O O O O y O O O O O O ,� � ULJxUU � U � UaLJLJx � cQLJxUxaa W a H a � �A afY T SCATTERED aU6:LE AND YOSSIOLE BUT `a1 r YEaY CRUDE WALLS 1 `� ^.'`���■ "rr� ,tip;■ Ruea�F ► LARGE _- ► MOULDER �()� — kpklk0 �I L �•r �� MOULDER NUMERS STONEOLINED RU66LE N fi OUTCROP,.► HOLES �o o f KEY KAPOHO— KEAUKAHA SURVEY ommom TERAAEE/PLATFORA FACING Ha-A2-3 Dec. 1973 SM FREE-STAWDJNG WALL _AA_' RUSOLE % FEATURE 00. Figure 16: Site 18975 Plan View Map (Ewart and Luscomb 1974:24). 31 RECENT STUDIES IN POPOKI AND SURROUNDING AHUPUA`A Twenty archaeological studies have been conducted in Maku`u, Popoki and Halona Ahupua`a(Table 2 and Figure 17). The studies were conducted in the upland and coastal regions surrounding the current project area and shed light on pre-Contact to Historic land use. The most striking feature of the studies is the low distribution of archaeological sites documented in the upland project areas. Aside from lava tubes containing pre-Contact era habitation features and burials, only three archaeological features were documented in the upland project areas. Upland features included a possible ceremonial complex (enclosure, platform, rock wall, and rock wall), a rock mound and an agricultural terrace. The lack of sites in the uplands is consistent with early written accounts documenting traditional habitation areas along the coast to a little over one mile inland. Table 2: Previous Archaeological Studies in Maku`u, Popoki and Halona Ahupua`a. Author/Date Type of Study Ahu ua`a Barrera&Lerer 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey Maku`u Bordner 1977 Reconnaissance Survey Maku`u Chaffee& Spear 1993 Burial Testing Maku`u Clark et al. 2007 Archaeological Inventory Survey Popoki Clark et al. 2008 Archaeological Inventory Survey Maku`u Charvet-Pond&Rosendahl Archaeological Inventory Survey Maku`u,Halona, 1993 Popoki Conte et al. 1994 Archaeological Inventory Survey Maku`u,Halona, Popoki Desilets&Rechtman 2004 Archaeological Inventory Survey Maku`u,Halona, Popoki Dirks Ah Sam&Rechtman Archaeological Inventory Survey Popoki 2013 Hudson 1932 Archaeological Survey Various Ewart&Luscomb 1974 Reconnaissance Survey Various Komori&Peterson 1987 Cultural&Biological Resource Various Survey McEldowney& Stone 1991 Archaeological/Environmental Various Survey Yent 1983 Archaeological Survey Maku`u Rechtman 2003 Archaeological Assessment Maku`u,Halona Rosendahl 1989 Field Inspection Maku`u,Halona, Po oki Spear et al. 1995 Data Recovery Maku`u Dircks&Rechtman 2013 Archaeological Inventory Survey Popoki Escott 2019 Archaeological Inventory Survey Maku`u Escott&Dols 2020 Archaeological Inventory Survey Popoki 32 Charuei-Pond and Rosondahl 1093 f 1 MK:3-1-5-10: 91 I Rusendghl 1989(TIMK:3-1-5-10:28)and Dirks Ah Sam&Rechtman 2013 13arrera 1990:Chaffee sed Shear 1993;Spearet al. 1995 JM -3-1-5.10:33}� 1 Did Govemunen t Road Clarketal.2008JMK,3-1-5-10:321 J Project Area Hudsun 1932:Ewart and 1-usuomb 1974 Clark et al,:00[TM.K 3->-S-10:2? is Smith 1995field 27.23 �� J (llihbard letter datcd August 14, 1995) .o Komori and Petersen 1957 l 1 N] ilets aa6 Rechtman 2(04 1 �Conte etal. 1494 Bordner 1977 •rrr r Pent 198 w McEldowney and Stone 1993 0 I I i I Stale in k i Ionic ers Figure 17: Map Showing Recent Previous Archaeological Studies in Maku`u and Surrounding Ahupua`a (Adapted from Dirks Ah Sam and Rechtman 2013:11). 33 Komori and Peterson(19 87) conducted a cultural and biological resources survey along a corridor roughly 2.5 to 3.0 kilometers (1.55 to 1.86 miles) from the coastline. Five agricultural complexes, habitation and burial platforms, burial and refuge caves, and petroglyphs were documented within the project area. All of the sites are pre-Contact to early post-Contact era in age. Dircks Ah Sam and Rechtman(2013) conducted an archaeological inventory survey directly southeast of the current project area (Figure 17) in Pop6k7i and Halona Ahupua`a [TMK: (3) 1-5-010:028]. This study yielded the recordation of a pre-Contact coastal trail segment(Site 18418) and a Historic rock wall (Site 18419). The rock wall (Site 18419)was interpreted as a pasture boundary and continues into the current project area. The trail (Site 18418)was initially recorded in Parcel 029 by Charvet-Pond and Rosendahl (1993), who noted that the trail continued northwest along the coastline and into Parcel 028. Dircks and Rechtman(2013)recorded a 10.0 m segment of the elevated coastal trail in the southeast portion of Parcel 028. No other trail remnant was observed possibly due to high density ground vegetation and modern disturbance. Site 18418 was recommended for preservation. Escott(2019a)recorded five archaeological sites on a project area 150 meters northwest of the current project area (Table 3 and Figure 18). Site#50-10-45-7476, 18980 and 18987 were previously recorded in Ewart and Luscomb (1974). The three previously identified sites include a cement foundation at the Kamahele House (Site 7476), an agricultural complex (Site 18980) and the family burial plot (Site 18987). Two newly recorded sites include the rock wall along the boundary of Parcel 009 (Site 31111) and a short rock wall segment (Site 31112) in the southeast corner of the project area. Site 18981 recorded in Ewart and Luscomb (1974) is two modern petroglyphs and is not a historic property. Table 3: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified Within the Project Area. SIHP#50-10- SITE TYPE SITE FUNCTION SITE AGE 45: 7476 Kamahele House Habitation Historic era 18980 Complex(Agriculture) Rock walls and rock Pre-Contact to early post- mounds Contact era 18987 Burials Historic graves Historic era 31111 Rock Wall Property Boundary Historic era 31112 Rock Wall Road edge Historic era 34 Q 10 24 N :ray Scale in meters o° oc � Sill['Site 18419 Feature Mala forest Chain (unbulldoaed) Pte W' Row of ' bulldozed l cobbles Old +r gate Hullduxed �t � � area Autograph tree Grass Dirt road yet ■ f�X +' ■ S1HP Site 'i 19418 Stone t: r r y L` (Feature A) Barbeque Grass Ironwood and [t norele . autograph trees k torindarion slabs SIHP Site 18419 Feature A Cleared,,-, scetiork ® a . Grassi - naufxrka OCepn Cliff LF Hala Rock wall —K— Barbed wire Fence i Coconut tree Down slope r',r", Edge of treeline Figure 18: Archaeological Site Plan Map Showing Sites Recorded in Dirks Ah Sam and Rechtman (2013). 35 N r r 1, Auwae / 21 • SITE#AND TYPE 7476 Historic House 0 o 0 18980 Complex 18987 Burials N 31111 Boundary Wall ' 31112 Wall Segment _egg 8980 1112 7 KEY -ESCOTT 2019 PROJECT • -CURRENT PROJECT z -TMK BOUNDARY • -ARCHAEOLOGY SITF, f N -BURIAL SITE TN 0 250 500 750 meters m 298000m F, 299000m 1 Figure 19: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Archaeological Sites Documented in Escott(2019) (Kea`au Ranch Quadrangle. ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic and Hawaii County Planning Department, 2013). 36 Escott and Dols (2020)recorded two archaeological sites (Site#50-10-45-18419 and Site 31185) in the current project area (Table 4, Figure 20 and Figure 21). Rockwall Site#50-10-45-18419 was previously recorded in Charvet-Pond and Rosendahl (1993) and Dircks and Rechtman(2013). Site 18419 is a pasture and property boundary wall. The newly recorded site (Site 31185) is a rock wall along the northwest boundary of Parcel 026. Table 4: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified Within the Project Area. SIHP#50-10-45: SITE TYPE SITE FUNCTION SITE AGE 18419 Rock Wall Possible Pasture Boundary Historic 31185 Rock Wall Property Boundary Historic In general, archaeological studies conducted along the coastline in this region documented clusters of pre-Contact to early Historic habitation and agricultural sites including enclosures, platforms, rock walls, rock mounds, burials, petroglyphs, rock lined springs and water catchments, and remnant trail segments. 37 o"S,1z , | \ k \ � § \ d � . / � 2 C�j � & 0 0 � A k \ ? + u w 00 _ 2 � = o ' � ( a w f m j m z ■ B % \ \ \ / � F F � 2 / Q •— % k ƒ \ \ Zs g � ® „ G � $ § � # E/5 44 6 d U S". N � O i O � O Q � O � Cd cd � U CJ a Cd r M � O f Cd � x . . _ Cd GU Cd O � cn cn H E � eqo � � Cd � Q ri N N �I W CULTURAL INFORMANT INTERVIEWS Consultation was sought from Kamaile Puluole-Mitchell, Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)East Hawaii Island Representative; Jordan Kea Calpito, SHPD Burial Sites Specialist; Sean Naleimaile, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)Hawaii Island Archaeologist; and Kalena Blakemore, Hawaii Island Burial Council (HIBC) Member(Table 5). CIA consultation was also conducted by SCS in 2019 for a property 150.0 meters northwest of the current project area (two property parcels northwest along Beach Road)the project area with members of the Kamahele and Lui families. Table 5: Individuals Responses to CIA Consultation Request. Name Affiliation Responded Has Cultural Knowledge Practices Kalena Blakemore HIBC Representative Yes Some No Kamaile OHA East Hawaii No - - Puluole-Mitchell Sean Naleimaile SHPD Archaeologist No - - Jordan Kea Calpito SHPD Burial Sites Specialist Yes No - Greg DeConte Kamahele Family Member Yes Yes Yes Kenneth Ha Kamahele Family Member Yes Yes Yes Richard Ha Kamahele Family Member Yes Yes Yes June Ha Kamahele Family Member Yes Yes Yes Shayne Kamahele Kamahele Family Member Yes Yes Yes Darrell Pakele Kamahele Family Member Yes Yes Yes Puanani Mukai Sonny Kamahele's Caretaker Yes Yes Yes Ramon Lui Kea Family Descendant Yes Yes Yes Agnes Lui Kea Family Descendant Yes Yes Yes Nicole Lui Kea Family Descendant Yes Yes Yes KAMAHELE FAMILY CONSULTATION Members of the Kamahele and Lui `ohana were interviewed by SCS for an AIS study(Escott 2019b)two properties northwest (150 meters) of the current project area. The interviews were conducted to document cultural and historical information pertinent to the Kamahele property as well as in the broader area. The content of the interviews is pertinent to the current study given the close spatial relationship between the Kamahele property(Parcel 009) and the current project area (Parcels 026 & 027]. Consultation with the Kamahele `ohana was conducted at the property on Saturday April 27, 2019. Seven individuals, including Greg DeConte, Kenneth Ha, Richard Ha, June Ha, Shayne Kamahele, Puanani Mukai, and Darrell Pakele attended and 40 were interviewed. In addition, SCS Senior Archaeologist Glenn Escott spoke to Sheldon Kamahele at an earlier date on the property. The Historical land-use information gained from the interviews was largely specific to the Kamahele property at [TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 009]. However, this information provides some insight into Historic era habitation, farming, ranching, and fishing practices in the Puna District. The Kamahele `ohana grew citrus, bread fruit, taro, tomatoes, bananas, and watermelons on Parcel 009. The Kamahele `ohana also kept pigs and cows on the property. Family members remembered most fondly fishing and swimming along the shoreline. They remembered that there was a shallow spring along the northwest edge of the property that was dug out to make a shallow well with a pump. None of the family members were aware of any cultural practices, other than fishing, that occurred on the property or near Parcel 009. LUI FAMILY CONSULTATION Consultation with the Lui family was conducted at the property on Wednesday October 30, 2019. Mr. Ramon Lui, his wife Agnes and daughter Nicole were present. The Lui family is descended from Kea who first owned L.G. 1014. L.G. 1014 was a 56.4 acre property purchased in 1852. Parcel 009 is the southeast corner of the land grant. Nicole Lui spoke briefly about well-known cultural practices associated with Maku`u Ahupua`a, dark magic in particular. The people that lived in Muku`u were known to be accomplished practitioners of the "dark arts". Members of both families pointed out that Maku`u and P6p6k7i Ahupua`a are very far from Historic and Modern era population centers. It always seemed to take a long time driving along unpaved roads through the woods to arrive and that added to the feeling of being somewhere remote. Subsistence and some small scale commercial agriculture, ranching and fishing were commonly practiced in the area. Hala was abundant and was used to weave mats. The farm and ocean provided good subsistence and other necessary items could be purchased in town, either Pahoa or Kea`au. 41 SUMMARY The"level of effort undertaken" to identify potential effect by a project to cultural resources, places or beliefs (OEQC 1997)has not been officially defined and is left up to the investigator. A good faith effort can mean contacting agencies by letter, interviewing people who may be affected by the project or who know its history, research identifying sensitive areas and previous land use, holding meetings in which the public is invited to testify, notifying the community through the media, and other appropriate strategies based on the type of project being proposed and its impact potential. In the case of the present parcel, consultation was sought from Kamaile Puluole-Mitchell, Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)East Hawaii Island Representative; Jordan Kea Calpito, SHPD Burial Sites Specialist; Sean Naleimaile, State Historic Preservation Division(SHPD) Hawaii Island Archaeologist; and Kalena Blakemore, Hawaii Island Burial Council (HIBC) Member, and members of the Kamahele and Lui `ohana(see Table 5). Public notices were published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the Hawaii Tribune Herald, and The Office of Hawaiian Affairs Ka Wai Ola newspaper(Appendix A). Historical and cultural source materials were extensively used and can be found listed in the References Cited portion of the report. Scholars such as I`i, Kamakau, Chinen, Kame`eleihiwa, Fornander, Kuykendall, Kelly, Handy and Handy, Puku`i and Elbert, Thrum, and Cordy have contributed, and continue to contribute to our knowledge and understanding of Hawaii, past and present. The works of these and other authors were consulted and incorporated in the report where appropriate. Land use document research was supplied by the Waihona `Aina 2007 Data Base. Consultation with the Kamahele family pointed out that fishing, collecting `opihi, and collecting hala leaves for weaving mats took place in the wider region of Maku`u and Popoki Ahupua`a. Fishing and gathering of plant materials are both recognized traditional Hawaiian cultural practices. The vast majority of plants on the project area are non-native invasive species and there are no plants traditionally collected by Hawaiian people. Fishing and ocean resources collection access rights legally guarantee fishing and collection access up to ten feet above the high tide mark. 42 CIA INQUIRY RESPONSE As suggested in the"Guidelines for Accessing Cultural Impacts" (OEQC 1997), CIAs incorporating personal interviews should include ethnographic and oral history interview procedures, circumstances attending the interviews, as well as the results of this consultation. It is also permissible to include organizations with individuals familiar with cultural practices and features associated with the project area. As stated above, consultation was sought from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the SHPD Burial Sites Branch, the SHPD Archaeology Branch, families associated with Maku`u and Popoki Ahupua`a. Public notices were published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the Hawaii Tribune Herald, and the Ka Wai Ola. The public notices did not generate responses from the public. Based on the results of consultation regarding area land-use and cultural practices, there were no past or ongoing cultural practices identified for the project area parcels. There were cultural practices, namely fishing and gathering of ocean and plant resources, associated with the wider region of the project area. While the coastal portion of the property is cliff and makes ocean access difficult, the property owner has no intention to prevent ocean access and shall not prevent people from accessing the ocean to fish and to gather marine resources. An analysis of the potential effect of the proposed construction of a residential dwelling on cultural resources, practices or beliefs, its potential to isolate cultural resources, practices or beliefs from their setting, and the potential of the project to introduce elements which may alter the setting in which cultural practices take place is a requirement of the OEQC (No. 10, 1997). Based on historical research and the responses from the above listed contacts, it is reasonable to conclude that, as Hawaiian rights related to gathering, access or other customary activities are protected by law, and as the current project property owner will not prevent access, traditional cultural practices within the project area will not be affected and there will be no direct adverse effect upon cultural practices or beliefs. 43 CULTURAL ASSESSMEMNT Based on the results of an Archaeological Assessment of the project area, the results of previous archaeological studies, as well as organizational response, individual cultural informant responses, and archival research, it is reasonable to conclude that, pursuant to Act 50, the exercise of native Hawaiian rights, or any ethnic group, related to gathering, access or other customary activities will not be affected by development activities on this parcel. The property owner will not restrict shoreline access for fishing and gathering purposes, as is protected by law. No specific cultural activities were identified within the project area, and the proposed undertaking will not produce adverse effects to any native Hawaiian cultural practices. 44 REFERENCES CITED Athens, J., T. Reith, and T. Dye 2014 A paleoenvironmental and archaeological model-based age estimate for the colonization of Hawaii. American Antiquity, 79(4):144-55. Alexander, W.D. 1891 Interior Department Records. Subject File: Roads and Interior Department - Land Files. Cited in Maly 1999. Campbell, S.M. and P.M. Ogburn 2004 Register of the Puna Sugar Company/ `Ola`a Sugar Company, `Ola`a, Hawaii, 1897 - 1997. The Hawaiian Planters'Association Plantation Archives at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaiian Collections, Honolulu. http://www2.hawaii.edu/—speccoll/p_puna.html. Charvet-Pond, A., and P. Rosendahl 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey Vaughan Residential Parcel (TMK: 3-1- 5-10:29). Lands of Maku`u, Popoki, and Halona, Puna District, Island of Hawaii. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Report 1240-092093. Prepared for Susan Kay Vaughan, Kea`au, Hawaii. Clark, J. R. K. 1985 Beaches of the Big Island. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Chinen, J.J. 1961 Original Land Title in Hawaii. Published privately in Honolulu, Hawaii. Cordy, R. 2000 Exalted Sits the Chief. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Dircks Ah Sam, A. &B. Rechtman. 2013 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 0028, Popoka Ahupua`a, Puna District, Hawaii Island, Hawaii. ASM Affiliates, Inc., Hilo, HI. Donn, J.M. 1901 Hawaii Territory Survey, Hawaii Map. Dye, T. 2011 A model-based age estimate for Polynesian colonization of Hawaii. Archaeology in Oceania, 46:130-38. 45 Ellis, W. 1963 Journal of William Ellis. Honolulu Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd, Honolulu. Escott, G. 2019a An Archaeological Inventory Survey Report For a 13.436-Acre Property in Kea`au, Maku`u Ahupua`a, Puna District, Hawai`i Island, Hawai`i [TAM: (3) 1-5-010:0091. SCS Report#2340 prepared for Mr. Robert Garrett, Kea`au. 2019b A Cultural Impact Assessment For a 13.436-Acre Property in Kea`au, Maku`u Ahupua`a, Puna District, Hawai`i Island, Hawaii[TMK: (3) 1-5- 010:0091. SCS Report#2340 prepared for Mr. Robert Garrett, Kea`au. ESRI 2013 Arc GIS Explorer. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, Ca. Ewart,N. E. and M.L.K. Luscomb 1974 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Proposed Kapoho-Keaukaha Highway, District of Puna, Island of Hawai`i. For Sam O. Hirota, Inc. and Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii. Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Google Earth 2019 Google Earth Imagery. Google Earth. Mountain View, Ca. Hammatt, H.H. 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Kings Landing Subdivision, Kea`au, Puna, Island of Hawai`i. Report 14-141. For Hawaiian Paradise Park Corporation. Archaeological Research Center Hawai`i, Inc. Hudson, A.E. 1932 The Archaeology of East Hawai`i. MS, Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Hurst. G., and A. Schilz 1994 Archaeological Survey of the Kea`au Pdhoa Road, Kea`au Town Section, Project no. 130B-01-92, Puna, Hawaii[TMK: (3) 1-6-03]. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc., Honolulu. Kamakau, S.M. 1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. 46 Kahn, J., Rieth, P. Kirch, J. Athens, and G. Murakami 2014 Re-dating of the Kuli`ou`ou rockshelter, Oahu, Hawaii: Location of the first radiocarbon date from the Pacific Islands. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 123(1):67-90. Kelly, M., B. Nakamura, and Dorothy Barrere 1981 Hilo Bay:A Chronological History, Land and Water Use in the Hilo Bay Area, Island of Hawai`i, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kirch, P.V. 2011 When did the Polynesians settle Hawaii? A re-view of 150 years of scholarly inquiry and a tentative answer. Hawaiian Archaeology, 12:3-26. Kirch, P.V. and M. McCoy 2007 Reconfiguring the Hawaiian Cultural Sequence: Results of re-dating the Halawa dune site (MO-Al-3), Molokai Island. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:385-406. Kuykenddall, R.S. 1966 The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume II.• 1854-1874, Twenty Critical Years. University of Hawaii Press. Lass, Barbara 1997 Reconnaissance Survey Along the Old Government Road, Kea`au, Puna, Island ofHawai`i. Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai`i- Hilo, Hawaii. Loo, V.H. and W.J. Bonk 1970 A Historical Site Study and Evaluation of North Hawaii. Manuscript. Prepared by Anthropological Research International for Department of Planning, County of Hawaii. Lydgate, J.M. 1875 Map of Puna, Etc., Hawaii. Hawaiian Government Survey Map. Registered Map 0568. Maly, Kepa 1996 Historical Documentary Research and Oral History Interviews: Waiakea Cane Lots(12, 13, 17, 18, 19,20, and 20-A). Kumu Pono Associates,Hilo, Hawai'i. On file at State Historic Preservation Division,Kapolei,Hawaii. 47 1999 The Historical Puna Trail- Old Government Road(Kea`au Section) Archival-Historical Documentary Research, Oral History and Consultation Study, and Limited Site Preservation Plan Ahupua`a of Kea`au, Puna District, Island of Hawai`i. Copy on file at Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei, Hawaii. McEldowney, H. 1979a Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design: Lave Flow Control Study, Hilo, Hawai`i. For U.S. Army Engineers Division, Honolulu. Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 1979b Inventory of Archaeological and Historical Resources: Lava Flow Control Study, Hilo, Hawai`i. For U.S. Army Engineers Division, Honolulu. Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. McGerty, L., and R. Spear 2000 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed K.S.B.E. East Hawai`i Campus, Kea`au Ahupua`a, Puna District, Island of Hawai`i [TMX: 1-6-03:por. 121. Scientific Consultant Services, Inc., Honolulu. Mulrooney, M, S. Bickler, M. Allen, and T. Ladefoged 2011 High-precision dating of colonization and settlement in East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:E192-E194. National Geographic, Topo! 2003 Seamless USGS Topographic Maps on CD-ROM, Hawaii. National Geographic Holdings, Inc. Washington, D.C. OEQC 2010 Office of Environmental Quality Control OEQC Bulletin. Honolulu. Rieth, Timothy M., Terry L. Hunt, Carl Lipo, and Janet M. Wilmshurst 2011 The 13th Century Polynesian Colonization of Hawaii Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2740-2749. Sato, H, W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro 1973 Soil Survey of the Island of Hawaii, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, In Cooperation with the University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. Starr Environmental 2013 Botanical and Faunal Surveys in the State of Hawaii. Makawao. www.starrenvironmental.com. 48 Stokes, J.F.G. 1919 Heiaus of Hawaii. Manuscript Department of Anthropology. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Thrum, T. G. 1908 Heiau and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908, pages 38-47. Waihona Aina Corporation 2000 The Mahele Database, Waihona.com. Walker, A., K. Maly, and P. Rosendahl 1997 Historical and Archaeological Research for the Proposed Kea`au High School Site, Land of Kea`au, Puna District, Island of Hawai`i[TMK: 1-6- 03:por. of 3, 15, & 841. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc., Hilo. Wall, W. 1886 Map of the Island of Hawaii. Hawaiian Government Survey, Registered Map #1438. 1927 Map of Puna Forest Reserve. Hawaiian Territory Survey, Registered Map #2753. Wilkes Expedition 1841 Map of Part of the Island of Hawaii, Sandwich Islands. Registered Map 0424. Wilmhurst, J., T. Hunt, C. Lipo, and A. Anderson 2011a High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:1815-20. 201 lb Reply to Mulrrooney et al.: Accepting lower precision radiocarbon dates results in longer colonization chronologies for East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:E195. Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris 1994 Geological Map of the Island of Hawaii. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigations Series. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 49 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC NOTICES AND AFFIDAVITS 50 AFFIDAVIT OF]PUBLICATION IN THE MATTER OF I CULTURAL IMPACTASSF.SSMF.NT NOME-MAKUIJ } } } } } STATE OF HAWAII } 155. City sad couaay of I[oaolalu NOV 2 12019 Doc. Date: �Pages: 1 Notary Na MO;GOLLEE NE.soRA- FrarJudiclalCIrcuIt Doc. Description: Affidavit 01 3,osrs rer err� CULTURAL IMPACT FSSESSIIUR NO TICE Publication .� gQ ., - - ���...:...._.,R Inldlaletbri requested by sclerNllc consultant $#W4 ,bc.o!past and anon;oiltnl prad'xas on V N 191143 of Coastal Vak9'u Muyia'a.Puna Dkbkt NOV 21 2019 =�' NOTARY IsloM of Naaai-I,T.MK{311-&010:009,026 and V t PUBLIC = 02i Please wpord withln 30 days to Glens Escatl at Notary$goaarre Data t (&A 124SR94 11117.11,'20.1VZ1/19) No.90.263 + Lisa Snkak ids being duly 3wom.deposes and says That she is a clerk,duly �Y to execute ibis alrrdarit of Oahu Publications,Inc. blister ofThe I Ionalu�AF�p.•,� Pu �rrre3.n•s Star-Adreniscr,MrdW"k.The Garden Island.West H9wari Today,and Hawaii Tnburas-Haald,[hat said newspapers are newspapers of general cnculation in the S14 of Ifawaii and that ft attached notice is true notice as vas published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser 3 limes oa: 11117,11120,1112112019 MidWcek 0 times on: The Garden Island 0 times on: Hawaii Ttibulte-Herald 0 times on: West Hawaii Today 0 times Gm Othtr Publications: times on: And that atFani is root }a pally to or rn any way interested in the above entitled mattu. Lisa Sakakida so to and sworn before me this 21 day of I VQ'""r" ._AD,20A r .nirr a ern E Samnaka,Notary Public of the First Judicial Cirrdt My conunission expires:Ian 06 2020 Ad Il 0001245894 ;�, NOTARY PUBLIC = ICSP NO.: No.90.263 Of K November 2019 Honolulu Star-Advertiser Affidavit 51 IN THE MA'l I F:R i if } (Ytl.rilleAt.IMPACT ASSFW,!;:' M_4 K L �'-V.KVL } } } 3 STATE OF HAWAII } SS. City and County of Herrelata Doc. Date: NOV 212019 y Pages: 1 Notary NSMe.COLLEEN E.SORANAKA FTret ruuiicw CI rcuit Doc. Description: Affidavit of •EN'S SO',•• �y •, Publication ; , 9�• f NOTARY CUtTuaiL IMPACT 041 MME1fT N4TICE 21 2019 U PUBLIC Wmation mutated by Solendlic Consulltat * - Sel tc .Inc blut and o�Ix PAW a Notary 8lyriature Dare - legis a'ooaaiel Maku'u AdN lltiil lt? No.90-263 ! island 0 H*W'I,TNI,'i31 13-010108,(126 aid r' 021.:Pit*aqwW Wthin X days to Clam Mtt d '' [8L6}P7ti-0966. Lisa Sakakda being duly swam,deposes and says that she is a clerk,duly ku rQF". tE1fN124589i 11 17,11170,f l 111�19) to execute this affidavit of Oahu Puhllcatims,Inc publisher of The Honolulu Star-Advertiser,Mid Week,The Garden island,West Hawaii Today,and Hawaii Tnbune-Herald,that said newspapers are newspapers of general circulation in the State of Hawaii,and that the attactred notice is true notice as was publ ishcd itt the Honolulu Star-Advertiser 0 times on: Midweek 0 times on: The Garden]stand 0 timeson: Hawaii TFilxme•iferald 3 times on: 11117,11/20,11/2112019 West Hawaii Today 0 times on: Other Publications: 0 times on: And drat affiant is nota arty to or m anyway interested in the above entitled matter. Lisa Sakakida 6cd b�ud, e me this?f NoyeM irr .m)q beforaA Colleen E:.Saranakae hoary Public of the First Judicial Ctrim 4 81dtvofHwVii My eo mni$szon expires:Jan 06 2020 F_�^ •SEN........Q '••, Ad It OOD1245997 ' � IGSP NO.: U NOTARY PUBLIC No.90-263 - 1ST�� OF November 2019 Hawaii Tribune-Herald Affidavit 52 CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - MAKU`U AHUPUA`A, PUNA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAII Information requested by Sci- entific Consultant Services, Inc. of past and ongoing cultural prac- tices on lands of coastal Maku`u Ahupua`a, Puna District, Island of Hawaii, TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 026 and 027. Please respond within 30 days to Glenn Escott at (808) 938- 0968. March 2020 Ka Wai Ola Notice 53 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District at Maku`u Appendix E Comments and Response to Early Consultation Mitchell D.Roth +c c• Stephen M.Pause,P.E. Mayor Director tf � N�MO• �\ 4Tp O•F•M/•� Lee E.Lord Malia Kekai Managing Director Count laf�~a(] i t l* Deputy Director DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 7-Hilo,Hawaii 96720-4224 (808)961-8321 -Fax(808)961-8630 public works@hawaiicounty.gov October 18,2023 Land Planning Hawaii LLC Attn:John Pipan 194 Wiwoole St. Hilo,HI 96720 (via email to john@landplanninghawaii.com) SUBJECT: EARLY CONSULTATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PUNA DISTRICT,ISLAND OF HAWAII TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026;027 Upon further review,the drainage study comment provided in our previous comment letter sent to Kern and Associates,dated June 2,2020,is not applicable for the subject scope of work. This letter shall supersede the previous comment letter. 1. The subject parcel is in an area designated as Flood Zone X and VE on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). Flood Zone X is an area determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. Flood Zone VE is the Special Flood Hazard Area inundated by the 100- year coastal flood(I%chance of occurring in any given year)with velocity hazard(wave action). All construction within Flood Zone VE shall comply with the requirements of Hawaii County Code,Chapter 27,Floodplain Management. 2. All earthwork activities including grading,grubbing,and stockpiling shall conform to Chapter 10,Erosion and Sedimentary Control,of the Hawaii County Code. Agricultural operations may qualify for a conservation program with the applicable soil and water conservation district. An approved conservation program would be an exclusion to Chapter 10. 3. Access to the subject property is via Government Beach Road which is classified as a"road-in-limbo'. Although there is access through this Right-of-Way,it has not been maintained by any government entity in recent years. Furthermore,there is no assurance that it will ever be subject to such maintenance. Should there be any questions concerning this matter,please contact Bryce Harada of the Engineering Division at (808)961-8042. Fes• ALAN K. THOMPSON, Division Chief Engineering Division BH County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. t1,0!h Harry Kim Paul K.Ferreira Mayor Police Chief Kenneth Bugado Jr. Deputy Police Chief County of Hawaii POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapiolani Street • Hilo,Hawaii 96720-3998 (808)935-3311 • Fax(808)961-8865 July 1, 2020 Mr. Zendo Kern Pbanning Consultant Kern & Associates 194 Wiwoole Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Kern: Subject: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District, Maku'u, Puna, Hawaii; Tax Map Key: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Upon reviewing the provided document(s), staff does not anticipate any significant impact to traffic and/or public safety concerns. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact Captain John Briski, Puna District Commander, at (808) 965-2716. Sincerely, r J B. (ZrRR-0-R-7'- 10SISTALICE CHIEF REA I OPERATIONS BUREAU JB:IIi/20HQ0435 "Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer" 6/24/2020 TMK(3)1-5-010:026 and(3)1-5-010:027 TMK (3 )1-5-010:026 and (3) 1-5-010:027 KA kathyk@oha.org Wed, 24 Jun 2020 2:04:04 PM -1000 To "info@zendokern.com" <info@zendokern.com> cc "Kamakana Ferreira" <kamakanaf@oha.org> Tags O Security O TLS Learn more Aloha Zendo, The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)is in receipt of your letter of June 2, 2020 regarding an early consultation for an environmental assessment for the property located in the ahupua`a of Pbpbki, Maku'u, Halo in Puna. OHA apologizes for the late response. The project's plan includes the construction of a single family residence on each property, water system, and landscaping. According to your letter a cultural impact assessment determined that no cultural sites or practices would be affected. OHA is requesting a copy of the CIA to review as there is not sufficient information to determine there will be no adverse effects. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Mahalo, Kathy Kathryn Keala Compliance Specialist Office of Hawaiian Affairs 560 N. Nimitz Hwy., Suite 200, Honolulu, HI 96817 Phone: (808) 594-0272 E-mail: kathyk@oha.org OFFICE OFH OMIANAFFAIRS 1/1 Cw4�D,yATh {A 19 �as DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAII .....-���` 345 KEKUANAO'A STREET, SUITE 20 • HILO, HAWAII 96720 OF HAWA�l TELEPHONE (808)961-8050 - FAX(808)961-8657 June 19, 2020 Mr. Zendo Kern Kern & Associates 194 Wiwoole Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Kern: Subject: Pre-Environmental Assessment Consultation for Proposed Single-Family Residences within Conservation District Tax Map Key 1-5-010:026 and 027 This is in response to your letter dated June 2, 2020. The subject parcel is not within the service limits of the Department's existing water system facilities. We do not have any comments regarding environmental issues to offer at this time. Should there be any questions,please contact Mr. Ryan Quitoriano of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 256. Sincerely yours, 6VM* Keith K. Okamoto, P.E. Manager-Chief Engineer RQ:dfg . . . Nater, Our_%lost Precious Resource. . . Ka Wai A Kane. . . The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. 6/22/2020 early EA consultation-Pastorek(TMK 1-5-010-026&027) early EA consultation - Pastorek (TMK 1-5-010-026 & 027) FM Mary.Fujio@hawaiicounty.gov Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:26:24 AM -1000 To "info@zendokern.com" <info@zendokern.com> Tags 0 Security 0 TLS Learn more Re: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single- Family Residences in the Conservation District Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii TMK (3) 1-5-010:026 and 027 Good morning - Our department received your June 2, 2020, letter seeking comments on the above project. Our Wastewater Division and Solid Waste Division say they have no comments. Thank you. Mary E. Fujio Private Secretary to William Kucharski, Director and Diane Noda, Deputy Director Department of Environmental Management County of Hawaii 345 Kekuanao`a Street, Suite 41 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 961-8099 1/1 I 6 O,F 'h SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID Y.IGE .cP Iggg k',9' CHAIRPERSON GOVERNOR OF HAWAII h BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE f MANAGEMENT nE hand and Nd l s ,FC 0 STATE OF HAWAII srdreofHawaa DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 July 1, 2020 Kern &Associates Attn: Zendo Kern via email: info(a-_)zendokern.com 194 Wiwoole Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Kern: SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District located at Maku'u, Puna, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026 & 027 on behalf of Ryan Pastorek Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. The Land Division of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) distributed or made available a copy of your request pertaining to the subject matter to DLNR's Divisions for their review and comments. At this time, enclosed are comments from the (a) Engineering Division and (b) Land Division — Hawaii District on the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Darlene Nakamura at (808) 587-0417 or email: darlene.k.nakamura(a_)hawaii.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Russell T,-Oi Russell Y. Tsuji Land Administrator Enclosures cc: Central Files tE.9Z,h,0 SUZANNE U.CASE P W O IGE CHAIRPERSON DAVID �r Iasa ':'� GOVERNOR OF HAWAII 9r BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES f COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE j MANAGEMENT nd and °t V It 1 i Al a r+� '• 0 STATE OF HAWAII Srareot a a` DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96509 June 6, 2020 MEMORANDUM FROM: DLNR Agencies: X Div. of Aquatic Resources (kendall.l.tuckerahawaii.goy) _Div. of Boating &Ocean Recreation _LEngineering Division (DLNR.ENGR(dhawaii.aov) X Div. of Forestry &Wildlife (rubyrosa.r.terraao(oDhawaii.aov) _Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR.CWRM(a.hawaii.aov) X Office of Conservation &Coastal Lands (sharleen.k.kuba(ahawaii.aov) X Land Division—Hawaii District (aordon.c.heit(Qhawaii.aov) X Historic Preservation (DLNR.Intake.SHPD(a.hawaii.gov) TO: Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator Russett TsuJi SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District LOCATION: Maku'u, Puna, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 1-5-101:026 &027 APPLICANT: Kern &Associates on behalf of Ryan Pastorek Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced subject matter. Please submit comments by July 1, 2020. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura at 587-0417 or by email at darlene.k.nakamuraahawaii.aov. Thank you. ( ) We have no objections. ( ) We have no comments. (V Comments are attached. Signed: A' y Print Name: Carty S. Chang, Chief Engineer Date: Jun 16, 2020 Attachments cc: Central Files DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING DIVISION LD/Russell Y. Tsuji Ref: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District TMK(s): (3) 1-5-010:026&027 Location: Maku'u,Puna,Island of Hawaii Applicant: Kern &Associates on behalf of Ryan Pastorek COMMENTS The rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations(44CFR), are in effect when development falls within a Special Flood Hazard Area(high risk areas). State projects are required to comply with 44CFR regulations as stipulated in Section 60.12. Be advised that 44CFR reflects the minimum standards as set forth by the NFIP. Local community flood ordinances may stipulate higher standards that can be more restrictive and would take precedence over the minimum NFIP standards. The owner of the project property and/or their representative is responsible to research the Flood Hazard Zone designation for the project. Flood Hazard Zones are designated on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), which can be viewed on our Flood Hazard Assessment Tool (FHAT)(http://gis.hawaiinflp.org/FHAT). If there are questions regarding the local flood ordinances, please contact the applicable County NFIP coordinating agency below: o Oahu: City and County of Honolulu,Department of Planning and Permitting (808) 768-8098. o Hawaii Island: County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works(808)961-8327. o Maui/Molokai/Lanai County of Maui, Department of Planning(808)270-7253. o Kauai: County of Kauai, Department of Public Works (808) 241-4896. Signed: x 22 CA Y 5. CHANG, CHIEF ENGINEER Date: Jun 16, 2020 SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID Y.IGE aP+,�aSa� CHAIRPERSON GOVERNOR OF HAWAII A�' BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE ! MANAGEMENT q i �and N STATE OF HAWAII srdteofHal*" DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU.HAWAII 96809 June 6, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: DLNR Agencies: X Div. of Aquatic Resources (kendall.l.tucker(&hawaii.gov) _Div. of Boating &Ocean Recreation X Engineering Division (DLNR.ENGRO-hawaii.gov) X Div. of Forestry &Wildlife (rubyrosa.r.terrago�hawaii.gov) _Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR.CWRM@hawaii.gov) X Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands(sharleen.k.kuba0hawaii.gov) 71-and Division—Hawaii District(gordon.c.heitCcl7_hawaii.gov� X Historic Preservation (DLNR.Intake.SHPD(ahawaii.gov] FROM: Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator Rus501175 ji SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District LOCATION: Maku'u, Puna, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 1-5-101:026 & 027 APPLICANT: Kern &Associates on behalf of Ryan Pastorek Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced subject matter. Please submit comments by July 1, 2020. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura at 587-0417 or by email at dariene.k.nakamura(&hawaii.gov. Thank you. ( ) We have no objections. We have no comments. ( ) Comments are attached. Signed: Print Name: :� G Date: Attachments cc: Central Files SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID Y.IGE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNOR OF HAWAII BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ok,ard and Nat C d/ o Fe P o a 0 STATE OF HAWAII Srdre of Hama` DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 July 10, 2020 Kern &Associates Attn: Mr. Zendo Kern via email: i nfo(a)ze ndo kern.com 194 Wiwoole Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Kern: SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District located at Maku'u, Puna, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026 & 027 on behalf of Ryan Pastorek Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. In addition to our previous comments dated July 1, 2020, enclosed are comments from the (a) Division of Aquatic Resources, (b) Division of Forestry & Wildlife, and (c) Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands on the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Darlene Nakamura at (808) 587-0417 or email: darlene.k.nakamura(a�hawaii.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Russell Tsuji Russell Y. Tsuji Land Administrator Enclosures cc: Central Files SE.O F Mq SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID Y.IGE •cP�;rasa�'y CHAIRPERSON GOVERNOR OF HAWAII °fit' BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES i COMMISSION ON RATER RESOURCE f I MANAGEMENT oVand and '�ar l a t '_ c D :,ni1 0 STATE OF HAWAII Srare of Ha`+faP DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 June 6, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: DLNR Agencies: X Div. of Aquatic Resources (kendall.l.tucker(a�hawaii.gov) _Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation X Engineering Division (DLNR.ENGR(@hawaii.gov) X Div. of Forestry &Wildlife (rubyrosa.r.terrago(a)hawaii.gov) _Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR.CWRM(a-)-hawaii.gov) X Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands (sharleen.k.kubaQ_hawaii.gov) X Land Division — Hawaii District (gordon.c.heit @,hawaii.gov) X Historic Preservation (DLNR.Intake.SHPDCc)_hawaii.gov) FROM: Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator Russell Tsui SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District LOCATION: Maku'u, Puna, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 1-5-101:026 & 027 APPLICANT: Kern &Associates on behalf of Ryan Pastorek Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced subject matter. Please submit comments by July 1, 2020. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura at 587-0417 or by email at darlene.k.nakamura(a)hawaii.gov. Thank you. ( ) We have no objections. (X ) We have no comments. ( ) Comments are attached. Signed: Print Name: Brian J.Neilson-DAR Administrator Date: Jul 1,2020 Attachments cc: Central Files DAVID Y.IGE SUZANNE D.CASE 0 v"• F - ubVRPERSON (iUVERNOR OF (E N BOARD OE I AND AND NATURAL RESOURCES HAWAIIXPi d~i959 y.•yk� CO%UUSSION ON NATER RESOURCE MANAC.ENIIXF ft ROBERT K.MASUDA t, •. FIRST DEPUTY and M.KALEO MANUEL FyC` d/ Six" �.y x•t J DEPUTY DIRECTOR-WATER A J AQUATIC RESOURCES '1 f/ BOAT INGANDUCEANRECREATION O N - BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES ___.._.✓"y COAR.USSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEATFNF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS STATE OF HAWAII CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORa7aDM DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE IISTORIC PRESERVATION Srdre oiHsyaTi DIVISION OF AQUATIC RESOURCES Y-MIOGLAWT ISLAND RESFRVF CONMUSSION LAND 1 IS I PUNCHBOWL STREET,ROOM 330 STATE PARKS HONOLULU,HAWAII 96813 Date: 07/01/20 DAR#CV0023 MEMORANDUM TO: Brian J. Neilson DAR Administrator FROM: Troy Sakihara �� , Aquatic Biologist Request for Review of Proposed Single Family Residences in the SUBJECT: Conservation District Request Submitted by: Russell Y. Tsuji,Administrator, Land Division Maku'u,Puna,Island of Hawai'i,TMK:(3)1-5-101:026 and 027 Location of Project: Brief Description of Project: Applicants, Ken and Associates on behalf of Ryan Pastorek, are proposing to consolidate two adjacent properties and re-subdivide said properties by moving the dividing property line to the north, which is to lessen disturbance to the more heavily vegetated property (027). Two single family residences are proposed with a shoreline setback no less than 150 feet. The proposed outlined activities do not pose an immediate concern regarding localized impacts to aquatic or marine habitats. Comments: p No Comments ❑ Comments Attached Thank you for providing DAR the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. Should there be any changes to the project plan, DAR requests the opportunity to review and comment on those changes. �' Comments Approved: Date: J u 11,2020 Brian J. Neilson DAR Administrator SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID Y.IGE ap:�G Sa .y'� CHAIRPERSON GOVERNOR OF HAWAIIy1' BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCESOM ?ff COMMISSION ON RATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT �F¢c`oSvynd STATE OF HAWAII SlateDEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 June 6, 2020 Log No. 2687 MEMORANDUM TO: DLNR Agencies: X Div. of Aquatic Resources (kendall.l.tucker(aD-hawaii.gov) Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation X Engineering Division (DLNR.ENGR(a)hawaii.gov) X Div. of Forestry &Wildlife (rubyrosa.r.terrago(a)hawaii.gov) _Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR.CWRM(o-)-hawaii.gov) X Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands (sharleen.k.kuba(a-)-hawaii.gov) X Land Division - Hawaii District (gordon.c.heit(a_hawaii.gov) X Historic Preservation (DLNR.Intake.SHPD(a)hawaii.gov) FROM: Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator Russell Tsuji SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District LOCATION: Maku'u, Puna, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 1-5-101:026& 027 APPLICANT: Kern & Associates on behalf of Ryan Pastorek Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced subject matter. Please submit comments by July 1,2020. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura at 587-0417 or by email at darlene.k.nakamura(a-hawaii.gov. Thankyou. ( ) We have no objections. ( ) We have no comments. (� Comments are attached. Signed: —0 Print Name: DAVID G. SMITH, Administrator Date: Jul 1, 2020 Attachments cc: Central Files SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID V.IGE <6 or qh, BOARD OF LANDCHAIRPERSOORAI.RESOURCES GOVERNOR OF HAWAII ,fir Y 1959. 1 COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ROBERT K MASUDA ,kc i FTRSTDEPUTY M.KALEO MANUEL 4O s DEPUTY DIRECTOR-WATER 6/ AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION - BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGMUNT STATE OF HAWAII IfAV/Ali CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION EN ANG ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE FORESTRYISTOORIPARFNSERVATION 1151 PUNCHBOWL STREET,ROOM 325 KAHONAWEISLAND RESERVE CONMISSION LAND HONOLULU,HAWAII 96813 STATE PARKS June 30; 2020 Log no. 2687 MEMORANDUM TO: RUSSELL Y. TSUJI,Administrator Land Division FROM: DAVID G. SMITH, Administrator Division of Forestry and Wildlife SUBJECT: Division of Forestry and Wildlife Comments on the Early Consultation for the Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District in Puna,Hawaii The Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife(DOFAW)has received your inquiry regarding review of the early consultation for the Environmental Assessment for a proposed single family residences in the conservation district in Puna on the island of Hawaii,TMKs: (3) 1-5-101:026 and 027.The proposed project includes constructing two single- family residences, a driveway for both homes, individual wastewater systems, primarily native Hawaiian and Polynesian landscaping and selective trimming and clearing of non-native vegetation. The State listed Hawaiian Hawk or `Io (Buten solitarius) is known to occur in the project vicinity. DOFAW recommends surveying the area to ensure no Hawaiian Hawk nests are present if trees are to be cut. `Io nests might be present during the breeding season from March to September. The State listed Hawaiian Hoary Bat or `Ope`ape`a(Lasiurus cinereus semotus)has the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project area and may roost in nearby trees. If any site clearing is required this should be timed to avoid disturbance during the bat birthing and pup rearing season (June I through September 15). If this cannot be avoided, woody plants greater than 15 feet(4.6 meters)tall should not be disturbed, removed, or trimmed without consulting DOFAW. To prevent the spread of Rapid `Ohi`a Death (ROD), if 16hi`a trees are present and will be removed, trimmed, or potentially injured DOFAW requests that the information and guidance at the following website be reviewed and followed: https://cros.ctahr.hawaii.edu/rod. DOFAW recommends minimizing the movement of plant or soil material between worksites,such as in fill. Soil and plant material may contain invasive fungal pathogens(e.g.Rapid `Ohi`a Death), vertebrate and invertebrate pests(e.g. Little Fire Ants), or invasive plant parts that could harm our native species and ecosystems. We recommend consulting the Big Island Invasive Species Committee at (808) 933-3340 in planning, design, and construction of the project to learn of any high-risk invasive species in the area and ways to mitigate spread. All equipment, materials, and personnel should be cleaned of excess soil and debris to minimize the risk of spreading invasive species. Gear that may contain soil,such as work boots and vehicles,should be thoroughly cleaned with water and sprayed with 70% alcohol solution to prevent the spread of Rapid `Ohi`a Death and other harmful fungal pathogens. We appreciate your intent to incorporate native plants in your landscaping. We recommend that you refer to www.plantpono.org for guidance on selection and evaluation for landscaping plants. We note that artificial lighting can adversely impact seabirds that may pass through the area at night by causing disorientation. This disorientation can result in collision with manmade artifacts or grounding of birds. For nighttime lighting that might be required, DOFAW recommends that all lights be fully shielded to minimize impacts. Nighttime work that requires outdoor lighting should be avoided during the seabird fledging season from September 15 through December 15. This is the period when young seabirds take their maiden voyage to the open sea. For illustrations and guidance related to seabird-friendly light styles that also protect the dark, starry skies of Hawaii please visit: https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/files/2016/03/DOC439.pdf. We appreciate your efforts to work with our office for the conservation of our native species. Should the scope of the project change significantly, or should it become apparent that threatened or endangered species may be impacted,please contact our staff as soon as possible. If you have any questions,please contact Lauren Taylor, Protected Species Habitat Conservation Planning Coordinator at(808) 587-0010 or lauren.tavlorghawaii.gov. Sincerely, DAVID G. SMITH Administrator ` . SUZANNE uCASE DAVID Y.ms m^mPEmo GOVERNOR OF HAWAII BOARD onLAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES _ COMMISSION vwWATER RESOURCE x^w^^"=mmr 01 i QFF}CE0� �')A�ERYpti|6h AN3CJ��7�iL�NG� STATE OF HAWAII =y8w8 ~Q~^ | O 2- 32 44te a H;W� DEPARTMENT mpLAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX oz1 HAWAII vmo June 8, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: DLNIRAgencies: XDiv. ofAquatic Resources ___Oiv. ofBoating & Ocean Recreation XEngineering Division X Div. ofForestry &Wildlife —Div. of State Parks X Commission onWater Resource Management % Office ofConservation & Coastal Lands / \ )( Land Division – Hawaii District }( Historic Preservation FROM: Russell Y. Tsuji, LandAdminiotratorRuzO#754ji SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences inthe Conservation District LOCATION: Maku'u. Puna. Island of Hawaii; TK8K: /3> 1-5'101:026 & 027 APPLICANT: Kern &Associates onbehalf ofRyan Pamtonek Transmitted for your review and nonnnnand is information on the above-referenced subject matter. Please submit comments byJuly 1, 2020. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. |fyou have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura ot587'O417or byemail ot . Thank you. / \ VVahave noobjections. / VVahave nocomments. (V\ Comments h Signed: Print Name: Date: JUL 6 2020 Attachments -- Attachnnento SUZANNE D.CASE HAIRPERSON DAVID Y.IGE 't, O•^••yBOARD OF LANDAI� NATURAL REsoURCEs GOVERNOR OF HAWAII P..A d,t 9 59.v'11 COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT yr tN, ROBERT K.MASUDA q L PELSTDEPUTY GE�ynd and M.KALEO MANUEL DEPUTYDRiECTOR-WATER t�-_ ��o .1• ` .•°C}� AQUA-17C RESOURCES Q '4 BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION p QA'®,YdE]•ps BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS STATE OF HAWAII CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WB.DLD'E State of Harte° DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAM RESERVE COMMISSION OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDSLAND STATE PARKS POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 ref OCCL:RB Correspondence HA-20-177 Zendo Kern JUL — 6 2920 Kern&Associates 194 Wiwoole St. Hilo,Hawaii 96720 SUBJECT: Early Consultation for the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment(EA)to for Lot Consolidation and Re-subdivision and Construction of a Single-Family Residence on each re-subdivided parcel Located at Maku`u,Puna,Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026&027 Dear Mr.Kern, Thank you for your early consultation correspondence regarding the preparation of an EA. The rules and regulations regarding Environmental Impact Statement Rules are noted as Hawaii Administrative Rules, §I I- 200.1. The subject properties lie in the Resource subzone of the Conservation District. Your client proposes to consolidate and re-subdivide two parcels and then build an SFR on each re- subdivided parcel. The consolidation and re-subdivision of land is an identified land use that could be applied for pursuant to the HAR §13-5-22 P-10 SUBDIVISION OR CONSOLIDATION OR PROPERTY (C-1), consolidation and resubdivision into an equal number of lots that does not result in increased density. Please note that, per Correspondence HA 20-142, the OCCL is unlikely to support or authorize an application to subdivide and consolidate the parcels. The OCCL notes that (1) both lots appear to be sufficiently sized to build a single-family home and (2) the more vegetated parcel was cleared in the past and is now primarily covered in non-native or alien vegetation(to be confirmed by a biological survey on the property). A single-family residence is an identified land use that could be applied for pursuant to the HAR § 13-5-24 R-7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE(D-1), a single-family residence that conforms to the design standards as outlined in this chapter. The OCCL would like to reiterate, per Correspondence HA 20-142, that the Board of Land and Natural Resources may consider a single CDUA for one SFR on one of the lots where the applicant has indicated that the home will be their primary residence. The HAR § 13-5, Exhibit 4 are SFR standards. A portion of both properties appear to be located in a special flood hazard area, Zone VE, and the rest of both properties appear to be in Zone X. A certified shoreline setback shall be established, and shoreline setback calculated by the shoreline setback calculation in Exhibit 4. Please refer to Exhibit 4 for additional SFR requirements, such as maximum developable area compatibility provisions. A single-family residence shall not be used for rental or any other commercial purposes unless approved by the board. Transient rentals are prohibited. Additionally proposed is landscaping and selective trimming and/or clearing of non-native vegetation on less than one acre of the subject properties. Landscaping is an identified land use pursuant to HAR§ 13-5-23 and is based on the proposed square feet of landscaping for each parcel;thus, L-2 LANDSCAPING(C-1) or(D- Zendo Kern Correspondence HA-20-177 Kern&Associates 1) may be appropriate for both lots. L-2 LANDSCAPING (C-1)/(D-1) , landscaping (including clearing, grubbing, and tree removal), including chemical and mechanical control methods, in accordance with state and federal laws and regulations, in an area of less than 10,000 feet (for C-I)/in an area of or more than 10,000 square feet (for D-1). Any replanting shall be appropriate to the site location and shall give preference to plant materials that are endemic or indigenous to Hawaii. The introduction of invasive species is prohibited. The proposed land uses require the filing of a Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) and all required attachments such as an Environmental Assessment; the filing of an HRS, 6E Intake Form for historic compliance; and Special Management Area determination. To allow, modify or deny the proposed land use would be at the discretion of the Board-of Land and Natural Resources. The draft Environmental Assessment(EA) should site and describe all improvements for the proposal. This would include the proposed residence, access, utilities, landscaping and any other proposed work including trenching, and grading. The Hawaii Sea Level Rise Viewer, found at htips://www.pacioos.hawaii.edu/shoreline/slr-hawaii/, shows coastal areas of both properties being impacted by sea level rise; the EA should also address sea level rise and its potential impacts to proposed improvements. Additionally, alternatives that may include other possible sites for the residence or other alternatives should be included with the EA. Proposed mitigation and best management practices before, during and after the proposed construction should be described. For all proposed landscaping, preference shall be given to native, indigenous, and endemic species. The introduction of invasive plant species is prohibited in the Conservation District. Attached is Correspondence HA-20-142 for your reference. The HAR, Chapter 13-5 known as the rules and regulations of the Conservation District is available on our website at dlnr.hawaii/occl.com. Should you have any questions,pl a to contact Rachel Beasley at Rachel.e.beasley@hawaii. og_v or 808-798-6481 (work cell). mcere y, Samuel J.Lemmo,A 1 'strator Office of Conservation an Coastal Lands att:COR:HA-20-142 cc:County of Hawaii,Planning Department 2 DAVID Y.IGE SUZANNE D.CASE GOVERNOR OF •(�•..O•...�!.O� BOARD OFLAND AND CHAIRPERSON HAWAII - �P,.+'•5959 ''•t9 COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT i ROBERT K MASUDA ` FIRST DEPUTY Eland and Ndt DEPUTY LEO DIRECTOORNWAIM v NOc �'.,• '�.J g AQUATIC RESOURCES 'P."••......,...•,".d.4 BOATRIG AND OCEAN RECREATION p u �•®•vj)•�r- BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS STATE OF HAWAII CONSERVATION ANDENGINEERING k7iEURCEA47T1 .- INGRIEERWG FORESTRY AND WRDLWE State0 Hama\\ DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES KAH��TO"),��RVAT PRESERVATION LAND OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS STATE PARKS POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 REF: OCCL: TF COR: HA-20-142 Zendo Kern, Planning Consultant W1.AR 1 Kern&Associates 194 Wiwoole St. Hilo, HI 96720 SUBJECT: Request for Comment. Early-Consultation for CDUA/EA Located 15-2193 Government Beach Road, Makuu&Keonepoko Nui, Puna,Hawaii TMK(s): (3) 1-5-010:026 &027 Dear Mr. Kern: The Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) is in receipt of your correspondence and attachments regarding the subject matter. According to the information you provided, your client Mr. Ryan Pastorek is the owner of the above referenced Tax Map Keys (TMK). The subject properties are approximately 7.45 and 2.73 acres and both parcels lie within the Resource Subzone of the State Land Use Conservation District as well as the Special Management Area (SMA)' Your letter notes that Mr. Pastorek proposes to consolidate and re-subdivide the parcels by moving the lot line of the parcel with the TMK: (3) 1-5-010:027 to the north which will allow for a lesser impact on the more heavily vegetated parcel (parcel 27) and will not result in an increase in density. Mr. Pastorek then plans to build a single-family residence on each of the adjacent parcels in conformance with Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), §13-5-41 and Exhibit 4 Single Family Residential Standards. One of the single-family residences will be intended for Mr. and Mrs. Pastorek and the other single-family residence will be used for family members. The preliminary planning for the project indicates that associated infrastructure for the single-family residences will include: a single driveway serving both homes, a well for drinking water, Individual Wastewater Systems approved by the Department of Health, and site appropriate landscaping. On behalf of Mr. Pastorek, Kern & Associates intends to prepare one (1) Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP) application and Environmental Assessment (EA) encompassing the above listed uses taken together as a single project. Kern & Associates would also like to confirm that REF: OCCL: TF COR: HA-20-142 Mr. Zendo Kern, Planning Consultants Kern&Associates should additional time be required for implementation beyond the usual three (3) year deadline, that it would be supported by OCCL. The OCCL regulates land uses within the Conservation District through the issuance of permits and Site Plan Approvals. The OCCL notes that the parcels with the TMKs: (3) 1-5-010:026 & (3) 1-5-010:027 appear to be in the Resource Subzone of the State Land Use Conservation District. The OCCL would like to remind Mr. Pastorek and Kern & Associates that pursuant to HAR, §13-5-1, the purpose of the State Land Use Conservation District is to conserve, protect, and preserve the important natural and cultural resources of the State through appropriate management and use to promote their long-term sustainability and the public health,.safety, welfare. Furthermore, the objective of the Resource Subzone of the State Land Use Conservation District is to ensure, with proper management, the sustainable use of the natural resources of those areas pursuant to HAR, §13-5-13. After reviewing your letter and attachment, Mr. Pastorek may apply to consolidate and re- subdivide the parcels with the TMKs: (3) 1-5-010:026 and (3) 1-5-010:027; however, it is unlikely that the OCCL will support or authorize this application. It appears that both parcels are sufficient size to build a single-family residence pursuant to HAR, §13-5-41 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES and Exhibit 4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. A previous owner of the parcel with the TMK: (3) 1-5-010:027 indicated to OCCL that the lot had been at one time cleared and is now primarily covered in non-native or alien vegetation. This will have to be confirmed by a biological survey of the property. Additionally, it does not appear that the consolidation and re-subdivision would serve a public purpose as well. Based on the above, the OCCL does not see a need for a subdivision and re-consolidation. The Board of Land and Natural Resources may look favorably upon a single CDUP application for one (1) single-family residence on one of the lots where the applicant has indicated that the home will be their primary residence and there is no evidence or suggestion of real estate speculation. Should Mr. Pastorek like to move forward with a CDUP application for a single- family residence, this is an identified land use in the Resource Subzone of the Conservation District that may be applied for pursuant to HAR, §13-5-24, R-7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (D-1) a single family residence that conforms to design standards as outlined in this chapter.' This requires filing a Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) for a Board Permit. Since the parcels are shoreline properties, the application will need to follow the developmental standards and procedures as well as include the attachments. described in HAR, §13-5 with regards to single-family residences in the coastal environment. It would also appear that a Well Permit from the Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM)may need to be obtained for the project. The OCCL would like to see evidence of early consultation with CWRM regarding permits they might require for the project in the CDUA and Draft Environmental Assessment as well as from other relevant agencies. The decision to allow, modify, or deny the proposed land use would be at the discretion of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. The OCCL will accept one(1)CDUA for a single-family residence from Mr.Pastorek on a parcel of his choosing. 2 REF: OCCL: TF COR: HA-20-142 Mr. Zendo Kern, Planning Consultants Kern&Associates To address your request with regards to OCCL supporting additional time to complete a project in the State Land Use Conservation District, the OCCL does not give preliminary authorizations for time extension requests, especially on proposed projects for which no applications has been received nor Departmental or Board approval been given. Pursuant to HAR, §13-5-43, time extensions on CDUPs are discretionary. Initial time extensions are determined by the chairperson on a case by case basis supported by documentation from the applicant that demonstrates some sort of hardship or delay in initiating work on a particular project. Moreover, the applicant should demonstrate that the hardship or delay has not been self-imposed and that some good faith effort has been made to undertake the project. For these reasons, the OCCL will not offer its support for a preliminary time extension request on a proposed project nor consider amending this standard condition of a prospective CDUP. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Trevor Fitzpatrick of the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands at 587-0373. Sy, JL d inistrator Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands CC: Chairperson Commission on Water Resource Management Hawaii District Land Division Office County of Hawaii, Planning Department 3 Mg19 os ht_ Harry Kim gyp' '_ 4` Paul K.Ferreira Mayor Police Chief �J Kenneth Bugado Jr. Deputy Police Chief County of Hawaii POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapiolani Street • Hilo,Hawaii 96720-3998 (808)935-3311 • Fax(808)961-8865 July 1, 2020 Mr. Zendo Kern Pbanning Consultant Kern & Associates 194 Wiwoole Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Kern: Subject: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District, Maku'u, Puna, Hawaii; Tax Map Key: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Upon reviewing the provided document(s), staff does not anticipate any significant impact to traffic and/or public safety concerns. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact Captain John Briski, Puna District Commander, at (808) 965-2716. Sincerely, J B. 'AOR` SISTAN POLICE CHIEF REA I OPERATIONS BUREAU JB:IIi/20HQ0435 "Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer" 6/24/2020 TMK(3)1-5-010:026 and(3)1-5-010:027 TMK (3 )1-5-010:026 and (3) 1-5-010:027 KA kathyk@oha.org Wed, 24 Jun 2020 2:04:04 PM -1000 To "info@zendokern.com" <info@zendokern.com> cc "Kamakana Ferreira" <kamakanaf@oha.org> Tags O Security O TLS Learn more Aloha Zendo, The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)is in receipt of your letter of June 2, 2020 regarding an early consultation for an environmental assessment for the property located in the ahupua`a of Pbpbki, Maku'u, Halo in Puna. OHA apologizes for the late response. The project's plan includes the construction of a single family residence on each property, water system, and landscaping. According to your letter a cultural impact assessment determined that no cultural sites or practices would be affected. OHA is requesting a copy of the CIA to review as there is not sufficient information to determine there will be no adverse effects. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Mahalo, Kathy Kathryn Keala Compliance Specialist Office of Hawaiian Affairs 560 N. Nimitz Hwy., Suite 200, Honolulu, HI 96817 Phone: (808) 594-0272 E-mail: kathyk@oha.org OFFICE OFH OMIANAFFAIRS 1/1 V�0.N Ci Harry Kim David Yamamoto,P.E. Mayor Director v Wil Okabe *�of"► Allan G.Simeon,P.E. Managing Director Deputy Director hT tu'llunk DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 7 Hilo,Hawaii 96720-4224 (808)961-8321 •Fax(808)961-8630 public works cz hawaiicounty.gov June 24, 2020, Kern and Associates 194 Wiwoole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (via email to info@zendokem.com) SUBJECT: EARLY CONSULTATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PUNA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAII Tti1K: (3) 1-5-010:026; 027 We received the subject dated June 2, 2020, and have the following comments: 1. The subject parcel is in an area designated as Flood Zone X and VE on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). Flood Zone X is an area determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. Flood Zone VE is the Special Flood Hazard Area inundated by the 100-year coastal flood (1°o chance of occurring in any given year) with velocity hazard (wave action). All construction within Flood Zone VE shall comply with the requirements of Hawaii County Code, Chapter 27, Floodplain Management. 2. All development-generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and not directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting the approval of the Department of Public Works. 3. All earthwork activities including grading, grubbing, and stockpiling shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentary Control, of the Hawaii County Code. Agricultural operations may qualify for a conservation program with the applicable soil and water conservation district. An approved conservation program would be an exclusion to Chapter 10. 4. Access to the subject property is via Government Beach Road which is classified as a "road-in-limbo". Although there is access through this Right-of-Way, it has not been County of Hawaii is an Equal opportunity Provider and Employer. maintained by any government entity in recent years. Furthermore, there is no assurance that it will ever be subject to such maintenance. Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please contact Bryce Harada of the Engineering Division at(808) 961-8042. fig- BEN ISHII, Division Chief Engineering Division BH County of Hawaii is an Equal opportunity Provider and Employer. Cw4�D,yATh {A 19 �as DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAII .....-���` 345 KEKUANAO'A STREET, SUITE 20 • HILO, HAWAII 96720 OF HAWA�l TELEPHONE (808)961-8050 - FAX(808)961-8657 June 19, 2020 Mr. Zendo Kern Kern & Associates 194 Wiwoole Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Kern: Subject: Pre-Environmental Assessment Consultation for Proposed Single-Family Residences within Conservation District Tax Map Key 1-5-010:026 and 027 This is in response to your letter dated June 2, 2020. The subject parcel is not within the service limits of the Department's existing water system facilities. We do not have any comments regarding environmental issues to offer at this time. Should there be any questions,please contact Mr. Ryan Quitoriano of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 256. Sincerely yours, WR** Keith K. Okamoto, P.E. Manager-Chief Engineer RQ:dfg . . . Nater, Our_%lost Precious Resource. . . Ka Wai A Kane. . . The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. 6/22/2020 early EA consultation-Pastorek(TMK 1-5-010-026&027) early EA consultation - Pastorek (TMK 1-5-010-026 & 027) FM Mary.Fujio@hawaiicounty.gov Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:26:24 AM -1000 To "info@zendokern.com" <info@zendokern.com> Tags 0 Security 0 TLS Learn more Re: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single- Family Residences in the Conservation District Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii TMK (3) 1-5-010:026 and 027 Good morning - Our department received your June 2, 2020, letter seeking comments on the above project. Our Wastewater Division and Solid Waste Division say they have no comments. Thank you. Mary E. Fujio Private Secretary to William Kucharski, Director and Diane Noda, Deputy Director Department of Environmental Management County of Hawaii 345 Kekuanao`a Street, Suite 41 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 961-8099 1/1 I 6 O,F 'h SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID Y.IGE .cP Iggg k',9' CHAIRPERSON GOVERNOR OF HAWAII h BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE f MANAGEMENT nE hand and Nd l s ,FC 0 STATE OF HAWAII srdreofHawaa DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 July 1, 2020 Kern &Associates Attn: Zendo Kern via email: info(a-_)zendokern.com 194 Wiwoole Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Kern: SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District located at Maku'u, Puna, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026 & 027 on behalf of Ryan Pastorek Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. The Land Division of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) distributed or made available a copy of your request pertaining to the subject matter to DLNR's Divisions for their review and comments. At this time, enclosed are comments from the (a) Engineering Division and (b) Land Division — Hawaii District on the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Darlene Nakamura at (808) 587-0417 or email: darlene.k.nakamura(a_)hawaii.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Russell T,-Oi Russell Y. Tsuji Land Administrator Enclosures cc: Central Files tE.9Z,h,0 SUZANNE U.CASE P W O IGE CHAIRPERSON DAVID �r Iasa ':'� GOVERNOR OF HAWAII 9r BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES f COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE j MANAGEMENT nd and °t V It 1 i Al a r+� '• 0 STATE OF HAWAII Srareot a a` DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96509 June 6, 2020 MEMORANDUM FROM: DLNR Agencies: X Div. of Aquatic Resources (kendall.l.tuckerahawaii.goy) _Div. of Boating &Ocean Recreation _LEngineering Division (DLNR.ENGR(dhawaii.aov) X Div. of Forestry &Wildlife (rubyrosa.r.terraao(oDhawaii.aov) _Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR.CWRM(a.hawaii.aov) X Office of Conservation &Coastal Lands (sharleen.k.kuba(ahawaii.aov) X Land Division—Hawaii District (aordon.c.heit(Qhawaii.aov) X Historic Preservation (DLNR.Intake.SHPD(a.hawaii.gov) TO: Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator Russett TsuJi SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District LOCATION: Maku'u, Puna, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 1-5-101:026 &027 APPLICANT: Kern &Associates on behalf of Ryan Pastorek Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced subject matter. Please submit comments by July 1, 2020. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura at 587-0417 or by email at darlene.k.nakamuraahawaii.aov. Thank you. ( ) We have no objections. ( ) We have no comments. (V Comments are attached. Signed: A' y Print Name: Carty S. Chang, Chief Engineer Date: Jun 16, 2020 Attachments cc: Central Files DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING DIVISION LD/Russell Y. Tsuji Ref: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District TMK(s): (3) 1-5-010:026&027 Location: Maku'u,Puna,Island of Hawaii Applicant: Kern &Associates on behalf of Ryan Pastorek COMMENTS The rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations(44CFR), are in effect when development falls within a Special Flood Hazard Area(high risk areas). State projects are required to comply with 44CFR regulations as stipulated in Section 60.12. Be advised that 44CFR reflects the minimum standards as set forth by the NFIP. Local community flood ordinances may stipulate higher standards that can be more restrictive and would take precedence over the minimum NFIP standards. The owner of the project property and/or their representative is responsible to research the Flood Hazard Zone designation for the project. Flood Hazard Zones are designated on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), which can be viewed on our Flood Hazard Assessment Tool (FHAT)(http://gis.hawaiinflp.org/FHAT). If there are questions regarding the local flood ordinances, please contact the applicable County NFIP coordinating agency below: o Oahu: City and County of Honolulu,Department of Planning and Permitting (808) 768-8098. o Hawaii Island: County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works(808)961-8327. o Maui/Molokai/Lanai County of Maui, Department of Planning(808)270-7253. o Kauai: County of Kauai, Department of Public Works (808) 241-4896. Signed: x 22 CA Y 5. CHANG, CHIEF ENGINEER Date: Jun 16, 2020 SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID Y.IGE aP+,�aSa� CHAIRPERSON GOVERNOR OF HAWAII A�' BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE ! MANAGEMENT �` q i %.-d and Jig STATE OF HAWAII srdteofHal*" DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU HAWAII 96809 June 6, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: DLNR Agencies: X Div. of Aquatic Resources (kendall.l.tucker(&hawaii.pov) _Div. of Boating &Ocean Recreation X Engineering Division (DLNR.ENGRO-hawaii.Qov) X Div. of Forestry &Wildlife (rubyrosa.r.terrago&hawaii gov) _Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR.CWRMAhawaii.Mov] X Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands(sharleen.k.kuba0hawaii.aov) 71-and Division—Hawaii District (tordon.c.heit@hawaii.4lov� X Historic Preservation (DLNR.Intake.SHPD*,hawaii.4lov] FROM: Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator Rus501175 ji SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District LOCATION: Maku'u, Puna, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 1-5-101:026 & 027 APPLICANT: Kern &Associates on behalf of Ryan Pastorek Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced subject matter. Please submit comments by July 1, 2020. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura at 587-0417 or by email at dariene.k.nakamura(&hawaii.Qov. Thank you. ( ) We have no objections. ( v We have no comments. ( ) Comments are attached. Signed: Print Name: Date: Attachments cc: Central Files SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID Y.IGE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNOR OF HAWAII BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ok,ard and Nat C d/ o Fe P o a 0 STATE OF HAWAII Srdre of Hama` DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 July 10, 2020 Kern &Associates Attn: Mr. Zendo Kern via email: i nfo(a)ze ndo kern.com 194 Wiwoole Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Kern: SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District located at Maku'u, Puna, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026 & 027 on behalf of Ryan Pastorek Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. In addition to our previous comments dated July 1, 2020, enclosed are comments from the (a) Division of Aquatic Resources, (b) Division of Forestry & Wildlife, and (c) Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands on the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Darlene Nakamura at (808) 587-0417 or email: darlene.k.nakamura(a�hawaii.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Russell Tsuji Russell Y. Tsuji Land Administrator Enclosures cc: Central Files SE.O F Mq SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID Y.IGE •cP�;rasa�'y CHAIRPERSON GOVERNOR OF HAWAII °fit' BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES i COMMISSION ON RATER RESOURCE f I MANAGEMENT oVand and '�ar l a t '_ c D :,ni1 0 STATE OF HAWAII Srare of Ha`+faP DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 June 6, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: DLNR Agencies: X Div. of Aquatic Resources (kendall.l.tucker(a�hawaii.gov) _Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation X Engineering Division (DLNR.ENGR(@hawaii.gov) X Div. of Forestry &Wildlife (rubyrosa.r.terrago(a)hawaii.gov) _Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR.CWRM(a-)-hawaii.gov) X Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands (sharleen.k.kubaQ_hawaii.gov) X Land Division — Hawaii District (gordon.c.heit @,hawaii.gov) X Historic Preservation (DLNR.Intake.SHPDCc)_hawaii.gov) FROM: Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator Russell Tsui SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District LOCATION: Maku'u, Puna, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 1-5-101:026 & 027 APPLICANT: Kern &Associates on behalf of Ryan Pastorek Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced subject matter. Please submit comments by July 1, 2020. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura at 587-0417 or by email at darlene.k.nakamura(a)hawaii.gov. Thank you. ( ) We have no objections. (X ) We have no comments. ( ) Comments are attached. Signed: Print Name: Brian J.Neilson-DAR Administrator Date: Jul 1,2020 Attachments cc: Central Files DAVID Y.IGE SUZANNE D.CASE 0 v"• F - ubVRPERSON (iUVERNOR OF (E N BOARD OE I AND AND NATURAL RESOURCES HAWAIIXPi d~i959 y.•yk� CO%UUSSION ON NATER RESOURCE MANAC.ENIIXF ft ROBERT K.MASUDA t, •. FIRST DEPUTY and M.KALEO MANUEL FyC` d/ Six" �.y x•t J DEPUTY DIRECTOR-WATER A J AQUATIC RESOURCES '1 f/ BOAT INGANDUCEANRECREATION O N - BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES ___.._.✓"y COAR.USSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEATFNF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS STATE OF HAWAII CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORa7aDM DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE IISTORIC PRESERVATION Srdre oiHsyaTi DIVISION OF AQUATIC RESOURCES Y-MIOGLAWT ISLAND RESFRVF CONMUSSION LAND 1 IS I PUNCHBOWL STREET,ROOM 330 STATE PARKS HONOLULU,HAWAII 96813 Date: 07/01/20 DAR#CV0023 MEMORANDUM TO: Brian J. Neilson DAR Administrator FROM: Troy Sakihara �� , Aquatic Biologist Request for Review of Proposed Single Family Residences in the SUBJECT: Conservation District Request Submitted by: Russell Y. Tsuji,Administrator, Land Division Maku'u,Puna,Island of Hawai'i,TMK:(3)1-5-101:026 and 027 Location of Project: Brief Description of Project: Applicants, Ken and Associates on behalf of Ryan Pastorek, are proposing to consolidate two adjacent properties and re-subdivide said properties by moving the dividing property line to the north, which is to lessen disturbance to the more heavily vegetated property (027). Two single family residences are proposed with a shoreline setback no less than 150 feet. The proposed outlined activities do not pose an immediate concern regarding localized impacts to aquatic or marine habitats. Comments: p No Comments ❑ Comments Attached Thank you for providing DAR the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. Should there be any changes to the project plan, DAR requests the opportunity to review and comment on those changes. �' Comments Approved: Date: J u 11,2020 Brian J. Neilson DAR Administrator SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID Y.IGE ap:�G Sa .y'� CHAIRPERSON GOVERNOR OF HAWAIIy1' BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCESOM ?ff COMMISSION ON RATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT �F¢c`oSvynd STATE OF HAWAII SlateDEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 June 6, 2020 Log No. 2687 MEMORANDUM TO: DLNR Agencies: X Div. of Aquatic Resources (kendall.l.tucker(aD-hawaii.gov) Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation X Engineering Division (DLNR.ENGR(a)hawaii.gov) X Div. of Forestry &Wildlife (rubyrosa.r.terrago(a)hawaii.gov) _Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR.CWRM(o-)-hawaii.gov) X Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands (sharleen.k.kuba(a-)-hawaii.gov) X Land Division - Hawaii District (gordon.c.heit(a_hawaii.gov) X Historic Preservation (DLNR.Intake.SHPD(a)hawaii.gov) FROM: Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator Russell Tsuji SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District LOCATION: Maku'u, Puna, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 1-5-101:026& 027 APPLICANT: Kern & Associates on behalf of Ryan Pastorek Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced subject matter. Please submit comments by July 1,2020. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura at 587-0417 or by email at darlene.k.nakamura(a-hawaii.gov. Thankyou. ( ) We have no objections. ( ) We have no comments. (� Comments are attached. Signed: —0 Print Name: DAVID G. SMITH, Administrator Date: Jul 1, 2020 Attachments cc: Central Files SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID V.IGE <6 or qh, BOARD OF LANDCHAIRPERSOORAI.RESOURCES GOVERNOR OF HAWAII ,fir Y 1959. 1 COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ROBERT K MASUDA ,kc i FTRSTDEPUTY M.KALEO MANUEL 4O s DEPUTY DIRECTOR-WATER 6/ AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION - BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGMUNT STATE OF HAWAII IfAV/Ali CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION EN ANG ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE FORESTRYISTOORIPARFNSERVATION 1151 PUNCHBOWL STREET,ROOM 325 KAHONAWEISLAND RESERVE CONMISSION LAND HONOLULU,HAWAII 96813 STATE PARKS June 30; 2020 Log no. 2687 MEMORANDUM TO: RUSSELL Y. TSUJI,Administrator Land Division FROM: DAVID G. SMITH, Administrator Division of Forestry and Wildlife SUBJECT: Division of Forestry and Wildlife Comments on the Early Consultation for the Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Single Family Residences in the Conservation District in Puna,Hawaii The Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife(DOFAW)has received your inquiry regarding review of the early consultation for the Environmental Assessment for a proposed single family residences in the conservation district in Puna on the island of Hawaii,TMKs: (3) 1-5-101:026 and 027.The proposed project includes constructing two single- family residences, a driveway for both homes, individual wastewater systems, primarily native Hawaiian and Polynesian landscaping and selective trimming and clearing of non-native vegetation. The State listed Hawaiian Hawk or `Io (Buten solitarius) is known to occur in the project vicinity. DOFAW recommends surveying the area to ensure no Hawaiian Hawk nests are present if trees are to be cut. `Io nests might be present during the breeding season from March to September. The State listed Hawaiian Hoary Bat or `Ope`ape`a(Lasiurus cinereus semotus)has the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project area and may roost in nearby trees. If any site clearing is required this should be timed to avoid disturbance during the bat birthing and pup rearing season (June I through September 15). If this cannot be avoided, woody plants greater than 15 feet(4.6 meters)tall should not be disturbed, removed, or trimmed without consulting DOFAW. To prevent the spread of Rapid `Ohi`a Death (ROD), if 16hi`a trees are present and will be removed, trimmed, or potentially injured DOFAW requests that the information and guidance at the following website be reviewed and followed: https://cros.ctahr.hawaii.edu/rod. DOFAW recommends minimizing the movement of plant or soil material between worksites,such as in fill. Soil and plant material may contain invasive fungal pathogens(e.g.Rapid `Ohi`a Death), vertebrate and invertebrate pests(e.g. Little Fire Ants), or invasive plant parts that could harm our native species and ecosystems. We recommend consulting the Big Island Invasive Species Committee at (808) 933-3340 in planning, design, and construction of the project to learn of any high-risk invasive species in the area and ways to mitigate spread. All equipment, materials, and personnel should be cleaned of excess soil and debris to minimize the risk of spreading invasive species. Gear that may contain soil,such as work boots and vehicles,should be thoroughly cleaned with water and sprayed with 70% alcohol solution to prevent the spread of Rapid `Ohi`a Death and other harmful fungal pathogens. We appreciate your intent to incorporate native plants in your landscaping. We recommend that you refer to www.plantpono.org for guidance on selection and evaluation for landscaping plants. We note that artificial lighting can adversely impact seabirds that may pass through the area at night by causing disorientation. This disorientation can result in collision with manmade artifacts or grounding of birds. For nighttime lighting that might be required, DOFAW recommends that all lights be fully shielded to minimize impacts. Nighttime work that requires outdoor lighting should be avoided during the seabird fledging season from September 15 through December 15. This is the period when young seabirds take their maiden voyage to the open sea. For illustrations and guidance related to seabird-friendly light styles that also protect the dark, starry skies of Hawaii please visit: https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/files/2016/03/DOC439.pdf. We appreciate your efforts to work with our office for the conservation of our native species. Should the scope of the project change significantly, or should it become apparent that threatened or endangered species may be impacted,please contact our staff as soon as possible. If you have any questions,please contact Lauren Taylor, Protected Species Habitat Conservation Planning Coordinator at(808) 587-0010 or lauren.tavlorghawaii.gov. Sincerely, DAVID G. SMITH Administrator ` . SUZANNE uCASE DAVID Y.ms m^mPEmo GOVERNOR OF HAWAII BOARD onLAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES _ COMMISSION vwWATER RESOURCE x^w^^"=mmr 01 i QFF}CE0� �')A�ERYpti|6h AN3CJ��7�iL�NG� STATE OF HAWAII =y8w8 ~Q~^ | O 2- 32 44te a H;W� DEPARTMENT mpLAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX oz1 HAWAII vmo June 8, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: DLNIRAgencies: XDiv. ofAquatic Resources ___Oiv. ofBoating & Ocean Recreation XEngineering Division X Div. ofForestry &Wildlife —Div. of State Parks X Commission onWater Resource Management % Office ofConservation & Coastal Lands / \ )( Land Division – Hawaii District }( Historic Preservation FROM: Russell Y. Tsuji, LandAdminiotratorRuzO#754ji SUBJECT: Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Single Family Residences inthe Conservation District LOCATION: Maku'u. Puna. Island of Hawaii; TK8K: /3> 1-5'101:026 & 027 APPLICANT: Kern &Associates onbehalf ofRyan Pamtonek Transmitted for your review and nonnnnand is information on the above-referenced subject matter. Please submit comments byJuly 1, 2020. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. |fyou have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura ot587'O417or byemail ot . Thank you. / \ VVahave noobjections. / VVahave nocomments. (V\ Comments h Signed: Print Name: Date: JUL 6 2020 Attachments -- Attachnnento SUZANNE D.CASE HAIRPERSON DAVID Y.IGE 't, O•^••yBOARD OF LANDAI� NATURAL REsoURCEs GOVERNOR OF HAWAII P..A d,t 9 59.v'11 COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT yr tN, ROBERT K.MASUDA q L PELSTDEPUTY GE�ynd and M.KALEO MANUEL DEPUTYDRiECTOR-WATER t�-_ ��o .1• ` .•°C}� AQUA-17C RESOURCES Q '4 BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION p QA'®,YdE]•ps BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS STATE OF HAWAII CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WB.DLD'E State of Harte° DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAM RESERVE COMMISSION OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDSLAND STATE PARKS POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 ref OCCL:RB Correspondence HA-20-177 Zendo Kern JUL — 6 2920 Kern&Associates 194 Wiwoole St. Hilo,Hawaii 96720 SUBJECT: Early Consultation for the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment(EA)to for Lot Consolidation and Re-subdivision and Construction of a Single-Family Residence on each re-subdivided parcel Located at Maku`u,Puna,Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026&027 Dear Mr.Kern, Thank you for your early consultation correspondence regarding the preparation of an EA. The rules and regulations regarding Environmental Impact Statement Rules are noted as Hawaii Administrative Rules, §I I- 200.1. The subject properties lie in the Resource subzone of the Conservation District. Your client proposes to consolidate and re-subdivide two parcels and then build an SFR on each re- subdivided parcel. The consolidation and re-subdivision of land is an identified land use that could be applied for pursuant to the HAR §13-5-22 P-10 SUBDIVISION OR CONSOLIDATION OR PROPERTY (C-1), consolidation and resubdivision into an equal number of lots that does not result in increased density. Please note that, per Correspondence HA 20-142, the OCCL is unlikely to support or authorize an application to subdivide and consolidate the parcels. The OCCL notes that (1) both lots appear to be sufficiently sized to build a single-family home and (2) the more vegetated parcel was cleared in the past and is now primarily covered in non-native or alien vegetation(to be confirmed by a biological survey on the property). A single-family residence is an identified land use that could be applied for pursuant to the HAR § 13-5-24 R-7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE(D-1), a single-family residence that conforms to the design standards as outlined in this chapter. The OCCL would like to reiterate, per Correspondence HA 20-142, that the Board of Land and Natural Resources may consider a single CDUA for one SFR on one of the lots where the applicant has indicated that the home will be their primary residence. The HAR § 13-5, Exhibit 4 are SFR standards. A portion of both properties appear to be located in a special flood hazard area, Zone VE, and the rest of both properties appear to be in Zone X. A certified shoreline setback shall be established, and shoreline setback calculated by the shoreline setback calculation in Exhibit 4. Please refer to Exhibit 4 for additional SFR requirements, such as maximum developable area compatibility provisions. A single-family residence shall not be used for rental or any other commercial purposes unless approved by the board. Transient rentals are prohibited. Additionally proposed is landscaping and selective trimming and/or clearing of non-native vegetation on less than one acre of the subject properties. Landscaping is an identified land use pursuant to HAR§ 13-5-23 and is based on the proposed square feet of landscaping for each parcel;thus, L-2 LANDSCAPING(C-1) or(D- Zendo Kern Correspondence HA-20-177 Kern&Associates 1) may be appropriate for both lots. L-2 LANDSCAPING (C-1)/(D-1) , landscaping (including clearing, grubbing, and tree removal), including chemical and mechanical control methods, in accordance with state and federal laws and regulations, in an area of less than 10,000 feet (for C-I)/in an area of or more than 10,000 square feet (for D-1). Any replanting shall be appropriate to the site location and shall give preference to plant materials that are endemic or indigenous to Hawaii. The introduction of invasive species is prohibited. The proposed land uses require the filing of a Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) and all required attachments such as an Environmental Assessment; the filing of an HRS, 6E Intake Form for historic compliance; and Special Management Area determination. To allow, modify or deny the proposed land use would be at the discretion of the Board-of Land and Natural Resources. The draft Environmental Assessment(EA) should site and describe all improvements for the proposal. This would include the proposed residence, access, utilities, landscaping and any other proposed work including trenching, and grading. The Hawaii Sea Level Rise Viewer, found at htips://www.pacioos.hawaii.edu/shoreline/slr-hawaii/, shows coastal areas of both properties being impacted by sea level rise; the EA should also address sea level rise and its potential impacts to proposed improvements. Additionally, alternatives that may include other possible sites for the residence or other alternatives should be included with the EA. Proposed mitigation and best management practices before, during and after the proposed construction should be described. For all proposed landscaping, preference shall be given to native, indigenous, and endemic species. The introduction of invasive plant species is prohibited in the Conservation District. Attached is Correspondence HA-20-142 for your reference. The HAR, Chapter 13-5 known as the rules and regulations of the Conservation District is available on our website at dlnr.hawaii/occl.com. Should you have any questions,pl a to contact Rachel Beasley at Rachel.e.beasley@hawaii. og_v or 808-798-6481 (work cell). mcere y, Samuel J.Lemmo,A 1 'strator Office of Conservation an Coastal Lands att:COR:HA-20-142 cc:County of Hawaii,Planning Department 2 DAVID Y.IGE SUZANNE D.CASE GOVERNOR OF •(�•..O•...�!.O� BOARD OFLAND AND CHAIRPERSON HAWAII - �P,.+'•5959 ''•t9 COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT i ROBERT K MASUDA ` FIRST DEPUTY Eland and Ndt DEPUTY LEO DIRECTOORNWAIM v NOc �'.,• '�.J g AQUATIC RESOURCES 'P."••......,...•,".d.4 BOATRIG AND OCEAN RECREATION p u �•®•vj)•�r- BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS STATE OF HAWAII CONSERVATION ANDENGINEERING k7iEURCEA47T1 .- INGRIEERWG FORESTRY AND WRDLWE State0 Hama\\ DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES KAH��TO"),��RVAT PRESERVATION LAND OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS STATE PARKS POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 REF: OCCL: TF COR: HA-20-142 Zendo Kern, Planning Consultant W1.AR 1 Kern&Associates 194 Wiwoole St. Hilo, HI 96720 SUBJECT: Request for Comment. Early-Consultation for CDUA/EA Located 15-2193 Government Beach Road, Makuu&Keonepoko Nui, Puna,Hawaii TMK(s): (3) 1-5-010:026 &027 Dear Mr. Kern: The Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) is in receipt of your correspondence and attachments regarding the subject matter. According to the information you provided, your client Mr. Ryan Pastorek is the owner of the above referenced Tax Map Keys (TMK). The subject properties are approximately 7.45 and 2.73 acres and both parcels lie within the Resource Subzone of the State Land Use Conservation District as well as the Special Management Area (SMA)' Your letter notes that Mr. Pastorek proposes to consolidate and re-subdivide the parcels by moving the lot line of the parcel with the TMK: (3) 1-5-010:027 to the north which will allow for a lesser impact on the more heavily vegetated parcel (parcel 27) and will not result in an increase in density. Mr. Pastorek then plans to build a single-family residence on each of the adjacent parcels in conformance with Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), §13-5-41 and Exhibit 4 Single Family Residential Standards. One of the single-family residences will be intended for Mr. and Mrs. Pastorek and the other single-family residence will be used for family members. The preliminary planning for the project indicates that associated infrastructure for the single-family residences will include: a single driveway serving both homes, a well for drinking water, Individual Wastewater Systems approved by the Department of Health, and site appropriate landscaping. On behalf of Mr. Pastorek, Kern & Associates intends to prepare one (1) Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP) application and Environmental Assessment (EA) encompassing the above listed uses taken together as a single project. Kern & Associates would also like to confirm that REF: OCCL: TF COR: HA-20-142 Mr. Zendo Kern, Planning Consultants Kern&Associates should additional time be required for implementation beyond the usual three (3) year deadline, that it would be supported by OCCL. The OCCL regulates land uses within the Conservation District through the issuance of permits and Site Plan Approvals. The OCCL notes that the parcels with the TMKs: (3) 1-5-010:026 & (3) 1-5-010:027 appear to be in the Resource Subzone of the State Land Use Conservation District. The OCCL would like to remind Mr. Pastorek and Kern & Associates that pursuant to HAR, §13-5-1, the purpose of the State Land Use Conservation District is to conserve, protect, and preserve the important natural and cultural resources of the State through appropriate management and use to promote their long-term sustainability and the public health,.safety, welfare. Furthermore, the objective of the Resource Subzone of the State Land Use Conservation District is to ensure, with proper management, the sustainable use of the natural resources of those areas pursuant to HAR, §13-5-13. After reviewing your letter and attachment, Mr. Pastorek may apply to consolidate and re- subdivide the parcels with the TMKs: (3) 1-5-010:026 and (3) 1-5-010:027; however, it is unlikely that the OCCL will support or authorize this application. It appears that both parcels are sufficient size to build a single-family residence pursuant to HAR, §13-5-41 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES and Exhibit 4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. A previous owner of the parcel with the TMK: (3) 1-5-010:027 indicated to OCCL that the lot had been at one time cleared and is now primarily covered in non-native or alien vegetation. This will have to be confirmed by a biological survey of the property. Additionally, it does not appear that the consolidation and re-subdivision would serve a public purpose as well. Based on the above, the OCCL does not see a need for a subdivision and re-consolidation. The Board of Land and Natural Resources may look favorably upon a single CDUP application for one (1) single-family residence on one of the lots where the applicant has indicated that the home will be their primary residence and there is no evidence or suggestion of real estate speculation. Should Mr. Pastorek like to move forward with a CDUP application for a single- family residence, this is an identified land use in the Resource Subzone of the Conservation District that may be applied for pursuant to HAR, §13-5-24, R-7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (D-1) a single family residence that conforms to design standards as outlined in this chapter.' This requires filing a Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) for a Board Permit. Since the parcels are shoreline properties, the application will need to follow the developmental standards and procedures as well as include the attachments. described in HAR, §13-5 with regards to single-family residences in the coastal environment. It would also appear that a Well Permit from the Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM)may need to be obtained for the project. The OCCL would like to see evidence of early consultation with CWRM regarding permits they might require for the project in the CDUA and Draft Environmental Assessment as well as from other relevant agencies. The decision to allow, modify, or deny the proposed land use would be at the discretion of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. The OCCL will accept one(1)CDUA for a single-family residence from Mr.Pastorek on a parcel of his choosing. 2 REF: OCCL: TF COR: HA-20-142 Mr. Zendo Kern, Planning Consultants Kern&Associates To address your request with regards to OCCL supporting additional time to complete a project in the State Land Use Conservation District, the OCCL does not give preliminary authorizations for time extension requests, especially on proposed projects for which no applications has been received nor Departmental or Board approval been given. Pursuant to HAR, §13-5-43, time extensions on CDUPs are discretionary. Initial time extensions are determined by the chairperson on a case by case basis supported by documentation from the applicant that demonstrates some sort of hardship or delay in initiating work on a particular project. Moreover, the applicant should demonstrate that the hardship or delay has not been self-imposed and that some good faith effort has been made to undertake the project. For these reasons, the OCCL will not offer its support for a preliminary time extension request on a proposed project nor consider amending this standard condition of a prospective CDUP. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Trevor Fitzpatrick of the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands at 587-0373. Sy, JL d inistrator Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands CC: Chairperson Commission on Water Resource Management Hawaii District Land Division Office County of Hawaii, Planning Department 3 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pastorek Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District at Maku`u Appendix F Comments and Responses to the Draft Environment Assessment JOSH GREEN,M.D. RE�o F qa- DAWN N.S.CHANG GOVERNOR I KE KIA'AINA �P�` %95,9� y CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES y¢f '�a •'� COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE SYLVIA LUKE n ? r ? MANAGEMENT LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR I KA HOPE KIA'AINA 5+K ;- LAURA H.E.KAAKUA `�Vz�d -. t y FIRST DEPUTY DEPUTY DIRECTOR-WATER L AQUATIC RESOURCES d _ BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION KA MOKU`AINA`O HAWAII BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE ANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS 'frafe of Ha"�� - CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES KA`OIHANA KUMUWAIWAI AINA ENFORCEMENT OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS FOREST"RY"AND W LDLIFE P.O.BOX 621 HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 LAND STATE PARKS REF:OCCL:TM Pastorek EA John Pipan, Planning Administrator SEP 1 5 2023 Land Planning Hawaii LLC. 194 Wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 SUBJECT: Pastorek Environmental Assessment for Two Single Family Residences in the Conservation District Located at 15-2193 Government Beach Road Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii,—TMKs: (3) 1-5-010:026& 027 Dear John Pipan: The Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) is unable to recommend the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact for the Final Environmental Assessment for the subject matter as the document is not consistent with the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 13-5 Conservation District. Further some of the OCCL comments were not addressed. The subject properties lie within the State Land Use Conservation District Resource subzone. The purpose of the Environmental Assessment (EA) is to satisfy compliance with the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343 and HAR Chapter 200.1. Pursuant to HRS §343-5 Applicability and requirements. (a) Except as otherwise provided, an environmental assessment shall be required for actions that: (2) Propose any use within any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission under chapter 205. The EA has been developed to submit two Conservation District Use Application for two separate single-family residences on two adjacent parcels. The proposed residences are not compliant with HAR Chapter 13-5 Exhibit 4 Single Family Residential Standards. The garage for "Residence A" is now detached. What is the purpose of the garage when there is a "guest" and "private" auto court? It is unclear why a separate structure noted as a storage/art studio continues to be proposed when the compatibility provisions require all structures connected, or best alternative. In addition, the responses to our comments are insufficient. Please include measurements of all sides of proposed land uses so that the Maximum Developable Area (MDA) can be clearly determined. Per HAR Chapter 13-5 Exhibit 4, the MDA means the total floor area in square feet. This shall include all floor areas under roof, including first, second, and third story areas, decks, pools, saunas; garage or carport, and other above ground structures. John Pipan, Planning Administrator Pastorek EA Land Planning Hawaii LLC. Please include a description of the type of animals that the animal storage is proposed for and a description of the care and maintenance of the animals. Include a discussion for the need for the upper storage area on the "animal shelter". There is no response to our comments regarding the County's Road in limbo or requirement for a drainage study that should include pool and pond maintenance. Please review the pond management plan's figure 4 and figure 5 as the figures are not consistent. How far is the proposed pond from the proposed property line? Are 2 wells now proposed for "Residence B"? The road in limbo is a concern as this is a secluded area on an eastern facing rugged wave- pounding shoreline that gets the brunt of the Tradewinds and is susceptible to the elements and seismic and volcanic activity. During Kona wind days, the area may be engulfed in vog. It is unclear if the landowners are aware of the inherent dangers of living near the sea and Kilauea at a location that is isolated, with no municipal services, poor access, and poor emergency response time. This should be acknowledged by the property owners; should an emergency situation occur the residents and guests would be on their own to ensure the health, safety and welfare of themselves. The rules and regulations. of the_ Conservation District are available on our website -at dlnr.hawaii.gov/occl. Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence contact the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands at (808) 587-0377. Sincerely, S. Michael Cain, Administrator Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands C: HDLO County of Hawaii -Planning 2 LAND'S + PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com January 8, 2024 Michael Cain, Administrator State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 Subject: Response to Comments on the Pastorek Environmental Assessment Applicant: Ryan and Paul Pastorek Agency: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) Location: Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Dear Mr. Cain, Thank you for your comments dated September 15, 2023, relating to the Pastorek Environmental Assessment. The following are responses to each of the concerns outlined in your letter. 1. The garage for "Residence A" is now detached. What is the purpose of the garage when there is a "guest" and "private" auto court? The garage for Residence A is proposed to protect cars from weathering which is a concern this close to the coast. It is proposed to be detached, roughly 20 feet from the dwelling, to provide for better natural light and air circulation to the south side of the house. The proposed location would also not block desired views from this side of the house. Further, the proposed modest separation will serve to buffer potential noise and vibration impacts on the home from the garage. The proposed `auto courts' are simply areas where cars can easily maneuver to enter and exit the garage or turn around near the house. 2. It is unclear why a separate structure noted as a storage/art studio continues to be proposed when the compatibility provisions require all structures connected, or best alternative. The proposed location of the storage/art studio is the best alternative in this situation. Separation between the storage/art studio is required due to the nature of art activities that would occur therein. Woodworking and metalworking would occur in this building. These activities have the potential to generate noise, vibrations, dust, heat and fumes that would be disruptive to other household uses if the structures were within close proximity to each other or connected. The storage portion of the structure is intended for landscaping and yard equipment to maintain the property along with general household storage (holiday decor, keepsakes etc.). LAND'S +:-, PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com The storage/art studio has been moved closer to the proposed single-family dwelling to better align with Conservation District rules. It is now sited approximately 100 feet from Residence B and over 130 feet from the shoreline. 3. Please include measurements of all sides of proposed land uses so that the Maximum Developable Area (MDA) can be clearly determined. Additional dimensions are shown for the perimeter measurements of all land uses contributing to the Maximum Developable Area. These measurements have been shown in red on Figures 10-25 of the Final EA to facilitate review. 4. Please include a description of the type of animals that the animal storage is proposed for and a description of the care and maintenance of the animals. Include a discussion for the need for the upper storage area on the "animal shelter". The applicant is proposing to have grazing sheep on less than one (1) acre on Lot A. Sheep are relatively low maintenance animals, therefore care is minimal. The shelter is proposed to maintain sheep health by providing protection from the elements including the sun, wind, and rain. Occasional hoof trimming will be required, along with salt and mineral supplements. Milk replacement formula will be kept on hand in case of lambs not being cared for by their mother ewe. Shearing would occur as needed and the applicant will routinely clean up sheep droppings. The upper storage area of the animal shelter is proposed for animal supplies and equipment. It is intentionally proposed to be stored above ground and separately from where the animals will be sheltered to keep these supplies clean and prevent the animals from accessing them. 5. There is no response to our comments regarding a drainage study that should include pool and pond maintenance. Upon further consultation with the Department of Public Works, a drainage study is not required for the proposed action. Please see revised Early Consultation comments from the Department of Public Works, attached to the Final EA in Appendix E. 6. Please review the pond management plan's figures 4 and 5 as the figures are not consistent. How far is the proposed pond from the proposed property line? Are two well proposed for "Residence B"? The pond is planned to be sited approximately twenty-seven (27) feet from the proposed property line, which includes the minimum side yard setback of twenty-five (25)feet plus an additional two (2)feet of separation from the pond slope. Only one (1)well is proposed for Residence B. Figures 4 and 5 of the pond management plan have been adjusted for accuracy. LAND'S + PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com 7. There is no response to our comments regarding the County's Road in limbo. It is unclear if the landowners are aware of the inherent dangers of living near the sea and Kilauea at a location that is isolated,with no municipal services, poor access, and poor emergency response time. This should be acknowledged by the property owners; should an emergency situation occur, the residents and guests would be on their own to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of themselves. The applicant acknowledges that Government Beach Road is a `road-in-limbo' that is not maintained by any government entity, nor is there any assurance that it will ever be subject to such maintenance. Nevertheless, the Government Beach Road access is adequate for the proposed use. Several existing single-family residences are located along the same stretch of Government Beach Road between Hawaiian Paradise Park and Hawaiian Beaches. Most recently, the construction of a single-family residence on a shoreline parcel located 500 feet to the north received a FONSI in 2020. Mr. Ryan and Paul Pastorek have written a formal letter dated October 24, 2023, stating that they understand the inherent dangers of living near the sea and Kilauea at an isolated location. A copy of the letter is appended to the Final EA as Exhibit B. We hope this clears up all remaining concerns regarding the proposed project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John Pipan Planning Administrator SUZANNE D.CASE DA VII Y.IGEp CHAIRPERSON GOVEI NOF.OF •(C".. ••NA BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES HAvAII J p 1959 °•.,h' COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Aq� h` � `4 .._:.. ROBERT K MASUDA FIRST DEPUTY �ccc �,n_\\4,a ar (°� M.KALEOMR-WAT 7�{ DEPUTY DIRECTOR-WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES •o y by°° °,4°°� BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ( ,• v S CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS �^-• ♦r All CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT STATE OF ENG NEERWIL FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE SrdteofHaWa� DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS STATEPARKS POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 REF:OCCL:TM RE:Correspondence HA 22-181 Pastorek Draft EA Ift John Pipan, Planning Administrator JUL Land Planning Hawaii LLC. 194 Wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 SUBJECT: Pastorek Draft Environmental Assessment for Two Single Family Residences in the Conservation District Located at 15-2193 Government Beach Road Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii, TMKs: (3) 1-5-010:026 & 027 Dear John Pipan: This letter is regarding the processing of the draft EA for the subject project. The public and agency comment period has closed. Attached to this letter are copies of the comments received by the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) regarding your client's draft EA. Please send copies of your responses to the questions raised in these letters directly to the authoring individuals or agency. The final copy of this project's EA must include your responses to the queries raised in these letters. These responses can be attached to the end of the Final EA document. Upon completion of the final EA, please send 2 hard copies of the Final EA and 1 digital copy on CD or via dropbox in searchable pdf. format that is ADA compliant [readable by "screen reader" eff. 7/1/2018] to the OCCL. You may wish to include an electronic copy of the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) Publication Form in Word as part of your digital copy or you may send an electronic copy of the Publication Form to staff at kimberly.millsL&hawaii.gov. If the project summary has changed, include a new summary. Please include a hard copy of the submitted publication form with the Final EAs. Should you have any questions, please contact Tiger Mills of our Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands at (808) 587-0382 or at the email address above. Sincerely' Iger Mills, Staff Planner Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands SUZANNE D.CASE DASr"IIY.IGB OF CHAIRPERSON GO':'EF.fJOR.OF A E......°..,Hq kIA�.4'AIl 9 59 130ARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES p COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT .tf! s X 0 °.q h `E ^"'. ,eq� ROBERT K.MASUDA r S FIRSTDEPUTY 4 end,,end,v S 'a M.KALEO MANUEL � DEPUTY DIRECTOR-WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES r BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION O wr Cti N ffp,�.��, pG`pCOMISSBURFWUOF ES IONON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT STATE OF HAWAIIENOINFFIRING FORESTRY ANll WILDLIFE srdt�H Ia\' DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES KAHOOL WEISRANDRESERVs ONMISSION LAND OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS STATE PARRS POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 REF:QCCL:TM RE: Correspondence HA 22-181 John Pipan, Planning Administrator Land Planning Hawaii LLC. POL 2 0 90 194 Wiwo`ole St. Hilo,, HI 96720 SUBJECT: Pastorek Draft Environmental Assessment for Two Single Family Residences in the Conservation District Located at 15-2193 Government Beach Road Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii, TMKs: (3) 1-5-010:026 & 027 Dear John Pipan: The Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) has reviewed the subject matter. The OCCL notes the draft EA with one applicant to construct 2 SFRs on 2 lots of record appears to be inconsistent with the rules and regulations of the Conservation District noted as the Hawaii Administrative Rules Chapter 13-5. Further the entire proposal is speculative as it is predicated on lots of record not yet existing that would require discretionary authorization to create. The current proposal to develop 2 lots with shared utilities, features that don't observe setbacks and pathways may be better suited within another State Land Use District. Your client may wish to seek a boundary amendment through the State Land Use Commission to develop the properties as proposed. Under Section 3.2 Socioeconomic and Cultural, the property is identified as in agricultural zone A-Ia. Please clarify or amend this statement as the property lies within the Conservation District of the State Land Use District. All site plans should have at a minimum: legends, scales, and a North directional arrow. Please include measurements of all sides of proposed land uses on Figure 10 and 14 as measurements appear to stop short of the entire length of the residential features and the garage. The OCCL notes 2 structures, a barn and storage/animal shelter are proposed. However, there is no description of the type of animals nor a description of the care or maintenance of the creatures. Further the EA does not describe nor address the need for a barn and storage shelter. What land uses or activities require a barn and a storage/animal shelter? The second-floor plans of the barn indicate storage, but the text indicates the second floor is to be used as an art studio. An art studio is not consistent with the definition of a barn. : John Pipan,Planning Administrator RE: Correspondence HA 22-181 Land Planning Hawaii LLC. Regarding the Aquaculture Pond: Please include a plan/diagram of the proposed construction of the pond that illustrates its features [soil, geo fabric, sand, fabric stabilization, soil for lo`i, etc.]. Provide a cross sectional view of the pond and more details such as where will the kalo grow and how shall the dirt be retained in this section. Kalo is not native to Hawaii as stated in this section of the EA. Other questions regarding the pond: • What is the `harvest basin'? • Where will the excavated dirt be placed on the property? • There is no description of kalo management. • How will the temperature of the pond be controlled? -What is this shade proposal? • What is the plan if the temperature and pH increase? -If algae blooms occur? -If there is a fish die off? • If endangered species take up residence at this pond, how will this be manged? Much more details are needed about this proposed feature. The OCCL notes the County of Hawai`i's Department of Public Works comments were not addressed in the draft EA regarding a drainage study and the access road that is in `limbo'. Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence, contact Tiger Mills of our Office at (808) 587-0382 or at kimberly.millskhawaii.gov. S' cerely, Zlei �. iger Mills, Staff Planner Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands C: HDLO County of Hawaii -Planning Z LRND'0 *:,* PLAN N I NG 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII L LC info@landplanninghawaii.com April 3, 2023 Michael Cain, Administrator State of Hawaii Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 Subject: Final Environmental Assessment Submission and Summary of Changes Applicant: Ryan and Paul Pastorek Agency: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) Location: Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Dear Mr. Cain, Thank you for your reviewing the initial submission of the Final Environmental Assessment for Mr. Ryan Pastorek. We acknowledge and recognize OCCL's concerns regarding the proposed project. We have consolidated a list of all major comments received since the beginning of the EA process. Please see our responses and corresponding sections of the FEA to refer to below. Please note that all revisions in the FEA are denoted by double underlines. 1. OWNERSHIP Mr. Ryan Pastorek has split the ownership of parcels TMK (3) 1-5-010: 026 and 027 between himself and a Mr. Paul Pastorek(Ryan's Father). Ryan Pastorek owns Parcel 026 and Paul Pastorek owns Parcel 027. This has been the intent of the project since inception with Ryan Pastorek living on one property and his parents living on the neighboring lot. The Environmental Assessment incorporates both parcels and proposed developments to facilitate a comprehensive review of potential cumulative impacts of the proposed action on both independent properties. 2. CONSOLIDATION AND RESUBDIVISION OCCL has noted that the proposed project is speculative since it is predicated on lots of record that don't yet exist and would require discretionary authorization to create. However, this should not interfere with the environmental review process. The applicants are aware and acknowledge that several discretionary permits, and administrative permits are required for the proposed action including consolidation and re-subdivision approval from OCCL and the Hawaii County Planning Department. The project site currently consists of two legal lots of record, each capable of supporting a single-family residence consistent with criteria outlined in the Conservation District Rules. Consolidation and re-subdivision are being requested to allow for lesser impact on Parcel 027, which is heavily vegetated. The proposed consolidation and re-subdivision would also allow greater setbacks to the neighboring residence to the south for less impacts associated with scenic views, noise, and air quality. 1 LRND'0 *:y PLAN N I NG 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII L LC info@landplanninghawaii.com This action would also avoid unnecessary destruction of the dense wooded area, which may be utilized by endangered species such as the Hawaiian hoary bat(Lasiurus cinereus semotus), or the formerly endangered Hawaiian hawk(Buteo solitarius). Although the wooded area is mainly non-native trees, there is reason to believe that removing them could result in more adverse impacts to potential native or endangered species that may fly over, roost or utilize resources of the property despite mitigating measures. Additionally, removal of the dense vegetation would require grading and grubbing of roughly 2-acres, which has greater potential to create more adverse impacts to sensitive coastal resources compared with the proposed action. Under the proposed action, minimal clearing would occur on this Parcel, which would mitigate impacts to flora, fauna, and coastal resources. The Environmental Assessment was conducted with the objective of evaluating all potential impacts and necessary mitigating measures resulting from the consolidation and re-subdivision of the subject parcels. Based on current findings, there is no indication that this action would cause significant harm to the environment or natural resources. Therefore, the EA process should be able to proceed. Please note that the lot names under the consolidation and re-subdivision proposal have been changed throughout the FEA from Lot 2-A (Parcel 026) and Lot 3-A (Parcel 027) to Lot A and B, representing 026 and 027, respectively. These labels are more sensible and consistent with the modified site plan. 3. INDEPENDENT UTILITIES AND SETBACKS Each parcel will have independent utilities. The shared utilities option has been removed from the Environmental Assessment. No utility lines will cross property lines or exist within setback areas. 4. LANDSCAPING AND SCENIC VIEWS Landscaping plans have been significantly altered to reflect concerns regarding potential impacts to scenic views and tradewind flows experienced from neighboring properties and compliance with Conservation District rules. Proposed landscaped areas initially covered roughly 25,000 square feet on each parcel. This area has been scaled back to roughly 11,300 square feet on each parcel. Modifications have been made to the landscaping plans to lessen potential impacts to scenic resources and ocean views from Government Beach Road and maintain the natural flow of the Tradewinds. A summary of changes are as follows: • Landscaped areas have been reduced by over 50 percent. • The overall number of proposed species has been reduced by 30 percent. • Six (6) alien species have been removed from all plans: - Monkey pod (Samanea saman) 2 LRND'0 *:,* PLAN N I NG 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII L LC info@landplanninghawaii.com - Orange crownshaft palm (Areca vestiaria) - Royal Palm (Manicaria saccifera) - Lipstick palm (Cyrtostachys renda) - Grape scented orchid (Spathoglottis unguiculata) - Philidendron (Philodendron spp.) • Three (3) native species have been added: - Hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) - Loulu Palm (Pritchardia hillebrandii) - Hapu`u tree fern (Cibotium menziesii) • New species have been chosen to reflect shorter potential heights. • A single milo tree (Thespesia populnea) is proposed on the north property line of Lot A to provide important shade for the proposed sheep. However, nothing else will be planted on this portion of the lot to preserve ocean views and trade wind now. Please note the trees along Government Beach Road denoted by smooth circles are existing coconut palm, autograph, and beach heliotrope trees that will not be removed. No existing or planned vegetation will be allowed to encroach onto Government Beach Road. Please refer to Section 3.1.4 on Pages 68-72 and Figures 25-26 for more detail on landscape changes. 5. STORAGE/ART STUDIO The Draft Environmental Assessment initially labeled this structure as a barn. This has been changed to "storage/art studio' to better reflect its intended use. Additionally, the original placement of this structure was sited too far from the proposed single-family residence on the property (Residence B) according to HAR §13-5. Therefore, the storage/art studio has been moved to roughly 100 feet from proposed Residence B and 130 feet setback from the shoreline; a substantial change from the original 80-foot shoreline setback. 6. AQUACULTURE POND AND MANAGEMENT PLAN The proposed aquaculture pond has been strategically placed to address existing ponding that occurs on the subject property. It is a necessary feature that will improve drainage on site and conserve water resources. A new cross-section figure has been added with details of soil, geo fabric, sand, stabilization, etc. Kalo will grow throughout the pond at appropriate depths. All excavated dirt will be used for the embankments of the pond. The cut to fill balance will be approximately equal. Native groundcover species of Ae`ae (Bacopa monnieri), Makaloa (Cyperus laevigatus), and Ahuawa(Mariscus javanicus) will be planted around the aquaculture pond to stabilize the embankments. Please refer to Pages 20-24 of the Aquaculture Management Plan for details on temperature, pH, algae, fish die off, and endangered species. 3 LRND'0 *:y PLAN N I NG 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, x196720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII L LC info@landplanninghawaii.com The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Agricultural Engineering Technical Note and a diagram of the Secchi Disk have been added as exhibits to the management plan. 7. NA ALA HELE The Na Ala Hele Trails and Access Program was consulted regarding the pre-historic lateral foot trail paralleling the coast on the adjacent parcel to the south identified as TNM (3) 1-5-010: 028. Although the archaeological review of Lot B (subject Parcel 027) did not document any physical evidence of the trail within the subject property, special care should be given along the coastal zone. Additionally, the trail may be considered public property per the Highways Act of 1892 (HRS 264). Na Ala Hele acknowledges that while the trail likely crossed both subject parcels, its status as public property cannot be affirmed without any physical, archaeological, or cartographic proof of its existence on the parcels today. Nevertheless, Na Ala Hele has requested that the applicants respect and preserve the general area and enable lateral access along the general alignment of where the trail may be situated. Therefore, lateral access will be allowed across both subject parcels along the general alignment of where the trail may be. Additionally, no development is proposed within 130 feet of the shoreline, which the Na Ala Hele program has deemed sufficient to prevent any potential impacts to the trail. Furthermore, Parcel 027 spans over 300 feet as per existing lot lines. With the consolidation and re-subdivision proposal, a buffer zone of 300 feet would be created between Parcel 028 (where current evidence of the pre-historic trail exists) and where development activities would take place on Lot B. Please refer to Section 3.2.2 on pages 76 to 90. 8. GRAZING SHEEP Grazing sheep are proposed on Lot A and would require little care. The proposed animal shelter will help maintain sheep health. Occasional hoof trimming will be required, along with salt and mineral supplements. 9. OTHER MINOR REVISIONS Several minor revisions have been made throughout the EA, which are all denoted by double underlines. A few of the more significant ones are noted below: a. All references to Hawaii County Zoning of Agricultural A-la have been removed. The subject properties are solely referred to as State Land Use Conservation District. b. All site and floor plans have been modified to include legends, scales, and a North directional arrow, and correct road names. 4 LRND'0 *:y PLAN N I NG 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 9620 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII L LC info@landplanninghawaii.com c. The 40-foot shoreline setback has been marked on all plans in addition to the 65.2-foot shoreline setback as determined by the Average Annual Erosion Rate (0.36 feet/year). We trust that these extensive modifications comply with the regulations set forth by the Conservation District as outlined by OCCL and HAR Chapter 13-5. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John Pipan Planning Administrator 5 SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID X.IGEERSON TUR f O F.��k BOARD OF LANDDAND ND NATURAL RESOURCES GOVERNOR CIF HAWAII 'A.P1'y~%959 q°••49; COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT /67. !! j ROBERT K MASUDA x FIRST DEPUTY arca �- L w i d KKALEO MANUEL DEPUTY DIRECTOR-WATER I Tit Iti3 ✓ GAND RESOURCES w� BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES STATE OF HAWAII COMMISSION CONSERVATION R REAND OURCE ASTAL LANDS:. CONSERVATION ANDCOASTAL LANDS F$J}i(Itp,}E CONSERVATION AND RESOURCE 3 ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING TRY AND DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORICPRE ERVADTION 1151 PUNCHBOWL STREET,ROOM 325 I ANooLAWE ISLAND cGMMIss1oN HONOLULU,HAWAII 96813 STATE PARRS July 25,2022 MEMORANDUM Log no. 3714 TO: K. TIGER MILLS, Staff Planner Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands FROM: LAINIE BERRY, Wildlife Program Manager Division of Forestry and Wildlife SUBJECT: Division of Forestry and Wildlife Comments for the Draft Environmental Assessment(DEA)for the Proposed Pastorek's Two Single-Family Residences in the Conservation District of Hawaii Island The Department of Land and Natural Resources,Division of Forestry and Wildlife(DOFAW)has received your request for comments for a DEA regarding the proposed two single-family residences located in the Conservation District at 15-2193 Government Beach Road, Maku`u, Puna, on the island of Hawaii; TMKs: (3) 1-5-010:026 & 1-5-010:027. The proposed project consists of building one single-family residence on each of the two adjacent lots with supporting infrastructures that include a single gravel driveway serving both homes, a well for water, Individual Wastewater Systems approved by the Department of Health, an aquaculture pond, a rainwater collection area,a storage/animal shelter,and less than one acre for grazing.Land clearing and construction activities would occur on approximately 1.5 acres. Consolidation and re- subdivision are being requested to move the lot line to the north,resulting in no increase in density. DOFAW concurs with the mitigation measures included in the DEA intended to avoid construction and operational impacts to State-listed species including the Hawaiian Hawk or `Io (Buten solitarius)and seabirds. For illustrations and guidance related to seabird-friendly light styles that also protect the dark, starry skies of Hawaii please visit https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/ files/2016/03/DOC439.pdf. We also appreciate the measures outlined to minimize the movement of plant and soil material to prevent the spread of invasive species (e.g., Rapid `Ohi`a Death and Coqui Frogs) and for the use of native plant species. DOFAW provides the following additional comments regarding the potential for the proposed work to affect listed species in the vicinity of the project area. We concur with mitigation proposed in the DEA for the Hawaiian Hoary Bat, which could potentially occur in the vicinity of the project area. We would also recommend that the use of barbed wire be avoided because bats can become ensnared and killed by such fencing during flight. DOFAW is concerned about attracting vulnerable birds, due to the installation of water features such as ponds and pools, to areas that may host nonnative predators such as cats, rodents, and mongooses. We recommend taking action to minimize predator presence; remove cats,place bait stations for rodents and mongoose, and provide covered trash receptacles. State-listed waterbirds such as the Hawaiian stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), Hawaiian coot(Fulica alai),Hawaiian Duck(Anas wyvilliana), and Hawaiian Goose (Branta sandvicensis) could potentially occur at or in the vicinity of the proposed project site. It is against State law to harm or harass these species. If any of these species are present during construction, then all activities within 100 feet(30 meters)should cease,and the bird or birds should not be approached. Work may continue after the bird or birds leave the area of their own accord.If a nest is discovered at any point,please contact the Hawaii Island Branch DOFAW Office at(808) 974-4221. There is a pre-historic lateral foot trail paralleling the coast in adjacent parcels. While the archaeological review of the subject property did not document any physical evidence of the trail within the subject parcel,special care should be given along the coastal zone during any earthwork, especially for the"proposed barn structure." The coastal trail may be considered public property, per the Highways Act of 1892 (HRS 264). Please contact Jackson Bauer, Hawaii Island Na Ala Hele Trail and Access Program Manager at (808) 657-8041,jacksonm.bauerghawaii_ gy, with any questions. We appreciate your efforts to work with our office for the conservation of our native species.These comments are general guidelines and should not be considered comprehensive for this site or project. It is the responsibility of the applicant to do their own due diligence to avoid any negative environmental impacts. Should the scope of the project change significantly, or should it become apparent that threatened or endangered species may be impacted, please contact our staff as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Radley, Protected Species Habitat Conservation Planning Coordinator at(808) 295-1123 or paul.m.radlexghawaii.gov. Sincerely, LAINIE BERRY Wildlife Program Manager LAND'S + PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com April 3, 2023 Laine Berry Wildlife Program Manager DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) 1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 325 Honolulu, HI 96813 Subject: Response to Comments for the Pastorek Single-Family Residences Final Environmental Assessment Applicant: Ryan Pastorek Agency: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) Location: Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Thank you for your comments dated July 25, 2022, relating to the Pastorek Draft Environmental Assessment and native and endangered species. Action to minimize predator presence will be taken including removing cats, placing bait stations for rodents and mongoose, and covering trash. If the Hawaiian stilt, duck, or goose are present on either property during construction, then all activity within 100 feet will cease and the bird or birds will not be approached. Special care will also be taken along the coastal zone during any earthwork Please refer to Section 3.1.4 on Pages 69-75. We thank you for your comments relating to the DEA. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, John Pipan Planning Administrator Mills, Kimberly T From: Kamakana Ferreira <kamakanaf@oha.org> Sent: Thursday,June 30, 2022 11:18 AM To: Mills, Kimberly T Subject: [EXTERNAL] OHA Comment Re: DEA for 2 Single Family Residences in Puna Attachments: DEA for 2 single family residences in Conservation District, Puna, Hawaii Island.pdf Aloha e Ms. Mills, The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) is in receipt of your letter dated June 22, 2022, requesting comments on a draft environmental assessment(DEA) prepared as part of a conservation district use application (CDUA)for two single family residences at 15-2193 Government Beach Road, Puna, Hawaii Island,TMK(3)1-5-010:026&027. Land Planning Hawaii LLC has prepared this DEA on behalf of the applicant, Ryan Pastorek, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)Chapter 343. Construction is proposed for 1 single family residence on each parcel (027 and 028), a single gravel driveway, water well, individual wastewater system, aquaculture pond, and less than one 1 acre for grazing. As detailed in the DEA, OHA observes that an archaeological inventory survey(AIS) and cultural impact assessment(CIA) were recently completed for this project by Scientific Consulting Services(SCS). Two historic boundary walls were found on property, but not recommended for further work. No specific cultural practices were noted as occurring on property either. It does appear that an attempt was also made to locate a historic trail (SIHP#50-10-45-18418)that was previously documented on an adjacent property and recommended for preservation in 2013. Despite the clearing of vegetation and prodding the ground with rebar, no physical evidence of the trail was located. However,the AIS appears to concede that the trail could have continued on Parcel 027 without the need to construct a formal trail. In review of the preservation plan prepared for a portion of Site-18418, Feature A,found on an adjacent parcel by ASM Affiliates in April 2014,the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) had recommended consultation with Na Ala Hele. While OHA does certainly appreciate the efforts to relocate the trail on the current parcel,we would recommend that consultation with Na Ala Hele Program and/or Advisory Council also be considered here as well. OHA has no further comments at this time and appreciates the opportunity for review. Should Na Ala Hele be contacted, OHA wishes to be apprised of their recommendations. Further, should SHPD have comments going forward, OHA respectfully requests to be provided with copies. Mahalo, Xamakana G Ferreira, JW.A Lead Compliance Specialist Office of Hawaiian Affairs 560 N. Nimitz Hwy Honolulu, Hi.96817 (808)594-0227 1 Mills, Kimberly T From: Cab General Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 2:1 S PM To: Mills, Kimberly T;john@landplanninghawaii.com Subject: Pastorek Single-Family Residence in the Conservation District at Maku'u -- Draft EA (AFNSI) Aloha, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the subject project. Based on review of the Pastorek Single- Gamily Residence in the Conservation District at Maku'u Draft EA, CAB would like to make the following comment: • Department of Health,Administrative Rule:Title 11, Chapter 26,Vector Control,Section 11-26-3S, Rodents; Demolition of Structures and Clearing of Sites and Vacant Lots, requires that: o No person, firm or corporation shall demolish or clear any structure, site, or vacant lot without first ascertaining the presence or absence of rodents which may endanger the public health by dispersal from such premises. o Should such inspection reveal the presence of rodents,the person, firm, or corporation shall eradicate the rodents before demolishing or clearing the structure, site, or vacant lot. o The Department may conduct an independent inspection to monitor compliance, or request a written report. • The purpose of this rule is to prevent rodents from dispersing into adjacent areas from infested buildings or vacant lands during demolition or land clearing. Contractors may either hire a pest control firm or do the job themselves with a qualified employee. Rodenticides must be inspected daily and replenished as necessary to provide a continuous supply for at least one week prior to the start of any work.To submit notifications or for more information, contact the Vector Control Branch: https: health.hawaii.Rov/vcb/ Please see our standard comments at: httiis:/'health.hawaii.t�ov/cab'files/2022.'051 Standard-Comments-for-Land-Use-Reviews-Clean-Air-Branch-2022-1.pdf Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Kristen Caskey, EHS Kristen.caskev@doh.hawaii.gov Clean Air Branch Hawaii State Department of Health 1 LAND'S + PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 9620 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com April 3, 2023 Kristen Caskey Clean Air Branch Hawaii State Department of Health 1250 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Subject: Response to Comments for the Pastorek Single-Family Residences Final Environmental Assessment Applicant: Ryan Pastorek Agency: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) Location: Maku`u,Puna,Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Dear Ms. Caskey, Thank you for your comments dated J@ 8, 2022, relating to the Pastorek Draft Environmental Assessment. Comments regarding rodents and demolition of structures have been added to Section 3.1.4 and 3.1.5,Pages 69-76, along with the standard DOH comments. We thank you for your comments relating to the DEA. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, John Pipan Planning Administrator fC SUZANNE D.CASE DAVID Y.TGE ,P;ys t �_`! i1'''"t=yam-}LiV=1 iL �7 3:`. ,�B„0 F,hq CHAIRPERSON OOVERNOR OP ,_;_,its lt-{ tt•j,i"s,z.�s..::-i. •-._ ' BOARD OF LAM AIS NATURAL RESOURCES r p,.••',95�4•., 00bg MSIONONWATERRBSOURCEMANAOSdWr HAWAII Nh�•' a.. ROBERT KMASUDA FRSTDEPITIY yarid and i 5E Y to M.RALEO MANUEL O� r`'�i ti j�y7 DEPUTY DIRECTOR-WATER ,'•�.... r,•4' AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATERRESOURCEMANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT STATE OF HAWAII ENGIIJNDWIL E11STOR YANDWILDLIFE ONO DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES KAHOGLAWEIISLA°ND RVE OMISSIGN OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS STATE PARKS POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 REF:OCCL:TM COR:HA 22-181 MEMORANDUM jUN Z 2 I U FROM: 9FE)`- / State Agencies DLNR-Engineering Office of Hawaiian Affairs DLNR-Water Resource Mgmt. County Agencies: DLNR-Hawaii District Land Office Hawaii Planning Department DLNR-Resource Enforcement Hawaii Fire Department DLNR-Aquatic Resources Department of Public Works DLNR-Forestry&Wildlife Department of Health *zf�&qTO: -_�^ = K. Tiger Mills, Staff Planner,, Office Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Draft Environmental Assessment for Two Single Family Residences in the Conservation District APPLICANT: Ryan Pastorek TMKs: (3) 1-5-010:026& 027 LOCATION: 15-2193 Government Beach Road Maku`u,Puna,Hawaii Transmitted for your agency's review and comment is information on the above-referenced subject matter. We would appreciate your agency's review and comment on this draft Environment Assessment. The draft Environmental Assessment will be published in the Environmental Notice and available for review on the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development's Environmental. Review Program's website on June 23 2022: hfps://files hawaii -ov/dbedt/err)/Doc Library/2022-06-23-HA-DEA-Pastorek-Two- SFRs-at-Makuu.Pdf. Please submit any comments to the OCCL by July 22, 2022. Contact Tiger Mills at (808) 587-0382 or at kimberlv.mills(&hawaii.eov should you have any questions on this matter. additional We have no.comments Signed: Print Name:C rty S. Chang, Chief Engineer ( ) Comments are attached Division: Engineering Division Date: Jul 14, 2022 r� July 15, 2022 To: K. Tiger Mills Office of Conservation and Coastal Land Z 12 JUL 2 0 A H: 28 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hl. 96813 PSI From: Clifford Caldwell Ann Oliverio-Caldwell HCR 3 Box 13044 Keaau, Hl. 96749 808 982-6715 Re: TMK (3)1-5-101:26 &27 Makuu in Puna Hawaii Aloha, ( 'b) t - S- - Ok 0 ° v-LLE C>2I We are writing the letter to provide comments as requested in Mr. Pipan's letter to us dated June 22. To introduce ourselves, we own the cattle pasture/orchard that is located directly across from Mr. Pastorek's land. We have lived in this area for 46 years and have owned the pasture for 18 years. During this time we have enjoyed the beautiful scenic ocean views that are provided by the location of our land. Our concern in regards to Mr. Pastorek's planned development is the loss of our scenic ocean view due to the impact of the proposed landscape/planting plan (LA-1.0). The number and location of the large/tall trees (monkeypod and similar trees)will both block our view of the ocean and the cooling tradewinds.One side of our property that does have foliage across the street in noticeably hotter than Mr. Pastorek's open side where the natural trade winds are unobstructed. This issue would be exacerbated by the wall of densely spaced foliage that is planned along the frontage of the property. Some of the plants mentioned, when mature, can be 20-30 feet high and may encroach into the roadway which is only 10 feet wide. We want to be good neighbors. The beauty and value of our scenic ocean views is one of the reasons we purchased our pasture. The disappearance of this would be very sad and detrimental. We hope that you can reconsider the landscaping plans with this in mind. Mahalo, moc" )�� �- — Clifford B. Caldwell Ann Oliverio-Caldwell CC: John Pipan, Land Planning Hawaii, LLC LAND'S + PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com April 3, 2023 Clifford Caldwell Ann Oliveri o-Cal dwell HCR 3 Box 13044 Kea`au, HI 96749 Subject: Response to Comments on the Pastorek Single-Family Residences Draft Environmental Assessment Applicant: Ryan Pastorek Agency: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) Location: Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Caldwell, Thank you for your comments dated July 15, 2022, in response to the Pastorek Draft Environmental Assessment. We acknowledge your concerns regarding natural beauty and visual impacts. We have made the following modifications to the landscape proposal to reflect these concerns: • Landscaped areas have been reduced by over 50 percent. • The overall number of proposed species has been reduced by 30 percent. • Six (6) alien species have been removed from all plans: o Monkey pod (Samanea saman) o Orange crownshaft palm (Areca vestiaria) o Royal Palm (Manicaria saccifera) o Lipstick palm (Cyrtostachys renda) o Grape scented orchid (Spathoglottis unguiculata) o Philidendron (Philodendron spp.) • Three (3) native species have been added: o Hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) o Loulu Palm (Pritchardia hillebrandii) o Hapu`u tree fern (Cibotium menziesii) • New species have been chosen to reflect shorter potential heights. • A single milo tree (Thespesia populnea) is proposed on the north property line of Lot A to provide important shade for the proposed sheep. However, nothing else will be planted on this portion of the lot to preserve ocean views and trade wind now. Mr. Pastorek will ensure all landscaping is maintained and that no vegetation will encroach onto Government Beach Road. Please review the modified landscaping plans (Figure 26 and 27) as well as Section 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 on Pages 69-76 of the EA for further detail. LAND'S +:-, PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com We thank you very much for your review of the Draft EA and we hope these changes adequately address your concerns regarding natural beauty in the area. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John Pipan Planning Administrator Mills, Kimberly T From: Jana Rogers <janamoonfire@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday,July 18, 2022 3:25 PM To: Mills, Kimberly T Subject: [EXTERNAL] Beach rd. Aloha and thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. My name is Jana Rogers I grew up here on the Puna coast specifically between Kalapana and Hawaiian beaches and I am extremely grateful that this part of the island has been my home and stomping grounds from when I was a child until now ( over thirty years). I have lived on Government beach road for 15 years and every time I pass Opunaha ranch I am in aw of the beauty and expansive ocean view.This is a very culturally significant strip of costal land that arouses the feeling of old Hawaii. The way that the coast line is shaped and the presence of livestock on the land has allowed this ocean vista to remain and has been a treasured part of the landscape of government beach road and has provided scenic view, air flow-ocean breeze and trade winds as well as fishing spot for the surrounding community and land owners for many many years. Its definitely one of the reasons I was drawn to this location where I have now purchased land and am in the process of building our family home. We are across the road and the second lot back so we have some ocean view that we would like to preserve. We are thankful for the air flow and views that this open land has provided to the surrounding environment and we wish to preserve this. I looked through the plan and it looks beautiful and I appreciate the thought and intention that has gone in to it. I think my concerns are mainly about the landscaping. I love the selection of mostly native plants. I have my degree in Agriculture and studied landscaping and permaculture so I am farmilliar with many of these plants. In"the Summary of Project Environmental Impact and Mitigation Measures"you mention creating a sustainable self sufficient home while respecting essential characteristics of the land and improve stewardship and a sense of community. However when I take a look at the landscaping plan it does not entirely reflect this statement. My concern is that the planned choices and placement of certain trees may obstruct cherished air flow and views from the road and surrounding farms, homes and community. I can not understand the plan completely because it's hard to distinguish between the different species by the symbols provided on the legend. But as far as I can tell a lot of the trees planned for along the road are quite large and thick, when they grow to full hight, and would therefore most definitely obstruct the air flow and views and may even grow into the road (which is only 10 ft wide).This would definitely change the essential characteristics of the land. We are asking that, when planning the landscape,these things are taken Ito consideration.This is the only place on beach road where you can see the ocean.We are asking that you respect and preserve the natural beauty that is already present and work with it.We respect the owners need for privacy as well and just hopping we can have a win win situation here.So possibly re thinking the landscape with these things in mind might be a good idea. Our ability to see the ocean from our home is crucial to our way of life. We are always checking water conditions for fishing, surfing and swimming. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jana This is a picture outlining our view path that we would like to preserve and the other image is of the part of the landscape that is in question. P.S. I will send images on a separate email from my phone thanks 1 , . - Kimberly From: Jana Rogers 'genamoonfire8gyahoo.00nn^ Sent: Monday,July 18. 20224:43PK4 To: Mills, Kimberly Subject: [BXTEKNAL] Pastorekbeach rdpio /^ ` . . MIm�.WAJ ~ Not Not very good at this but you arty the idea@ The left side close to the Woods residents is our view path and the other plantings along the road May impact airflow and view for surrounding farms, homes and community. I suggest paying close attention to spacing and cultivars for these areas. z iC141K I-S�Ot4;427 4 1"�tii1-<-i11C}:GYb6 ��, 4 A This is a picture outlining the air flow,trade winds and ocean view from our land that we wish to preserve. 2 LAND'S + PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com April 3, 2023 Subject: Response to Comments on the Pastorek Single-Family Residences Draft Environmental Assessment Applicant: Ryan Pastorek Agency: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) Location: Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Dear Mrs. Rogers, Thank you for your email dated July 19, 2022, in response to the Pastorek Draft Environmental Assessment. We acknowledge your concerns regarding natural beauty and visual impacts. We have made the following modifications to the landscape proposal to reflect these concerns: • Landscaped areas have been reduced by over 50 percent. • The overall number of proposed species has been reduced by 30 percent. • Six (6) alien species have been removed from all plans: o Monkey pod (Samanea saman) o Orange crownshaft palm (Areca vestiaria) o Royal Palm (Manicaria saccifera) o Lipstick palm (Cyrtostachys renda) o Grape scented orchid (Spathoglottis unguiculata) o Philidendron (Philodendron spp.) • Three (3) native species have been added: o Hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) o Loulu Palm (Pritchardia hillebrandii) o Hapu`u tree fern (Cibotium menziesii) • New species have been chosen to reflect shorter potential heights. • A single milo tree (Thespesia populnea) is proposed on the north property line of Lot A to provide important shade for the proposed sheep. However, nothing else will be planted on this portion of the lot to preserve ocean views and trade wind now. Mr. Pastorek will ensure all landscaping is maintained and that no vegetation will encroach onto Government Beach Road. Please review the modified landscaping plans (Figure 26 and 27) as well as Section 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 on Pages 69-76 of the EA for further detail. We thank you very much for your review of the Draft EA and we hope these changes adequately address your concerns regarding natural beauty in the area. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John Pipan Planning Administrator July 19, 2022 To: Kimberly Mills, c/o Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands From: Hala Kahiki Farms LLC (surrounding property owners) 154 Waianuenue Ave#11251, Hilo, HI 96721 :subject: Comments on Pastorek Single-Family Residences Draft Environmental Assessment TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026 & 027 f�loha, As surrounding property owners we are very concerned about the proposed project"Pastorek .jingle-Family Residences". We have carefully reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessments (DEA). Unfortunately do not agree that this project should have an Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact (AFONSI) as we have found the DEA to be filled with specious statements as well as inconsistencies. The County of Hawaii General Plan section on Natural Beauty states: "The importance of natural and scenic beauty and its true evaluation as an asset of public trust to be protected for fiture generations remain with the people of this island. While public planning and regulation are instrumental in achieving the goals set forth for this element, it is public awareness and interest that will maintain the natural beauty of the island of Hawaii. NATURAL BEAUTY GOALS a. Protect, preserve, and enhance the quality of areas endowed with natural beauty, including the quality of coastal scenic resources. b. Protect scenic vistas and view planes from becoming obstructed. c. Maximize opportunities for present and future generations to appreciate and enjoy natural and scenic beauty." The proposed project claims (PAGE 71) "No significant visual impacts would occur from either tie coastline or Government Beach Road." However, as indicated by FIGURES 25 and 26, numerous large trees such as mango, monkeypod, Joannis palms, coconut palms and more will tie planted along the length of the Government Beach Road side of the property as well as on tile interior near the proposed structures. Most of the palms and fruit trees proposed have the potential to reach 30-100 feet in height and up to 40 feet canopy widths which will significantly, if rot completely, cause the scenic vista and view plane to become purposely obstructed. This is certainly a significant visual impact which will prevent present and future generations from enjoying the natural and scenic beauty of the area. As one of the only remaining open scenic viewpoints along this stretch of Government Beach Road, the importance of the natural and scenic beauty must be preserved, not deliberately Obstructed by large trees or other structures. We vehemently disagree with the DEA statement that"Placement of all structures has also considered the maintenance of scenic vistas and views." (PAGE 93) Furthermore, we have found inconsistencies in the landscaping plan (FIGURE 25). For example, the "Planting Schedule" (FIGURE 26) notes only one Samanea saman (Monkeypod) tree is to be planted. However, the corresponding diagram shows two Samanea saman trees. Additionally, a group of ten trees along Government Beach Road are completely unlabeled. Finally, Government Beach Road is mislabeled as "Country Club Road". If we cannot trust the accuracy of these figures one wonders how we can trust the accuracy of the document as a whole. In summary, the published DEA is filled with specious statements and inconsistencies which mask the fact that the proposed plan would go directly against The County of Hawaii General Plan, specifically pertaining to the Natural Beauty Goals which are to "a. Protect, preserve, and enhance the quality of areas endowed with natural beauty, including the quality of coastal scenic resources. b. Protect scenic vistas and view planes from becoming obstructed. c. Maximize opportunities for present and future generations to appreciate and enjoy natural and scenic beauty." The proposed project would eliminate most or all opportunities for scenic views from Government Beach Road as well as all surrounding mauka properties. This will most certainly a. diminish or destroy the quality of this area endowed with natural beauty b. deliberately obstruct scenic vistas and view planes c. reduce or completely eliminate opportunities for present and future generations to appreciate and enjoy natural and scenic beauty in this very unique area of our island. We love our land and chose it as the site for our future home because of the natural beauty of the area. If we were to lose our ocean view and accompanying tradewinds we would be absolutely devastated. We want to be good neighbors and hope, in turn, Mr. Pastorek will be a good neighbor by choosing to leave the ocean view open to us, the Beach Road community, and all of the other surrounding properties. Mahalo for your consideration of our comments, Sean and Marissa Agnew(Members, Hala Kahiki LLC) LAND'S + PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com April 3, 2023 Hala Kahiki Farms LLC 154 Wainuenue Avenue #11251 Hilo, HI 96721 Subject: Response to Comments on the Pastorek Single-Family Residences Draft Environmental Assessment Applicant: Ryan Pastorek Agency: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) Location: Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Agnew, Thank you for your email dated July 19, 2022, in response to the Pastorek Draft Environmental Assessment. We acknowledge your concerns regarding natural beauty and visual impacts. We have made the following modifications to the landscape proposal to reflect these concerns: • Landscaped areas have been reduced by over 50 percent. • The overall number of proposed species has been reduced by 30 percent. • Six (6) alien species have been removed from all plans: o Monkey pod (Samanea saman) o Orange crownshaft palm (Areca vestiaria) o Royal Palm (Manicaria saccifera) o Lipstick palm (Cyrtostachys renda) o Grape scented orchid (Spathoglottis unguiculata) o Philidendron (Philodendron spp.) • Three (3) native species have been added: o Hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) o Loulu Palm (Pritchardia hillebrandii) o Hapu`u tree fern (Cibotium menziesii) • New species have been chosen to reflect shorter potential heights. • A single milo tree (Thespesia populnea) is proposed on the north property line of Lot A to provide important shade for the proposed sheep. However, nothing else will be planted on this portion of the lot to preserve ocean views and trade wind now. Mr. Pastorek will ensure all landscaping is maintained and that no vegetation will encroach onto Government Beach Road. Please review the modified landscaping plans (Figure 26 and 27) as well as Section 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 on Pages 69-76 of the EA for further detail. LAND'S +:-, PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com We thank you very much for your review of the Draft EA and we hope these changes adequately address your concerns regarding natural beauty in the area. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John Pipan Planning Administrator DAVID Y.IG E SUZANNE D.CASE � CHAIRPERSON GOVERNOROF .tE-oC �4 BOARD OF LAND ANDNATURAL RESOURCES ILAWAII „,.w.....,,y` hp•`t$5g ''y,9' COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ROBERT EL MASUDA St FIRST DEPUTY Wa` +Vvf al r M.KALEO MANUEL DEPUTY DIRECTOR-WATER 4 }. _ +- „.•' AQUATIC RE C ES BOATAND OCEAN RECREATION ATION UR ❑ * Y•-`�._:::1� COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT OF HAWAII ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES HISTORIC PRESERVATION Srate G441aWaA DIVISION OF AQUATIC RESOURCES KAHGOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND 1151 PUNCHBOWL STREET,ROOM 330 STATE PARKS HONOLULU,HAWAII 96813 Date: 7/18/22 DAR#AR0201 MEMORANDUM TO: Brian J.Neilson DAR Administrator FROM: Troy Sakiharai771��) Aquatic Biologist Environmental review of draft EA for two single family residences in SUBJECT: Conservation District by applicant Ryan Pastorek Request Submitted by: K. Tiger Mills, Staff Planner, OCCL 15-2193 Government Beach Road, Maku'u, Puna, Hawaii, (3) 1-5-010:026&027 Location of Project: Brief Description of Project: Applicant, Ryan Pastorek, is applying for two Conservation District Use Permits to construct two single family residences (SFR) on two adjacent oceanfront parcels, totaling 10.45 acres in the Conservation District, Resource Subzone of Puna, Hawai'i County. Proposed SFRs are 2,390 sq ft, and 1,843 sq ft, with 131' and 151' setbacks from the shoreline, respectively, including a water well and individual wastewater system. In addition, a 3,541 sq ft, 12 ft deep, 115,000 gallon aquaculture pond is being proposed with 260 ft setback from shoreline. The applicant intends to raise tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicus, as part of an aquaponics system. Best management practices (BMP) are outlined, including short- term and long-term BMPs for aquaculture pond construction and operation Comments: ❑ No Comments ® Comments Attached Thank you for providing DAR the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. Should there be any changes to the project plan, DAR requests the opportunity to review and comment on those changes. Comments Approved: Date: Jul 20, 2022 Brian J.Neilson DAR Administrator DAR# AR0201 Comments The DAR appreciates the applicant's efforts to outline BMPs and other measures to minimize potential impacts to coastal habitats and other natural resources. While unlikely based on what is described in the proposed construction and operation of the aquaculture pond, we urge efforts are taken to prevent accidental escape and/or unintentional introductions of Mozambique Tilapia into natural aquatic habitats, especially inland bodies of water or ponds without established populations of non- native fishes. LAND'S + PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com April 3, 2023 Brian J. Neilson DLNR Department of Aquatic Resources 1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 330 Honolulu, H 96813 Subject: Response to Comments on the Pastorek Single-Family Residences Draft Environmental Assessment Applicant: Ryan Pastorek Agency: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) Location: Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Dear Mr. Neilson, Thank you for comments dated July 20, 2022, relating to the Pastorek Draft Environmental Assessment. We acknowledge the critical importance of preventing the accidental escape and/or unintentional introduction of Mozambique Tilapia into natural aquatic habitats, especially inland bodies of water or ponds without established populations of non-native fishes. The Aquaculture Management Plan has been modified to add more detail pertaining to Best Management Practices and other mitigating measures to prevent this from occurring. Please refer to Page 24 of the Aquaculture Management Plan for further detail. Thank you again for your comments relating to the DEA. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John Pipan Planning Administrator �(1f Of p Mitchell D.Roth *' '* Stephen M.Pause,P.E. Mayor Acting Director 14 Lee E.Lord Managing Director Countp of �a.bjat`t DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 7-Hilo,Hawaii 96720-4224 (808)961-8321,Fax(808)961-8630 public_works@hawaiicounty.gov JULY 22,2022 ATTN:TIGER MILLS STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS P.O. BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 (via email to kimberly.mills@hawaii.gov) SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT APPLICANT—RYAN PASTOREK 15-2193 GOVERNMENT BEACH ROAD MAKU`U,ISLAND OF HAWAII TMK: (3) 1-5-010:026&027 We received the subject dated June 22,2022 and have the following comments: The subject parcels are in an area designated as Flood Zone X and VE on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). 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). All construction within Flood Zone VE shall comply with the requirements of Hawaii County Code, Chapter 27,Floodplain Management. All activities including but not limited to the construction of the driveway and aquaculture pond shall comply with the requirements of Hawaii County Code,Chapter 10,Erosion and Sedimentary Control. If future long term agricultural operations are considered,they may qualify for a conservation program with the applicable soil and water conservation district. An approved conservation program would be an exclusion to Chapter 10. Access to the subject property is via Government Beach Road which is classified as a"road-in-limbo." Although the public has a right of access through this right-of-way,it has not been maintained by any government entity in recent years. Furthermore,there is no assurance that it will ever be subject to such maintenance. Should there be any questions concerning this matter,please contact Ms.Robyn Matsumoto in our Engineering Division at(808)961-8924. '/-) A q�f—� 4ALAN K.THOMPSON,Division Chief Engineering Division RM County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. LAND'S + PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com April 3, 2023 Alan Thompson County of Hawaii Department of Public Works Engineering Division 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Subject: Response to Comments on the Pastorek Single-Family Residences Draft Environmental Assessment Applicant: Ryan Pastorek Agency: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) Location: Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Dear Mr. Thompson, Thank you for your comments dated July 22, 2022, relating to the Pastorek Draft Environmental Assessment. We acknowledge that the parcels are in an area designated at Flood Zone X and VE on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). All construction is proposed to occur within Flood Zone X; thus, no construction is proposed within Flood Zone VE. All construction activities including the driveway and aquaculture pond will comply with the requirements of Hawaii County Code, Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentary Control. Please refer to Section 3.1.2, Page 48-68 of the EA for further detail. It is also acknowledged that access to the subject properties, via Government Beach Road, is a "road-in-limbo," which has not been maintained by any government agency in recent years, nor is there any assurance that it will ever be subject to such maintenance. Please refer to Section 3.3.1, Page 93-94 of the EA for more detail. We thank you for your comments relating to the DEA. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John Pipan Planning Administrator Mitchell D.Roth 0i N,�q Zendo Kern Mayor y �+ Director Lee E.Lord * Jeffrey W.Darrow Managing DirectorO., Deputy Director of'd�N� Waist Hawaii Office East Hawaii Office 745044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 County of Hawaii Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)323-4770 Phone(808)961-8288 Fax(808)327-3563 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fax(808)961-8742 July 22, 2022 Tiger Mills c/o State DLNR- Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands P.O. Sox 621 Flonolulu,HI 96809 Dear Ms. Mills: SUBJECT: Request for Comments for Draft Environmental Assessment(DEA) (PL-INT-2022-002709) Applicant: Ryan Pastorek Landowner: Ryan Pastorek Subject: Construction of Two (2) Single-Family Residences and Related Improvements; Consolidation and Re-Subdivision TMK(s): (3) 1-5-010:026 & 027,Puna District,Island of Hawaii This letter is in response to your request regarding a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) submitted in support of a proposal to construct two (2) separate single-family residences and related improvements on the subject parcels, both of which are located within the County of Hawaii Special Management Area (SMA). While the proposed project is a permitted use in the County Agricultural (A-la) zoning district and State Land Use Conservation District, the use will require the approval of a SMA Use Permit (SMA Major). The Planning Department notes that the project has been assigned EPIC plan file number PL-SMA-2021-000008 and PL- SMA-2021-000009 as the applicant has started the SMA approval process. Staff notes, that a Final Environmental Assessment(FEA) may be used as the application for the SMA Major Permit, as long as it includes a thorough discussion section on the SMA criteria, in conformance with Hawaii County Planning Commission Rule 9-10(h), Criteria of Substantial Adverse Effect. Additional comments on the proposed project include: + The Planning Department (PD) requests. a thorough discussion on the proposed aquaculture pond, its uses, anticipated production, maintenance, disposal of waste, and runoff/pumping details. ,Awvw.planninghawaiicounty.eov Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planninga hawaiicountv.gov Tiger Mills c/o State DLNR- Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands July 22,2022 Page 2 * The PD will be placing a condition on the approval that the landowner, or assigns, shat I not construct a wood,metal or rope ladder,platform, steps, stairs, concrete pads, stairs, or any other constructed appurtenance in order to gain access to the ocean from the top oi' pali (sea cliff). * No work, activities, storage or staging of materials will occur within the 40-foo-, minimum shoreline setback, including fencing, animal husbandry, or minor construction without first obtaining an approved Shoreline Setback Variance (SSV) from the Count-V of Hawaii Windward Planning Commission. ® The 40-foot shoreline setback boundary will be marked on all plans submitted for review. * The PD requests the applicant place the IWS as far mauka as possible. * The applicant should include a thorough discussion on grazing and animal husbandr), activities. We look froward to reviewing the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) when it is published.. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact Alex Roy at (808) 961-8140 or via email a-, Alex.Rov@hawaiicounty.gov. Sincerely, ,794Zy 91f& L VAI _ Jeffrey W.DA ow(Jul 22,2022 09:33 HST) JEFFREY W.DARROW Deputy Planning Director AJR-jaa Cc(via email): John Pipan,Land Planning Hawaii < john@landplaiininghawaii.com> LAND'S + PLANNING 194 wiwo`ole St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 333-3393 HAWAII LLC info@landplanninghawaii.com April 3, 2023 Jeffery Darrow County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Subject: Response to Comments on the Pastorek Single-Family Residences Draft Environmental Assessment Applicant: Ryan Pastorek Agency: State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) Location: Maku`u, Puna, Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Dear Mr. Darrow, Thank you for your comments dated July 22, 2022, relating to the Pastorek Draft Environmental Assessment and the start of the SMA process regarding applications PL-SMA-2021-000008 and PL-SMA-2021-000009. We acknowledge your comment requesting a more thorough discussion on the proposed aquaculture pond. The Aquaculture Management Plan has been modified to reflect more detail regarding anticipated production, maintenance, disposal of waste, and runoff/pumping details. Please review the management plan in Appendix A of the EA. A more thorough discussion on grazing and animal husbandry have also been included in Part 1, Page 9 of the EA. The applicant/landowner accepts the condition to not construct any wood, metal, or rope ladder, platform, steps, stairs, concrete pads, or any other constructed appurtenance to gain access to the ocean from the top of the pali (sea cliff). The site plans have been updated to reflect the 40-foot shoreline setback boundary. No work, activities, storage or staging of materials will occur within the 40-foot shoreline setback, including fencing, animal husbandry, or minor construction. We thank you for your comments relating to the DEA. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John Pipan Planning Administrator Mitchell D.Roth �P. ` , Ramzi I. Mansour �� y6;�, Mayo• ;} Director Brenda Ioke a Moses Deanna S.Sako '�;r °'�► P " Managing Director '°'"' Deputy Director County of Hawai'i DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 345 Kekuanao`a Street,Suite 41 •Hilo,Hawaii 96720•cohdem@hawaiicounty.gov Ph: (808)961-8083 •Fax: (808)961-8086 MEMORANDUM TO: Zendo Kern, Director Planning Department FROM: Ramzi I. Mansour, Directo&y4,oL) Department of Environmental Management DATE: May 10, 2024 SUBJECT: Special Management Area Use Permit Application (PL-SMA-2024-000055) Applicant: Ryan Pastorek and Paul Pastorek Request: To Develop One (1) Single-Family Dwelling, Storage Structures, an Aquaculture Pond, and Other Related Development on Each Subject Parcel Tax Map Key: (3) 1-5-010:026& 027; Puna, Hawaii The Solid Waste Division has reviewed the subject application and provides the following comments(Contact the Solid Waste Division for details). • Commercial operations, State and Federal agencies, religious entities and non-profit organizations may not use transfer stations for disposal. • Aggregates and any other construction/demolition waste should be responsibly reused to its fullest extent. • Green waste may be transported to the green waste sites located at the West Hawaii Organics Facility and East Hawaii Organics Facility, or other suitable diversion programs. • Construction and demolition waste is prohibited at all County Transfer Stations. The Wastewater Division has reviewed the subject application and provides the following comments: • No County sewer system in area. Applicant shall follow Hawaii Department of Health, and all other applicable federal, state, and county regulations. Planning Daps. Exhibit 2 County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer DeVera, Ashley From: Roy, Alex Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:09 PM To: DeVera, Ashley Subject: FW: OPSD Review of PL-SMA-2024-000055 SFRs Attachments: OPSD_Hawaii_2024SMA-SFRs.pdf Please intake as necessary for SMA-24-55(Pastorek) Thankyou, Alex From: Beasley, Rachel E <rachel.e.beasley@hawaii.gov> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:04 PM To: Roy,Alex<Alex.Roy@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: OPSD Review of PL-SMA-2024-000055 SFRs H i Alex, Please see attached OPSD review letter for the above referenced SMA permit application. Don't hesitate with any questions. Best regards, Rachel Beasley Planner Office of Planning and Sustainable Development P.O. Box 2359 Honolulu, HI 96804-2359 808-587-2846 (main) 808-587-2878 (direct) STATE OF IIAWN11 ° OFFICE OF PLANNING&SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT to pa A K- 235 0®r f.O.SI-1,61h F Iu,Pl-11 96813 PQ Sox 2354• M., wori•96804-2359 10481587.2046•Fcx(800)507-2824 Planning Dees. �P ;95g"°� STATE OF HAWAII JOSH GRGOOVE NO . 9. OFFICE OF PLANNING SYLVIA LUKE LT.GOVERNOR a � & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT MARY ALICE OREAN�R 235 South Beretania Street,6th Floor,Honolulu,Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808)587-2846 Mailing Address: P.O.Box 2359,Honolulu,Hawaii 96804 Fax: (808)587-2824 Web: https:Hplanning.hawaii.gov/ Coastal zone DTS202404231539NA Management Program May 13, 2024 Environmental Review Mr. Jeffrey W. Darrow, Deputy Planning Director Program Department of Planning, County of Hawaii Land Use Commission East Hawaii Office 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Land Use Division Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Special Plans Branch Attn: Alex Roy State Transit-Oriented Development Dear Mr. Darrow: Statewide Geographic Subject: Special Management Area Use Permit Application (PL-SMA-2024- Information System 000055) To Develop One (1) Single-Family Dwelling, Storage Structures, Statewide an Aquaculture Pond, and Other Related Development on Each Subject Sustainability Branch Parcel,Puna, Hawaii; Tax Map Key: (3) 1-5-010: 026 & 027 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Special Management Area(SMA)Use Permit Application (PL-SMA-2024-000055), transmitted via memorandum dated April 23, 2024,to develop 1) one single-family dwelling with supporting infrastructure, and a storage/animal shelter on Parcel 026; and 2) one single-family dwelling with supporting infrastructure,pool and spa with deck and an aquaculture pond on Parcel 027,in Puna, Maku`u, P6p6ki Ahupua`a, Island of Hawaii. As part of the proposed action,the applicants propose to consolidate and re- subdivide the two adjacent parcels to move the lot line separating the parcels to the north. Both proposed residences and appurtenant structures would be on the proposed parcels' re-subdivision. According to the subject Final Environmental Assessment (EA),published in the Environmental Notice,March 8, 2024, for the proposed development: 1) On Parcel 026 (Lot A based on proposed new lot lines),the proposed residence will be designed and constructed as a one-story,three-bedroom, three and half bath dwelling, covered lanai, and two outdoor showers with a detached garage and storage/animal shelter structure on a shoreline parcel. Animal grazing, of sheep,will occur on less than one acre of land. The proposed residence and accessory uses will be at least 130 feet from the certified shoreline. The residence is anticipated to have 3,980 square feet;the garage 725 square feet; and the storage/animal shelter 291 square feet. The Mr. Jeffrey W. Darrow May 13, 2024 Page 2 height of the dwelling will not exceed 25 feet at current grade and proposed landscaping will be 11,370 square feet. 2) On Parcel 027 (Lot B),the proposed residence will be designed and constructed as a two-story, three-bedroom, one and a half bathroom dwelling,with open-air lanai, an outdoor shower, a detached storage/art studio, a swimming pool and hot tub,wooden deck, and man-made pond. The proposed residence and accessory uses will be at least 130 feet from the certified shoreline. The residence is anticipated to have 4,060 square feet; the storage/art studio 940 square feet; the pool with deck 1,535 square feet; and the pond with 3,541 square feet. The height of the dwelling will not exceed 25 feet at current grade and proposed landscaping will be 11,255 square feet. Each residential project will have its own utilities, one driveway, one drinking water well, and one Individual Wastewater System(IWS). Construction activities would occur on approximately 0.5 acres on each parcel. The two properties are within the State Land Use Conservation District, Resource Subzone, and in the county designated Special Management Area. The combined properties have almost 1,000 feet of coastline with roughly 25 to 45 feet cliffs. Both residences will be situated approximately 35-40 feet above sea level. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map, the areas where both proposed single- family residences would be situated are classified in Flood Zone X,which is outside of the 500-year floodplain. However,the area adjacent to the shoreline is classified as Flood Zone VE,which is within the 100-year coastal flood range with velocity hazard(wave action). The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development (OPSD)has reviewed the subject SMA Use Permit Application, and has the following comments to offer: 1. The OPSD suggests that the application provide a location map to include the regional location of the project site on the Island of Hawaii, and a map to illustrate the parcels in relation to the county designated SMA. In addition,the permit application needs to provide information on the schedules of the proposed development. 2. Given the hazardous cliffs with five embayments in front of the properties show signs of recent and ongoing erosion, and each cliff edge is prone to block failures and collapse, the shoreline setback line shall be carefully established by the County of Hawaii Planning Department with a consideration of the high risk of storms,high waves, and coastal flooding. No structures and construction shall occur within the shoreline area as defined in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 205A-41. 3. The applicants acknowledge the public right to traverse and utilize the lateral shoreline area. The OPSD concurs that the proposed residential developments shall allow lateral shoreline public access across both shoreline parcels. Construction of any wood, metal or rope ladder, Mr. Jeffrey W. Darrow May 13, 2024 Page 3 platform, steps, concrete pads, or other constructed appurtenance from the top of the pall to access the ocean shall be prohibited. 4. It is noted that the proposed landscape plans have been modified to lessen potential impacts to scenic resources, ocean views, and the natural flow of the trade winds. Pursuant to HRS § 205A-26,the proposed development shall be subject to reasonable terms and conditions to ensure that alterations to existing landforms and vegetation shall cause minimum adverse effect to water resources, scenic and recreational amenities, and minimize impacts from floods,wind damage, landslides, erosion, sea level rise, or failure in the event of an earthquake. 5. The proposed construction and agricultural activities may disturb onsite soil and generate waste that could then run into the ocean if not contained. The OPSD recommends that site-specific Best Management Practices shall be implemented to prevent any runoff, sediment, soil and debris potentially resulting from the proposed construction and operation activities,including grading, filling and staging, from adversely impacting the coastal ecosystem and the State waters as specified in Hawaii Administrative Rules Chapter 11-54. 6. All exterior lighting and lamp posts associated with the proposed residential development shall be cut-off luminaries to provide the necessary shielding to mitigate potential light pollution in the coastal areas and lessen possible seabird strikes. No artificial light, except as provided in HRS §§ 205A-30.5(b) and 205A-71(b), shall be directed to travel across the property boundaries toward the shoreline and ocean. 7. Should any archaeological or cultural resources, or burials be discovered during ground excavation, all construction work shall be ceased immediately. Subsequent work shall proceed only upon an archaeological clearance and written guidance from the State Historic Preservation Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources. If you respond to this comment letter,please include DTS 202404231539NA in the subject line. For any questions regarding this letter,please contact Rachel Beasley of our office at (808) 587- 2878 or by email at rachel.e.beasleykhawaii.zov. Sincerely, Mary Alice Evans Director Mitchell D. Roth °' '. Benjamin T. Moszkowicz bLus' Police Chief Ucma' a� �♦ +TSA' Reed K. Mahuna Depu(l.Police Chref County of Hawai' i POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapi'olani Street • l lilo.I la%%ai'i 96720-3998 (808)935-3311 • Fax(808)961-2389 May 1, 2024 COH PLANNING DEPT MAY 12024 Pm4:50 RECD HAND DELIVERED TO ZENDO KERN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM KENNETH A.K. QUIOCHO, ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF AREA I OPERATIONS BUREAU SUBJECT: SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (PL-SMA-2024-000055) APPLICANT: RYAN PASTOREK AND PAUL PASTOREK REQUEST: TO DEVELOP ONE (1) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, STORAGE STRUCTURE AND AQUACULTURE POND, AND OTHER RELATED DEVELOPMENT ON EACH SUBJECT PARCEL TAX MAP KEYS: (3) 1-5-010:026 & 027; PUNA, HAWAII Staff, upon reviewing the provided documents, does not anticipate any significant impact to traffic and/or public safety concerns. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact Captain Todd Pataray, Puna Patrol, at 965-2716 or via email at Todd.Pataray@hawaiicounty.gov. Planning Depr_ Exhibit 4 "Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer"